CharonY

There are quite a few studies on that topic, but I do not have the results in my head. I vaguely remember studies in Australia dating back to the 70s/80s (Kearns or Kearins?)

Possibly, but as with all "what if" questions it is almost impossible to tell. A big question would e.g. have been the policy regarding the old government and military.

I should probably add that flavonoids and other components of cocoa (though obviously not other components such as sugar) have been positively associated with cardiovascular health.

Tough to tell. We have rough idea about how humans may have lived but it is difficult to assign contributions of the various elements as selective forces. After all, we cannot run models with them. I am therefore always hesitant to provide evolutionary explanations for physiological mechanisms.

You have no idea how obsessive I was testing water temp coming out of the grouphead until I found a system with a decent PID.... I guess it is a symptom of hanging out with analytical chemists too much.

Actually it is not quite as clear-cut and unfortunately the hunter-gathering narrative, while powerful, may be one of the "just so" stories, as they are hard to test. Consequently, there are a few more hypotheses out there with various degree of support. As usual with evolutionar scenarios, it is very difficult to ascertain what is the likelies and/or had the highest impact. What seems to be mostly in agreement is that men and women recall spatial memory differently but depending on the specific task, e.g. women are better at object location tasks (Montello 1999) as well as memory-type games. So the outcome depends highly on what elements of spatial memory are being tested.

Yes, the nice thing is that it has a lot of depth to the flavour that is not covered up just by sugar and fat. It is like espresso vs. frappucino (or whatever it is called). But as with many things it is an acquired taste.

If you develop (or have) a taste for high cocoa low sugar variants chocolate is likely not that bad.

Cro-Magnon is at best an informal term and they would be indistinguishable from modern humans, as you pointed out. There have been more findings of humans from that period, though from what I understand Cro-Magnon 1 is one of the best preserved ones. Therefore it is often used as the original to do make replicas of. Others do not show that indentation, but are often in bad shape or are only fragments.

Why do you think that there is not much research on them? You are aware that they are not really a distinct taxon? Also, what you have seen are various reproductions of Cro-Magnon 1.

From the administrative perspective there is definitely a push toward higher enrollment and graduation rates. Note that the biggest chunk of money does not actually come from students, but from the government (State and Federal). However, the government money is usually tied to enrollment levels and may penalize drop-outs (though I am not sure whether it actually happens, would be interesting to look at). However, admissions requirements are (typically) not exclusively governed by administration and involved faculty tend to balance things out to some degree. Usually once you get in it is harder to fail, though. Edit: crossposted, meant to be a comment on post #20.

IIRC eye color is determined by two (or more alleles). One allele either codes for brown or blue, the other green and blue. In that system, green is dominant over blue, but both are recessive to brown. In order to know to answer the question whether it is rare, one would need to know the alelle frequency in a given population. Theoretically, one could expect green eyes more often than blue eyes, as the latter has to be fully homozygous to confer that phenotype. However, there are other contributing factors that may determine allele frequency (including composition of the population).

For the most part it is the use of methods traditionally rooted in physics to examine biological phenomena. This can include e.g. theoretical models for e.g. simulating molecule interactions but also experimental techniques.

It is a mix of several issues. Foremost, the increasing number of graduates means that companies can hire people with higher education levels for lower positions. However, companies now also less willing to offer training and expect people to come in with relevant experience or to be more trained in uni. But you are also correct that there is less filtering as it is getting much more difficult to fail students. From personal experience (from a different system) in the olden days it was quite expected to have a drop rate of 50-60% (my class had about 70%, most due to chem, math or physics requirements). Nowadays a failure rate of 30% or higher would raise some concerns. It is part of the broad roles that unis are now expected to fulfill which it was never primarily designed to fulfill. . And as you can see even on this board, there is quite a confusion in the assumption that higher education is connected to well-defined career paths. Which intuitively makes sense if you consider the cost, but is clearly not how and why unis were established.

There is a difference between a career in scientific research and a career with a science degree. Typically the latter is very varied, ranging from sales, to technical positions, product management, consulting and so on. As others have said, the former is fairly limited in job prospects.

Afaik, we do not have the tools to get that detailed info from that time.

I will say that most is going toward medical science and applied biology, biochemistry or engineering. Fundamental biology tend to be highly dependent on NSF or smaller pots. In fact, biology as a discipline is quite split, which I feel is one of the reasons why certain areas prefer life-science as a term. Many of the life scientists you see are actually biochemists, for example. To 4) most pure science graduates do not end up working as scientist. Whereas engineers almost by definition have an out-of research/academia career path. As ajb mentioned, having a science career is actually more competititve. 5) you would generally use your specific job title as the meaning can change a bit (and is quite different within and outside academia, not to mention in different systems/countries etc.). As an example, in biotech or pharma positions in labs at Masters are often termed technician, analyst, or even, confusingly, engineer (e.g. see service engineer). There used to be specialists in various technical areas, but it seems to be more and more filled by PhDs.

