Archive for July, 2009
How is the principle of segregation shown in a dihybrid cross?
The principle of segregation states states that an individual inherits a unit of information (allele) about a trait from each parent. During gamete formation, the alleles segregate from each other.
A dihybrid cross is AaBb x AaBb
but how is it SHOWN?
The classic way of diagramming the segregated alleles from both parents is with a punnett square. A punnet square is just a standard table to keep track of the variables (parental alleles) and to track the resulting gamete combinations in the cross. The columns are one parents alleles and the rows are the other parents. The contents of the table are the possible offspring combinations. Look over the next pages, they explain how to draw the table using different words and images.
http://www.science.orst.edu/bi10x/otherresources/punnett%20squares.htm
http://slms.leesummit.k12.mo.us/wdryerjr/Punnett%20Squares.htm
http://www.changbioscience.com/genetics/punnett.html
http://www.compumike.com/science/geneticspunnett2.gif
http://www.travismulthaupt.com/page13/files/Chapter11_Section02_edit.ppt
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 27 2009 | Cross | 2 Comments »
In what ways does it differ from "regular" non-orthodox dates? Is there a difference when those in 40’s dating vs. younger couple in their 20’s?
In general, since boys and girls do not mingle, prospective matches are suggested by a third party. This can be a relative, a friend who has a cousin, a parent’s friend who knows another friend’s child, or a professional matchmaker, or "shadchan" in Hebrew. A match is called a "shidduch," and a person who is interested in getting married through this system is said to be "in shidduchim."
In my case, a cousin of mine was at a Shabbat meal with an unattached eligible young man, thought of me, and as they say, the rest is history.
For young daters, just "on the market," usually the parents handle the dating process. Protocol states that the match be suggested to the boy’s side first. The parents will listen, call the references, call other people who might know the girl or her family, and discuss with their son how to proceed. Once the boy’s parents give an affirmative answer, the matchmaker calls the girl’s parents and presents the boy and all his information to them. The same thing happens with the girl and her parents, and when the answer is yes, they are interested in meeting each other and a date is set up.
Basic information includes looks, schools attended, future plans, family background, siblings names and schools attended(ing), personality, job, etc. This way one can be sure that the prospective couples are on the same page and are looking for the same thing out of life before they become emotionally involved.
Sometimes the boy will call the girl to set up a date, but I always preferred to have the matchmaker set up the date and not to speak on the phone before meeting the boy.
A date is considered formal, and most boys will show up dressed in a suit and tie (and hat, if they are more religious), freshly shaven and showered. The girl usually spends hours getting ready. I have a friend who gets her hair done for each date.
The boy will often rent a car to impress his date, and will show up at her parents’ home, or at a prearranged place. The girl’s parents usually like to meet the boy first, spend a few minutes talking and getting to know him, while the girl finishes up her last minute preparations. Then she makes her appearance, they say goodbye to her parents, and go out to his car.
This is the first chance they really get to speak to each other privately (assuming there was no phone call), but they usually spend the first half hour to an hour warming up, talking about mundane things, camp experiences, school stories, learning partners, etc. Sometimes they don’t even talk about the future on the first date – they just try to see if they get along, like each other, and have potential to continue. For a first date, a lounge or hotel lobby is usually the norm.
I must note that there is no touching whatsoever – that has to wait until they are actually married. This ensures that a decision can be made clear-headedly, without emotions getting in the way.
After 2 – 3 hours or so, the boy will drive the girl back to her house. They will both think over the date and decide whether or not they would like to continue seeing each other. I never said no after a first date unless I really had a reason to, and most people won’t either. It’s hard to tell things about a person after just one evening together, especially if you didn’t even talk about anything marriage-minded. When they have an answer, the boy’s side calls the matchmaker and lets him/her know, and the matchmaker calls the girl’s side to hear their answer. If they are both willing to continue, the matchmaker sets up another date.
This pattern continues, until around the fourth or fifth date, when the couple feels comfortable enough to set up their own dates. Phone numbers are usually exchanged, and the couple now speak on the phone in between dates as well. By this time, the dates take place at restaurants, at baseball games, at bowling alleys, or anyplace one can have a good time and still "spend time" with someone. There is still no touching at all.
If everything goes well, and the couple decides they have potential to make a good home together, the parents will usually meet to discuss financial arrangements. If everything is satisfactory, often all that is left is the proposal! Once that happens, it’s "L’chaim!" and the engagement is made public.
During the engagement, the couple will usually see each other once or twice a week, and speak on the phone slightly more often. It is difficult to see and spend time with the person you are going to marry and not touch each other, so engagement periods are usually kept short.
The couple don’t see or speak to each other for the entire week preceding the wedding.
For older couples, in their 40’s or so, it is acceptable to meet at social events, or to be introduced by a mutual friend rather than through the shidduch system. At this point, they are considered old enough to know what they want and usually handle the reference-checking and suggestion-wielding on their own.
