Dna + Nucleus = ?
zooby
Join Date: 2003-08-26 Member: 20236Members
Join Date: 2003-08-26 Member: 20236Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">odd biological truths...</div> This is really weird.
DNA can under no circumstances leave the nucleus, save the nucleus being destroyed.
DNA can, however, enter the nucleus with no effort.
WHY??
To explain this phenomenon, I propose that aliens made us. Bwhahaha!!!
no seriously, why do you think this is true?
DNA can under no circumstances leave the nucleus, save the nucleus being destroyed.
DNA can, however, enter the nucleus with no effort.
WHY??
To explain this phenomenon, I propose that aliens made us. Bwhahaha!!!
no seriously, why do you think this is true?
Comments
RNA is encoded in and out of the nucleus, not DNA.
DNA can under no circumstances leave the nucleus, save the nucleus being destroyed.
DNA can, however, enter the nucleus with no effort.
WHY??
To explain this phenomenon, I propose that aliens made us. Bwhahaha!!!
no seriously, why do you think this is true? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
RNA is outside the nucleus. It is the blueprint proteins combine themselves to to form DNA. This process is done so that a cell can divide itself. If DNA leaves the cell before it splits, you'd have very strange behavior in the duplicate cell with missing DNA. I'm willing to guess many of them died, which is why, through process of natural selection, DNA goes into the nucleus and stays there.
it seems to me that the packaging of the nucleus has a lot to do with organization and more complex reproduction, but i haven't taken molecular bio for a while so easily could be wrong
Yeah that's true, but they don't reproduce either (red blood cells, white blood cells, etc.)
Back in evolutionary times, geological epochs ago, there were only viruses and prokaryotic cells.
The prokaryotes multiplied to make slimy sheets everywhere, the virii destroyed the slimey sheets and all was good.
Then, one day, a virus penetrated the cell wall, and simply never left the cell.
I think the part of the cell that allows energy to be stored came about in a simialar manner, not sure.
Ah well, I'm probably wrong in any case...
it's a good theory that a contained length of dna (like the protein capsid of a virus) could have evolved a symbiotic relationship with a cell rather than domineering it.
i think the main reason why dna is separate in our cells is for regulation of its use. compared to prokaryotes, the length of our dna is extraordinarily long. the amount of reading frames in dna is roughly proportional to the length of the dna strand. with bacteria it may be ok for the reading machines (does anyone know what these are called?) to attach at 'random' places and transcribe any dna. with more complex dna, like us, we probably need some gene products produced and read far more often than others.
but perhaps the answer lies in your statement itself
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DNA can under no circumstances leave the nucleus, save [...] being destroyed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ay, a bit of media-style paraphrasing distortion, but it suits my purpose ~;)
dna is prone to breaking a lot, that is why we have recombination. the amount of different active molecules in the cytoplasm may quickly degrade the dna... this is probably wrong though, just a guess
oh, and hawkeye: rbcs and wbcs are eukaryotic who have secondarily lost the nucleus, prkaryote generally refers to bacteria.
What he said! I know that stuff. Just like that stuff he said.. yeah, that stuff he just said. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
What he said! I know that stuff. Just like that stuff he said.. yeah, that stuff he just said. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except many white blood cells DO have nuclei, neutrophils for example are called multi<b>nucleates</b> for a reason. The original amoeba they probably evolved from are also eukaryotic cells.
O_o
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> dna is roughly proportional to the length of the dna strand. with bacteria it may be ok for the reading machines (does anyone know what these are called?) to attach at 'random' places and transcribe any dna. with more complex dna, like us, we probably need some gene products produced and read far more often than others.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I suppose if you're curious enough. DNA is transcribed (Changed from DNA to ribosome friendly RNA) by enzymes called RNA polymerases. They latch onto specfic sequences before a gene and then start turning the DNA into RNA. In prokaryotes most of their DNA is useful (exceptions like [i]Mycobacterium leprae[i] exist however) and does 'stuff' so is transcribed. We on the other hand have tons of useless of junk DNA. As such it is more important to regulate what DNA is actually available for transcription and what isn't. Hence the many fun differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic DNA storage.
