CharonY

A fallacy is a logical failure in a reasoning that renders an argument invalid. If you do not provide an argument you cannot, by definition, commit a fallacy. Like, committing DUI by not driving...

Well, actual health impact cannot be assessed just by asking around. Even if something had happened in your immediate surrounding it would be hard to pinpoint a particular souce. Case in point, if someone is diagnosed with cancer it is almost impossible to assess whether it is due to overall life style or a particular event, or series of events. That being said, I am unaware of long-time studies that compare e.g. venison to beef diets. Most papers focus on potential conaminants of venison (ranging from lead due to hunting to various parasites. Just looking at certain parameters, venison is, on average, leaner than most beef you typically get. But other than that there are to, to my knowledge, no large studies showing actual health benefits.

Immediate decline in a number of key issues, including the loss of political stability and that successor states simply did not have the influence or power than Rome as a a larger entity had. Concurrently, some areas were cut off from major trade routes which significantly impacted economies. One could possibly even argue that political instability persisted until the ~11th century which may have influenced development. Of note, the drop of living standards varied throughout the Empire with evidence pointing towards a rather large decline in Britain, fueled again by massive wars between provinces. In what constitutes now Italy, things were impacted by the later wars but stabilized afterward quite quickly. Disruptions of trade an food supplies large centers, including Rome itself, became unsustainable and in that regard we have collapse. Yet this is only part of the story. Of note, the other half of the Roman Empire continued to exist for another ~1000 years before it also collapsed. As such, the cultural centre moved toward the East fueled by trade and interaction with the Islamic countries (as well as via the Silk Road far to the East). And it is a bit of scholarly dishonesty to somehow ignore that (not addressed to OP, but it is somewhat persistent in many older history books). The myth part really is that in a cultural and technological sense everything was on halt West of the Byzantines until the Renaissance. Usually, this is a combination of overstating accomplishments of the Renaissance (with many developments pre-dated by the 10th century Byzantines) and are truly just a continuation of developments that happened during the middle ages. Prime examples are improvement in agriculture that occurred in that period. Likewise looking at the literature surrounding the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, the Lombards and especially the Carolingians there is not evidence that somehow cultural achievements stopped happening or reverted into a more primitive form. Yes, the collapse had significant economic impact and cultural developments had to work around it, but when things stabilized we see things such as the Carolingian and Ottonian renaissance. Technological developments were maintained and improved and some scholars maintain that it was actually higher (possibly due to immediate challenges due to warfare, famine etc.) than it was between 1200 and 1400.

There was no catastrophic collapse, more like slow continuous process in which the Roman empire had to cede political influence. Also successor states were established almost immediately and there was continuity throughout. As such it is rather silly to compare it to a massive destructive process. Instead it is probably be more precise to frame it as a cultural and social transformation. Unless you are actually subscribing to the dark ages myth, which really never existed. Edit: I see now that you indeed subscribe to that and no, there was no reversion of civilization. As a fundamental issue there is no linear advancement of society unless you use 19th century ideas of unilineal social and cultural evolution, which have been thoroughly dismissed. Which makes it two myths...

The question was about being advanced (which I also somewhat side-stepped) and not about enduring success. While the Han dynasty ended before the Roman empire (considering that its decline was longer than the whole duration of many other empires, especially if one takes the Eastern empire as the end point), one could argue that it did not end the empire per se, as most cultural and technological developments carried over. I think it is also a bit tricky to define influence exclusively at their height as often it is the time when they finally managed to squash their rivals. Yet up to that point often we find significant interactions (such as trade along the silk road). However, if we take the time around 100 AD we have the Parthian empire, while not a rival in size it was a major player with overlapping spheres of influence (and eventually defeated). And obviously, throughout history cultures have developed and vanished and it is almost impossible to put a label of more or less "advanced" on them. E,g, the Roman empire has used a lot of technical developments that were around for far longer and their military dominance was far more derived from doctrine than technology. Conversely, the Chinese developed gun powder but still lost the arms race in the long. The Nok culture was thought to have a very advanced in various areas, including iron smelting, yet it vanished by AD 300. But I think we can clearly dismiss the biology behind all these questions.

No, but if, say only a percentage of any given workforce engages in discriminatory practices, then obviously the dominating group will do more discrimination. A big issue is also that discrimination is usually subtle and to a degree unconscious, which makes things worse. If you engage e.g. exclusively with male engineers and a female comes a long, your perception is likely to be different. As you are used to males, any new male would have to have some distinguishing figures to stick out and you would need some interaction to gauge them (say, "Dave is a bit louder than Mike but despite being annoying he has goo ideas."). However if a female or any other minority comes along the fact that they stick out is likely to influence interaction with and evaluation of the person (i.e. the being loud may now be attributed to a given stereotypical group rather than the attribute of an individual). This may even be true if one is a member of minority group. As such, it is usually majority groups that shape the form of stereotyping in a given environment. The issue at play is that we are ultimately crap in objectively evaluating other people. We utilize personal experience as a guideline and in cases where we lack those, we often use stereotypes or limited experiences to fill the gaps. Edit, crossposted.

