CharonY

You can think of adult stem cells as slightly more specialized than embryonic ones. Depending on where they are located, somatic (or adult) stem cells are generally assumed to differentiate into certain cell types for local repairs and maintenance. Embryonic ones eventually are able to (and have to) differentiate in all possible cell types

I do not think that is overlooked, they are active in regular tissue healing and remodeling. However, in larger wounds the main actors are fibroblasts that deposit granulation tissue, which allows keratinocytes and other cells to invade and grow. The tissue becomes scarred since the matrix molecules, especially collagen are not deposited in the same way as during slow regenerative actions. Stem cells are a bit of a different issue here, what happens here is that involved cells de-differentiate. I.e. go from a differentiated dormant status into more active, proliferating, which also produces more of the matrix molecules (collectively termed extracellular matrix or ECM). Frankly, though the processes are very complex and I am only somewhat familiar with a limited set of pathways in a somewhat superficial way. So far, simple complete models are missing as folks find something new or correct existing knowledge on the molecular pathways on a regular basis. In fact looking at the contribution of a single cell type and the involved regulatory mechanisms in tissue remodeling can easily fill up a full career. The easiest and best understood systems tend to be in vitro aspects. E.g. differentiation of cells in controlled environment. Going from there to complex living tissue (which involves more cell types and far-reaching cell signaling) tends to get messy. In my opinion, it will still take years until we are sufficiently confident in the various interactions so that we can start dumbing it down into a somewhat more digestible format that still somewhat accurate. As such, wiki pages will only be able to provide very descriptive accounts on the processes, which won't allow much extrapolation.

Could you summarize the key points of the video? As a rule one should support a position without requiring someone to watch a video. Regardless of whatever is in the video, the voter turnout in the UK had an historic low around 60% in 2001. In the US the historic high was in the 60s, with about 60% for the presidential election and less than 50% for the midterms. At least from the viewpoint of participation the UK system is clearly more democratic.

! Moderator Note Also, word salad production without any effort of making sense is not appreciated.

Or the Confederated Provinces of Greater Canada.

Actually the ingredient list as well as the food labels and nutrition facts are there to you inform you on it. It is indeed very helpful if you e.g. need to maintain a low sodium diet or have other conditions. The proposition only requires declaration, but does not force the manufacturer to disclose what component is potentially toxic and how much is in the product (or even more important how much is expected to leach out in normal use). Elsewhere, no declaration is needed, and you won't know how much plasticizer ends up in your food due to the storage container. Folks assume that everything is safe, otherwise they would not be allowed to sell it. The reverse is true. Only if it is explicitly demonstrated to be harmful then there is a case for action. To be fair, with few the exception of a few examples (e.g. lead ) the health effects of many components are difficult to asses as they are rarely toxic. However, some have shown various degree of developmental impact on embryos, which are mostly derived from animal studies. Population-wide studies also contribute to those information, but since they are not in lab settings, there are a lot of confounding effects to deal with. Nonetheless a number of products, which are no present in rather huge numbers in human body fluids are suspected to harmful and are being phased out (e.g. a number of PFCs).

That is a fair point. I recall vaguely that there were other factors potentially depressing turnout such as weather, sports event or something like that. One would need to see how much the pool of eligible voters as well as final turnout to be certain. But at least it seems that the early voter turnout is the highest so far. Question is only how many of the rest are going to vote.

I guess fear is a strong motivator.

Nope, the turnout in 2014 was abysmal and they are within a few rounding errors of each other.

Well, yes as well as saving money as the proposition does not actually demand any actual safety studies. Couple that with defunding researchers in that area and we are just kept blissfully in the dark (but that is probably a different discussion).

Agreed, they decided to just warn instead of conducting a proper risk evaluation. Though to be fair, folks generally do not invest into that. As a result we are actually quite ignorant of the health effects of common household risks. The proposition seems to be used in a generalized "cover your arse" type of way, by simply labeling everything.

Can't give you tips on the cell culture, but the geometric objects look like salt crystals to me. I.e. something is precipitating out of solution, which might be a reason why your culture does not work.

I think OP is waffling between different meanings and you focus on one, the so-called "tree of life" which is a reconstruction of the evolutionary history of life on earth. What Arete and I am using (and what Sensei was showing) are generalized phylogenetic tree. I.e. a general reconstruction of relationships. The latter has many applied uses, including function predictions of genes and proteins, epidemiological tracking (e.g. to track and predict spread of viral and bacterial strains) and so on. I.e. it goes far beyond just theoretical uses.

