Home » Biology, Science » D Rad – Painting in the infrared colors

D Rad – Painting in the infrared colors

I learned about this bug back in 2001 and fell in love with it.  Here is partly why:

Painting in the infrared colors

Olga Glazunov - Chaskor, August 27, 2009 

The bacterial protein has the capacity for absorption and emission in the infrared spectral region, was successful (put into action) in mammalian cells.  This protein can be used as a nontoxic dye, which will improve the image of the human body, obtained on CT scanners, and thushelp in the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases.

Of the spectrum, which emits a glow derived protein—infrared region, i.e., with a wavelength longer 700nm, It is located outside the visible spectrum, and therefore not perceived by the eye, but can be recorded by special devices, similar to night vision devices and sensors, responding to an increase in temperature.  It is in the range of 650-900nm in a living organism, optical mapping of deep tissue is obtained with maximum accuracy.  Absorptivity of hemoglobin, water and lipids at these wavelengths is minimal.  And yet, unlike some dyes, non-toxic protein.  In addition to their outstanding functional properties of this protein has a twist: it emits a glow without breakage and without toxic effects on living organism of a mammal!

Read more…

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

19 Responses to D Rad – Painting in the infrared colors

  1. Rather than the sloppily-translated Russian secondary article to which you referred, you could as easily have referred to the original article, “Mammalian Expression of Infrared Fluorescent Proteins Engineered from a Bacterial Phytochrome,” at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....4/5928/804

    Or do you have a problem with directly referring to “Science”?

    And what does this have to do with intelligent design?

  2. Paul,

    Not sure why you would assume I have a problem with “Science”. I simply posted what I found on the internet, and the link you provided is in the article itself.

    Also, notice I did not put it in the ID category; however, I do think the D-rad poses a problem for evolution.

  3. Mario, some people simply have a bone to pick with science (ID specifically) they see it as a threat to their worldview and stop just short of trolling in order to appear honest.

    While still trying to chip away at the proponents character. Sad, but true.

  4. Or do you have a problem with directly referring to “Science”?

    This is the kind of brainless response that makes Darwhiners look like such arrogant and parnoid sob’s.

    What planet do you buffoonish drone Darwin worshipers come from anyway?!

    Makes one wish Darwinism were true so maybe they could either evolve into something better or be selected against.

    Keep it up PB, you’re among the 99% of Darwhiners that give a bad reputation to the rest.

  5. IRQ Conflict,

    Mario, some people simply have a bone to pick with science (ID specifically) they see it as a threat to their worldview and stop just short of trolling in order to appear honest.

    While still trying to chip away at the proponents character. Sad, but true.

    I see it all the time. It’s a thin appearance of honesty, veiling their contempt. Many times you can just head on over to those uncommonly dense people’s thread (and I mean that literally), and see the contempt in plain daylight from these same commentors. It is sad, indeed.

  6. Borne,

    All his arguments are like that. Almost every argument he makes pertain to where something is published…and no, I’m not kidding.

  7. Clive,

    Indeed. I try to promote UD and ID in general at websites I visit. The Darwinists shout me down, but the lurkers send me PM’s thanking me for standing up for what it is they believe to be true.

    They (the lurkers) don’t want to get into the fray. Understandably so. As it is much less about science than it is about their coveted worldview. And they see that.

    The people in the background don’t usually know much about real science (like me) but find Darwin’s theory a farce. So It becomes a learning tool for them as it has for me.

    I’d like to be able to chalk this experience up to being but a few radical people that have money and jobs at stake but the deception appears to be much, much deeper than that.

    How do you deprogram people that have been raised on lies? Myths and just so stories? When they simply don’t want to believe the truth or even look at it? Sigh…I think for some this is impossible.

    An example of this (self?) delusion I would like to point to is one of that lady (Scott?) talking about the forged embryo drawings and pretty much admitting that they were indeed faked but she said something along the lines of ‘well, it really isn’t a problem because it’s true’

    My head almost fell off my neck when I heard her. Basically she was saying her belief was fraudulent and so where the drawings so I guess that the drawings and her faith go hand in hand.

    I already posted this, but a recent discussion I was having over at BHTV revealed something I didn’t expect. I’ll re-post it here for your amazement. Or perhaps your already used to this kind of thing.

    “And finally, I think it’s better to search for explanations that work for the time being, and not worry overmuch about whether they are actually The Truth.”

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-331953

  8. The people in the background don’t usually know much about real science (like me) but find Darwin’s theory a farce.

    Noted. This may explain why IDists are so vanishingly rare among those who have studied biology at a postgraduate level.

    I’d like to be able to chalk this experience up to being but a few radical people that have money and jobs at stake but the deception appears to be much, much deeper than that.

    Or it could be a shadowy global conspiracy.

    An example of this (self?) delusion I would like to point to is one of that lady (Scott?) talking about the forged embryo drawings and pretty much admitting that they were indeed faked but she said something along the lines of ‘well, it really isn’t a problem because it’s true’

    Citation, please?

  9. Learned Hand, Ha! that’s funny. I am just a layman. What has that got to with explaining why you believe there are smaller amounts of ID supporters “who have studied biology at a postgraduate level”?

    Would Prof.Behe post prove otherwise for you?

    As for Scott, I believe it was a video posted from Bornagain77 I’d have to dig around for it.

    When I said “she said something along the lines of ‘well, it really isn’t a problem because it’s true’”

    I was interpreting her argument from my point of view. I may have done a poor job of it. I’ll try and find the video.

  10. coldwatermedia is where I found it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByMn-_QD3P0

    at 2 minutes 30 seconds:

    ” And I would argue that the basic point that is being illustrated by those drawings is still accurate”.

    And on this I would have to concur with Scott. It illustrates a fraud.

  11. Is this what you consider a reasoned debate LH?

    I found this MSNBC debate (term used loosely) with Myers and Scott and an Interviewer.

    This is the typical reaction from Darwinists. Not a reasoned debate or inquisitive search for the truth but pure BS. Makes me want to puke!

  12. I’m now going to try to work “Darwhiners” into everyday conversation.

  13. ” And I would argue that the basic point that is being illustrated by those drawings is still accurate”.

    What “basic point” is it that you think she is identifying?

  14. LH,

    I’m almost not surprised that an educated person such as yourself has to ask. I realize you were brought up to believe this tripe. So I will answer.

    The “basic point” was that she claims Heckels drawings, though fraudulent, prove or show the morphology she espouses as fact.

    IOW, the lie proves the lie.

  15. What was it Clinton said? “Define ‘is’”?

  16. IRQ,

    She identifies two discrete points at that part of the video. I don’t know which one of those you mean by “prove or show the morphology she espouses as fact.” Are you familiar with the word “morphology?” How are you trying to use it here?

  17. Please, call me Billings.

    Citing the Wikipedia page does not clarify your comment that she was trying to “prove or show the morphology she espouses as fact.” What morphology?

Leave a Reply