text:
Molecular gene (genome) concept scientifically untenable
- This topic has 12 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by JackBean.
May 2, 2012 at 4:54 am #16439
For nearly six decades now, biologists have been promoting molecular gene (DNA) as the blueprint of life. The world now believes that it is a chemical molecule that decides the phenotype, development, heritable traits and behaviour of an organism. Last century has been famously called 'the century of the gene'. The molecular gene was born, christened, and brought up during that period.
In 1865, the Austrian monk Johann Gregor Mendel proposed three laws governing heredity, which however did not see light of the day until after 30 years when in 1900 three botanists independently and almost simultaneously rediscovered them. Bateson coined the term "genetics" for the then emerging science of heredity in 1906. Subsequently in 1909, Danish botanist Wilhelm Johannsen introduced the notions of "genotype" and "phenotype". In addition, he proposed the term "gene" for the elements of the genotype. Johannsen had reservations with respect to gene's particulate nature and had also warned against assuming genes for a particular character [1]. Thus the gene remained a hypothetical nonphysical entity.
Thomas Hunt Morgan and his group contributed substantially to the understanding of the mechanism of heredity. In the year 1933, on the occasion of his Nobel address, Morgan observed: "At the level at which the genetic experiments lie it does not make the slightest difference whether the gene is a hypothetical unit, or whether the gene is a material particle." [2]. Nevertheless, many geneticists like Herman J. Muller (Morgan's student), believed that genes had to be material particles. In 1950, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the rediscovery of Mendel's work, Muller however admitted: "[T]he real core of gene theory still appears to lie in the deep unknown. That is, we have as yet no actual knowledge of the mechanism underlying that unique property which makes a gene a gene… its ability to cause the synthesis of another structure like itself, [in] which even the mutations of the original gene are copied. [We] do not know of such things yet in chemistry." [3].
It has been known since about 1913 that the individual active units of heredity – the genes – are strung together in one-dimensional array along the chromosomes, the threadlike bodies in the nucleus of the cell. George Beadle and Edward Tatum during the late 1930s and early 1940s established the connection between genes and metabolism. They proposed the "one gene, one enzyme hypothesis". Since chemical reactions occurring in the body are mediated by enzymes, and since enzymes are proteins and thus heritable traits, it is supposed that the gene and proteins are related. These views of gene function strengthened the idea of genetic specificity leading to molecularization of the gene. In the early 1940s, Oswald Avery and his colleagues purified the deoxyribonuleic acid (DNA) of one strain of bacteria, and demonstrated that it was able to transmit the infectious characteristics of that strain to another, harmless one [4]. The elucidation of the structure of DNA as macromolecular double helix by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953 and in vitro characterization of the process of protein biosynthesis led to the idea that it was the linear sequence of ribonucleic acid derived from one of the DNA strands that directed the synthesis of a linear sequence of amino acids, or a polypeptide, and that this process was mediated by an adaptor molecule (RNA template). In 1958 Francis Crick formulated the "sequence hypothesis" (triplet code or codon, i.e., three bases at a time specified one amino acid) and the "central dogma" of molecular biology. All these considerations ultimately led to defining the molecular gene. According to the classical molecular concept, a gene is a stretch of DNA that encodes a functional product, a single polypeptide chain or RNA molecule. The entire collection of genes encoded by a particular organism is the "genome" that is supposed to constitute the genetic program. The assumption of "one gene, one protein" makes the genes generally synonymous with proteins. Thus the term "gene" refers to the gene that codes for protein. Johannsen's non-particulate gene thus metamorphosed into particulate gene. The molecular gene was born!
With the introduction of the molecular gene concept, an organism is treated as just a material. It is nothing but a bundle of chemical structures without any nonphysical component.
Molecular biology opened the floodgates of boundless optimism about the ability of the super molecule DNA to decipher the mechanism of life as well as the potential of gene for genetic manipulation. In his classic and influential textbook, The Molecular Biology of the Gene, James Watson stated: "We have complete confidence that further research of the intensity given to genetics will eventually provide man with the ability to describe with completeness the essential features that constitute life." [5]. But he was grossly wrong. Peter Cook reflects: "Watson and Crick must have thought that the sequence was everything. But life is much more complicated than that." [6].
Today biology is drifting in the ocean of genomics like a ship that has lost its direction. The gene remains undefined and obscure to say the least. Further the warnings of Johannsen (i.e., against particulate nature of the gene and against considering gene for particular character) have also been proven true.
Molecular gene (genome) concept is wrong
In nature we find two kinds of components, the nonliving and living systems. The nonliving components carry chemical information encoded by their structures, which confers them their characteristic properties and behaviour. The living components carry biological information (or the so-called genetic information), which determines their biological behaviour. It is this biological information, which Wilhelm Johannsen considered as nonphysical while proposing the gene concept and later rejected by the scientific community in favour of a material gene – the DNA molecule.
Genome (DNA) is a chemical molecule. It has physical and chemical properties. By recognizing the gene as material, biologists are superimposing biological information over the chemical information encoded by the chemical structure of DNA. Even if it is taken for granted, it should conform to the well-established chemical fundamentals. By this canon biological information encoded by the genome should be specific to the structure. But in reality, the genome defies this principle in a variety of ways.
a) Changes in the phenotype during ontogenetic development and post-development stage of an individual reflect continuous change of information content of the genome (originally carried in the zygote) with time. A genome can even create two different biosystems (e.g., larva and butterfly)!
How can a molecule (i.e., genome in the zygote) encode information that changes with time?
If biological information can be encoded by the chemical molecule DNA, why no other molecule exhibits this property? Is it not strange that there is only one molecule (DNA) in the whole universe that can encode genetic information?
b) DNA is supposed to encode only information required for protein synthesis. Accordingly, protein-coding DNA is recognized as 'the gene'. Protein synthesis is not the whole story of "life". An organism requires information for the synthesis of numerous other substances during its life, development of body structures and their functions, behaviour, instincts, etc. The members of Homo sapiens also have intelligence, consciousness, feelings and freewill.
How can DNA encode genetic information required for instincts, feelings, likes and dislikes, etc.? Do biologists think protein is the sole basis of life?
c) It has been observed that an overwhelming 95% of DNA consists of non-coding DNA in eukaryotes and about 5% is constituted by the coding-DNA (or the genes). The non-coding DNA (ncDNA) is referred to as "junk DNA". Though structurally comparable to coding DNA, surprisingly, the so-called junk DNA does not encode identical biological information (or vice versa).
How can this be explained?
d) It is believed that mitosis produces daughter cells with identical genome.
If the genomes of the cells in a body are identical, all the cells should carry identical information. But we find the tissues are structurally and functionally different. How can the tissues with identical genome (biological information) exhibit variable structure and function?
e) Recently, it has been shown that the genomes of different tissues are not identical [7]. This discovery sprang from an investigation into the underlying genetic causes of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The researchers found major genetic differences between blood cells and tissue cells of the same individuals. The finding calls into question one of the most basic assumptions of human genetics that DNA in every cell in the body is identical to every other cell. Apart from that, "This discovery may undercut the rationale behind numerous large-scale genetic studies conducted over the last 15 years, studies which were supposed to isolate the causes of scores of human diseases. Except for cancer, samples of diseased tissue are difficult or even impossible to take from living patients. Thus, the vast majority of genetic samples used in large-scale studies come in the form of blood. However, if it turns out that blood and tissue cells do not match genetically, these ambitious and expensive genome-wide association studies may prove to have been essentially flawed from the outset." [8].
How is it possible for the genome of a parent cell (e.g., zygote) to create different genomes in the daughter cells? Is it not a clear proof that the genome does not constitute the biological program? Is this not enough of a proof to indicate that genetic information of the organism exists independently of the genome structure and it is according to that, cell structures including genome are produced?
f) Studies at the molecular level fail to demonstrate the expected correspondence between genome and phenotype. The most spectacular example of this is the morphological dissimilarity between human being and chimpanzee despite a 98.7% similarity in their DNA [9]. Although evolutionary biologists speak of genomes of chimp and man as being almost identical to support of their argument of human evolution from an animal, and for establishing chimpanzee as the closest animal ancestor of human being, they have not enumerated so far the identical phenotypic characters in human and chimp in terms of anatomy, physiology, development and other biological features. In fact there is none! A chimp is not even 0.1% human being or a human being 0.1% chimp. A human being differs from chimp in every detail and at every point of the body. The only similarity between chimp and man is in the DNA! The differences in traits, characteristic behaviour, instincts and capabilities between human (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzee (Pan sp.) are far greater than the small degree of sequence divergence (1.3%) could account for.
The chimp-human comparison is a case of similar genomes but dissimilar phenotypes. The reverse case is also known. Caenorhabditis elegans and C. briggsae are physically very similar organisms. It takes an expert to distinguish them. The two have near-identical biology, even down to the minutiae of developmental processes. Surprisingly, however, their genomes are not so similar. C. elegans has more than 700 chemoreceptor genes when C. briggsae gets on by just 430. There are also many genes unique to each of them [10]. Another anomaly is the lack of correspondence in the number of genes (taking for granted the meaninglessness of gene identification) with complexity of the organism. For example, fruit flies have fewer coding genes than roundworms, and rice plants have more than humans [11].
Are these not departures from the expected genome configuration (i.e., genetic information)-phenotype relationship?
g) Many insects exhibit alternative morphologies (polyphenisms) based on differential gene expression rather than genetic polymorphism (differences in genes themselves). One of the best understood insect polyphenisms is the queen-worker dimorphism in honey bees. Both the queens and the workers are females but morphologically distinct forms. Besides, the queen is fertile whereas the worker is sterile. Studies conducted with the bee species Apis mellifera revealed that numerous genes appeared to be differentially expressed between the two castes [12]. The seven differentially expressed loci observed in the study belonged to at least five distinctly different functional groups. The queen and the worker castes in honey bee provide an unfailing proof of natural existence of similar genomes exhibiting dissimilar phenotypes.
How is it possible for similar genes (chemical structures supposed to be encoding similar information) to express differently?