And as I said earlier, DNA is synthesised via the pentose phostphate pathway in the cytoplasm (outside of the nucleus, the cellular soup) and then transported into the nucleus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->RNA is encoded in and out of the nucleus, not DNA. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
rna is encoded in the nucleous, which is a dark region of the nucleus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->RNA is outside the nucleus. It is the blueprint proteins combine themselves to to form DNA. This process is done so that a cell can divide itself. If DNA leaves the cell before it splits, you'd have very strange behavior in the duplicate cell with missing DNA. I'm willing to guess many of them died, which is why, through process of natural selection, DNA goes into the nucleus and stays there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if dna left the cell, the cell undergoes aptosis and destroys itself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah that's true, but they don't reproduce either (red blood cells, white blood cells, etc.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
DNA doesn't create cells...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then, one day, a virus penetrated the cell wall, and simply never left the cell.
I think the part of the cell that allows energy to be stored came about in a simialar manner, not sure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if a virus penetrates the cell, what is it gonna do if it stays there? the size of a virus compared to a nucleus...no.
Also, mitochondria are theorized to have infected cells. They break down sub-break down of glucose into 30 ATP. cells without mitochondira make 6 ATP from glucose. ATP stores energy. (theory slightly condensed, it's called endosymbiosis.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well I suppose if you're curious enough. DNA is transcribed (Changed from DNA to ribosome friendly RNA) by enzymes called RNA polymerases. They latch onto specfic sequences before a gene and then start turning the DNA into RNA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
dna is not changed, the complimentary rna is added to it (more or less)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In prokaryotes most of their DNA is useful (exceptions like [i]Mycobacterium leprae[i] exist however) and does 'stuff' so is transcribed. We on the other hand have tons of useless of junk DNA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This 'junk DNA' most likely has a role in turning certain genes on or off. They're not 'useless.'
yay. we managed to turn this thread into a bio discussion group...the original question still stands, more or less.
----------------------
haha, i sorta gave u all a trick question. Biologists don't even know the answer to the question. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Incorrect, RIBOSOMAL RNA (rRNA) is made in the nucleolus (note you spelt it wrong too <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->), as well as many other small RNAs. Don't correct anyone unless you actually know what you are talking about <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just for reference
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A small, typically round granular body composed of protein and RNA in the nucleus of a cell. It is usually associated with a specific chromosomal site and involved in <b>ribosomal RNA</b> synthesis and the formation of ribosomes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironically, that is from dictionary.com!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if dna left the cell, the cell undergoes aptosis and destroys itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
O_o, what? If the DNA was to be destroyed, leave the cell then the cells biomechanical machinery would no longer function and would simply die. But DNA is capable of leaving cells all the time, especially in bacteria.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DNA doesn't create cells...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it is important in making new cells.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, mitochondria are theorized to have infected cells. They break down sub-break down of glucose into 30 ATP.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The cell breaks down glucose, the stuff produced DURING the breakdown is used such as NADH etc. These molecules are used via aerobic respiration to make ATP.
On the reverse, anaerobic metabolism is the full metabolism of glucose to lactic acid.
Endosymbiosis theory indicates that mitochondria were obligate intracellular parasites that over time became symbionts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
dna is not changed, the complimentary rna is added to it (more or less)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, read any basic biochemistry text book. The DNA is unaffected yes, but the new RNA is firstly modified (via cleaving, addition of new bases, capped etc) and then leaves. RNA is not added to DNA at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This 'junk DNA' most likely has a role in turning certain genes on or off. They're not 'useless.'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WRONG. Many of them are just genes that have become useless and have had nonsense mutations spread throughout them. Some of these genes are clearly on the way out as they are slowly deleted. They play no important role in turning genes on and off at all.
