Name this molecule. You must be specific but we don't need the full correct scientific name. (If you know it then please post it.)
The structure of yeast RNA polymerase II was solved by Roger Kornberg [Nobel Laureate: Roger Kornberg]. There are many different polypeptide subunits labelled Rpb1 to Rpb12 in the nomenclature used by yeast workers. The mammalian enzyme is very similar. Most of the same subunits are present but they have different names.
Recall that mammals have four different RNA polymerases [Eukaryotic RNA Polymerases]. Both RNA polymerase I and RNA polymerase III have homologous large A and B subunits. The genes for these polypeptides are called POLR1A (194 KDa, chromosome 2p11.2), POLR1B (128 KDa, chromosome 2q13), POLR3A (155 KDa, chromosome 10q22-q23), and POLR3B (~120 KDa, chromosome 12q23.3). As is the case with the large subunits of RNA polymerase II, none of these genes are associated with metabolic diseases because they are essential, important housekeeping genes.
The "A" and "B" genes have evolved independently by divergence. In such cases the family members are often on different chromosomes and the intron-exon organization of each member is very different in spite of the fact that the genes are still closely related in amino acid sequence. My position is not that most creationists are engineers or even that engineering predisposes one to Creationism. In fact, most engineers are not Creationists and more well-educated people are less predisposed to Creationism, the points the statistics in the study bear out. My position was that of those Creationists who presented themselves with professional credentials, or with training that they wished to represent as giving them competence to be critics of Evolution while offering Creationism as the alternative, a significant number turned out to be engineers.This is the so-called "soft" version of the conjecture. The "hard" version is that there is something about being an engineer that leads one to become a creationist. That's not what Bruce said,
For a long the so-called "soft" hypothesis is the one I have been putting forth, not the one earlier attributed to me. I have also further qualified it by saying numerous times that religious belief was the most significant factor. The reason I prefer to call my idea a "conjecture" is that I have had only anecdotal data to support it.The Salem Hypothesis has its own entry on Wikipedia [Salem Hypothesis]. Both versions of the Salem Conjecture are listed there. The talk.origins Jargon File is incorrect because it only lists the hard version and attributes it to Bruce Salem.
By your own admission you are running the risk of becoming yet another data point for something called the "Salem Hypothesis" or "Salem Conjecture" in which I noticed some time ago the number of people publically supporting Creationism whether in Creationist publications or this group claiming to be "scientists" were mostly engineers. Most of them had little knowledge of the scientific disciplines that relate to the scientific acceptance of evolution and an old earth. Many people have noticed subsequently that while engineers as a group seem more inclined as a majority to believe Darwin, those with a background in certain religions and those concerned with intelligent design seemed predisposed to acceptThis morning Larry Faraman, the author of the blog I'm From Missouri, posted this message [The Salem Hypothesis].
Creationism or the arguments that support it.
I have been aware for a long time that engineers have an especially strong tendency to be skeptical of Darwinism, but I just now learned that this tendency has a name: the "Salem hypothesis." I am especially interested in this tendency because I am an engineer myself ....The irony is palpable. Mr. Faraman, an engineer, is skeptical of evolutionary biology and, by implication, most of the rest of science. On the other hand, he's not the least bit skeptical of creationism. Another solid data point for the Salem Conjecture. In this case, it's the "hard" version that Mr. Faraman is supporting. He claims that training in technology predisposes one to believe in superstitious nonsense. Maybe he's right. I look forward to hearing from other engineers on this point.
I feel that the reason why we engineers tend to be skeptical of Darwinism is that we are a logical, practical, no bullshit, cut the malarkey, "I'm from Missouri," "show me" kind of people.