h) "Pseudogenes are similar in sequence to normal genes, but they usually contain obvious disablements such as frameshifts or stop codons in the middle of coding domains. This prevents them from producing a functional product or having a detectable effect on the organism's phenotype…. The boundary between living and dead genes is often not sharp. A pseudogene in one individual can be functional in a different isolate of the same species… and so technically is a gene only in one strain…. there are other pseudogenes that have entire coding regions without obvious disablements but do not appear to be expressed." [13].
How can a chemical structure function as gene in one strain and fail to function similarly in another strain?
i) The variation observed in the use of triplet codes among organisms is another issue. Like the pseudogene this aspect is against chemical fundamentals and remains unexplained. The degenerate nature of the biological code implies several triplets coding per amino acid. Further, two amino acids have only one mRNA codon each; AUG for methionine and UGG for tryptophan. Hence 59 degenerate triplets code 18 amino acids; these 18 have two to six synonymous codons each. Choices between synonymous codons are not random; some codons in the set specific to an amino acid are used more than the others [14]. The 'genome hypothesis' which tries to explain the variation in codon use states that codon use is species-specific, i.e., each genome or type of genome shows a particular pattern of choices between synonymous codons. Thus overall codon usage differs between taxa; but codon bias is also influenced by other factors like gene length, gene expressivity (the amount of protein made per gene), environment and lifestyle of the organism [15]. The codon bias gives rise to the paradox whether protein evolution determined DNA sequence or DNA commanded protein evolution. Many such dilemmas remain in molecular evolution. The origin of bias in codon and anticodon frequencies continues to elude researchers [14].
How can these be explained?
j) There are many kinds of DNA repairs. Rosenfeld gives a detailed account of the self-healing strategies of the 'master molecule'. If a base is put in wrong place during replication, there are enzymes to correct the mistake. Purines, without any errors and without any damages drop out by the thousands every day presumably due to wear and tear of existence in the chromosomes only to be promptly replaced by insertases. A base can spontaneously undergo change. A cytosine, for example, will lose an amino group and become uracil. Uracil is perfectly at home in RNA but not in DNA. The enzymes called uracil glycosylases recognize the uracil, remove it and replace it with a new cytosine. Suppose that an error has occurred in one of the DNA strands say, a T has been put across from a G, where a C really belongs. This would give rise to two strands one with a G and the other with a T. The enzymatic apparatus 'knows' that cannot be correct, but how does it know whether to replace the C with a T on one strand, or the C with an A on the other? If the replacement takes place not on the right strand, the result would be either death of the cell or a mutation. How does it know which is the authentic original? [16].
How can a chemical structure (DNA) be aware of the change in its elemental composition and arrangement? How can it detect the 'wrong' one and 'correct' it with the genetic information encoded by it?
Molecular gene remains undefined
a) Although molecular biologists liberally use the term "gene" and claim identification of genes for various characters and diseases, the "gene" remains unknown to them even today. According to geneticist Peter Portin, "The gene is no longer a fixed point on the chromosome, producing a single messenger RNA. Rather, most eukaryotic genes consist of split DNA sequences, often producing more than one mRNA by means of complex promoters and/or alternative splicing. Furthermore, DNA sequences are movable in certain respects, and proteins produced by a single gene are processed into their constituent parts. Moreover, in certain cases the primary transcript is edited before translation, using information from different genetic units and thereby demolishing the one-to-one correspondence between gene and messenger RNA. Finally, the occurrence of nested genes invalidates the simpler and earlier idea of the linear arrangement of genes in the linkage group, and gene assembly similarly confutes the idea of a simple one-to-one correspondence between the gene as the unit of transmission and of genetic function…." [17]. Other leading scientists like Thomas Fogle and Michel Morange also concede that there is no longer a precise definition of what could count as a gene [18, 19]. The objective of genomic research is to ultimately understand the relationships between heritable units and their phenotypes. But it appears that genome concept would not deliver that information. The genome organization is extremely complex. Genes reside within one another, share some of their DNA sequences, are transcribed and spliced in complex patterns, and can overlap in function with other genes of the same sequence families. "Today, in the era of genomic sequencing and intense effort to identify sites of expression, the declared goal is to search for genes, entities assumed to have physical integrity. Ironically, the sharper resolving power of modern investigative tools make less clear what, exactly, is meant by a molecular gene, and therefore, how this goal will be realized and what it will mean", observes Fogle [18]. These findings clearly expose the meaninglessness of the concept of molecular gene (genome).
When the "gene" remains unknown to biologists, what justification is there in using the molecular gene concept to explain biological attributes and functions?
How can a concept, which scientists cannot define or explain, was accepted in biology in the first place? Is it not strange?
b) Horace Freeland Judson writing in Nature notes: "The phrases current in genetics that most plainly do violence to understanding begin "the gene for": the gene for breast cancer, the gene for hypercholesterolaemia, the gene for schizophrenia, the gene for homosexuality, and so on. We know of course that there are no single genes for such things." [20]. Yet we find even now in every biology journal the term "gene" used in the general sense as well as to indicate specific characters.
Although biologists find there is no single gene to characterize an attribute or disease and the journal editors accept it, the same people continue to publish the term "the gene for" even now. If there is no single gene for a character, why papers suggesting "the gene for" continue to be published? Will the use of the term "the gene for" not corrupt science and mislead the public?
Secondly gene counts are also widely published in the journals. If the gene is not definable, how can it be counted? If single genes do not determine the phenotypic characters, what meaning is there in gene counts?
More than six decades have passed since the introduction of the molecular gene concept. Thousands of journals have published several thousands of papers annually in molecular gene-related area literally filling all the physical and virtual spaces in the libraries of the research institutes and universities the world over. Several new fields like bioinformatics, genomics, synthetic biology, etc., have emerged. Thousands of Ph.Ds have been produced. Hundreds of courses are now available in these subjects. Bu to no use! The molecular gene remains even now undefined and unknown! And the phenomenon of life also remains undefined and unexplained. Is it not time to reject the molecular gene concept, which has already proven to be the costliest blunder in science?
Proof of non-molecular existence of biological information
a) In 1970 Miroslav Radman discovered the phenomenon of cell-directed mutagenesis. He found that bacteria harboured a genetic program to make mutations. At that time, no one believed this heretical proposal [21]. In 1988 molecular biologist John Cairns and his colleagues observed induced mutations of various elements of the lac operon changes in Escherichia coli bacteria [22]. Their results were even more shocking than Radman's. "…depending on their environmental conditions, bacteria might be able to direct mutations to particular genes….Outraged, a number of evolutionary biologists quickly embarked on their own studies to test the notion" [21]. Goodman described the studies conducted by Joshua Lederberg at the University of Wisconsin which showed that mutations for resistance to some antibiotics occurred spontaneously in cells that had never been exposed before to the antibiotics [23]. A recent report of resistance of bacteria to antibiotics also provides evidence of cell-induced mutation [24]. There are several mechanisms such as crossing over (recombination) during meiosis, chromosomal aberrations like deletion, replication, translocation and translocation, non-disjunction, cell divisions (mitosis and meiosis), etc., which are dismissed by biologists as errors or random phenomena. These are not recognized as cell-induced mechanisms to bring about mutations.
These findings are sufficient evidence to establish that mutations are induced from within the cells and that genetic program is not encoded by the DNA. The genetic program exists independently of DNA structure.
Why these findings are not accepted by the scientific community with due importance but are sidelined to uphold the concept that biological information exists as molecules?
b) A fundamental feature of chemical molecule is that it cannot lose its properties. The genome appears to be an exception to this rule also. Going by the present concept of particulate genetic program, a cell carrying the genome should invariably show the life properties. However a dead cell with its genome remaining intact fails to exhibit "life" clearly indicating the genome does not encode the biological program.
When I put this question to Nature (Scitable), I received the least expected silly answer from its expert, which is no answer to my question at all. The Scitable answer [25] is reproduced below:
"Questions like yours about life and death spurred the earliest scientific inquiry and keep the field moving forward. It is possible for the genome to be intact in dead cells. For example, think about your local library: at night, nothing is going on and none of the books can be checked out, but all the books would still be there. Similarly, the genetic code is still present in dead cells; however, the absence of certain key biochemical processes, such as transcription and translation, makes reading the code (like checking books out from a library) impossible. Death can be understood at two levels: at the level of the organism and at the level of the cell. In the first case, death arrests all key biochemical processes. No key enzymes are available to translate mRNA and no amino acids are linked to create polypeptide chains. But in the second case death can also help other cells in the same body. This process is called programmed cell death (or apoptosis) and involves a series of biochemical events leading to changes in cell shape followed by cell death. These changes in cell shape include blebbing, which occurs when a portion of the cytoskeleton separates from the plasma membrane and creates an irregular bulge called a bleb. This is like the locking of a door — a change in cell structure arresting cell activity. The cell membrane also loses symmetry and detaches from the cytoskeleton, which leads to cell shrinkage, nuclear fragmentation, chromatin condensation, chromosomal DNA fragmentation, and the eventual damaging of the cell's genome. All these processes make it harder for the cell's transcription machinery to read the genetic code, just as locked doors make it difficult for us to check out books from the library at night. A second type of cell death can actually damage neighboring cells, like a fire in the library that spreads to the bookstore across the street. This type of cell death is called necrosis and results from acute cellular injury or infection. Cells undergoing necrosis eventually burst and release their cellular contents, which can damage neighboring cells and induce inflammation. You're right: the genetic code is essential for all life. But key proteins required to read the genetic code stop working in dead cells. Despite the great wealth of information contained within the genetic code, a genome alone doesn't lead to the creation of proteins that serve as the basis of life."
Clearly there is no answer to the natural irreversible cessation of all biological activities at some point of time during the life of an organism with all its material contents including genome intact. It is impossible to explain the cessation of biological activity of the organism (i.e., death) based on molecular gene concept when the genome is intact. In case it has undergone alteration at death, its repair should restore the life of the organism. Further the body starts decaying immediately after death. What makes the body resistant to microbial decomposition and susceptible to decay when the material body is identical prior to and after death is also unexplainable. Clearly the genetic program exists independently of any chemical structure. The phenomenon of life and death cannot be defined or explained based on material gene and will ever remain unexplained in biology!