Gene expression is extraordinarily complex and probably too detailed to go into in this thread. In basic terms, in Eukayotes expression is determined by the methylation of certain bases and hence how packed they are in the nucleus. In prokaryotes gene expression is controlled by promotor strengths and by operator sequences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->haha, i sorta gave u all a trick question. Biologists don't even know the answer to the question.? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have answered it, and quite frankly you don't know very much about the role of DNA, its replication etc etc. I suggest Matthews and Van Holde, Biochemistry 3rd Edition as a nice starting point. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> I suggest you learn a bit more about this topic <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I find he can best be shut down by drawing him into a flamewar, them bringing Nem along with a welder. To draw him in, simply misquote the man, select on specific part of the arguement and hound him on it, then make sarcastic replies. Tried and tested my friend, it cant fail.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WRONG. Many of them are just genes that have become useless and have had nonsense mutations spread throughout them. Some of these genes are clearly on the way out as they are slowly deleted. They play no important role in turning genes on and off at all.
Gene expression is extraordinarily complex and probably too detailed to go into in this thread. In basic terms, in Eukayotes expression is determined by the methylation of certain bases and hence how packed they are in the nucleus. In prokaryotes gene expression is controlled by promotor strengths and by operator sequences.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go tell that to the Ph.D.s who researched this and published the findings. Just because it's in a textbook doesn't mean it's right. Five years ago, centrioles were thought to be important to cell mitosis. Not anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have answered it, and quite frankly you don't know very much about the role of DNA, its replication etc etc. I suggest Matthews and Van Holde, Biochemistry 3rd Edition as a nice starting point. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> I suggest you learn a bit more about this topic <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . You've failed to insult me or discourage me in any way.
But the fact still stands. (do you have a Ph.D. in bio by the way? cuz if you don't...)
You didn't say 1+1=2, you said 1+1=11. You were wrong about pretty much everything you said, because you just DON'T have a clue about what you are talking about.
Again, the RNA is produced from genes all over the chromosome, while the nucleolus specific purpose is to make RIBOSOMAL RNA. The subtlety of this is undoubtably missed by you, but there is a massive difference between all RNA being produced at one site, and a certain kind of RNA being made there. Your pointless rambling elsewhere I decided to clarify because you managed to butcher easy concepts and somehow get them horrifically mixed up (Endosymbiosis theory for example).
You were also wrong about the other aspects of RNA synthesis and we'll cover this ridiculous junk DNA argument again in a minute.
Quite frankly, the more you go on the more you make yourself look like an idiot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Go tell that to the Ph.D.s who researched this and published the findings. Just because it's in a textbook doesn't mean it's right. Five years ago, centrioles were thought to be important to cell mitosis. Not anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I'm still right, and I happen to actually work in this region.
I am right, you are wrong. That is pretty much the end of it. I suggest you actually look a lot of this stuff up, not all DNA does anything of any importance whatsoever and is hence 'junk'. Some DNA does however, but I've never denied this, and in general there is a lot of DNA that does indeed do nothing. Again, read what I wrote.
Perhaps you need to get a degree in English so you can understand what I've said.
I know I can give sources (I'm willing to bet you won't be able too) and will happily reference the paper on <i>Mycobacterium leprae</i>: Massive Decay in the leprosy bacillus; Cole <i>et al</i> 2001; Nature Vol 409 22nd February.
This demonstrates exactly what I said, showing you are incorrect as usual. I suggest you try harder in future.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thank you. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . You've failed to insult me or discourage me in any way.
But the fact still stands. (do you have a Ph.D. in bio by the way? cuz if you don't...)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but I am closer to it than you are. Once again, I can point out the numerous mistakes and massive errors you've made throughout your post clearly demonstrating your lack of any understanding about this topic. Before patronising me, it would be better if you actually had any knowledge about this subject.
After all, you didn't even know what the nucleolus actually did or even how to spell it correctly...
Endosymbiosis Theory? Exactly how did I butcher that? I said that mitochondria are theorized to have infected cells. How is this any different from what Endosymbiosis Theory is? (sorry, I forgot to include the bit about chloroplasts. I forgot to say the two organisms developed a symbiotic relationship and become one organism over time. Who cares? It all means the same in the end.) Any cell breaks down glucose through glycolysis, using 2 ATP to make 8 ATP. Then the pyruvate products go through the Krebs Cycle in the mitochondria, using oxygen, to make 30 ATP. Just because I did not include anything about NADH or FADH does not mean I am wrong, nor does it mean I am totally ignorant of what happens.