I've prepared a table of the number and types of gene on each human chromosome based on the data at the Ensembl site managed by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge UK.| Chr. | Size (kb) | Protein known | Protein novel | Pseudo- genes | miRNA | rRNA | snRNA | snoRNA | other RNA | Total Genes |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 X Y | 247,249,719 242,951,149 199,501,827 191,273,063 180,857,866 170,899,992 158,821,424 146,274,826 140,273,252 135,374,737 134,452,384 132,349,534 114,142,980 106,368,585 100,338,915 88,827,254 78,774,742 76,117,153 63,811,651 62,435,964 46,944,323 49,691,432 154,913,754 57,772,954 | 2,146 1,375 1,111 828 922 1,103 984 736 921 819 1,390 1,088 358 661 657 915 1,232 293 1,428 612 271 509 878 86 | 54 84 47 59 63 29 68 32 38 35 52 51 10 28 65 49 60 20 49 15 23 26 37 27 | 159 40 45 32 23 81 48 19 66 52 61 38 41 25 34 25 56 8 45 29 9 39 80 2 | 43 23 24 21 19 17 31 17 26 16 19 21 14 51 15 14 32 5 71 16 7 15 58 6 | 42 24 21 13 22 16 14 14 11 17 19 15 9 14 6 13 10 42 6 8 10 2 19 6 | 178 116 89 81 74 82 64 61 43 64 51 77 29 42 43 39 47 12 14 32 5 18 64 14 | 60 37 30 16 18 25 27 21 15 8 40 21 12 56 95 14 29 12 12 16 5 11 25 3 | 93 74 66 58 67 56 62 39 47 42 47 65 34 38 35 31 52 21 18 34 6 20 48 2 | 2,616 1,733 1,388 1,076 1,185 1,328 1,250 920 1,101 1,001 1,618 1,338 466 890 916 1,075 1,462 401 1,598 733 325 601 1,129 140 |
Hop on over to Pharyngula where PZ Myers is pointing out the deficiencies of an IDiot school teacher in Colorado [What's the matter with Colorado?]. 
The number of genes in the human genome flutuates on a monthly basis as the genome annotators add new genes and remove false positives. It's an ongoing process that's not likely to be complete in the near future.
I received this warning in an email message from a friend.Ever wonder what is on your magnetic key card?Snopes debunks this urban myth at [Card Sharks].Answer:When you turn them in to the front desk your personal information is there for any employee to access by simply scanning the card in the hotel scanner.
a. Customer's name
b. Customer's partial home address
c. Hotel room number
d. Check-in date and out dates. Customer's credit card number and expiration date!
An employee can take a hand full of cards home and using a scanning device, access the information onto a laptop computer and go shopping at your expense.
Simply put, hotels do not erase the information on these cards until an employee re-issues the card to the next hotel guest.
At that time, the new guest's information is electronically "overwritten" on the card and the previous guest's information is erased in the overwriting process.
But until the card is rewritten for the next guest, it usually is kept in a drawer at the front desk with YOUR INFORMATION ON IT!
The bottom line is:
Keep the cards, take them home with you, or destroy them.
In January 2006, Computerworld investigated the key card rumors by collecting and examining over100 hotel card keys and found no personally identifiable information on any of them:As part of a Computerworld investigation into the allegations, reporters and other staff members who traveled last fall brought back 52 hotel card keys over a six-week period. The cards came from a wide range of hotels and resorts, from Motel 6 to Hyatt Regency and Disney World. We scanned them using an ISO-standard card reader from MagTek Inc. in Carson,We also purchased our own MagTek card scanner and have scanned several dozen magnetic room keys we acquired during our various hotel stays over the last few years and likewise found not a single key with any personal information stored on it.Calif. — the type anyone could buy online.
We then sent the cards to Terry Benson, engineering group leader at MagTek, for a more in-depth examination using specialized equipment. MagTek also gathered cards from its own staff. In all, 100 cards were tested.
Most cards were completely unreadable with an off-the-shelf card reader. Neither Benson nor Computerworld found any personally identifiable information on them. Based on these results, we think it's unlikely that hotel guests in the U.S. will find any personal information on their hotel card keys
Nevertheless, the rumor dies hard. In a followup report consumeraffairs.com claims that there have been instances of personal information stored on a hotel key card [Hotel Key Cards: Identity Theft Risk or Not? "Mythbusters" Aside, the Answer's Not Clear-Cut]. In some cases it's because thieves have stolen hotel key cards and entered stolen credit card information so the key cards can be used as fake credit cards. In other cases, it appears there were hotels that encoded personal information in the past. (These reports sound a lot like hearsay.) 
The figure on the left is taken from a review in Science magazine written by Aaron Klug (A Marvellous Machine for Making Messages). It shows the structure of the RNA polymerase II complex (Eukaryotic RNA polymerases) associated with a DNA:RNA hybrid that Kornberg's lab synthesized. They solved the structure of the co-crystal.