Is it possible for biologists to refute these conclusions?
For a discussion of nonmaterial basis of life please see my post 'Life is nonmaterial phenomenon' in this forum in the same section 'Molecular biology'. The subject is covered in detail elsewhere [26, 27, 28].
1. Johannsen, W. 1911. The genotype conception of heredity. The American Naturalist 45, 129-159.
2. Morgan, T. H. 1935. The relation of genetics to physiology and medicine. Les prix Nobel en 1933. Imprimerie Royale, Stockholm, 1-16.
3. Muller, H. J. 1951. The development of the gene theory. In Leslie C. Dunn (ed.), Genetics in the 20th Century. Essays on the Progress of Genetics During its First 50 Years. MacMillan, New York 1951, 77-99.
4. Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg, Müller-Wille, Staffan, "Gene", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2 … ries/gene/ Accessed on 11 December 2005.
5. Watson, J. 1973. The Molecular Biology of the Gene, third edition. Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co.
6. Pearson, H. 2003. DNA: Beyond the double helix. Nature 421: 310-312.
7. Gottlieb et al., "BAK1 gene variation and abdominal aortic aneurysms", Human Mutation Vol. 30, 2009, pp. 1043. DOI: 10.1002/humu.21046.
8. DNA not the same in every cell of body: Major genetic differences between blood and tissue cells revealed," ScienceDaily (July 16, 2009).
9. Wells, J. Homology in Biology: A Problem for Naturalistic Science. By Jonathan http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp Retrieved 24 November 2001.
10. M. Blaxter, M. 2003. Two worms are better than one. Nature 426:395-396.
11. W.W. Gibbs, W.W. 2003. The unseen genome: Gems among the junk. Scientific American 289, November 2003, pp. 46-53.
12. Evans, J.D. and Wheeler, D.E. 1999. Differential gene expression between developing queens and workers in the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96:5575-5580.
13. Snyder, M. and Gerstein, M. 2003. Genomics: Defining genes in the genomics era. Science 300:258- 260.
14. Grantham, R.L. Codon usage in molecular evolution. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0001806.
15. Grantham, R. et al., 1981. Codon catalog usage is a genome strategy modulated for gene expressivity. Nucleic Acids Res. 9:43-47.
16. Rosenfeld, A. 1981. Master molecule heal thyself. Mosaic 12(1).
17. Portin, P. 1993. The concept of the gene: Short history and present status. The Quarterly Review of Biology 68:173-223.
18. Fogle, T. 2000. The dissolution of protein coding genes in molecular biology. In Peter Beurton, Raphael Falk, and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Historical and Epistemological Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-25.
19. Morange, M. 2000. The developmental gene concept: History and limits. In Peter Beurton, Raphael Falk, and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Historical and Epistemological Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.193-215.
20. H. F. Judson, H.F. 2001. Talking about the genome. Nature 409:769.
21. Chicurel, M. 2001. Can organisms speed their own evolution? Science 292(5523):1824-1827.
22. Cairns, J., Overbaugh, J. and Miller, S. 1988. The origin of the mutants. Nature 335:142-145.
23. Goodman, B. 1992. Directed mutations: Heredity made to order. Mosaic 23(1):24-33.
24. Kohanski, M.A., DePristo, M.A. and J. J. Collins. 2010. Sublethal antibiotic treatment leads to multidrug resistance via radical-induced mutagenesis. Molecular Cell 37(3):311-320.
25. http://www.nature.com/scitable/my-discussion/474.
26. Wahid, P.A. 2007. The Great Gene Fiasco: The Quran Defines Life. Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.
27. Wahid, P.A. 2006. The Computer Universe: A Scientific Rendering of the Holy Quran (2006), Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.
28. Wahid, P.A. 2010. Memetics of the computer universe based on the Quran. J. Software Engineering & Applications 3:728-735.
May 2, 2012 at 6:34 am #110834
You're lucky, that we were part of the Habsburgmonarchy, so I won't take it as insult claiming Mendel being Austrian :devil:
Although you seem to be a scientist (at least you obviously publish "something"), you're apparently missing several important points and "new" discoveries.
I didn't read it all (who would? :roll:), but few points:
the information coded by DNA is changing in time due to mutations with several mechanisms. But that's not provably what you asked for. You probably meant changes in development during organism ontogenesis. These are caused by changes in gene expression, not in DNA.
It's clear nowadays, that protein-coding sequences play only minor role in DNA (BTW there are genes, which do not code for proteins). Actually, whole genome is widely transcribed. The other parts result in all kinds of RNAi.
I don't see any problem in gene definition, just because it's alternatively spliced. It's still just one gene on DNA producing several different RNAs (and proteins).
It may be true, there is nothing like gene for cancer, but that doesn't mean there are not several genes involved in cancer occurence. And more importantly, we do have gene for glukose kinase, for pyruvate dehydrogenase etc.
May 3, 2012 at 2:48 pm #110862DougBParticipant
I think there is some history to development of genetics as a study in your post. Perhaps one thing we can take from this is that genetics as a field is constantly evolving. One new area that seeks to explain gene expression is epigenetics, how something external influences gene expression. One example is cancer. Let's say we have two individuals both carrying a set of genes coding for cancer. Yet one person develops cancer and the other does not. Why? It could be the afflicted person also smokes. So, how does smoking cause cancer?
Gene expression could be influenced by many things other than proteins called cofactors. Perhaps tobacco contains a chemical that acts as a cofactor for cancerous genes. Therefore, we conclude that smoking causes cancer.
The question of why cells with identical genomes develop into different tissue is still difficult to answer. Forensics benefits from this fact. Blood cells acquired from a crime scene can be genetically compared to cheek cells from a suspect. However, blood cells and cheek cells are clearly different. The process of cell differentiation is not fully understood. Proximity is somehow involved. During early development, cells in contact with each other generally develop into similar tissue. While other cells also in contact develop into different tissue. Perhaps it is the presence of cofactors that lead to cell differentiation. Perhaps diffusion rates depletes the concentration of certain cofactors so only cells in one area develop into a specific tissue. Of course this bring question as to where the cofactors come from.
One process we do have a better understanding is why progeny different from parents. Mutation only explains one reason. Children acquire two sets of genes, one maternal and one paternal. Therefore children have mixed qualities from both parents. The process of meiosis and crossover explain more differences. One parent could have genes for blue eyes, blond hair and type A blood on one chromosome. The sister chromosome has genes for brown eyes, red hair and type B blood. Crossing over repositions the genes so one is blue eyes, red hair and type B blood versus brown eyes, blond hair and type A blood.
Two hundred years ago, we did not know about bacteria. Now we have sequenced the genomes from many bacteria. One hundred years ago, we did not know what DNA was. Now we can sequence whole genomes in a week. Imagine what we will know fifty years from now.
May 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm #110868
A lot of your writing seems to resemble a persuasive essay rather than scientific criticism. For example, your introductory section (up until your first heading) seems to be unnecessary to any argument you might be making.
(And increasing your concision would also make people much more willing to engage with you. Tell me, what is the core of your argument in a single paragraph of 200 words or less?)
There are also some clear inaccuracies. For example:quote :there is only one molecule (DNA) in the whole universe that can encode genetic informationquote :If the genomes of the cells in a body are identical, all the cells should carry identical information.quote :A fundamental feature of chemical molecule is that it cannot lose its properties.
And many others both explicit and implicit. I think you need to do more research on the topics you're trying to discuss – and even if you think a point supports your position, you need to first spend some time to make sure that the point is accurate, even if you feel like continuing wouldn't be worth your time (http://lesswrong.com/lw/km/motivated_st … tinuation/).
More generally, I think one problem is that you think that genes are supposed to be deterministic. Of course, there are other inputs as well, namely environmental ones. The genome specifies a range of possible responses to the environment.
May 9, 2012 at 11:34 pm #110990WallyannaParticipant
Interesting paper. Well referenced, many quotes from well qualified scientists. The author did do a very good job of gathering information and some of the questions are certainly good questions. They are just the sort of questions that will inspire geneticists to continue to find more and more answers, perhaps in time developing brand new fields of study.
But I agree with astrasequi here that your article is written as a persuasive argument rather than as a scientific paper.
If others here will read a bit further, the signature of the writer and the last three references will show where the writer is "coming from"
with his efforts to persuade.
Are you a scientist, or an Imam? Either way you are very intelligent to be able to put together this article, and especially so if you are not a scientist as well as a Muslim, because you had to have understood much of what you quoted in order to try to use it to persuade. Like astrasequi said, though, you made a few errors that she caught right away.
Nevertheless, your comprehension is admirable for a non scientist if you are not one.
However the gaps in the knowledge that seem to be expressed by the scientists you quote,(I would
have to read the articles to see if you cherry picked and quoted out of context) and your evidence that some scientists may not be using clear and concise wording for articles regarding genetic links
to diseases, all in all your scientific quotes and questions do not prove the Quran.
Science doesn't prove spiritual things. Sometimes it SEEMS to seek to disprove spiritual things but it really doesn't do that either. Although it might occasionally accidentally seem to disprove religious dogmas the dogmatic won't pay attention to it anyhow, so that sort of thing changes nothing in the minds of the dogmatic, and becomes a waste of effort in the long run.
Spiritual matters aren't the bailiwick of science.
Meanwhile we all can hope that new knowledge found in science will be used for the benefit of us
all, and that good intentions don't pave the way to disasters as new scientific knowledge is utilized in future endeavors.
May 10, 2012 at 4:28 am #110996quote :… you had to have understood much of what you quoted in order to try to use it to persuade. Like astrasequi said, though, you made a few errors that she caught right away.
I will just point that some people most certainly do quote scientists in great detail without understanding; and also that there are far more than "a few" errors. I only mentioned several of the most egregious.
May 10, 2012 at 4:54 am #110997
There are a few points raised by AstraSequi and Wallyanna that need clarification from my side.
AstraSequi says: "A lot of your writing seems to resemble a persuasive essay rather than scientific criticism."
I beg to differ with you. It is both persuasive and scientific criticism. What I believe based on the available literature on molecular gene is that it is chemically and hence scientifically wrong. I have presented enough scientific reasons for that. Therefore it is indeed scientific criticism. Can you please explain why you do not consider my criticism as scientific? Regarding the introductory part, for a geneticist the introduction I have given may appear redundant, but certainly others will find it quite useful.
AstraSequi says: "Tell me, what is the core of your argument in a single paragraph of 200 words or less?"
I argue that the molecular gene concept is wrong. Biological information is not encoded by any chemical structure. Chemical structure encodes only chemical information. The DNA structure encodes chemical information relating to its physical and chemical properties and behaviour like any other structure. Biological information is nonphysical or nonparticulate as originally proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909. Today in the era of computer technology the nonphysical or nonmaterial phenomenon can be explained. It is no longer weird. The nonphysical existence of biological information can be explained by the computer model of organism. That is, biological program exists as stored information on chromosome structure like software exists on a computer hard disk. The software of a computer is not encoded by the chemical structure of the hard disk; it only serves as medium for storage. Likewise, some or all of chromosome structure (DNA included) may be serving as the storage medium. Johannsen's nonphysical gene agrees well with the Quranic revelation of soul as the cause of life. The invisible software that drives a computer is akin to the invisible soul (biological program) that drives an organism (biocomputer or biorobot system) as given in the Scripture. This would imply that the entire literature pertaining to molecular gene as the biological information is wrong.
