Arete

...

We can use RNAseq do examine gene expression already. Also, knowing the sequence of amino acids in a protein doesn't mean you know its 3D structure (assuming it's fixed, as many proteins fold differently in different environments - hence the environment plays a role in how the protein functions) , so no, simply knowing a particular amino acid sequence is expressed does not mean you know what the protein looks like, what it does, or how different variants of the gene result in differently functioning proteins. Furthermore, plenty of functional genomic regions are non-coding, regulatory regions. Expression/translation of these genes doesn't necessarily tell you about their function.

Apologies - it wasn't a comment specifically directed at you, more directed at the arguments themselves.

Cell differentiation is but one of the many functions of the genome. Even if you completely understand the genetic underpinnings of differentiation (and we do have a reasonable understanding of it) you'd still be a long way from a complete understanding of the whole genome... then the damn thing mutates and does something new and you have more work to do.

Bacteria complain less and their genomes take up less of my hard drive. Plus, the ethics committee doesn't care about them

As an evolutionary biologist, my first question would be which human genome? Human genomes accumulate around 64 point mutations on average per generation, and vary between individuals and populations - genomes are not typological, so ultimately you're looking at a moving, changing target. not a singular entity.

No, but even the most strident advocate of the particular arguments occupying most of this thread can't justify why they don't simply amount to an ad hominem hatchet job. That's not to say I particularly like Clinton - whenever I do a political compass test I wind up virtually on top of Nelson Mandela's ideology in the libertarian left - advocating socioeconomic equality, economic liberalism and a belief that education and healthcare are basic human rights. Clinton is center right, representing a pronounced drift of the entire American political apparatus to the authoritarian right - we're ideologically opposed. She's also been part of the Democratic political machine for decades, and unlikely to change the fact that special interest lobby groups have over-representative influence on US politics. The notion that she's somehow more dishonest and untrustworthy than other candidates is not supported by fact, and is ultimately ad hom logical fallacy. A more astute criticism is that a Clinton administration is likely to be largely business as usual for the US government - anathema for anyone desiring fundamental political change.

A prayer room won't turn the campus into a hotbed of Islamic extremism, a queer space isn't going to cause an aids epidemic, and a safe space isn't going to mean you can't say "hermaphrodite" in plant biology class.

I'm not overanalyzing the problem, I'm countering your position which I find to be willfully ignorant, selfish and poorly supported. You and I, as white, straight males don't get to dictate to people from minority groups when they are and aren't facing discrimination. We don't get to tell others when they do and don't require reprieve from that discrimination. The entire country is our "safe space". When people from groups facing discrimination and prejudice are given a voice to tell us about their experiences and how they can be improved, it's time for us to shut up and listen rather than pontificate from a position from no experience of the same discrimination. I was at Yale when the safe space debate occurred and prima facie, it did seem like an overreaction by spoilt, entitled millennials. However, consider the background - only 7.6% of the student body is African American, and only 2.3% of the faculty. The discrimination faced is not overt name calling and harassment, it's more insidious, institutionalized and harder to quantify - yet exists and is apparent in the disproportionately small fraction of students of color at the school. While an email saying that they are adults and should be able to figure out how not to offend each other an address it in a mature way if a classmate did offend them seems reasonable enough, and something that it is silly to get upset about, what the students were ultimately saying was that they faced challenges students from less diverse backgrounds did not, and they wanted an environment where those challenges were removed. Facing these challenges affected their ability to study and excel, and a space where they felt comfortable and safe would help them overcome the challenges they faced. It really doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Ultimately if you don't like the safe space, you can not go there. Its existence really isn't that big of a deal, or at least shouldn't be.

The irony of a straight white male saying there's no discrimination on his campus and then using a sexist slur as an insult is rather palpable.

So you're stating that you approached the conversation with a closed mind, and then you complain about no one else will change theirs to agree with you. That seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Apologies - I thought it was obvious in the original statement. Given that Rosa Parks was arrested, and MLK was shot dead, I thought that they were given examples that their demonstrations of rights were not safe - that similar demonstrations of civil rights by contemporary civil rights activists should not come with the risk of being imprisoned or shot dead. Sure, these admirable people did what they did in the face of possibly being executed and that's amazing, but we should strive for better, perhaps? and also, if you want to criticize the left for dumb ideas opposing GMO products or vaccines is a better target.

