CharonY

Depends on what you need. One way is to design primers on conserved stretches.

He is saying that in an interview, but quickly skimming through the paper it does not come up there. From the paper: As the main conclusion. The second part is likely a extrapolation/speculation from there.

Just to make it clear, the study really pushes back the time humans left Africa, but the second bit is far more speculative and not an element of the actual report.

It only makes sense if one thinks that organizations try to select based on ethnic stratification. Not that OP made any more sense.

And I fear that they may spin it as a safeguard against "murderous illegal hordes" with little pushback from their base. But we'll see. It does seem that it is really down to a power struggle between the moderates and extremes in the GOP. The former seemed to get hammered since the tea party days, though.

It implies that for some reasons they are trying to be PC yet have no idea how bad it looks to pull someone after selection for these reasons. While internally they do have issues, they are very cognizant of things that are presented to the public. The whole statement of yours seems like wild speculation presented as coherent fact. Considering that there may be many reasons for being pulled off a flight. However, neither NASA nor Epps commented on it (which is not unusual).

Highly unlikely, they are too politically savvy for that. There are many potential reasons for the switch and without further information all speculation is moot.

What I am worried about is that the rhetoric has changed. Instead of Dreamers they were increasingly called "Illegals" during the shutdown. Also there is this.

This, however, is common issue with certain opponents of all immigration (as seen above, either accidentally or by choice the distinction is now US citizens vs foreigners, regardless of legal status). They see economics as a zero-sum game where money is either directed to citizens or to immigrants. What is neglected is the overall net change on the economy which could, in fact increase income that then could be directed to help the impoverished. It is also telling if the same persons also happen to oppose social programs to help the impoverished or redistribution of income when the discussion is not about immigrants.

Since we talk about DACA, 91% of DACA recipients are in job. Rescinding DACA according to some calculations would cost ~6 billion in employee turnover costs, and up to 60 billion in federal government costs. Over the next ten years removing the ~700k members of society will cost ~280-460 billion in GDP over the next ten years. So especially with regard to DACA, which is essentially a vetting system, the economics of rescinding it makes no sense.

The director of the NIEHS wrote an editorial for PloS Biology highlighting the lack of regulation on potential harmful pollutants and called for more research and policies to address these gaps. One would think that this is not controversial as it clearly within the mission of the NIEHS. In response, the House Science Oversight Committee wants to investigate her for, wait for it.... "lobbying".

There is a nice article about racism underlying the history of American immigration policies (Op-Ed). An important thing to point out is that illegal immigration is for some conflated with legal immigration (not so much on this site, luckily). However, there is a sizable part of the population (especially among Trump voters) that oppose immigration of any sorts from an ethnocentric viewpoint. Study groups have looked at vote shares in 2012 vs 2016 they found e.g. increased negative attitudes for likely GOP voters against immigration, black people and Muslims, but virtually no change on economic or social issues. A big issue is that the administration seems to push that particular button (with the Muslim ban and the rhetoric surrounding legal immigration).

It is still unclear to me what you mean. Republicans around you voted for Trump because Democracts were racists in the 60s and that is why Republicans today are not driven by racism despite evidence to the contrary...? I mean of course, there is a sizeable proportion who voted along party lines out of loyalty, but those would not need to make any excuses. I have colleagues like this, though they are really struggling with the current administration.

What is the relevance of what ridiculous things folks around you believe? Unless you want to discuss how these perceptions arise.

In the 60s the default conception regarding race would be considered fairly (or very) racist today.

Here is the thing, though. Race and racism was a major driver for Trump supporters. Essentially, folks have wondered what topics are have driven voters to support Trump. Abortion is fairly low on all voter's mind with less than half (45%) considering them relevant for their votes. For comparison LGBT is about the same 40%, Economy 84%, Health Care 74%, Gun Policy 72%. People then tried to figure out what topics or attitudes are associated with or predictive for trump voters. Several studies looked specifically into the white voter section (as relatively few minorities voted for Trump. A paper before the election (Major et al., 2016 Group Proc & Intergroup Rel) found that: Thus among whites there is a sense of vulnerability due to presence of other ethnic groups leading to stronger support for Trump. Using the election data a conference paper Schaffner et al. showed that strong relationship between sexism and racism (and much weaker for economic dissatisfaction). Various polls have shown that Trump voters disproportionately view blacks as less intelligent, lazier and more violent than whites. Another study by Luttig et al. 2017, Res & Politics) found that: There are numerous article in newspapers discussing these links (e.g. here, here and here) . While I agree callings someone racist does not help changing their attitude, ignoring just to save someones feelings is not right either. We are at a point where the evidence becomes overwhelming that racism is an important factor for the current presidency. And the president himself seems quite aware of that and plays to that tune. Why else would he be tip-toeing around white supremacists (other than being one himself, that is).

All genetics impact future generations (by definition). Epigenetics refers to that part of inheritable features that are not based on alterations of the DNA sequence itself.

In that regard I found a recent paper quite interesting Huo et al. (2017, PNAS):

Connected to that it is clear that the president equates ethnicity to the quality of certain people (e.g. with regard to rapists, drug dealers, thugs etc.). And as a hint, it also scales with melanin.

If you look at the totality of metabolic diversity in all eurkaryotes and then look at what is in prokaryotes you will find that there is far less around. No need for analogies. Part of the evolution of eukaryotes involved loss of metabolic capabilities.

What do you think is the net cost of undocumented immigration?

There are other studies and it pretty much holds true in almost all cohorts (almost because I have not exhaustively reviewed the literature, so there may be some that I missed as this is not my area of study). Still, for the ongoing discussion it is highly irrelevant (except as a distraction to create fear of immigrants as a whole).

P. 329 and following it references relevant studies.

a) Just having an idea without evidence of feasibility is pretty much worthless in the biomedical arena. b) anything that has potential to harm individuals, even when it may have benefits is an ethical dilemma. Stating that one wants to have a limited human trial without realizing that is troublesome.

It is rather clear that you are just assuming things based on some rough extrapolations. Stating them as fact does the discussion no good. In fact most studies indicate that undocumented migrants are less likely to commit crimes than the average population. E.g. take a look here. Reasons do include the added fear of deportation.