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 24 2009 | Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Like in Eastern Europe you see Eastern Christianity or Eastern Orthodox. Is that a different religion or is it just Roman Catholic but with different ways of worship. Like stricter Catholic.
Thanks.
The Eastern Orthodox church is the same church established by Christ. While it is similar to Roman Catholicism in many ways, the liturgy is very different, and they differ on several doctrines. The schism had its roots early in the middle ages as the two churches developed different styles of worship ( involving matters like the language of worship and the type of bread to be used in the Eucharist. In the west, many people added the words "And The Son" to the Nicene creed regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. While the intent was to cement the divinity of Christ and combat Arianism, it essentially made the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father and the Son. In Orthodox triadology, any given trait most be common to all three persons of the Trinity or unique to one. By saying that the Father and Son had the procession of the Holy Spirit, those who supported the Filioque clause committed grave heresy. Later Pope Leo III added the clause to the creed. While the churches remained united for many years, eventually they fell apart, culminating with mutual excommunication of the pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Later, separate the churches drifted further apart doctrinally on issues like Clerical Celibacy, Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, Original Sin, and the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. I hope this helps.
RE: Reason Vs. Faith. Orthodox do believe in the virgin birth as an essential doctrine.
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 24 2009 | Catholic | 11 Comments »
This isn’t an request for help so much as a "what-if" question. If you were to encounter a Christian in a calm setting on friendly terms, with a reasonable amount of time and with the goal of "converting" them to atheism, how would you go about doing so? (Obviously, there are loads of Christian sects, and "Christian" is fairly generic. For the sake of the question, Catholic or Protestant would be good starts.)
In a similar vein, if you’re religious: How would you bring an atheist to Christianity? How would you convert a Christian to Judaism? Islam?
i am a muslim
i will give him links like these
list of Youtube videos of professors and scientists who converted to Islam.
http://talk.islamicnetwork.com/showthrea…
why all these people r converting to islam
new muslims convert
http://www.muslimvideo.com/tv/5/New_Musl…
watch this please
Islam overwhelming the world
http://www.quranclub.net/2009/06/allah-h…
now let us talk about proofs
i will give u proofs that make islam is the truth
Quran Miracles encyclopdia
http://www.55a.net/firas/en1/
The Proof That Islam Is The Truth – Abdur-Raheem Green
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=…
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=…
Twelve Proofs that Muhammad is a True Prophet
http://www.freewebs.com/katab/7th.htm
but we muslims call all people religious and non religious
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 24 2009 | Christian | 23 Comments »
my computer let me know there was an update for the computer, which was for the hp advisor, as soon i as i downloaded it i noticed that the icon pictures where blank pictures. i managed to fix them. but now the welcome center icon is blank. how i can i return the icon picture to the welcome center icon picture? thanks.
right click icon select properties select change
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 24 2009 | Icon | 1 Comment »
I am editing a photo and I want to put a bible verse on the photo.
A verse of being lonely and sad (specifically that) and a verse about how God will always be there. But it needs to have the word ‘always’ in it.
Sorry that, that is so specific but that is what I need.
Thank you!
Well a popular one, and my favourite verse also is Joshua 1 9
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.
Sorry I couldn’t get another one…I haven’t been reading too much 
oh and this one too:
‘I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” Hebrews 13:5
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 18 2009 | Bible | 1 Comment »
I know of many schisms,but what churches are in FULL communion with each other? Am I right,are there 4 patriarchs in the eastern orthodox faith still?Or was it reduced to 3 or less?
Thanks a bunch,
May the Lord’s peace be upon you
Markie
Churches may be autocephalous (having their own ruling hierarch elected by that jurisdiction) and autonomous (running their own affairs, but chief hierarch is elected by an overseeing jurisdiction) churches.
All of these below are in full communion (barring some local spats that occur from time to time):
====== ( all from Wikipeda) ===========
The autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches
(ranked in order of seniority)
1. The Church of Constantinople, under the Ecumenical Patriarch
2. The Church of Alexandria
3. The Church of Antioch
4. The Church of Jerusalem
5. The Church of Russia (est. 1589)
6. The Church of Serbia (est. 1219)
7. The Church of Romania (est. 1925)
8. The Church of Bulgaria (est. 927)
9. The Church of Georgia (est. 337; 325 in the western part of Georgia)
10. The Church of Cyprus (est. 434)
11. The Church of Greece (est. 1850)
12. The Church of Poland (est. 1924)
13. The Church of Albania (est. 1937)
14. The Church of Czech and Slovak lands (est. 1951)
15. The Orthodox Church in America (est. 1972; autocephaly not universally recognized)
The four ancient patriarchates are most senior, followed by the five junior patriarchates. Autocephalous churches whose leaders are archbishops follow the patriarchates in seniority, with the Church of Cyprus being the only ancient one (AD 434). From the Orthodox point of view there would be five ancient patriarchates had the Great Schism not occurred, severing the Church of Rome from the Orthodox Churches in the 11th century.