There There has always been an interest in misappropriating science to further ones own agenda. Politics has done it as well as corporations. That is why disclosure policies have been implemented and why tenure is such an important element. Obviously, that does not prevent individuals or even institutions to make questionable decisions. That being said, there are two arenas which only partly overlap that we are talking about. One is that of policy and policy-making and the other is the actual science. The latter tends to be self-correcting, with the big caveat that if it is very costly to do so, politics can influence the situation by manipulating how grants are issued. For example, there is an ongoing push to make all research applied, with fundamental research getting less and less funding.(in various countries). In that situation bad science may be able to persist longer than it should. Amateur science is unlikely to help as it is also devoid of funding but also largely devoid of expertise.

We are talking about slightly different but related aspects here. Bottleneck population are formed when a subsequent population orginates from a subset of the original population. It does not mean that a part just went on and got isolated from the rest (though it could have happened), but for human migration the more likely scenario (given the long time of ca. 80k years). Or in other words, the populations that established and could be traced to current humans is the aforementioned sized. It does not mean that there haven't been more, but it does mean that they have not left descendants. I am not up to date about what the current consensus but there were basically two main models. The one is that a singular event occurred in which all non-Africans trace their origin to a single population 40-80k years ago, the second suggests that initial migration may have started 120-130k years with subsequent migration waves, which I assume what the original OP was asking. While there are some newer studies based on modeling support the latter hypothesis, others using genomic information However, a series of articles, based on genomic analyses rather than the traditional use of select genetic markers found evidence that may or may not be supportive of either. Pagani et al (Nature 2016) seem to suggest that an early expansion occured out of Africa to Australasia some 120k years as the ancestry from Papua New Guineans seem to have separated earlier from the African population than other Eurasians. Others have suggested a singular population that then split out into two waves, one eventually ending up in Australia and the others becoming the ancestors of the Eurasians. Here the "waves" if you will would refer to the split and direction of the original population(s). And again, it does not mean that the population under consideration has to be one given generation (such as parent child and grandparents) but could consist of several generations over a given time frame. After all, we are only able to look at relative contributions to the gene pool with a relatively low resolution. And an added issue is that of course populations that do not leave descendants to our days would not be easily (or at all) traced. Ancient DNA (rather than DNA from current populations) have shown that this has happened quite a bit (a lot of data surrounding the Neanderthal DNA in the last few years have discussed that). And obviously both hypothesis could be in agreement with data if one e.g. assumes that no intermixing of the original population and the later migration waves have occurred. Edit: regarding the specifics of quantifying a population using population genetic approaches I would defer to Arete. There are various approaches and models being utilized, with varying sensitivity to the input data and I lack the expertise to critique the respective approaches.

What I am wondering is why you would generalize a group and then ask that for a different group one should have a much more detailed and fine-grained view. Is it possible that you think that a group you belong to is being treated unfairly as you have a much deeper knowledge and connection to it, whereas you are fine to use a broad brush when it is outside your own experience? Have you noticed, for example, how you have repeatedly characterized black folks or Muslims? And how you brush off calls for a more detailed view (e.g. in light of stop and frisk or similar policies) by creating a narrative that somehow validates your viewpoint?

So, public spaces should be safe spaces?

The "wave" is not a specific population walking toward a goal, rather it refers to overall migration within a time span and used to distinguish it from other major migration pattern. It is probably more accurate to thing in terms of expansion or dispersal that went on for ten thousands of years. Nor was the push unidirectional, but there are patterns of back and forth.

As pointed out, the premise is rather extremely faulty. But let us assume that there is a (seemingly implied) link between BLM protests and riots. Should non-violent protesters refrain from demonstrating injustice (regardless of perceived or real) if it may inspire riots? Also, should protesters held to an equal or higher standard than cops?

A few things to consider. Radiation therapy is highly localized. As such, the risk is dependent on which part of the body is being irradiated, as well as the area being irradiated. Due to the usually highly localized treatment, most effects are expected to be transient (but as usual ask medical doctors for actual risk assessment). The dose is always kept way below levels for acute radiation syndrome, if that was your worry.

There are different roles and you'll have to figure out what you want to be. If you enjoy lab work, it is mostly a technician type of work, for example.