What is the number of genes discovered and what are their sequence? How was this done? if you can, please tell me how you got your source.
123926
do a yahoo or google search on "gene sequence" Then look for what you want. Was it human genes?
194029
Where is the genetic revolution headed? Without question, it contains great potential for good in the form of better drugs, better medical care, and improved understanding of how living things work. But there is another side to the revolution.\n\n“We want perfect babies,” says Jeremy Rifkin. “We want perfect plants and animals. We want a better economy. There’s no evil intent here. The road to the Brave New World is paved with good intentions.\n\n“Step-by-step, we are deciding to engineer parts of the genetic code of living things. Two important questions emerge: If we’re going to engineer the genetic code, what criteria does this society establish for determining good and bad, useful and dysfunctional genes? And I would like to know whether there is an institution anyone here would trust with the ultimate authority to decide the genetic blueprints for a living thing?”\n\nThese are questions that deserve answers. Who is better equipped than the Creator of DNA to determine what is a good or a bad gene? He is the one who knows the innermost workings of the genetic code, as is shown by David at Psalm 139:13-16: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware. My bones were not hidden from you when I was made in secret, when I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.” Would you not prefer to trust Him with the ultimate authority to decide the genetic blueprints for all living things?\n\nFor more info visit http://watchtower.org
410545
I regret that this question may be too vague for anyone to answer accurately.  Could you possibly re-phrase the question, with some details ... such as "Which type of sequencing do you mean?"\n\nThe question was originally posted under "Mathematics" so are we to assume that you mean "Sequences of Whole Numbers?"\n\nThank you.  Hope this helps!
450998
click here:http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuuCMJFdFWDsB6.FXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2NXZmaDBwBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDOQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANERlg1XzMw/SIG=122s68rjs/EXP=1163425292/**http%3a//www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/fourplus/DNA.html
350374
How about the guys and girl that discovered the structure of DNA?? James Watson, Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, and Wilklins. Def all born after 1800 and made a HUUUGGGE impact in life, genome, and life. OR the guy who disocvered penecillin...there are a lot.
395345
40.\nhttp://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/b000602.txt
261493
do a google search for flybase\nit's a gene database run by the university of indiana
109139
Great stuff going on right now having to do with developmental genes (like Hox genes).  You may know this as "Evo Devo" or evolutionary developmental biology.\n\nCheck out the book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," by Sean Carroll.  He also gives ideas for research and new fields, lots of peer-reviewed papers.\n\nI just read it this Fall, it was great.
453912
haha so much for doing your hwk\nc d c c a b b d b b e? c b c? e a a a c b b a b? d?\n\nThats all i have time for... im dont remeber to much on this but best of luck to you\n\nLet me see if I can find my old textbook site and you can read it:\n\nah... here\nhttp://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/maderbiology7/student/olc/chap08-outline.mhtml
527683
Yes, try to this!\n\nhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3906008
440537
actually, the one out of every 500,000 is just short hand for we don't have enough cases to figure out what the real statistics is for this disease. This fact was actually brought up in an class on evolution I had the other week, but yeah, don't rely on the one out 500,000 or 1 out 200,000 statistics, it's just some guestimate that sounds better then we don't know.