And I was wrong about what part of RNA synthesis? The part where DNA uncoils and the corresponding RNA bases are slapped on? Sorry if I don't use the technical jargon, or if I grossly simplify the process. Perhaps in the future I will use these big words that no one can understand.
And yes, introns are totally useless for RNA synthesis. Exons are the important ones (I may have mixed the two up, for the record.) Perhaps you should read what I wrote, and realize what I said put these 'junk' DNA no where near the process of RNA synthesis.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After all, you didn't even know what the nucleolus actually did or even how to spell it correctly... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know whether to be impressed by the immaturity of this statement, or the complete idiocy of it. Oh my goodnes i kan no longr spel korektlie. Obvioslie this meens I am automatically wrong. I do believe I said RNA is produced in the nucleolus. (or encoded. or made. or synthesized. who cares which word I use, as long as it gives the same idea across.) Wow, I didn't specify which type of RNA. I could have though, but I simply didn't. Again, when I say encoded, what did you think I meant? If i said that to anyone else, they would realize I mean the transcription of RNA from DNA. When you say made, what do you think I think you mean? Could it possibly be the same thing?
Maybe you need to realize that people aren't going to say everything they know in one sentence. Maybe you need to realize people spell words wrong occasionally, but that doesn't make the entire idea contained in the sentence void. Maybe you should realize that make, create, start, and begin can all mean the same thing in specific context. Please don't say "OMG, you used teh wrong word! your wrong!!!111one"
I realize that I was wrong about the aptosis part and perhaps did not use the correct terminology, but who cares? I would use the term speed instead of velocity if I think it fits situation. I am not going to say "We're going 50 miles/hour 50 degrees North of East." I'm going to say "We're going 50 miles/hour."
It seems that you, on the other hand, are quick to correct the latter with the former. Yay, no one really cares. If you were a physicist (in this case, if you were talking to someone in your lab and he responded in the way I did, you would have a right to lambast him for using incorrect terminology) and talking to another physicist, it would matter.
Get a life, and stop criticizing people when they use the word 'say' and really mean 'tell.'
Well, I won't be responding to whatever craziness ends up in your reply.
Congratulations, you can tell your friends you argued a 16 year old to exhaustion. Here is a cookie for your great, impressive accomplishment.
Actually it is extremely important difference in the life of a cell. Again, you implied ALL RNA was made there. Don't get all defensive after being proved wrong now. Clearly you are with that 'most people' category. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who cares if I'm 90% right and 40% wrong? We're not writing down the world's secrets here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm in a 10 mark question I'd of given you 1. You know about 10% I'd say, not the other way around.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Endosymbiosis Theory? Exactly how did I butcher that? I said that mitochondria are theorized to have infected cells. How is this any different from what Endosymbiosis Theory is? (sorry, I forgot to include the bit about chloroplasts. I forgot to say the two organisms developed a symbiotic relationship and become one organism over time. Who cares? It all means the same in the end.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the mitochondrias advantage was generating energy by exploiting metabolic pathways already present in the host cell. The way you wrote what you did implied that the mitochondria was important in the actual breakdown (and hence generation of energy) from Glucose. So technically what you wrote had nothing to do with endosymbiosis theory at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any cell breaks down glucose through glycolysis, using 2 ATP to make 8 ATP.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
O_o. Actually the 2 substrate phosphorylation reactions only generate 4 ATP. 2 ATP is expended in activating the glucose molecule for a total of 2 ATP gained (simply through glycolysis). I have no idea where you are getting 8 from. Care to share?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then the pyruvate products go through the Krebs Cycle in the mitochondria, using oxygen, to make 30 ATP. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming the cell has an aerobic pathway (the Citric acid cycle), otherwise it is converted to lactate. Depends on the cell we are talking about, or do you think all eukaryote cells have mitochondria?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because I did not include anything about NADH or FADH does not mean I am wrong, nor does it mean I am totally ignorant of what happens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You didn't even correctly get the amount of ATP produced from basic glycolysis. Sure that means you don't remember several important features of glycolysis and how it works but...well...it means you don't understand key concepts about glycolysis :/
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I was wrong about what part of RNA synthesis? The part where DNA uncoils and the corresponding RNA bases are slapped on?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you should of used different language then, as RNA is not added to DNA at all. What you have said there is correct, but what you said before is dodgy. In addition that is only semi true as well, but this will depend on how much biochemistry you have done.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry if I don't use the technical jargon, or if I grossly simplify the process. Perhaps in the future I will use these big words that no one can understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering that before you were LESS understandable that is a funny statement to make. From 2 years of teaching this stuff, I'd pretty much say you'd of confused just about anyone. The full story is always better than a poorly written and confusing couple of 'basic' sentences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, introns are totally useless for RNA synthesis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Introns are parts of genes and are not junk, nor did I imply they were. If you thought that intron=junk, you don't know enough about DNA or what I'm reffering too. Introns can and are variable between entirely different genes, stirated muscle and smooth muscle for example. This means you can hardly call introns junk, let alone useless as they are important in gene regulation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Exons are the important ones (I may have mixed the two up, for the record.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong again, see above. Introns play important parts in gene expression, and are equally as important as exons are in many cases.
