Prokaryotic translation Puns

Just wanna make sure I've got this down pat, so please correct me if I am wrong.

In eukaryotes, initiation happens this way:

1. A eukaryotic initiation factor recruits Met-tRNA (the initiator tRNA) to the small 40S RSU

2. Together, the Met-tRNA and small RSU bind to the mRNA at the 5' cap

3. The Met-tRNA/small RSU complex "walk" along the mRNA until they find the start codon AUG

4. Once the Met-tRNA/small RSU complex finds the start codon, the large 60S RSU joins to form a complete initiation complex

In prokaryotes, initiation happens this way:

1. The small 30S RSU binds to the mRNA at the Shine-Delgarno sequence, located ≈15 bps upstream from the correct AUG codon

2. A prokaryotic initiation factor recruits fMet-tRNA to the small 30S RSU

3. Once the fMet-tRNA/small 30S RSU complex are bound to the mRNA, the large 50S RSU joins to form a completed initiation complex

Does this sound about right?

As far as I know prokaryote mRNA is translated as soon as it is transcribed. However within a single operon there are different genes for different peptides. Are there regulatory sequences that cause the ribosome to detach after one protein and then attach again or something of that sort?

Wouldn't it be more of a measure of the brief latency between transcription and translation than an indicator of transcript or protein level?

My teacher was talking about cotranscriptional translation. Ribosomes translate mRNA as it is emerging from transcription. She mentioned that this allows for an interesting regulatory mechanism, but didn't elaborate. Any idea what it may be?

The theoretical leap from a primordial soup to a living organism is not possible due to multiple factors. This point can be addressed by analyzing the most rudimentary single-celled organism known to humankind. According to the theory of evolution, and not due to any observable fact, archaebacteria are supposedly a whopping 3.8 billion years old, and are theoretically the same as the first life to form from the primordial soup:

https://preview.redd.it/b5iv55t72ab81.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=c92babd2aaf038b74b505bd58c79f3ed32cc2645

The following are the base necessities of the most simple archaeabacteria: Reproduction, Metabolism, Protein Translation, A Cellular Membrane, and Homeostatic Mechanisms.

Reproduction is a must because otherwise the new life form would return back to the chemical slew. This is not an easy step though. Reproduction requires a nucleic acid sequence to be read by a number of proteins. But, in order for the cell to create polypeptide chains (proteins), there needs to be proteins to read the nucleic data If you understand this impossibility, there is no need to read further, you get the point. Because protein chains cannot be made without already existent quaternary proteins, we run into our first paradox. protein chains are made through a process called transcription and translation of genetic code, which is a necessity for even the most rudimentary unicellular organism:

Prokaryotic Transcription

Notice the elaborate steps required for this process^. Let's theoretically say for the sake of argument, that somehow all the necessary proteins for transcription miraculously appeared. From transcription we get strands of mRNA that need to be translated into protein sequences. Yet again, this process also needs proteins, which we still don't have, because protein chains haven't been made yet. Let's say again for the sake of continuing the discussion, that all quaternary proteins for transcription and translation already exist, this allows us to create proteins. This entire process STILL requires consistent energy production to be viable.

Metabolism is required to generate viable energy for the organism. ATP synthase is the most necessary protein in this process, which is odd, because quaternary proteins don't exist yet, because without energy to execute protein transcription/translation, there are no such things as polypeptides chains (protei

When I came out of the room yest, I thought Bio P2 was manageable. But, oh boy, I was so wrong. Once I read all the discussed answers on Reddit, plus other chats, I was gripped by this terrible sense of clarity where I realised that a large number of my answers were teetering on the edge of horribly wrong.

Regardless since P3 is tomorrow and could literally be my saving grace, I made a list of all the topics that were not tested for P2. There is a high chance that these topics will come out and but also remember to study the tested topics just in case they are repeated.

Topics left:

1. DNA replication

2. Carbohydrates

3. Proteins

4. Lipids

5. Membranes

6. Organisation and Control of Eukaryotic Genome

7. Organisation and Control of Prokaryotic Genome

8. Genetics (Epistasis, Continuous variation, Linked genes, Codominance and Incomplete dominance)

9. DNA and molecular techniques

10. Evolution (species concepts and convergent/divergent evolution)

11. Cancer

12. Mutation

13. Photosynthesis (there was a 3m qn about this in P2)

14. Genetics of Bacteria

15. Protein Synthesis (Translation, Transcription, etc)

16. Biostatistics

17. Infectious diseases (only 5m was given to this so I'm guessing it would probs be tested agn)

I hope this helps anyone who needs it!

Good luck to everyone taking As, and if you feel down, just remember that you are loved and you are worth more than your grades!

Paul Nelson is a creationist currently publishing his "tests" for universal common descent, not in a scientific journal but on the YouTube channel of another creationist, Subboor Ahmad. This is currently a four-part series. I've already debunked part 1 here:

Debunking young earth creationist Paul Nelson's attempt to "test" common descent

I'm now going debunk part two.