The "bridge" part of the enzyme is required for the translocation step. This is the step following addition of a ribonucleotide when the enzyme has to shift by one nucleotide (base pair) to the right. The new 3′ end of RNA has to be re-positioned at the active site during this shift. At the same time, one base pair of DNA is unwound by the "fork" region of the enzyme and one base pair is reformed at the back end of the bubble by the "zipper" region.Gnatt, A.L., Cramer, P. , Fu, J., Bushnell, D.A., and Kornberg, R.D. (2001) Structural Basis of Transcription: An RNA Polymerase II Elongation Complex at 3.3 Å Resolution. Science 292:1876 - 1882.
Cramer, P. , Bushnell, S.A. and Kornberg, D.A. (2001) Structural Basis of Transcription: RNA Polymerase II at 2.8 Ångstrom Resolution. Science 292:1863 - 1876.
Menu Foods is a company that makes pet food. Their headquarters is in Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) not far from where I live. The plants that make the pet food are located in the USA.“Our hypothesis is that it is that ingredient that in fact represents the highest probability as to the cause,” Henderson said. “But we have been unable to prove that through scientific information.”The wheat was supplied by a manufacturer in Kansas.
It breaks my heart every time I hear of another pet dying from the 60 million tainted cans and pouches of wet dog and cat food that has been recalled. I get outraged when I realize that there is very little legal recourse that can be taken because animals are considered property rather than a member of the family. Shit! I’ve had some pets I’ve liked better than some members of my family!If it's true that Menu Foods tested animals months ago and discovered that one in six were killed by their food then we have a real scandal. But I can't find any confirmation of that fact except a quotation from some FDA official who doesn't give a source.
It’s been a week since Menu Foods of Canada, told the public of the danger that face their pets if they eat their food sold in the the U.S. under almost 100 different names and they aren’t any closer to finding out what is causing animals to die from kidney failure! What amazes me are the stats released yesterday, which show the company tested the food months ago and one out of six animals died from eating the food! ONE OUT OF SIX! Wasn’t that enough reason to keep the product off the market?
British paper currency — the 10-pound note — features Charles Darwin. (The custom is that the notes all have the Queen on one side and a famous Briton on the other. The notes are in denominations 5, 10, 20, and 50; there are no 1-pound or 2-pound paper notes, these are coins).Is it just me or has Dembski changed in the past few years? I don't think he used to be so anti-Darwin. I thought he was above the petty name-calling that has characterized many of his fellow travellers.
A couple of days ago the Bank of England issued a new 20-pound note, using new security features, and took the occasion to change the “famous person.” This is a news-worthy cause for British Darwin-doubters, who should urge that Darwin be dumped from the 10-pound note whenever there is a new security-upgrade version, on grounds that he is the chief prophet of the materialist religion, and his presence on the 10-pound note is an inappropriate endorsement of that materialist religion and its related anti-religious ferment. Now, it’s true that Britain has no 1st Amendment, but still, Britain is trying to be multi-cultural. A part of the effort could include a long list of choice inflammatory quotes from the new anti-religion books currently out in the bookstores (and in Darwin’s own writings — see the previous post here at UD); the effort could point out that the government, by honoring Darwin, implicitly lends its prestige to their venom.
A worthy replacement on the 10-pound note would be William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery crusader, particularly in light of the new movie. As it happens the Fabian Society is also in favor of dumping Darwin, and offers Wilberforce as a possible new famous person — at least, that is what one website says. Thus, this effort would also kick-off a comparison of what good has been brought to the world by these two people — Darwin vs. Wilberforce. Nazi Eugenics vs. the abolition of slavery. Is there really any contest?
Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”
In other words, promote a boycott of the Darwin 10-pound note because it promotes racism. It’s like putting Robert E. Lee on the ten-dollar bill because he was a great general, and ignoring the cause he served. This would work particularly well because the goal of the Fabians and other multiculturalists is to re-define Britain to be racially-inclusive. Thus there is a particular reason to highlight the racism of Darwin and get rid of him.
This would also be a good way to start a counter-reaction to the ‘Darwin Deification’ that we are going to get in 2009. Deifying Darwin is contrary to the multicultural goal of the British intelligentia, and it encourages the worst anti-religious bigotry of Dawkins et al.