AstraSequi says: "There are also some clear inaccuracies. For example: there is only one molecule (DNA) in the whole universe that can encode genetic information"
What is wrong with this statement? Perhaps you may add RNA and protein also. What I refute is that none of the chemical structures encodes biological information. The clear evidence is that a dead cell has all its genome intact. If it encodes biological information, the dead cell should show life. In other words, so long as genome is present in a cell it cannot die. Even if it is damaged, repair of the genome should bring it back to life.
Another inaccuracy indicated is: "If the genomes of the cells in a body are identical, all the cells should carry identical information."
Identical structures should have identical information. How can it be different? My statement is not at all incorrect. Please tell me why you consider it as inaccurate?
A third inaccuracy mentioned is: "A fundamental feature of chemical molecule is that it cannot lose its properties."
This statement is also one hundred per cent correct. Can you please cite just one example of a chemical structure losing its properties when the structure is intact? When you have doubts about my concept of nonphysical biological information although it is supported by scientific facts, why do you consider molecular gene with no scientific proof to support it as correct? Can you please explain?
Apart from these, there is some query from Wallyanna.
"Are you a scientist, or an Imam?"
I am basically a scientist (chemist). I am a Muslim. I use my true name in my posts unless the blogger asks to give a different name. I do not fix boundaries in knowledge as religion (spiritual), science, etc. I believe in things that my mind can scientifically explain to me. It is my conviction to be a truth seeker. However the current trend is we blindly believe in everything that is published in science journals, and we blindly disbelieve in everything that is in the Scripture. This trend should go and we should be prepared to call a spade spade. Now in the case of gene, the Scripture is true. But just because the current trend is to question the Scripture, people do that. They do not question the molecular gene despite the fact that even biologists who proposed that concept do not know what it is! I wonder how could they propose even without knowing what it is! More than that how the scientific community accepted it as scientific truth!
May 10, 2012 at 6:47 am #111001quote PAWahid:AstraSequi says: "Tell me, what is the core of your argument in a single paragraph of 200 words or less?"
I argue that the molecular gene concept is wrong. Biological information is not encoded by any chemical structure. Chemical structure encodes only chemical information. The DNA structure encodes chemical information relating to its physical and chemical properties and behaviour like any other structure. Biological information is nonphysical or nonparticulate as originally proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909. Today in the era of computer technology the nonphysical or nonmaterial phenomenon can be explained. It is no longer weird. The nonphysical existence of biological information can be explained by the computer model of organism. That is, biological program exists as stored information on chromosome structure like software exists on a computer hard disk. The software of a computer is not encoded by the chemical structure of the hard disk; it only serves as medium for storage. Likewise, some or all of chromosome structure (DNA included) may be serving as the storage medium. Johannsen's nonphysical gene agrees well with the Quranic revelation of soul as the cause of life. The invisible software that drives a computer is akin to the invisible soul (biological program) that drives an organism (biocomputer or biorobot system) as given in the Scripture. This would imply that the entire literature pertaining to molecular gene as the biological information is wrong.
To my knowledge, even the computers need to store the information somehow and it is in the form of bits, i.e. either 0 or 1. Similarly, in the DNA, the A,C,T and G codes for the information.
I think it was Pasteur who proved, that life cannot originate from non-living.quote PAWahid:AstraSequi says: "There are also some clear inaccuracies. For example: there is only one molecule (DNA) in the whole universe that can encode genetic information"
What is wrong with this statement? Perhaps you may add RNA and protein also. What I refute is that none of the chemical structures encodes biological information. The clear evidence is that a dead cell has all its genome intact. If it encodes biological information, the dead cell should show life. In other words, so long as genome is present in a cell it cannot die. Even if it is damaged, repair of the genome should bring it back to life.
That's not true. You can take artificial genome or even the genome from dead cell (if it's still intact, but it gets usually quickly degraded), insert it into cell and you will get viable cell. And it's not true that cell cannot die as long as genome is present. The genome is hardly first to be affected by cell death.quote PAWahid:Another inaccuracy indicated is: "If the genomes of the cells in a body are identical, all the cells should carry identical information."
Identical structures should have identical information. How can it be different? My statement is not at all incorrect. Please tell me why you consider it as inaccurate?
You have obviously skipped not only RNAi lecture, but also my post where I refer to it.
It is true that all the cells carry identical information, but not all information is used in all cells. Imagine skyscaper being built. People at all levels have blueprints for the whole skyscaper, but they will use only the relevant part which shows their level.
May 11, 2012 at 9:31 am #111027
I really don't have much time to discuss, so I'll make this my last post.
With regards to the reply that Jack did not address:quote :Can you please cite just one example of a chemical structure losing its properties when the structure is intact?
Since you're a chemist, you surely know about the kinetic isotope effect. Nuclear decay will change the properties of a molecule, without changing chemical structure.
But regardless, that is not what you said the first time. You did not say "a chemical structure cannot lose its properties when the structure is intact." (Of course, every single chemical reaction involves a change in properties, and these occur in all cells at an incredibly fast rate.)
The sentence you wrote on its own could potentially be interpreted either way. However, the argument that followed the claim assumed that such changes cannot occur – you said that if DNA has the property of "life," then a dead cell with an intact genome could not exist. Of course, "life" is not a property of DNA but the entire system, which is another of the misconceptions that I referred to above.quote :It is both persuasive and scientific criticism.
This is possible, but it is generally bad form in science. I assumed that if you were posting here, you were intending to present your ideas to scientists. I apologize if that is not the case.quote :Can you please explain why you do not consider my criticism as scientific?
I have not made this claim, as I did not evaluate it in detail. However, given the misconceptions you have incorporated into the discussion, my impression is that it is unlikely.quote :…why do you consider molecular gene with no scientific proof to support it as correct?
The scientific proof actually exists. There is lots of it, so I suggest that you look it up yourself. 🙂
One good way approach this would be to ask yourself what specific experiment (as simple as possible) would prove it correct, and then afterwards look (or ask here) to see whether it has been done. (In fact, this is a general strategy – it is applicable to almost any proposition you can think of.)quote :I argue that the molecular gene concept is wrong…This would imply that the entire literature pertaining to molecular gene as the biological information is wrong.
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. This still contains many unsupported statements, for which evidence must still be provided. The explanation should refer back to the results of the actual experiments and why they are in support of your position.
However, I still think that you made the argument much clearer, so well done. 🙂
May 12, 2012 at 2:29 am #111033
AstraSequi wrote: "With regards to the reply that Jack did not address:
"Can you please cite just one example of a chemical structure losing its properties when the structure is intact?"
Since you're a chemist, you surely know about the kinetic isotope effect. Nuclear decay will change the properties of a molecule, without changing chemical structure."
Dear AstraSequi, you are misleading people by your comments of this kind; that too to support the erroneous molecular gene theory. Nuclear decay changes the nuclide. There are atomic species for an element; these species we distinguish as "nuclides". For example P-31 with 15 protons and 16 neutrons is the stable phosphorus nuclide, which is not radioactive. When the neutron number increases to 17 it becomes P-32 and its property changes. It becomes radioactive. This nuclide is still called phosphorus because the criterion we adopt to distinguish between elements is the proton number. Both P-31 and P-32 have the same proton number, i.e., 15. When a radionuclide decays by emitting radiation, there again it changes. That is why its property changes. What you said is wrong. For example P-32 on emission of a beta particle becomes sulphur.
My response: "It is both persuasive and scientific criticism."
AstraSequi wrote: "This is possible, but it is generally bad form in science. I assumed that if you were posting here, you were intending to present your ideas to scientists. I apologize if that is not the case."
A scientific criticism is also persuasive because the scientific evidences presented to support the criticism direct you to the truth. It is what science is. What do you mean by "it is generally bad form in science"?
I think all my arguments against the molecular gene are adequately substantiated by scientific reports cited by me. The reader can very well verify the papers I cited and confirm their relevance. If AstraSequi is still not convinced, I have this last question. Biologists believe that a living organism is nothing but material like any substance. It does not contain anything nonmaterial (or nonmolecular). What I argue is that it contains nonmolecular biological program that is stored on the chromosomes. It is not encoded by any chemical structure including DNA. It is like the storage of computer software on hard disk. The chemical structure of the hard disk does not encode the information stored on it. The chemical structure only encodes chemical information responsible for its properties and behaviour and not the information we store.
If a living organism is merely chemical molecules and does not have any nonmolecular component, what is the difference between the living and dead counterpart? At the time of death, the material is intact. Even if there is any change in any molecule, as I mentioned earlier, its repair should restore its life. Molecular gene concept does not and cannot differentiate between the living and dead states of a body. Can you please explain this scientifically? If you cannot, how can you still argue that molecular gene encodes biological program and that the concept is correct?
May 12, 2012 at 10:27 am #111035
Why do you hesitate to respond to counterarguments in our previous posts?
How is it that we are able to run reactions in vitro? Are we able to get the ghost into our eppies?
What's the difference between government and chaos? All the parts are present in both cases, the only difference is organisation.
May 12, 2012 at 12:04 pm #111036
Dear Jackbean: My arguments against molecular biological program have been posted here. I have also summarized my arguments in the last two paragraphs of my previous reply to AstraSequi. My argument is very clear. Also I have posted my concept of non-molecular biological program entitled "Life is nonmaterial phenomenon" in the same section (Molecular Biology) in the light of a computer model of organism. Unless I get a scientific response that can challenge either of these, there is no need of further response from me.
May 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm #111038
If this is how you think scientific dialogue should look like than there is no reason to keep this topic opened.
- The topic 'Molecular gene (genome) concept scientifically untenable' is closed to new replies.


