CharonY

That is not quite correct and probably requires that I qualify my previous statement. First, mitochondria are obviously present in cells, meaning that if you do not have nuclear DNA you also won't have mitochondrial DNA. However, you have more copies of the small mitchondrial genome in a given cell than nuclear DNA. Here is where my qualifying statement comes in. Cells found in hair shafts are dead and thus DNA is heavily degraded, if at all present. However, due to the abundance of mitcohondria, there is a better change to scavenge enough mitochondrial DNA out of hair samples to get e.g. a PCR going.

Who would do that investigation outside of the FBI? And as we know, the scope was extremely limited. The reasons are her own and before someone takes it as evidence that it did not happen (again) it is a very common occurrence among victims. More importantly, perhaps is also the fact it is unlikely that prosecutors would go for it. After all, and I repeat myself here within a few minutes, only three folks could realistically testify to the veracity of the event and none of them were impartial. That aside, iNow also mentioned statute of limitations, which would apply if it was not treated as a criminal case. A second degree assault would be considered a misdemeanor, for example.

I think one of the things folks are hung up is that they think in terms of the alleged assault as the subject of the investigation rather than conduct and suitability of the person for the supreme court (which, as xth reminder, is the actual mechanism at play). Within the realm and scope of the hearing, we do have learned that BK has issues as a candidate, to an extent where legal scholars as well as a retired supreme court justice have raised issues. Not about the fact that he attempted sexual assault, but because of his performance, including open partisanship with more than a hint of conspiracy theories, lack of commitment to judicious inquiry as well as temperament. As such, and I am repeating myself here, due process and presumption of innocence are mechanisms that are irrelevant to those questions. Whether the alleged assault happened is a different matter, though it was early in this thread conflated into one already early in this thread. Now, it is rather obvious that it would be very difficult to validate the records of either party, considering only three people could really testify to the events and none of them being impartial (i.e. Kavanaugh, Judge and Blasey Ford). The whole talk about due process seems to try to shift the discussion to ascertain that as long as Kavanaugh does not get convicted in court, Blasey Ford must be a liar. And why many folks react negatively to that is because of the overall larger issue mentioned before that this burden not only lets rapists go free (which due to lack of evidence may be inevitable), but also then presents victims with unsuccessful claims as liars. I just can't believe how often that has to be repeated.

That is fair, but afaik I have not seen (or have overlooked) posts that outright state that Kavanaugh is a rapist or assaulter. Rather the tone is similar to yours, i.e. that Ford is believable. Yet early on and before the hearing the opposite is true. Folks have, without evidence stated outright that Ford is lying and is just out to ruin someone's life. And btw. BK was free to state that he forgot. He chose a different approach instead.

Just to reinforce, her description are pretty much textbook how long-term recollection works. Of course you can go into conspiracy theory and state that she did all that as part of some complex plan to appear believable, but observant onlookers will of course realize that it would mean that her recollections would also be attacked if they were too detailed. You remember certain key events, especially things which leave an emotional impression and the brain reconstructs events from it. E.g. remembering meeting a guy connected to the event at a Safeway at his summer shortly after the event would place the event in the summer weeks, for example (and of course if the FBI was allowed to pull job records, it could be used to corroborate timing, especially the conveniently submitted calendar). Here are some rebuttals 1, 2.

So that is the danger of taking random folks without any sort of relevant qualifications seriously. As others have mentioned, college is should not be seen as a vocational school. What you learn are transferable skills. There are no guaranteed jobs for any college graduate degree now, though it may be easier with some than in others. However, the take home message is that especially with e.g. a bachelor's, you are supposed to have a broad idea (without really specialized knowledge) in a given field, but should have learned a lot of soft skills, including information gathering and presentation, communication, critical thinking etc. To state that a given field will guarantee a job is fairly difficult to predict as the job market keeps moving. Also, if someone throws around terms like Marxist in this context can typically be safely ignored.