Given you brought both of them up, is this a rhetorical question?

You are aware that Rosa Parks was arrested and that MLK was assassinated, right? You seem to be saying that modern minorities are weenies to not want to be pepper sprayed, shot and arrested just to be given their basic rights, which is not a particularly astute opinion. Back to the original OP, there's plenty of stupid ideologies on the left side of politics - anti vax, anti GMO, support for homeopathy, etc. but I think the thread misses that point to a large degree.

Your PhD adviser matters a lot more than the school you go to. Use your time in undergrad to figure out the field you are interested in, and determine the professors in that field you want to work with. The actual school matters little - as long as it actually has a PhD program that is.

The point is that the desire to implement Sharia law is extremely geographically variable. From 99% in Afghanistan, through to 8% in Azerbaijan. You can't collectively state that "muslims" want Sharia law in the US when there's such a heterogeneous landscape of ideologies under the umbrella of Islam.

Nope. You know you're deliberately trying to deceive people. Seriously, you are a 25 year old man, not a whiny pubescent middle schooler. Grow up. Just to give you some perspective, go watch Transfatty lives. Patrick O'Brien has ALS. he manages to meet a girl, fall in love and have a child all while completely paralyzed, unable to speak and eating through a tube. Everybody faces their own challenges and other people have overcome far worse challenges than you. You aren't a special snowflake. If life is really getting you down then seek professional help.

And this is why the plural of anecdotes is not evidence.

It's also precisely how secondary pneumonia usually works - you have an initial insult (e.g. viral cold, influenza, allergies, etc) which causes inflammation and discharge from the alveoli. Opportunistic bacteria/viruses colonize the weakened tissue, resulting in pneumonic infection. An initial diagnosis of allergies/cold, followed by little rest and recuperation results in secondary infection is not only plausible, but likely.

As previously shown, when fact checked, she makes no more false statements than comparable politicians, and far less than her direct competitor. If this isn't simply character assassination, what makes her less trustworthy than other politicians? The available empirical data doesn't seem to support your assertion.

Unfortunately, it would seem the lack of a response, and repetition of the argument is an answer in of itself - that is the argument is, at its core, an ad hominem fallacy.

The argument becomes disingenuous when you propose Donald Trump as the alternative - who by any objective measure makes far more untrue statements than Clinton. While I'm not a Clinton fan, the argument that her dishonesty makes her less suitable than Trump as a president is simply not based in fact.

I stopped watching when they suggested that ANY restriction on free speech makes you a "regressive". According to the video, phrases like: "I believe in free speech, but child pornography should be illegal/ you shouldn't be able to publish lies about people/ pretend someone else's work is your own." make one a "regressive". Free speech is not absolute, and no sensible person would generally assert that it is. For example, the supreme court has ruled that, among other things, child pornography, defamation, plagiarism and false advertising are exceptions to the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

The first difference is weight - the old adage of "light, strong, cheap. Pick two" rings true. The next issue, not necessarily to do with cost is air springs vs coil. Air forks are almost always lighter and have a naturally progressive spring rate. The spring rate is also infinitely adjustable, because it's pressurized air. Coil forks, because the use a dedicated hydraulic damping system are usually better damped and generally have a linear spring rate, which means that they offer more controllable suspension travel, they are generally cheaper, but heavier than air forks. Very generally speaking (with a host of exceptions) air is better for cross country riding, coil is better for downhill. The third issue is adjustability. A cheap fork probably only has adjustments for rebound and preload. A more expensive fork may have low speed and high speed compression adjustments, lockout (locks the suspension for smooth surfaces and climbing). The final issue is length - more travel requires a physically longer fork, which can rake out the head angle on a bike not designed for the length of the fork, making the steering sluggish. Generally speaking, forks with more than 100mm of travel are inappropriate for bikes not designed for them. Ultimately, for what you're proposing, a 100mm entry level air fork would be perfect. Something like this or this. If you don't mind the weight of a coil fork and need to spend less $, this would work well too. Well done on kicking the cancer sticks.