32902
kurdiatcha's mostly got it - I've just got a few things to add:\n\n1) The original transmission of HIV from monkies to humans actually occurred in a hunting accident during which the blood of a monkey mingled with the blood of a wounded hunter. Consuming well-cooked monkey meat probably would not pose a significant threat of HIV transmission.\n\n2) Creating a monkey/human hybrid is not possible, and it's not likely that it will ever be possible. Yes, humans and monkies share much of the same genetic material, but it's important to note that we also share much of that same genetic material with plants, fishes, etc. (think about it from an evolutionary perspective, and it makes sense). If you're taking chromosome numbers into account, humans (46 chromosomes) are actually more closely related to bats (44) or tobacco plants (48), although you can imagine what a disaster it would be trying to cross a human with one of these two organisms. For comparison, rhesus monkies have 42 chromosomes.\n\nIf you've had general biology at the college level, you're aware that chromosome numbers are crucial in reproduction. Considering the cases in which breeding among different species is successful (think male donkey [62 chromosomes] + female horse [64] = mule [63]), the progeny will not be capable of reproduction due to its odd number of chromosomes. (Each diploid individual contributes only half of his/her genetic material, remember, forming a new diploid individual from the two haploid sets of chromosomes.) In short, human and monkey chromosomes combined could not create progeny (viable or sterile).\n\n3) Tons of people still cling to the idea that molecular biology (genetics) can accomplish anything. This is not true - yet. While the field is advancing at an incredibly rapid rate, we're nowhere near successfully using gene therapy to cure diseases, for example. (The France gene therapy experiment resulted in fatalities.) Sure - we have the human genome sequenced, but we're still figuring out exactly how everything works. It's unlikely that science will be interested in attempting to cross humans and monkies when so much more important genetic research has to be done.\n\nI'm done. :D
498139
Though you will ignore the answer, I'll try anyway.  \n\nYour question, with explanation was a classic straw man, so I'll answer your question.\n\nI do not support ID as per se, but, all they are saying is the following:\n\nStep 1:  dna exists.\nStep 2:  later, new dna exists which could not have been eluciadated from existing dna, because there is unquestionably new and unique information in this new dna, which did not exist before.\nStep 3:  how did it happen?  \nStep 4:  it either happened by some still unknown natural or biological mechanism, or it was caused, created.\nStep 5: the natural or biological mechanism seems unlikely as the cause for strictly reasonable and logical reasons.  However, if it could be discovered, it would be one of the most important discoveries ever, and would be communicated as such.  This is still one of the mysteries in biology.  \nStep 6:  new information is not created by natural and random processes.  This just does not occur in nature.  Based on experience and logic.  \nStep 7:  based on the above, it seems that design is involved.\n\nThis is not hard logic.  The point is that you have closed your mind to the issues the ID people are trying to consider, and ID people are fully engaged in science.  What happens if you are wrong?\n\nBasically, ID does not say design is perfect, however, it could very well be optimal, and that takes intelligence, and then it is not a flaw.  ID people have answered your question many times.  Many you need to do some reading.  I cannot say the retina is shoddely wired.  Your remark was a rhetorical and opinionated remark.\n\nNot trying to give you a hard time.  Just the facts.\n\nEdit:  Anything that is proven by science, I agree with.  Duplication is well known.  I hope I was clear.  The issue is:  Here is dna without a certain new function, like a lung, or kidney, or brain, or eye, or skin, of bone, or hair, of tear duct, or immune response, etc.  Later, a 100 lines, or millions of lines of new dna exist with this code.  Duplication is not the mechanism, for the function did not exist, and requires some pretty profound new engineering to create.  The unanswered question is:  how did it happen?  Randomness cannot be part of the solution, since the improbabilities are far too great.  \n\nCan this question be answered, or is it still open?  The answer I usually get is, well just because we do not know, does not mean we should accept the possibility of a creator.  I say, you should consider both, until we have an answer.  You may lean one way or the other, but both are still possibilities.  \n\nThe most knowledgeable scientists agree for example, in cosmology, the closer we get to the beginning of the universe, the more the questions become philosophical and theological.  You are discounting a vital side of the story.
520833
Here is one that is pretty good.  This is for comparing comparing known theoretical sequence with sequence obtained by experimentation.\n\nI think NCBI also has comparative sequence feature, but I have not found it to be that great.\n\nHope this helps.  Pass on the good Karma!
548941
One word contradicts your "facts". \n\nPlasmids.\n\nPlasmids are non-chromosomal loops of DNA found in bacteria.  They often contain antibacterial resistance genes, or give the ability to use different sugars.  These plasmids are commonly shared by bacteria.  This is a gain of genetic information.\n\nNow, it is true that we only have 4 types of nucleotides in DNA, and they make about 20 amino acids.  This is conserved in all life forms. But from this, a countless number of proteins can be made, and have a nearly infinite number of effects.  Your suggesting could be likened to saying that we can never invent a new word, since we only have 26 letters.  \n\nPlease provide a source for your claims, perhaps then we can understand how you arrived at such a conclusion.
659172
Was it "the journey of man"?  if not, read the book or get the dvd. Very interesting.\n\nBasically this scientist took dna samples from people around the globe and compared them.  with that info he found mutations in the dna which act as markers of where those people split from those who didnt have those markers.\n\nAccordingly if traced in reverse it leads to where we all came from, which is from one tribe that left africa about 50000 years ago.
667271
Try this , it really helped me in my first few lectures in cell bio , such as DNA and RNA . Loads of animations and stuff ! \n\nhttp://www.johnkyrk.com/DNAtranscription.html