Dear colleagues! I address for your help. The matter is that anonymous...

[Olga]

Dear colleagues!
I address for your help.
The matter is that anonymous dialogue on the Internet allows some people to make bold to express on subjects about which they have rather vague representation. It would be not so terribly if it was a question not of medicine, the author did not give out itself for the expert, and listeners would have medical education to convict of charlatanism. It is very complex or difficult to me to explain to the given face an inaccuracy of its or his statements as he is assured or confident of the correctness and does not believe, that I have medical education.
I offer on your court of the statement of the given person and very much I ask you to react and assess the given statement.



"... Well, specially for you we shall spend small excursion in this area if she to you is not absolutely known or you imete how much or as far as other representations which are distinct from mine. Especially, I already had to tell similar here.
DNA which participates in coding fibers cannot describe and reproduce a complex or difficult phenotype itself. Besides DNA coding fibers, is and "reguljatornaja" which adjusts or regulates the necessary including or incorporation and deenergizing of the genes specific to the given cell.
It is good to consider or examine biological semantics on an example of development of twins, ukotoryh a genotype identical, but the phenotype can be different.
The impregnated ootid is splitted up for two blastomeres, then on four, and at these stages blastomeres are identical. If they will casually be separated, and they will develop independently become or begin identical repetitions of one organism - unioval twins, the phenotype will be practically almost identical.
But here after the third crushing a cell the germ will be not identical on the size, a set of synthesized fibers and the future destiny in a developing organism.
All cells, various under the form and on functions from the genetic point of view, differ only that in them sinterzirujutsja different fibers, - transcription RNK goes from different genes. Thus genomy remain identical.
The type of a cell, its or her reserving are dictated with adjusting or regulating DNA. Already then, differentsirovannie cells already I cooperate with each other as amino acids in a polypeptide chain, form new structures or frames of which tissues are in turn formed, then from these tissues organs and as a result all organism as a whole.
Matrix synthesis and self-assembly - here that defines or determines construction of a phenotype.
The phenotype is much poorer than a genotype as I already spoke. We store or keep the information on a structure of many phenotypes of our far ancestors in the genotypes.. However and relatives, certainly....
The child (as a phenotype) often byvet is similar not to the father with mother, and on the grandfather or the grandmother. The genes defining or determining blue color of an eye of the grandfather, can be shown in a phenotype of the grandson - though the father was brown-eyed.
Or, for example, whales. Everyone know, that whales do not have back extremities. Legs or foots they have lost gde-that in the beginning eotsena, - to mine. And nevertheless on the average each ten-thousand cachalot is born with rudimentary back legs or foots. And what does it mean? It means, that the genic set responsible or crucial for occurrence in an organism of back extremities, 60 million years is saved in the blocked kind!!!
All available facts of biology unequivocally testify, that the information describing complexity of a phenotype, contains in a genotype. And certainly, it does not concern to such attributes as "shiner" under an eye or the amputated leg or foot - such attributes are not inherited. "

"... In a human brain there is quite certain center which is responsible for " an attribute of memory ", as though " a flag of memory " which identifies this or that event as already taken place. And here if he "sboit" for any reasons it seems to us, that we already experienced the given situation and we remember, how already taken place event.
If to consider, that the human brain is rather far from an overload it is possible to consider or count it as a certain fluctuational, small pathology. "

[Talanova E.J.]

