CharonY

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.

They do not even have to be expressed. Sometimes a phenotype (on which selection works) is there because a gene is not expressed. Also note that sRNA regulation is a special case and using that to understand the general mechanisms of dominance is a bit like trying to understand extrapolate energy metabolism by looking at phosphorylation of glucose.

Not to mention that you even got the basics wrong and try to fill gaps with speculation. RNA does not bind to the "correct" allele. It is simply formed as the complementary sequence along the respective locus. The polymerase actually binds and elongates base by base.

You have a very weird way to describe transcription and translation. Yet the main mechanism underlying cases that are not regulatory in nature are based on protein functions. Have you read and tried to understand String's and my earlier post? The mRNA is just a transcript based on the DNA sequence and (again outside of regulation) the interaction is always the same, regardless of whether you got a recessive or dominant allele. The issue is that you are mixing up various levels of mechanisms (molecular, phenotype, selection) without seemingly having a clear view how the elements work or interact with each other.

Nope, that is not how it works. At all. The only thing that is correct is homo and heterozygotes face different selective pressures.

Well, customs is independent of shipping. Also, being sold online does not necessarily mean that there are not limitations in their import. Moreover, even if a chemical is part of an over-the-counter medication it does not mean that other formulations may be sold,

Concoctions made from a variety of Panicoideae is the traditional elixir of courage for many, many people.

Not entirely wrong. But basically you can boil it down to the following: alleles usually code for different varieties of proteins. The proteins are associated with a given set of phenotypes. If you mix them, they do their thing, If a given mixture always results in a given trait, the protein(s) responsible and the associated alleles can be considered dominant. The simplest case is if an allele results in the loss or reduced function of the protein it codes for. Let's call the allele a and the phenotype p-. If an individual has two of this allele (aa) the individual has not functioning protein and the phenotype is p-. However, if he is heterozygote and carries a functional version (b) in addition to a, the functional one may be sufficient to cover the deficit, hence ab would be p+. Then there may be a third allele, c, which is functional, but not quite as efficient as b. If you have got cc, you have phenotype somewhere between p+ and p-, let's call it p+/-. So if you got bc, you got p+, as the more efficient b covers c. Thus b is dominant over a and c. But if you have ac, the somewhat functional c covers the deficit of a and you may have p+/-. Often, it is not that straightforward as in the given example, though (especially if loci in question play regulatory roles). However, OP seems to be confused about the definition of dominance as it does not have anything to do with RNA binding, nor does it have anything to do with fitness.