Once again, which of us should be reading what they wrote? Certainly isn't me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps you should read what I wrote, and realize what I said put these 'junk' DNA no where near the process of RNA synthesis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never implied introns in junk DNA, and your ignorance shows again. Mycobacteria are BACTERIA. PROKARYOTES. THEY DO NOT HAVE INTRONS. So my example stands anyway. In Eukaryotes, there is a lot of junk DNA, for example transposon sequences among many things. These are things you wouldn't of encountered yet.
Again, why argue with someone about something you DO NOT UNDERSTAND much about yet?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know whether to be impressed by the immaturity of this statement, or the complete idiocy of it. Oh my goodnes i kan no longr spel korektlie. Obvioslie this meens I am automatically wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, I picked that up because it clearly showed an aspect that you had only a basic understanding of. Read your statement and what you quoted from me. The clear implication is that you are 'correcting' me indicating that all RNA is produced in the nucleolus, which of course I immediately demonstrated was wrong.
Now you are getting in a hissy fit because I showed you were wrong. Shows real maturity that does.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> could have though, but I simply didn't. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because that made my initial statement right and your correction wrong. Don't get all hissy and defensive because I plainly demonstrated your weak areas.
Are you about to tell me that you got the amount of ATP produced from glycolysis wrong for a similar reason too?
:/
Let us go over this again as you are so clearly unable to see your blatent mistake.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->RNA is encoded in and out of the nucleus, not DNA. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Original quote.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->rna is encoded in the nucleous, which is a dark region of the nucleus.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Responce.
The first thing is this is clearly talking about RNA in general, not 'specific' ribosomal RNA. This is the first indication that you were simply trying to be a smart **** without knowing what you were talking about in your reply. The second indication is you say 'RNA' without specification, and then clearly indicate the nucleolus. This is implying to the original poster that you are saying that ALL RNA synthesis occurs in the nucleolus.
Again, you were wrong, just admit it and move on with life. You're not doing your pride any good by arguing the point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Could it possibly be the same thing?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So in short: No.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe you need to realize people spell words wrong occasionally, but that doesn't make the entire idea contained in the sentence void.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You were still wrong. Does this need to be spelt out for you and then marked by your teacher to convince you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would use the term speed instead of velocity if I think it fits situation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends, if you are talking about something scientifically you use the technical terms. Weight in physics is different from mass. If you speak about weight and mass interchangably to anyone who knows physics, you merely look like an idiot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I won't be responding to whatever craziness ends up in your reply.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why, you're already completely on the defensive. Quite frankly, with every single post you've made all new mistakes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Congratulations, you can tell your friends you argued a 16 year old to exhaustion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suggest you get 3-4 more years of eduation then come back. I recommend doing Genetics 200 level, Microbiology to 300 level (or cellular biochemistry) and at least 1st year chemistry and biochemistry. Thanks for arguing, I hope you learnt something along the way <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
[And in case you are wondering, you are clearly not an idiot and in fact I'd say you're rather clever. You do need however, a few more years of the above subjects to form solid opinions and to be able to explain what you are saying well].