Dear Olga! I am sorry for some delay with the answer to your appeal. Yes, you are absolutely right, anonymity of the Internet involves many by way of an opportunity of self-affirmation. This phenomenon, undoubtedly, has both positive, and negative parties or sides. To positive freedom of discussions and deleting of time or temporary and spatial obexes, to negative - first of all, ease of "unpunished" display of negative properties of the person concerns. " Medicine " from the last only one - body height of number of the open forums moderated by experts " without masks ". The interdiction of forums of other nature - not "medicine", but as shows my three-year experience vebserfera, harm from forums where leading position is borrowed or occupied " with charlatans in masks of professionals ", is not so great, however or as can seem. The matter is that spontaneous structurization of such communities in any measure submits to the general or common law: persons gravitate to them with similar characteristics (it shows the analysis of discussions of habitues of similar forums). People who wish to receive the information, instead of search self-affirmation, getting on such forum, despite of that they are less informed in the field of a subject of discussion, very quickly catch a situation with a lead " samoutverditelej for the another's bill " and soon leave or abandon similar conferences (alas, with teenagers the situation is more complex or difficult, but it is a subject separate).
Eventually evolution of such communities - deadlock as there as a result also remain only "self-affirming". As if to a fragment resulted or brought by you outside of a context of discussion an estimation him to give uneasy as, vo-the first, not quite clearly, in what measure the given opus is coordinated to medicine, vo-the second, the monologue reminds " a stream of consciousness " behind a cup of coffee in medium of nonprofessionals more likely. In this connection, in this fragment I do not observe the big harm, especially if this " the stream of consciousness " is resulted or brought in rather local not moderated conference of a zone. ru with rather low index of attendance (compare to SHAFT rather inadequate to the publication in rather dear editions with huge circulation - as "informative" character about new opening in the field of genetics, universal foreign agents of struggle against a cancer, a HIV and t. Item, and frankly advertising character: alimentary additives, " szhigateli Adeps ", supervitamins and t. Item - Harm from similar publications incomparably above). We shall return to the fragment quoted by you. Attracts attention incorrect use by the author of some the standard categories (even considering that the author aspires to popularization - correct popularization NEVER PROVIDES VULGARIZATIONS), first of all, the category "Phenotype" having precisely certain frameworks and structural levels. Following statements testify to misunderstanding a place and value or meaning;importance of the given category: " it is good to consider or examine biological semantics on an example of development of twins, ukotoryh a genotype identical, but the phenotype can be different. ", " DNA which participates in coding fibers cannot describe and reproduce a complex or difficult phenotype itself ", " Matrix synthesis and self-assembly - here that defines or determines construction of a phenotype. ", " the phenotype is much poorer than a genotype as I already spoke. ", "... The information on a structure of many phenotypes of our far ancestors... ", " the child (as a phenotype)... ", That is practically each statement including this word. Special "kriminala" in the statements quoted above about a phenotype I do not observe, but the incorrectness of use of the BASE CATEGORY is obvious, and inability correctly to express intuitive (or pocherpnutoe from the literature) the correct comprehension (if it is about what on the basis of given fragment to judge difficultly) does not relieve from the AUTHOR of the RESPONSIBILITY: as they say, if you undertake in writing "to preach", be responsible for each used term, or if he is difficult for comprehension of an audience it or he does not need to be used. It is not clear (outside of a context of all discussion, certainly) the purpose which is pursued by the author this monologue, t. e. THAT he tries to explain an audience. Disharmony of "depth" of a level of resulted or brought examples is observed characteristic for the nonprofessional: (examples with blue eyes and with whales, obviously, illustrating the same position - besides, WHAT?) . A fragment "... In a human brain there is quite certain center which is responsible for " an attribute of memory ", as though " a flag of memory " which identifies this or that event as already taken place. And here if he " sboit " for any reasons it seems to us, that we already experienced the given situation and we remember, how already taken place event. If to consider, that the human brain is rather far from an overload it is possible to consider or count it as a certain fluctuational, small pathology. " At all does not maintain ANY CRITICISM (demagogy with the claim for global generalization). How much or as far as I have understood, the author - the anonym. It is difficult to me to do or make on the basis of one fragment any more certain conclusions about itself, but, by the given fragment, the author or has no base biological education which is given at biological faculties of some high schools, first of all, universities (I mean them only those universities which were those up to general freedom in assignment of such rank), and that not everything, and medical institutes (too not all), or in the BASE education received by the author are available serious blanks, and presence at it or him such education does not give him the right to be considered as the professional what professionals can judge only. About medicine yet we do not speak, as the given fragment to her at all has no attitude or relation. If you wish "to expose" this author, ask it or him "to unmask", first of all, and, for example, to address for accreditation on specialized forums. I am afraid, that even if the author quoted by you has "legal" bases for accreditation, for example, on the same server 03. ru (first of all, education and an operational experience concern to them) all the same hardly the given author will be supported or maintained by community of the accredited experts here as there is a lot "unwritten", but obvious style, professional and psychological "rules", which the present or true professional (without serious personal deviations or rejections, besides) are understood intuitively. Colleagues (basically while young and not skilled or experienced), not past of this check, it it is ruthless otsevajutsja moderators as the server conducts politics of professional informing in conferences, without encouragement of demagogical discussions as well as self-affirmation of the accredited faces due to visitors of conferences.