The autonomous Eastern Orthodox churches
* under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
o The Finnish Orthodox Church
o The Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church†
o The Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe†
* under the Patriarchate of Antioch
o The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
* under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem
o The Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai
* under the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia
o The Estonian Orthodox Church†
o The Latvian Orthodox Church
o The Moldovan Orthodox Church
comprises 60% of Moldovan Orthodox
o The Ukrainian Orthodox Church
o The Japanese Orthodox Church†
o The Chinese Orthodox Church†
o The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia†
* under the Patriarchate of Peć and All Serbia
o The Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric†
* under the Patriarchate of Romania
o The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia
comprises 23% of Moldovan Orthodox or 1 million in 2004; stayed under the Patriarchate of Romania after Imperial Russia annexed Bessarabia in 1812
†autonomy not universally recognized
The Eastern Orthodox churches without autonomy
* under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
o The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy
o The Korean Orthodox Church
o The Philippine Orthodox Church
o The Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America
o The American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
o The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
o The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
======
The four senior Orthodox partiarchates of the East still exist;
they are 1-4 in the "autocephalous" list above.
Constantinople
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 18 2009 | Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Sometimes people don’t always get it right when quoting verses from the Bible.
Do you think there could be some major consequences if someone quotes verses from the Bible but they didn’t quite say it right?
For example they may have gotten one or two words wrong or even twisted the meaning around.
Could misquoted Bible text have the power to lead somebody else astray?
Yes! It is important.
Using a certain translation can help, depending on the person, culture and language.
One thing that is also important, is the context in which the quote is. It is good to do a study on something that you may be quoting, teaching or explaining.
Know the author, its background, the authors background, the context of the quote, as well as word uses and meanings.
When getting the context, it can be good to read the chapter before and after the passage being quoted. It helps to grasp the ideas a bit better.
Some good things to use if you would like to do a in depth study are…
-A Commentary or Study Notes
I use this one (http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm) and a few others. SonicLight is online and free in PDF format. McArthur Commentary or Ryrie Study Bible is also another good one.
-A Strong’s Concordance
It can help with understanding words that are used in a specific translation at times (NKJV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NET). It will give you the words root in either its ancient hebrew or ancient greek. From there, you can find the meaning of the specific word and its variants. As well, it can show how many times something shows up in scripture.
-A Good Translation
NASB is considered the most literal as far as translation goes. NIV is good for general audiences. NASB is suggested for Old Testament study and NIV or NASB or NET can be good for NIV.
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 16 2009 | Bible | 6 Comments »
The protestant Bibles has only a total of 66 books and the Catholics has more than this. Are these books found also in the Dead Sea as the scrolls and are these books verifiable as to its authenticity?
Well, first – MOST Protestant bibles have only 66 books. Some have *more* books than Roman Catholic bibles, particular the bibles of the very large Anglican Communion
http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_scriptures_d.html
But – to answer your question
* Martin Luther in 1534 was the first to produce a bible with a separate section titled "Apocrypha". Though Luther considered the Scriptures of the Apocrypha to be uninspired – as also James, Esther and Revelation – he never omitted those Scriptures from any of his bibles, and claimed that they were useful for study.
* The first printed English bible (1535) followed Luther’s use of a section called "Apocrypha", including all of the Scriptures commonly found in contemporary Latin Vulgates.
* 1563 the 39 Articles established for the Anglican Communion which books belonged in the bible. Every book was named, and the Apocrypha was specifically indicated to be uninspired but useful for study.
* 1564 the council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church established their modern biblical canon, rejecting 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. Interestingly, the contents of the Roman Catholic bible are identical with Luther’s, though Roman Catholic bibles do not have an "Apocrypha" section.
* In the 1590s, the Protestants were the first group in any language to produce a bible without the Apocrypha (source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). This practice caught on among other Protestant sects and in other languages afterward.
2) Are these books found also in the Dead Sea as the scrolls and are these books verifiable as to its authenticity?
3 of the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonical books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are Baruch, Tobit and (I believe) Ecclesiasticus. It should be noted, though, that many of the fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls have yet to be identified. Also, no fragment of the book of Esther has yet been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I know that 1 Maccabees has a historical error, disagreeing with both 2 Maccabees and with history regarding the time of death of Antiochus IV. I know of no other certain error in any of the Apocrypha.
Jim
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 16 2009 | Protestant | 12 Comments »
My fiancee and I are having a terrible time trying to schedule our wedding- the priest doesn’t have time to marry us until next June!
The church offered the services of the permanent deacon to perform our wedding. I’ve never been to a Catholic wedding performed by a deacon- how would it be different? Is it still a sacramental marriage? Obviously it cannot be a full Mass, but can we still share the Eucharist with our guests?
The deacon cannot consecrate the Eucharist but he should be able to distribute Communion from the Tabernacle. Be sure to ask.
Just about everything else is the same.
With love in Christ.
powered by Yahoo Answers
July 16 2009 | Catholic | 4 Comments »
« Prev - Next »