Not really. Imagine a gene gets inserted in a coding area. The result is that the existing gene is disrupted and unless the inserted bit also has all the required bits for transcription the net effect will be gene disruption. I.e. a loss of functionality. Imagine it jumps into an intergenic region with regulatory functions. Here, you will alter or disrupt regulation, again a loss of proper function. Imagine it jumps into an area with no function but does not have all that is required for transcription. It ends up being junk at this stage. So just to have something translated requires a) that everything is compatible with the host for initiation/transcription etc. or b) that it jumps just at the right position in the genome where it can actually be expressed. Even if a gene is expressed, it is more likely than not detrimental, when we look at more complex organism. At which point the cells are usually targeted for elimination. Also having large chunks transferred is usually more disruptive (and therefore protected against) than smaller, single nucleotide mutations. As a whole, especially for multicellular organisms the transfer of external DNA is problematic and one theory is that large areas of the non-coding sequences are areas where e.g. viruses can insert and lay dormant or inactive without disrupting important functions. That is not to say that HGT may not play in role also in metazoans (it certainly does in prokaryotes). But the role is diminished due to the overall destructive nature. I.e. most of it has to be rendered non-functional as it otherwise may reduce the fitness of the carrier. Then, of course you mentioned generational transfer, which would only work if germlines are infected, which is an even smaller target, of course (and again, the reason why it is probably more relevant for single-celled organims).

One of the things you'll have to keep in mind is that organisms have elaborate protection from having random DNA inserted. Essentially the mechanism acts like a mutagen and can easily be detrimental to the host cell. Essentially you are more likely to disrupt functional code with gibberish rather than creating new functional code. Especially in metazoans (multicellular organisms) tight control is very important. It comes as no wonder that viruses basically act as mutagens and therefore e.g. cause cancer. Also, I suggest you avoid the term "alien" unless you clearly define what you mean, as it rather unusual lingo in this context.

Wait, do you mean alien as in "different species" rather than "extraterrestrial" alien? In that case my suggestion is to look into the concept of horizontal gene transfer. It is best analyzed in bacteria, though typically it is not retroviruses that play a major role there. In fact, due to the amount of literature I would recommend a textbook for starters. In multicellular organisms this mechanism is much rarer. You do find genes passing on to viruses from their host, but their stable integration in metazoan hosts is far less likely as in single-celled organisms. Nonetheless, I recall a study on rotifers by Meselson and Arkipova (Science, ca. 2008) where they found evidence for horizontal gene transfer crossing domain boundaries (not exclusively via retroviruses, IIRC). And there a handful other examples, but I do not have them on the back of my mind.

In all systems stochastic effects play a role in shaping evolution. Especially in small populations, random events can have a huge influence. It should also be noted that being extremely well adapted to a particular niche can make an organism very vulnerable to changes to their environment. So under one condition they may outcompete anything you throw at them, but take away a key component, they may go extinct. The issue with your though experiment is therefore how your combined ecosystem would look like. What is they atmospheric content? What precisely is composition of the plants animals and microbes? All these biotic and abiotic factors and the interaction with each other determine their ultimate success.

I think here there is a difference between judicial procedure (i.e. when the case gets to court) and the procedures up to that point. Obviously, prosecution has to make a case that the person is in fact not innocent. I.e. the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. However, even in trials, this concept is fuzzy in execution. Studies with mock trials have found that the presumption of innocence is, at best, rather tenuous. Outside of trials, the rules are even less clear. Police, for example, do act on suspicion that they have, even though (or perhaps specifically because) it is not their role to determeine guilt or innocence. In fact, in the US at least, they are trained to make quick assessments of guilt for interrogations. At best, law enforcement is an arbitrator evaluating the weight of accuser and accused and from there determine whether and how they proceed. The big issue here is the criteria folks apply (consciously and unconsciously) to assess the reliability of victims. Psychological work has helped to explain why, for example, not reporting immediately is a rather common occurrence, or why rape victims do not necessarily have to have defensive wounds. But much has not penetrated the mindset thoroughly enough.

There is ton of work on retroviruses and evolution. It should be rather obvious why there no work on aliens, however.

A decent read on the subject.

