Barcoding has been tried in animals with the CO1 protein...what about plants?  I know CO1 is not likely...
131422
I don't think there is a perfect candidate at the moment. There is one mentioned here: http://phe.rockefeller.edu/barcode/docs/03_Sept_View_Stoeckle.pdf, but I have another paper that discusses this in more detail which I will add here when I find it.
527683
Yes, try to this!\n\nhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3906008
213290
Yes, they can. \nHumans produce carbon dioxide (CO2) through respiration: \nC6H12O6 + 6O2 --> 6CO2 + 6H20\nPlants then use the carbon dioxide in photosynthesis:\n6CO2 + 6H2O --> C6H12O6 + 6O2\n\nNote that C6H12O6 is glucose. \n\nHope that helps! =)
50527
>>>if chloropyll is implanted in to an animal cell,would it\n>>>>> become auto trophic\n\nNo. \n\nAs Masyhur points out chlorphyll is just a tiny part of an incredibly complex system of pigments and enzymes needed to harvest light.  It is really akin to asking whether you could glue a carburettor to the side of a cardborad box and turn it into an airplane. \n\nA more plausible route would be to implant entire chlorplasts into an animal cell line. That has potential, but only for narrow range of animals.\n\nSee, the thing about chloroplasts is they need light to work. And the thing about most animals is that they have evolved pigments to stop light penetrating their cells. The two conditions are mutually exclsuive. You could implant or the chlorplasts you like into a human or cockroach and they won't do anyhting because they will be permanently in the dark.\n\nWith transparent animals like jellyfish or glass fish or similar you probably could achieve some level of autotrophic activity. \n\nIn the case of a highly active animal like a fish the payoff wouldn't be worth the cost. Chlorplasts require energy to build and maintain and active animals can't afford to laze around int he sun all day. That's why the ancestors of animals abandoned their chlorophyll in the first place (did you know that all animals are descended from photosyntheic organisms?)\n\nBut with slow moving animals like jellyfish it becomes more plausible. Some jellyfish already utilise symbiotic algae to harvest sunlight, so for those species the addition of inherent chlorpplasts could be a major boon.\n\n>>>>IS IT POSSIBLE \n\nNot with todays technology. However it is entirely possible we could have the technology to implant chlorplasts within our liftimes. I dont; quite see why we would bother, but still.....
116580
I think a great deal more needs to be done in animal cloning before humans get involved. Besides the ethical issues, there are real physiological difficulties that seem to erupt in cloned organisms. It seems that having two sets of genetic material really is important.
298475
With the stuff they're experimenting with nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised.  For example, they are studying some reptiles that can regrow their body parts in an attempt to find a way for humans to regrow their organs.  I'm not a scientist, but this may be able to reanimate the body given the right conditions.
618202
Yes subject to Nat. Sel. as u can still see on Sudan swamps, tallest community of humans an the world, or Peruvians living high on the Andes where they have extra coding capacity for Hemoglobin.\n\nThe conditions you describe were studied theoretically by Hardy and Weinberg, so these conditions are called "Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium" and you can search it on almost any college level ecology text.\n\nWhat happens to the gene pool on such conditions? with no nat. sel., all "expensive" genes, ones that take a lot of energy to work, disappear or reduce strongly their presence, and a proff is that Capsicum annum or chili as you call it, when taken to spain from Mexico, lost its cappacity to produce capscin, the spicy oil that gives chili its strenght and in nature is a defense versus herbivorous insects not present on spain. And so on.
493067
Too many to list and explain here, without copying and pasting  --and why should I do all your uni work for you? ;-)\n\nI will recommend a couple of good text books through.  Well worth a purchase or just get them on loan from your library...\n\nAlberts et al, Molecular Biology of the Cell\nStryer, Biochemistry\n\nIt's been since I bought mine.  Think I got editions 2 & 7 back in 1996 and I know both have been updated a couple of times since.  These are still a GREAT basic resourse for this sort of question.
591057
I don't think a lot of people read this. It is interesting information. I had to take a tree hugger science last year and one of the things the professor admitted to is that another one of the destructive gases to the ozone that they beleive is causing the global warming is ethanol, and uria, which are both caused by natural body occurances, the ethonal comes from Pooh, while the uria comes from Urine. Not just human but animal as well. I personally don't know, but am refreshed to see another prospective on the whole thing. Now they can prove all of it, inclucding the CFC part Maybe we can all use Aqua Net again.
358895
I think most theoretical chemists would agree that the holy grail in the field would be accurate prediction of folded protein structure using only the primary amino acid sequence. \n\nWhat makes this difficult is the enormous size of proteins, the numerous non-bonded interactions, and the necessity to model solvent interactions with chemical accuracy. Even with accurate methods to do a single point energy calculation, you still have to find methods to effectively serach the conformational space to locate the global energy minimum. It's a big problem, and would definitely be worth a Nobel prize.
37044
5 ways? In 25 years of teaching Biology I have not come across this idea.\nHave a look at the refered site (below) where you may find what you are seeking.
647608
Go to http://www.charleszaremba.com  Username: pyruvate password: stanley.  This site has all you need to know about biology.
323142
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio021.htm
611280
I've haven't covered it all yet, but in no particular order:\n\nDinosaur food-(Non-flowering plants)\n\nLight Opera-(Photosynthesis)\n\nGender Benders-(The diverse physiology of sex)\n\nEverybody does it-(pollination and seed distribution by animals)\n\nHitchhikers and drifters-(Mechanical seed and pollen distribution)\n\nA Manual for a Quickie Divorce-(Plant toxins)\n\nMind Games (Psychotropic compounds) \n\nFashion through the ages (Fibers and dyes)\n\nAppendix (Oops Plants ain't got 'em!)\n\nITS MY BOOK ISN'T IT?\n\nI've only named a few chapters so far.  Inspiration cannot be rushed. And, I removed my (Oh, So clever!) annotations. \n  \nBTW-I have serious issues with the wiki TOC- (Besides its being boring)\n\nFungi, bacteria are not plants. (SHUDDER).\nVirus are not even considered alive (GASP).\n\nAnd you think I'M UNFOCUSED!
261140
Well, technically plants spend carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.I think... I would think that since most plants continue to grow until they die, that the bigger they get, the more carbon dioxide they use, and the more oxygen they produce.
420279
heck no...next the on the list is NHIS(National Human Indentification System) get ready for your chip too. The animals are the test bed to the future..Practice should be outlawwed
47057
Unlikely to be true.  Any scientist or group of scientists able to pull this off would have held major press conference and would have published results in a major scientific or medical journal.  No press conference, no stories on the wire services, no publication in a reputable journal; highly unlikely to have happened.\nSecond reason:  One would not start with something as complicated as mammals such as dogs; one would start with relatively simpler creatures such as reptiles or even insects or worms.