Yes, I understood it as "for the last 1000 years", sorry for that. I would add that the Roman sphere of influence was somewhat more limited and it was dominance mostly over other European groups as well as part of Middle East and North Africa. In the East the Han empire was a dominating power, for example. Or one could count in the various rivals and enemies that the Roman empire has faced (and most often eventually overcome). But you are right, there is no doubt that this is not a biological discussion. I will move it to the politics section for now as it is the closest I can think of in terms of topic.

Around 1000 there was certainly no European dominance. They were still trying to catch up to the Muslim world. The Song empire brought developments that are still in use. And the n stage is still waiting for the subsequent Mongol rule that is going to shape history until now. European dominance, if t you want to call it, was only sealed starting sometime in the 17th-18th century.

From the research side I would advise against being too broad. It is much harder to get funding if people think you are not a specialist. Instead, collaborations are preferred during which you learn additional things without specializing in it. If by skill you mean teaching, leading, bench skill, writing skill, administrative, then it is mostly by doing and learning along the way. Key is good time management as it will take a lot of time.

Because you ignore my answers and questions. Asking the wrong questions won't help you understand the principles. Last try: to you understand the difference between gene and gene product?

I meant osmotolerant. If memory serves assays routinely find bugs surviving ca 15% NaCl and 50% sucrose. Some extemophiles may go higher.

I cannot help you if you just ignore the bulk of biological required to understand the process. Not understanding proteins is not understanding what a gene is. I do not sense any effort on your side to understand the process therefore I opt to not further waste my time.

Depends, actually. Especially among Gram positives there are some very osmostable buggers.

You are still not getting it. Both alleles can express proteins (do you understand what a protein is and how it relates to a gene? If not, ask or look up, it is crucial for understanding). The proteins differ in sequence (as alleles may have different sequences). Different amino acid sequences can alter the function of the protein. This is the part that does not require additional regulatory control to explain dominance.

Oh boy, in that case you probably should not look at some of the policies in her hospice...

The thing is that it is just another heap on the huge pile of deplorable things that Trump has done, which individually would be an issue, but possible could be addressed. The fact that instead of apologizing he starts attacking (soldier parents, black folks, Mexicans etc.) just coalesce the image of him. Bill Clinton's affair is not that much of an issue as Trump had those too (so let's say they cancel out). The more important bit is certainly sexual assaults. In Bill's case sexual assault charges were made, but not proven (which does not necessarily mean that they did not happen). Yet Trump not only has to face these charges, but he actually bragged about them. And again, while it seems to be the tipping point issue, it is just another bit on the shit stain that the campaign has become.

So you needed over a tonne (per year) of it as a sample? I am not familiar with requirements in that order of magnitude but yes, if that is a common usage volume it could pose problems. Though I am pretty sure if sufficient companies start complaining, exemptions or changes will be made. Still, it does seem like an awful lot, especially as one would have 11 years to register it and if it only happens once (rather than every year) I do not think there is actually need for registration. There is the possibility that there may be other issues at hand (such as lack of profitability).

Depending on the nature of product, LC or GS/MS can help looking at number and type of products you may have gotten. The LC/GC parts takes care of separation.

Why should a recessive allele be blocked in the first place? You are aware that in almost all the posts before we discussed how it is in a non-regulatory situation? If you still think that dominance is specifically a mechanisms that prevents expression of a recessive allele by the dominant one, then your model is flawed. The description is based on phenotype and the interaction can be simple. Examples were given above example (i.e. protein activity, did you understand that part or was that unclear) or due to regulatory influences, that may involve interactions with other gene products. These includes often transcription factors, though the role of small RNAs is getting more and more attention. If you are really confused how gene regulation works, I would first look into transcription factors, which is a more canonical view as basis. Then expand into regulatory RNAs. I do feel that you may have quite some ground to cover in order to understand the elements and their interaction.

Hard to say as OP has not provided a specific context. Wastewater management is almost always talked about in an environmental context, for example. So theoretically one could simply use that as a term and get overwhelmed. Lit often deals with specific aspects, like e.g. specific contaminants or specific environments, or specific wastewater sources or specific treatments etc. Same goes with "contaminated water". What contamination? Feces, hazardous material, mining effluencts, specific bacteria etc. etc.

Where have you searched? These topics are incredibly broad and looking into any search engine for papers you get easily hundreds of thousands of hits.

So, the sources basically contradict the title of this thread. And then you are accusing her of doing her job as public defender (according to your sources reluctantly)? What would be the alternative? Collude with the attorney's office to corrupt the justice system?

Check out the keywords "electron transport chain" and "oxidative phosphorylation". There should be oodles of resources.

Sigh. Really? A recessive gene does not need to be prevented from expression. In fact, some better known examples work on the protein level. For example due to different level of functionality.