text:
How Superior Spider-Man Took Down A Giant Spider
From – Avenging Spider-Man #16
Published by chan
Search My Blog
Random Posts
Top Posts
Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets
Aquaman Avengers Batman Beast Captain America Catwoman Colossus Cyborg Cyclops DC Deadpool Emma Frost Gallery Green Arrow Green Lantern Green Lantern Gallery Harley Quinn Iron Man Joker Justice League Lex Luthor Marvel Nightwing Quotes Random Gallery Red Hood Robin Shazam Sinestro spider-man Star Wars Superboy Superman The Flash The Walking Dead Thor Versus Wolverine Wonder Woman X-men
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

subset: commoncrawl


text:
AWOOOOO! VFDC is the ultimate Virtua Fighter website run by the fans, for the fans, and it needs your help to... stay on its feet. Information on how you can officially support us can be found in the Become a VFDC Supporter Today thread. Because, to be a supporter is... beautiful.Dismiss Notice
00000000's Recent Activity
No recent activity information is available for 00000000.


text:
Time is precious in this day and age. Get lightning fast downloads with HughesNet Gen5. Pay the bills online, look up that recipe, even shop for a birthday gift - all from the comfort of home.
The speeds are awesome. My wife can be on the computer or working with all three kids remotely at the same time. They each have a computer in their rooms, and we also have two iPads and two laptops. We've never had a problem with the bandwidth; no one has ever yelled 'turn that off!' because the Internet slowed down.
-Nathan B, Louisiana
HughesNet Satellite Internet is rated #1 by the FCC for advertised speeds. And, having the highest Data Allowance plan, it's the best choice out there!
Rural areas are no problem. HughesNet Satellite Internet is available no matter where you live in Saint Marie No more slow DSL that relies on a phone line. Satellite Internet comes straight to your home via satellite.
Lightning fast download speeds with Internet that is always on and instantly available mean you can get things done quickly! Whether you need to check your email, pay some bills, or stream a video, you can do it fast with HughesNet Satellite Internet in Saint Marie
HughesNet offers a variety of Data Plans so anyone can find a plan that is specific to their needs. Check out all the extras that come free with our plans:
If you are not sure how much data you use, feel free to contact our knowledgeable customer support staff. They can help you make that determination and guide you to the perfect plan at the best price in Saint Marie
HughesNet is a trusted name in the Satellite Communication industry. With over 30 years experience, HughesNet is dedicated to bringing you the finest in Satellite Internet technology and engineering. We consistently monitor our service to give you an excellent Internet experience in Saint Marie
Make the choice. Call 1-855-680-3292 today to get connected to the best Internet and to stay connected to everything that is important to you. We are so sure you will be thrilled with our service, we offer a risk-free trial period. If you are not satisfied, you can cancel your service within 30 days without a termination fee.


text:
Only in the South: Celebrate the Arrival of 2020 with Unique New Year's Eve Drops (December 2019)
Log on to Cyber Monday Deals (December 2019)
Southern Hospitality Traveler's Favorite Things About October (October 2019)
Honor the Red, White and Blue in the South with Independence Day Celebrations (July 2019)
Laissez Les Bons Temps Rouler! Celebrating Mardi Gras 2019 (February 2019)
Pickle, Pelican or Peach: The Many Unique Ways the South Welcomes in the New Year (December 2018)
Get Into the Holiday Spirit with the 29th Annual Smoky Mountain Winterfest (November 2018)
17 Celebrations Honoring the Red, White and Blue (June 2018)
Celebrate Mom this Mother's Day with Getaways and Experiences (May 2018)
"Throw me Somethin' Mister!" Celebrating Mardi Gras 2018 (January 2018)
Beach Ball, Fleur-De-Lis, MoonPie: Unique New Year's Eve Drops in the South (December 2017)
25 Festive Events to Keep that Holiday Feeling Through the New Year (December 2017)
Awe-Inspiring Gingerbread Displays at Various Hotels and Resorts Around the South (December 2017)
Fun and Fireworks: 14 Events Celebrating Independence Day (June 2017)
Celebrate 2017 Mardi Gras in the South (February 2017)
Three Festive Ways to Avoid Going Stir Crazy Before the Holidays (December 2016)
30 Ways to Get Your "Jingle" On in the South (December 2016)
Five Ways to Experience the Holidays "Louisiana-Style" (December 2016)
"Brighten Up" Your Holidays with These Holiday Light Displays (November 2016)
Red, White, Blue and You: Fourth of July Celebrations in the South (July 2016)
Drops, Celebrations and More: Memorable Ways to Welcome in 2016 (December 2015)
Spark Your Holiday Spirit with the Many Events Happening Around the South (December 2015)
Six Places to Celebrate the Holiday Season (December 2015)
So Many Ways to Kick Off the Holiday Season in the South (November 2015)
14 Dazzling Holiday Light Displays Throughout the South to Enjoy Now (November 2015)
Celebrate the Holidays in Minden and North Louisiana with the Louisiana Holiday Trail of Lights (November 2015)
New Twist on an Old Favorite: Amping Up the Grilled Cheese (April 2015)
Celebrate National Soup Month Anytime with Recipes from Benchmark Resorts & Hotels (January 2015)
Move Over Ball Drop - This is How the South Welcomes in the New Year (December 2014)
Ways to Get Your Holiday On in the South (December 2014)
Liven Up Your Thanksgiving Meal with Some Myrtle Beach, S.C.-Style Comfort Foods (November 2014)
Warm Up the Days and the Nights with These Chili Recipes (October 2014)
Creating the Perfect Cheeseburger with Crawford Ker on National Cheeseburger Day (September 2014)
Celebrate National Martini Day with these Recipes (June 2014)
It's Great to be King...Celebrating Mardi Season with King Cake Creations (February 2014)
Celebrate Your Valentine with a Getaway (February 2014)
A MoonPie, Pickle, Red Stick and More...Welcoming in the New Year in the South (December 2013)
Celebrate the Holidays with a New Orleans' Reveillon Dinner (December 2013)
2013 Holiday Gift Guide...Packages and Escapes (December 2013)
2013 Holiday Gift Guide: Books (December 2013)
2013 Holiday Gift Guide: Food and Beverage (December 2013)
2013 Holiday Gift Guide: Made in the South (December 2013)
2013 Holiday Gift Guide: Experiences in the South (December 2013)
End Your Holiday Meal on a Sweet Note courtesy of Chef Sara Thomas (November 2013)
From Their Table to Yours: Holiday Recipes from The Carolina Inn (November 2013)
Firing Up the Grill: Tips and Recipes for a Successful and Tasty Grilling Season (May 2013)
Breakfast for Mom, Southern-Style (May 2013)
Mom-Worthy Hotels in the South (May 2013)
Talkin' Mardi Gras, Shreveport, La. Style (February 2013)
Southern Style: 13 Things You Must Do in 2013 (January 2013)
Holiday Joy: Tips for Creating the Perfect Gingerbread House (December 2012)
Absolutely Southern Gift Guide: Secret is in the Sauce at Raleigh Marriott Crabtree Valley (December 2012)
Absolutely Southern Gift Guide: Make It Memorable and Give the Gift of an Experience (December 2012)
8 Reasons to Visit Louisianas Holiday Trail of Lights this Season (December 2012)
Absolutely Southern Gift Guide: Chef's Table at Emeril's Delmonico (December 2012)
Absolutely Southern Gift Guide: Simply Ballastone Cookbook (November 2012)
Treat Your Mom to One of These Eight Southern Destinations (May 2012)
Seeing Various Shades of Green: St. Patricks Day Celebrations in the South (March 2012)
Its Mardi Gras Time in the South (February 2012)
Celebrate Elvis Presleys Birthday in the South (January 2012)
A MoonPie, a Pickle, a Horseshoe and More: Ringing in the New Year Southern-Style (December 2011)
Celebrate the Holidays New Orleans-Style with a Reveillon Dinner (December 2011)
"Treat" Yourself this Holiday Season with SavannahInns.com (November 2011)
Holiday Fun in the South After Thanksgiving (November 2011)
Holiday Fun at Gaylord Opryland (November 2011)
Tours and Treats Along Virginias Inn to Inn Cookie Trail and Tour (November 2011)
Celebrating Milestones in the South (August 2010)
5 Activities that Add a "Sizzle" to Your Summer Vacation (June 2010)
Forget Gifts, Give Experiences This Mothers Day (April 2010)
|Published: February 2012
|Its Mardi Gras Time in the South


