My first and strongest connection with this statement goes back to when the class discussed viruses. There are things that are alive and things that are dead. The exception is viruses, which as a means to stay (for better or worse ways to word it) stay alive- so to speak, they latch on to hosts, multiply, and spread. I had a question though. I've been told that the reason why curing cancer is so difficult is that since the cells in cancer changes, which makes any medical treatment hard enough, my question is if cancer was to not change, and stay the same form of cells that is is, would a cure have been made long ago.

This was a striking sentence for me. I was unaware that there are some forms of cancer cells that go undetected by the bodies natural immune system. The fact that cancer cells are able to, in a sense, not listen to the "turn off switch" reminds me a bit when we talked about lactose, and how some people who are unable to ingest dairy is because the gene which is "turned on" and "turned off at birth, my connection is how for people who are able to eat dairy, their "turn off" switch never reacted.

If I read this right, would that mean that if scientist could use this gene. PCSK9, they could use that as a tool to help those with high cholesterol? If so how would they do it.

How are the genes broken? What tools were used to make this discovery? It is really cool that people have reached a point that we can make such findings

Why is this the case that DNA is programmed to lose a part of itself?

Why was the reason that scientists thought they were free-living bacteria?

I would really like to know how something so small in the body can cause such massive problems for that person in the long run. I understand that while yes, cells are small, the body is made up of cells. Due to this, if every cell is affected, then I do get how the person can have issues, but another question I have is if it's possible to put in a healthy cell that would then multiply and replace the "sick" cells or if there is any movement in that research.

I really like how this was in the site. In class we went over this topic a tad, but reading it again but said differently really helped my understanding of the way living can effect someones way of life in the future. My only main question is have there been studies on if certain geological areas which have less harmful environments, and the people who live there have less risk of getting possible illnesses or health issues then those who don't like there.

A question I had was how long did it take for them to come up with the conclusion that DNA was made up of two strands. What were their first thoughts ?

I think it's really clever that using X-rays was how DNA was mapped. I wonder what other methods were first used, if any, before using X-rays

This is where I think the science behind biology is so interesting. Cells can be seen as living in their own worlds when you stop to think about how much takes place in something no larger than a speck

It's really crazy to think about how long DNA is when you think about the size of a cell. It's almost difficult to imagine something so small being able to cover a two meter distance

I really like that this was put in here, It is very true that some science was found my mistake and those joyful mistakes ended up leading to some of the more popular discoveries in human kind. One such being gravity. What's fantastic about science is there is as of yet no limit to what we can discover, either on purpose or by accident

When reading this line, I made a odd connection to two different careers that I somehow made a comparison too. In this sentence, descriptive science aims to explore, observe, and discover, while hypothesis science aims to answer specific problems. Much in the same way you can view the careers psychology, which focuses to explore the mind, discover what makes people tick thought observation, and philosophy, which centers more on specifics about what exactly is it that makes said people tick. The comparison is one seems to be more broad while the other wants to handle more nit pick details about the given subject.

This I think is a very important yet underrated line. From how I have read it, it sounds as if that when enough people with credibility do research on a topic with evidence, then if all those conducting the research come to the same concussion, then their observation must be a valid one. I think that's a very important way that people have steered to when trying to find the "truth" and when talking about science, isn't the the goal fining the "truth" about pretty much everything?

I found this line to be rather mind provoking. I've never thought about experiments being seen as "elegant" or "beautiful" before. When I think about conducting experiments, I have seen well thought out and planned ones, but I have also seen messy, poorly put together ones as well. This sentence is almost describing the act of an experiment as an art which I haven't heard of a perspective like that before. In that sense, I would like to know what wouldn't qualify as an elegant experiment.