Testing Universal Common Descent - Part Two

Paul Nelson begins with arguments he had already made in part one. I found those to be total misrepresentations of the data at hand. Still, I'll summarize the relevant facts since he brings it up again. Paul claims common descent can't be tested because it's compatible with all predictions and therefore predicts nothing. The truth is ... no. Common descent predicts some common fundamental similarities in the most essential aspects of life, and we can see that all life is cellular, has gene-containing chromosomes which has genes which can be transcribed into mRNA and then translated into proteins with fundamentally related machinery, etc etc. If none of this was true, common descent would be falsified. Paul also claims we can't compare abiogenesis with anything by definition since it posits only one origins of life, and therefore it is untestable. This too is ridiculous on its face: even though life has one origin, we know for a fact now that viruses have multiple origins and we can directly compare the data we have for the domains of life to the data we would expect to see in a clear-cut case of multiple origins, as with viruses. All indications of multiple origins in viruses are absent in the domains of life. That makes common descent not only falsifiable, but also tested and by Paul's own definition of of a test for abiogenesis.

Paul now moves on to new talking points. Nelson claims experts agree common descent is unfalsifiable. He begins with a paper by Lars Vogt titled "The unfalsifiability of cladograms and its consequences" (2007) (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2007.00169.x). In this paper, Vogt argues that a cladogram (some tree) is consistent with any possible character distribution and is therefore unfalsifiable by the standards of Popperian falsification. This is what Paul Nelson mentions. But there's a lot that Paul doesn't

Prokaryotes have operons while Eukaryotes do not have operons (for the sake of MCAT)

Prokaryotes do not undergo splicing so they have exons + introns, but Eukaryotes undergo splicing so they only have exons after splicing

Prokaryotes are considered polycistronic as the many different mRNAs can be transcribed from a single transcription factor from the operon which will be translated into different proteins from a single RNA

Eukaryotes are considered monocistronic as one transcription factor yields one mRNA that will yield one specific protein. (Alternative splicing will give different mRNA, but one mRNA will still code for one specific protein)

Is my understanding correct?

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Powerful people deciding powerful things.

It will probably turn out exactly like they plan.

They are powerful after all.

What's the worst that can happen?

The rest of this series can be found here

***

“And thus the Plath, unable to avoid their ultimate fate, chose to forestall it indefinitely,” the Abyssal Lord said to Mark Guilderan, the Terran Secretary of State. “They chose to cast aside all of the technology and culture of their creators and regress to a pre-technological state in order to ‘disappear’ from the universe. This decision triggered civil war within their ranks but ultimately the forces of the individual now deified as ‘The Great Prophet’ prevailed and the entire species regressed but not before ‘terraforming’ an entire solar system to suit their needs. They created what you call ‘The Garden of Eden’ for their descendants, a place where a true technology free society could flourish and has for untold amounts of time.”

The Abyssal Lord paused and looked at Mark.

“As part of the ‘cleansing’ that preceded their regression,” the old fish continued, “They completely wiped out any traces of the Progenitor’s empire they found… Including the other servitor species. Each was given the choice of purifying themselves and returning to their ‘natural’ state or be ‘cleansed’. We aren’t absolutely sure of the specifics, but after the ‘cleansing’ no trace of the Progenitor’s technology, culture, or science remained. Anything that did survive the ‘Great Filter’ certainly did not survive the upheaval that followed.”

“Goddamn...” Mark muttered. “One question, how do you know any of this?”

“While all Plath that survived their civil war and ‘purification’ agreed with the overall principle of regression, many could not bear to abandon their living ships, great ‘creatures’ that they used to sail the void and were their only true ‘home’ for most of their existence. They could strip themselves to nakedness but they could not abandon or kill their beloved ships. In an agreement with one of the major factions of the fractured Plath, they would not be required to do so. They could take the ships and do one final patrol of the galaxy to ensure that nothing remained… and then consign themselves to the ‘timeless and pure void’. What exactly that means is unknown but the process would allow their ships to live out their natural lifespans filled with beings that cared for and loved them.

Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB

Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"

I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual

So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes

r/unclejokes for dirty jokes

r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC

r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes

Punchline !

Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub

Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat

Do your worst!

How the hell am I suppose to know when it’s raining in Sweden?

Mathematical puns makes me number

Ants don’t even have the concept fathers, let alone a good dad joke. Keep r/ants out of my r/dadjokes.

But no, seriously. I understand rule 7 is great to have intelligent discussion, but sometimes it feels like 1 in 10 posts here is someone getting upset about the jokes on this sub. Let the mods deal with it, they regulate the sub.

They were cooked in Greece.

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

He lost May

Now that I listen to albums, I hardly ever leave the house.

We told her she can lean on us for support. Although, we are going to have to change her driver's license, her height is going down by a foot. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here but it better not be a hack job.

Don't you know a good pun is its own reword?

Two muffins are in an oven, one muffin looks at the other and says "is it just me, or is it hot in here?"

Then the other muffin says "AHH, TALKING MUFFIN!!!"

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

And now I’m cannelloni

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

But that’s comparing apples to oranges

And boy are my arms legs.