text:
Chances 2
- $2.79 $3.99
- Published By: eXtasy Books
- Author: Keiko Alvarez
- Page: 88
- Word Count: 22000
- Publication Date: November 29, 2010
- Series: Chances #2
- Heat Level:
- Available Formats: Adobe Acrobat, Epub, Mobipocket, Mobipocket (.mobi)
- Categories: Contemporary, Erotica
Qty + -
Warning: Spouse Swapping. The Librarian. She looked so innocent, so prim and proper, but he quickly discovered that you can't tell a book by its cover. Cougar Claws. Fort Lauderdale is hot, but when a woman meets a younger man, it gets hotter still. A Little Game between Friends. Two friends dream up a little game to spice up their sex lives, but will the spice turn out to be too hot?
To read excerpts, you need to have an account with us. Please log in first.


text:
Werewolf Avatar
شخصية كرتونية
Download this avatar to add it to your PlayStation®Network Online ID.
To use this downloaded avatar:
1) Select the "PlayStation®Network" icon on the PlayStation®3 XMB™ Menu and then choose "Account Management".
2) Select "Account Information" and then choose "Avatar".
3) Select "Premium Avatar" to access a list of downloaded avatars.
4) Finally, scroll to the avatar that you wish to use and select it.
Visit eu.playstation.com to find out more about avatars and the exciting world of PlayStation®Network.
Download of this product is subject to the Sony Entertainment Network Terms of Service/User Agreement and any specific additional conditions applying to this product. If you do not wish to accept these terms, do not download this product. See Terms of Service for more important information.
One time fee for use of downloads on up to 2 activated compatible Home Console systems.
See Health Warnings for important health information before using this product.
Library programs ©Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. exclusively licensed to Sony Computer Entertainment Europe. Software Usage Terms apply, See eu.playstation.com/legal for full usage rights.


text:
Verotti Custom Frameless Square Corner Set-In
Verotti Bathscreen – Fixed & Swing over Bath
Verotti Hex Corner Set In Shower Screen
Verotti Slider Wall to Wall Shower Screen
Verotti Semi Frameless Corner Set in Shower Screen
Verotti Fixed Over Bath Shower Screen
Verotti Fixed Panel Shower Screen
Verotti Square Corner Set In Over Bath Shower Screen
Ventair Airbus 200 Round Exhaust Fan – Low Profile
IXL Tastic Luminate Bathroom Exhaust Fan & Light
IXL Tastic Luminate Dual 3 in 1 Bathroom Heater, Exhaust Fan & Light
IXL Tastic Luminate Single 3 in 1 Bathroom Heater, Exhaust Fan & Light
Vola Basin Tapware
Vola Showers
Vola Accessories
Axor Australia Accessories
Axor Kitchen Mixers Australia
Axor MyEdition Tapware
Axor Montreux
Axor One
AXOR Starck V
Axor Starck
Axor Starck Organic
Axor Massaud Tapware
Axor Urquiola
Axor Uno 2
Axor Citterio
AXOR Citterio E
Axor Shower Select
Axor Citterio M
Axor Electronic Mixers
Axor Shower Solutions
Wall Mounted Basins
Bench Mount Basins
Inset Basins
Undercounter Basins
Semi-Recessed Basins
Freestanding Basins
Pedestal and Metal Console Basins
Bathroom Floormounted Bath and Basin Mixers
Electronic and Sensor Basin Tapware
Basin Mixers
Shower and Bath Mixers
Wall Mixer and Spout
Hob Mixer and Spout
Basin Tap Sets
Bath Outlet Systems
Thermostatic Shower Mixers
Bathroom Bidet Mixers
Double Bowl
Single Bowl
Flushmount Showers
Ceiling Showers
Shower on Rails
Exposed Shower Sets
Outdoor Showers
Twin Shower Sets
Wall Mounted Showers
Traditional Brass Shower Curtain Hook
Delway Brass Type D Shower Curtain Rail
Delway Brass Type E Shower Curtain Rail
Delway Brass Type F Shower Curtain Rail
Delway Brass Type G Shower Curtain Rail for freestanding baths
Delway Brass Type H Shower Curtain Rail for baths
Delway Brass Type K Shower Curtain Rail
Delway Brass Type A Shower Curtain Rail
Delway Brass Type B Shower Curtain Rail
Heated Towel Ladders
Heated Towel Rails
Floor Wastes
Bottle Traps
Plug and Wastes
Pop Up and Down Wastes
Bathroom Urinals
Toto Australia Bidet Toilets
Back to Wall Toilets
Wall Faced Toilets
Wall Mounted Toilets
Bidet Toilets
Traditional Toilets
Duravit Sensowash Toilets
Toilet Push Plates
In Wall Cisterns
Bathroom Shower Screens
Heating and Exhaust Fans
Vola Australia
Axor Australia
Ceramic Butler Sinks
Shower Curtain Rails
Stainless Steel Sinks
Graphite Sinks
Kitchen Mixers
Kitchen Tap Set
Boiling Chilled and Sparkling Water Units
Undermount Sinks
Kitchen Sinks
Kitchen & Laundry Tapware
Kitchen Spares
Replacement Cartridges
Replacement Spindles
Replacement Diverter Pin
Thermostat Spare Parts
Replacement Toilet Seat and Hinges
Replacement Cistern Spares
Toilet Push Plates & Button Spare Parts
Replacement Handshower Piece
Replacement Shower Hoses
Basin Pop up Wastes
Basin Pop Down Wastes
Bespoke Brass Linear Tile Insert Floor Waste
Bespoke Heelguard Linear Floorwaste
Bespoke Tile Insert Brass Square Floorwaste 120mm x 120mm
Incware Balma 100 Round Floor Waste
Bermuda Round Mega Tile Insert Floorwaste Polished Brass
Incware Rimo Round Tile Insert Floor Wastes- Satin Black
Bespoke Heelguard Square Floorwaste
Bespoke Tile Insert 120 x 120mm Square Floorwaste
Incware Classic Square Floor Waste – Polished Brass
Incware Rimo Round Tile Insert Floor Waste – Polished Brass
Bermuda Tile Insert Square Floorwaste
Harbic Halo Square FloorWaste
Incware Rimo Round Tile Insert Waste 125 x 90
Incware Rimo square tile insert floorwaste
Tapware Spare Parts
Toilet Spare Parts
Replacement Shower Parts
Plug And Wastes
Pop Up Wastes
Pop Down Wastes
Parisi Tondo Wall Shower Mixer Small Plate is a chrome product with a knurled lever that operates either a shower or bath mixer. The small round plate keeps it very minimal and elegant.
Warranty: 15 year warranty
Print Details
Add to Wishlist
Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm
Train: 20 minute walk from Mascot Station. 309 bus from Redfern, get off at Botany Rd, Hollingshed St.
Car: 1263 Botany Rd Mascot. Enter Botany Lane via Hollingshed St to access rear parking
Website by TWMG