That is an important point, to which there are currently no solutions. Partially, because only fairly recent it has been seen to be an issue. To date there are only two larger reports (UK and Australia) who have looked at why reporting rates are low and even in cases of reports, why many women withdraw before the full trial. One thing that we can do, without changes in the legal system per se, is to remove the social stigma of rape victims or the taboo surrounding sexual violence. A big issue has been the fact that victims are seen as damaged goods, that it is their fault (e.g. for getting drunk or having a promiscuous lifestyle) or that they are just too weak and/or cannot be raped in the first place (mostly men). As long as these stigma persist and/or if certain folks attack the victims for not behaving in a certain way (reporting right away, trying to downplay the situation in an effort to regain control etc.). A second aspects that is relevant is that the reports have highlighted that law enforcement may be another gatekeeper. Typically young victims or victims from lower social status or vulnerable groups are not considered trustworthy by default. That makes them ideal victims as rarely there are any follow-ups. A general issue here is also that many are assuming that folks need to be protected from accusations as the first response. Which means the bar for investigations are raised as the default assumption is that the accused is innocent and therefore the accuser must be lying. Even if law enforcement tries to neutrally address this situation, the stigmata regarding the situation result in far larger polarization than in other crimes. Much again because of the stigma surrounding sexual vs "regular" violence.

Hair does not contain living cells. You need hair roots in order to isolate DNA.

The Reps are better organized and for a while there has been a strategic movement to create a conservative SCOTUS. Before, say Obama votes were far more mixed and at times unanimous. I do think that it is fair to say that much of why the situation is less behaved in the US is because of the strategies that some trace back to Gingrich. Dems fault was having no successful response other than to consolidate themselves (and even that with limited success). It is a problem in both parties now. But I do think that structures were dominantly and originally put in place by the gop.

A cryptic prophage is defective and typically lost the ability to form a full virus. They may have mutated to the point of not being easily recognizable as phages anymore.

Genotype: refers to the set of a genetic material of an organism, but can used on different levels. E.g. you could distinguish genotypes of members of a species by allele variations on a single locus. Phenotype: refers to observable trait, often connected, but not exclusively to gene function.

Truly anaerobic animals, especially multicellular ones, are very rare. One of the few I am aware of are members of the Nanaloricidae and other Loricefera.

So low quality feed eaters have to be large. Like rabbits, I presume.

Canines, specifically African Wild dogs are known for persistence hunting.

And as folks have repeatedly told you, the way the system is set up it does not make any sense for a woman to do so. Hardly any of the accusations, even if done timely and with physical evidence, result in conviction. At the same time the accusers gets scrutinized, shamed, shunned, blocked in their careers and otherwise abused for what? Doing the right thing that no one cares about? There is a reason why many women, even if they report straight away, eventually withdraw. Not because they were not truthful, but rather because it puts an enormous stress on them without a real chance for justice. Under these conditions the rational decision is not to report. It is easy sitting on the high horse and tell everyone to do the right thing if oneself does not have to deal with consequences. Note that this is perhaps even worse for men who get raped, as the whole masculinity thing increases the likelihood that they are not believed. While lower in total, it is not surprising that the rate of non-reporting is higher in men.

Well, yes but that amounts to nothing, usually. McCain was also a critic of Trump but still voted for the most part according to party interests. It is not really surprising. Even Murkowski, should she vote "No", is not a huge surprise, considering her constituency and their views on Kavanaugh.

And perhaps to emphasize again, it is only relevant one it hits the courts. Before that investigators will at one point or another consider credibility of the accused, accuser and victim as well as gather evidence under the presumption that a crime might have happened. If investigators do not believe that accusations are credible, it is unlikely that a proper investigation will be started nor will it end up with a prosecutor. At one point or another the investigator has to work with the hypothesis of possible guilt in order to develop an investigative strategy and use the evidence that turns up to strengthen or weaken the case. But anyway, as expected it seems that sufficient votes are in to push Kavanaugh through, Flake and Collins have declared that they are going to vote "yes". So there will likely a majority or a tie (which Pence can break). Edit: Manchin (D) also went "yes" so it is really done deal. With regard to OP, this is what happens in most cases when there are allegations of this sort. Nothing. Yet it is interesting that despite the likelihood of that outcome some folks fear the specter of women running around accusing folks and ruining their lives. It just seems so disconnected from the frequency of what actually is happening.

I would assume that especially in elementary school the assumption is human life. Realistically, even in worst case scenarios something is likely to survive. It just won't be us (and most likely it's microorganisms).