There is no universal scale to that. Most sea mammals are arguably more intelligent than fish and they range in size from otters to blue whales. While the largest fish is smaller than a blue whale, every size in between is also covered. The general misconception in OP is probably that there is a uniform selective pressure towards increased (physical) strength. Whereas the optimization is toward reproductive success. Essentially one can imagine a genotype moving towards local fitness maxima rather than an absolute maximum.

The LUCA is the genetic ancestor of all life, including archaea and bacteria. As such it is not a bacterium, but likely something structurally akin to one. Unless you propose that humans were around 4 billion years ago and then evolved into bacteria and archaea, the claim does not make a lot of sense.

The glowing blob, as you put it, is the reason for the scarring. It is a predominantly a single cell type (IIRC) that initiates wound healing as well as the structures that result in the scar. From memory, this is mostly due to collagen deposited in a quick way to close the wound. Not all tissue in amphibians regenerate scar-free, it depends on species, type and location of wound and age of the individual. Also the adaptive immune system in humans and other mammals have been shown to play a role in preventing scar-free healing. I forgot the precise mechanisms, but I faintly recall that some interaction between macrophages. Ultimately, I believe, it was speculated that the weak adaptive responses in salamanders allows their high regeneration abilities. In humans the ability is lost over time as the immune system becomes more restrictive to de-differentiated cells (like stem cells). One could speculate that this is protection against malign cell types that are also actively growing, such as cancers. But I am unclear on what the current state of research is. Also, if you have an open wound, at some point the immune system is likely to fail. We can deal with it because our body closes them quickly and which is why larger wounds can lead to sepsis if not treated with antibiotics.

You seem to imply that scarring impedes healing. The logic here is backward. Scar tissue forms due to a fast healing process which causes overgrowth. I.e. without that, healing would be slow and potentially dangerous as the wound would need longer to close and thus invite infections.

! Moderator Note Sorry, crystal healing and other esoteric topics are not discussed here.

! Moderator Note It does not appear that OP is interested in actually discussing science, so the thread is lock pending review. Edit: upon review it was decided that nothing of value was to be gained here.

Before we try to explain, a) do you know the distinction between species and subspecies? Further, what is the species concept you think about. How about you clearly define one and discuss whether it is universal or not.

Net increase in my sentence refers to the overall increase by implementing that rule vs individual decision. An individual decision at a point (save more people at the cost of one) could lead to a momentarily net increase. But enforcing it as a rule could lead to a net decrease. The varieties that I mentioned address various bits. However, what some utilitarians argue as a whole is that regardless how you look at it, an utilitarian decision method does not have more issues than others. Consider the tram scenario, which is similar to the one you outlined. I.e. you are on a tram and have the choice of doing nothing and kill five people tied to the tracks or switch tracks and kill only one. If you do not want to apply utilitarian ethics, what form would you apply and how would it be inherently better?

He already does it in a soft way, by delegitimizing any reports he does not like. A related strategy is to paint pre-Trump US, Europe and Canada in a dystopian vision with Muslim no-go zones, general lawlessness and marauding hordes of drug dealers (with darker complexion, of course) and to present himself as a messianic figure to bring back the good ole America. By creating and engaging in this alternative reality he basically removes all influence of independent media from his followers as any information now needs to be filtered through a specific lens before considered real. Mechanisms for this are in place by outlets such as Fox (other than the hard news section), Breitbart, Sinclair media etc. In some ways this is brilliant. Instead of using force to withhold information from folks, he makes them do the work (which, arguably, is his business model).

Last time ratings were brought up, CNN had half the viewership of Fox News. That being said, that was not Ten oz's broader point. The real issue are the policies that are being reported on (even if you do not like the style) rather than the report itself.

In all honesty I believe it was always the case. The main difference (at least where I grew up) was that the opinion space was less divergent. Things like racism were considered non-issues, for example. Or it was just generally accepted (and rarely challenged) that minorities are more criminal. Many politicians did the same thing as they do today e.g. regarding the migrants in middle America: only now with a more polarized media landscape you will then have those that quickly attack or defend such notions, creating more polarized press. There is more going on due to the rise of the Murdoch empire and the resulting change of the news business, that increasingly gets entangled with opinions as, frankly, that's where the money is. The next generation will probably have personalized youtube channels for their news consumption. And after typing all this I am going to apologize for going off-topic.

Microplastics have been found in tap water, as well as soft drinks and *gasp*, beer. For the most part one can consider it an ubiquitous contaminant. I am a bit rusty on that, but from what I remember it is not required for all foods. IIRC only food with a durable life of less than a certain amount of days (maybe 3 months? not sure) require labels. In all other instances the declaration is voluntary.