text:
Find all events on October 2020
Search by Category
Matinee Classic Film
French Film
Documentary Film
Exhibition/Visual Arts events
Courses Film
Spanish & Latin American Film
Special Event/Q&A
Artist Film
Creative Industries
NT Live Film
HOME Theatre
HOME Special Events
Studio Ghibli Forever
Sci-Fi All Nighter
Merry 80s Christmas
Asia Triennial Manchester
Science Fiction Film
Genre 2015
VIVA 2015 Mar
Double Bill
That's a Wrap
HOMEwarming opening weekend
Way Out West
VIVA 2015 Jun
MET Opera Live Film
Big Family Card
Music & Film (Live)
Book Event
HOME Schools & Colleges Programme
Martin Scorsese Presents: Masterpieces of Polish Cinema
Onwards And Outwards
Made in Prague: The New Czech Cinema UK Tour 2015
Black History Month
VIVA 2015 Nov
Manchester Animation Festival
Cafebar event
Weimar Cinema
All Night Long: Heartbreak and Obsession
Group Offer
MMU Theatre Productions
Tour, Exhibition/Visual Art Event
Push Theatre (£2 offer)
Film Hub
James Benning: People & Places
Christmas Film
Jim Allen Retrospective
Hong Kong Crime Season
Manchester Film Festival
20% Ticket Saver
Cuba Now
Viva 2016
Viva 2016 Film Pass
Imitation of Life
Pilot Light Festival
Films Accompanying Exhibition
HOME Theatre Workshop
HOME Family Workshops
Jazz Goes to the Movies
Shakespeare on Screen
Feature Expanded
Orbit Festival 2016
Black Atlantic Cinema Club
Brazilian Weekender
Parent & Baby Film
Soundtrack Season
Almodóvar Season
Dahl on Film
Artist Film Weekender
Secondary - F&M
Secondary - MFL
Berlin Now
Film Fear
Paul Auster: Man of Cinema
Luther Price
Queer Media Festival
French Film Festival
Homeless Film Festival
Korean Film Festival
Black British Breakthroughs
Push Events (£1 offer)
Daydreaming in the City
Roald Dahl
Viva 2017
SICK! Festival
SICK! Double Bill
Milo Rau Film/Theatre Double Bill
Viva 2017 Ticket Deal
Manchester Camerata
Chinese Film
RSC Live Film
ROH Live Film
Japanese Film
Italian Film
British Independent Film
LGBTQ Film
Courses Theatre
Feminist Film
Horror Film
Historical & Archive Film
Music Film
Noir Film
Gothic Film
Animated Film
German Film
Valentine's Day Film
One Hour Intro Film
All Nighter Film
Korean Film
Indian Film
Jewish Film
British Screenwriter Retrospectives Film
American Independent Film
Political & Activist Film
Black History Film
Eastern European Film
Iranian Film
Viva Theatre Double Bill offer
Folk Festival
Short Film Programmes
Scandinavian Film
Orbit Festival 2017
Israeli Film
FLARE17 Festival
Arabic Language Film
Visual Art
Partition Film Season
Season Launch October 2017
Live Accompaniment (Film)
Silent Film
Medievalist Visions
Tim Burton Films
This is Human
Not Just Bollywood
Thai Film
The Return of Memory
Journeys Festival (Film)
Creative Visions: Hong Kong Cinema 1997-2017
Design Manchester: DM17
Revolution Betrayed
Russian Film
States of Danger and Deceit: European Political Thrillers in the 1970s
Spike is 60
Push Screenings
Viva 2018 THEATRE
Jack Rosenthal on Jack Rosenthal Street
(Un)true Colours – Secrets and Lies in Japanese Cinema
Ingmar Bergman Season
New East Cinema
UK Asian Film Festival
One Film Wonders Season
Relaxed Screening
Viva Ticket Deal
Uprising: Spirit of '68
Doc'n Roll Film Fest
Orbit Festival 2018
Louis Henderson: Echos
Season Launch May 2018
Horizons Festival
Incoming Festival
Albert Finney: Son of Salford
Harry Dean Stanton: Wild at Heart season
NHS Film season
France Now Theatre Season
Fashion Film
The Dark Page film season
Agnès Varda: Gleaning Truths film season
One Of Us
Our North: A Season of Films Celebrating Northern-ness
Canada Now
Working Class Heroes Weekend
Engagement/Communities Film
Egyptian Film
Celebrating Syria
Young Programmers screening
Season Launch November 2018
Slapstick genre
Scratch' n Sniff
Relaxed Theatre
Parent & Baby Theatre
Multi-Ticket Deal
Angie Chen
Women, Organise!
Orbit Festival 2019
Celebrating Women in Global Cinema
Season Launch May 2019
David Lynch presents
Pop Stars on Film
Comedy Night
Aperture: Asia & Pacific Film Festival
Hope and Resistance (Literature Festival)
Agent Sales
Ass Kickers Film season
Season Launch November 2019
The Backstage Musical film season
British Screenwriters: Robert Bolt
Manchester Open Exhibition 2020/ Open Door Saturday Tours
Cult Films season
Japan Foundation Touring Film Programme
In Her View: Women Documentary Filmmakers
Adaptation: Impossible Novels Film season
Viva 2020
Period Film
Season Launch March 2020
Orbit Festival 2020
Dementia Friendly Screening
change name
Reel Deal
Season Launch Sep 2020
BFI London Film Festival
October Films (Prioirty Booking)
No events found
Design Manchester: DM17
0 shows found


text:
Eismann wrote:Do it.
OutofFoil wrote:Where's Lesky?
PhantomJB93 wrote:It's not the worst idea in the world but I'm still really bitter towards him for what happened last offseason.
Kovy27 wrote:Does anyone in their right mind think Jagr will ever be in a Pens uniform ever again. No. Get over it. Seriously.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


text:
NEW YORK (MainStreet)While some parents may be breathing a sigh of relief as Gen Y rolls out the door to independence, don't look now: Gen Z is on the couch and in no hurry to leave.
Also see: 7 Steps to Achieving Financial Independence>>
According to the 2nd Annual Generation Z Survey released by TD Ameritrade, nearly two-thirds of 13 to 22 year olds -- the venerable Gen Z -- say they feel welcome to move back in with their parents if things don't go well on their first foray from the nest. But at what age would they be embarrassed to still be living at home? Parents hold your breath, they could be pushing 30. On average, Gen Z says age 28 is the deadline for an exit from home. Nearly nine out of 10 (88%) would be embarrassed to still be living at home at 30, and almost half (49%) said they would feel awkward still being on the couch at age 25.
Also see: Charity Apps: Old Dog, New Blog>>
Not only does Gen Z hope to be out the door and on its own at 28 but that's also the age when they plan to start saving for retirement. Baby Boomers, on average, said they started saving at age 32, but wished they had started saving at age 24, according to TD Ameritrade. Gen Z, are you getting this?
"It's interesting to see that this young generation plans to take a fairly traditional path to their futures, however; the one piece that looks out of place is saving for retirement," says Carrie Braxdale, managing director of investor services for the firm. "Time and time again we hear Baby Boomers say they wish they would have started saving earlier, and the hope is that we can spread the word to Gen Z to start saving as soon as they start working, rather than waiting until they reach other milestones. Even a little bit can go a long way, and the power of compounding interest is an opportunity they do not want to miss out on."
Also see: All the Single-Ladies...Are Home Buyers?>>
This young generation is anticipating a $36,900 annual salary for their first job out of college, a bit below the $44,000 starting salary projected for 2012 grads by the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Yet, they expect their income to $119,000 per year by the time they reach age 60.
--Written by Hal M. Bundrick for MainStreet


text:
Discover - Read Articles and complete quizzes in the snooth library to prove your wine knowledge.
Navigate through snooth flights to discover new wines you'd like to taste.
Living in South Bay California for two years and I'm from Japan. I loves wines and glad to live this area because California has bunch of great affordable wines.
Route 66 Flight
Review a Cabernet Sauvignon, a Zinfandel, and a Chardonnay from California.
Test your wine knowledge
Read articles and successfully complete quizzes to earn trophies.
Taste & Share - Use the Taste button to easily add your wine reviews to your wine rack.
Connect with Facebook to add wine reviews to your Facebook profile.
Connect with Facebook to add wine reviews to your Facebook profile.
Win - Win snooth trophies that showcase your wine experience and knowledge.


text:
Community Intervention Trial for Youth (CITY) Study
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00164580
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : September 14, 2005
Last Update Posted : September 27, 2012
- Study Details
- Tabular View
- No Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
|Condition or disease
|HIV Infections
|Behavioral: Community-Level Intervention
|Phase 2 Phase 3
In recent years, there have been increases in the rates of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) reported by men who have sex with men (MSM) and in the numbers of newly diagnosed HIV infections among MSM. Surveys of young MSM (ages 15-29) in numerous U.S. cities from 1994-2000 found an HIV prevalence of 2.2% to 18%, however, HIV prevalence was higher among young MSM of color than among white men. In a survey of 23-29 year-old MSM,nearly 1/3 of African-American men and 15% of Hispanic/Latino men were infected with HIV.
The Community Intervention Trial for Youth (CITY) study is a 13-community randomized control trial designed to evaluate a multi-component, community-level intervention for MSM ages 15-25 (i.e., young MSM or YMSM). All 13 communities have some form of HIV-prevention activities naturally occurring in their jurisdiction, but 6 of the 13 communities were randomly assigned to also receive the multi-component intervention (1 additional city served as a case study and also received the intervention). This intervention includes 4 components: 1) community health advisor network (CHAN) consisting of YMSM who conduct outreach to their peers, including linking other YMSM to community services and conducting other parts of the intervention; 2) social marketing, to include the use media to disseminate HIV risk-reduction messages and promote positive norms for safer sex; 3) large group events with an HIV prevention theme; and 4) small group activities/workshops that focus on increasing HIV prevention skills and enhancing a positive self-identity.
The study population varies by site based on the specific racial or ethnic groups of YMSM that are targeted. African-American YMSM are the study population in Atlanta, Georgia (comparison site); Birmingham, Alabama (intervention site); and Chicago, Illinois (intervention site). Hispanic/Latino YMSM are the study population in Washington Heights/South Bronx, New York (intervention site); Jackson Heights/Queens, New York (comparison site); Orange County, California (intervention site); and San Gabriel Valley, California (comparison site). Asian and Pacific Islander YMSM are the study population in Seattle, Washington (intervention site) and San Diego, California (comparison site). YMSM regardless or race/ethnicity are the study population in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (intervention site); Detroit, Michigan (comparison site), Minneapolis, Minnesota (comparison site); and West Hollywood, California (intervention site).
The primary goals of the intervention are to 1) decrease UAI with any male partners; 2) decrease UAI with main male partners; and 3) decrease UAI with non-main (i.e., casual) male partners. Using a venue-based, time/space sampling strategy in each community, cross-sectional samples of YMSM were interviewed from May-August across 4 years (1999-2002). Data collected in 1999 and 2000 were prior to the implementation of the multi-component intervention, and data collected in 2001 and 2002 were during the implementation of the intervention.
|Study Type :
|Interventional (Clinical Trial)
|Enrollment :
|12000 participants
|Intervention Model:
|Parallel Assignment
|None (Open Label)
|Primary Purpose:
|Official Title:
|Prevention of HIV Infection in Youth at Risk: Developing Community-Level Intervention Strategies That Work (Community Intervention Trial for Youth (CITY) Study)
|Study Start Date :
|October 1996
|Actual Primary Completion Date :
|August 2002
|Actual Study Completion Date :
|August 2004
- 1) unprotected anal intercourse with a male partner in the past 3 months
- 2) unprotected anal intercourse at last sex with a main male partner (among participants with a male sex partner in the past 3 months and in the past year)
- 3) unprotected anal intercourse at last sex with the most recent non-main male partner (among participants with a male sex partner in the past 3 months and in the past year)
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.
|Ages Eligible for Study:
|15 Years to 25 Years (Child, Adult)
|Sexes Eligible for Study:
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Inclusion Criteria:
- 15-25 years of age
- reports having sexual contact with another man in the past year
- meets the race/ethnicity eligibility criteria for the particular community
Exclusion Criteria:
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00164580
|United States, Alabama
|University of Alabama - Birmingham
|Birmingham, Alabama, United States, 35294
|United States, California
|Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
|Los Angeles, California, United States, 90027
|University of California-San Francisco, Center for AIDS Prevention Studies
|San Francisco, California, United States, 94105
|United States, Georgia
|Georgia State University
|Atlanta, Georgia, United States, 30303
|United States, Illinois
|University of Illinois at Chicago
|Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60607
|United States, Massachusetts
|Education Development Center
|Newton, Massachusetts, United States, 02158
|United States, Minnesota
|University of Minnesota Youth and AIDS Projects
|Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, 55403
|United States, Wisconsin
|Medical College of Wisconsin, Center for AIDS Intervention Research
|Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States, 53202
|Principal Investigator:
|Carolyn A Guenther-Grey, M.A.
|Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
|Responsible Party:
|Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
|Other Study ID Numbers:
|First Posted:
|September 14, 2005 Key Record Dates
|Last Update Posted:
|September 27, 2012
|Last Verified:
|September 2012
Homosexuality, Male
Minority Groups
Community Participation
Community Surveys
HIV Seronegativity
HIV Infections
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Lentivirus Infections
Retroviridae Infections
RNA Virus Infections
Virus Diseases
Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Viral
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes
Immune System Diseases
Slow Virus Diseases


text:
This pot stands around 17-19cm tall and holds up to £500 in gold coins.
The colour of pots might vary slightly from the image shown on our website due to limitations of browser software and colour settings on your screen
If you would like your money pot personalised please select the 'Personalised' option and add the details in the text boxes provided. Please note delivery of personalised money pots will be around 7 - 10 days. We will always endeavour to get personalised items to you more quickly but we cannot guarantee delivery for specific dates.
Please note that the maximum number of words you can fit on a pot for personalisation varies according to the pot design. We can only put words and/or numbers on a pot.
If the pot is plain we can put two words on the front and three words on the back of the pot.
If there is a raised design on the front of the pot we will be able to put one word below the design (nothing above or inside) and three words on the back of the pot.
If there is a raised design that covers the whole pot we can only add one word of personalisation and this will go on the front of the pot.
If we have any queries with the personalisation you have requested we will contact you before processing your order. Please note that this may delay your order.
PLEASE PLEASE ensure all spellings and dates are correct when you place your order. We have many personalised moneypot orders to process and unfortunately cannot check that every detail is correct before processing.
Please note: personalisation is done directly by Terramundi and is at their total discretion. We reserve the right to reject a personalisation request if it is deemed to be inappropriate for any reason. This does not happen very often but please be aware that the artist's decision is final.
No posts found


text:
Prices incl. VAT plus shipping costs
Ready to ship within 3-6 workdays
Unfortunately we cannot accept any orders at the moment. Thank you very much for your understanding.
- Order number: 043-10-70102-c-12
Nativity figurines have a certain size scale. The size scale is measured in cm. The size scale shown on the website is the actual size of a standing human being of this series. Most of nativtiy scenes have a standing Joseph figurine that has this actual size in cm. All other figurines are crafted according to this scale. Meaning that a sheep is much smaller although it has the size/scale of 10cm. A carved camel on the other hand with a size scale of 10cm is larger than 10cm. The scale ensures that the figurines all together create a 100% realistic scene. Also the stables are crafted with a certain scale.
The nativity figurines are available with different finishes and colours. Most pictures of nativity scenes on the website show the multicolour finishes, but most series are available in several different finishes.
The finish "natural" means that the the natural wood is without any finish as it comes out of the carvers hands. Multicolored mangar figurines are painted with oil colors by hand. Depending on the nativity set more or less intensive colors are used.
Some nativity sets we offer are available with stained and multiple stained finishes. Stained figurines also receive are wax finish. and have a browner colour than regular natural wood figurines. Multiple staining creates several different brown shades.


text:
New products introduced over the last week include a new hypothetical portfolio-building tool from Franklin Templeton and a strategic partnership between Private Client Resources and Argus Research Group.
In addition, LPL Financial added Alliant Credit Union to its institutions-services platform.
Here are the latest developments of interest to advisors:
1) New Hypotheticals Tool from Franklin Templeton
Franklin Templeton Investments introduced a new online tool for creating presentations on hypothetical portfolios: Advantage Hypotheticals.
The tool, available only to financial advisors, allows each user to build hypothetical portfolios of Franklin, Templeton and Mutual series funds, as well as funds from other fund companies in a single report.
Advantage Hypotheticals has an intuitive four-step process. Financial advisors select the investments, which can include Franklin Templeton funds, market indices or funds from other firms to include in their client's portfolio.
To build the hypothetical portfolio, the advisor provides specific parameters such as investment amount, time periods and distribution instructions.
To evaluate the results, each advisor reviews a detailed analysis that includes performance, portfolio holdings, correlation, diversification, alpha, beta, capture ratios, risk comparison, and fund-by-fund investment details. A simple click creates a client-ready presentation that is customized with the financial advisor's contact information, their client's name and the report components the advisor selected.
2) PCR Announces Strategic Partnership with Argus Research
Private Client Resources (PCR) has entered into a strategic partnership with Argus Research Group that will allow users of PCR's Palette Platform to add independent analyst-driven research on more than 400 U.S. equities into the mix when conducting risk analysis, constructing portfolios and implementing strategy decisions.
The strategic partnership with Argus Research is the latest evolution of PCR's platform, which delivers capabilities including aggregated data, premium reporting, risk analysis, CRM, invoicing and more, while allowing users to access only those capabilities they want and need in a fully integrated package.
3) LPL Financial Adds $8.2 Billion Credit Union to Platform
Independent broker-dealer LPL Financial (LPLA) said Monday that it added Alliant Credit Union to its institutions-services platform. Based in Chicago, Alliant Credit Union is the sixth-largest U.S. credit union with $8.2 billion in assets.
"LPL Financial is an industry leader in helping banks and credit unions expand their capabilities, discover new avenues for revenue growth and become more profitable. We are especially pleased to offer our services to so prominent and well-established an institution as Alliant Credit Union," said Andy Kalbaugh, managing director at LPL Financial Institution Services, in a press release.
In total, LPL Financial, led by Mark Casady, says it serves over 685 banks and credit unions with brokerage, trust and wealth management services. (The unit provides third-party brokerage, wealth management and trust services to investment programs of banks and credit unions.)
Read the full story at AdvisorOne.
Read the Nov. 16 Portfolio Products Roundup at AdvisorOne.com.