CharonY

ah yup. missed that one. Also, depending on survey the objections to evolution range from 30-40% depending on poll and phrasing (in the US). While it appears high, it is not tremendously different to countries such as UK, Canada or Germany. The overall support for evolution is usually 40-60% in most countries, though the precise question seems to be important. E.g. whether the question for common descent includes or excludes the guidance of a higher being. Either way, a far cry from the lone nutter (and also a reminder that people that one surrounds oneself with may not be representative of the whole population).

Only if it is a pristine coin. Those in circulation (including copper-containing coins) tend to be contaminated to a significant degree (though less than e.g. paper money).

That is how you create a disease-prone inbred population.

Usually it is some sort of belief in human exceptionalism, often (but not always) fueled by religion.

If they have the means to do so. As it has been pointed out, globally there is no overpopulation per se as it would simply not sustain the "over" part. Environmentally there are of course issues that could modulate the level of sustainability, as well as technology. Locally there is a lot of variation, of course and it is maybe a bit weird that one would be concerned for e.g. the US as they clearly have more means to sustain high levels than other areas which under current rates are struggling, despite having far lower population densities.

A significant part of phytoplankton are bacteria (mostly cyanobacteria).

I wouldn't know of any mechanisms that would sound anything like this. At least not in the way described. In addition to what already has been mentioned are allergies and/or food-related issues.

One issue to add is that a single mistake is all that it takes to have a tragedy, i.e. even responsible gun owners must be vigilant all the time. This is of course also true for driving cars, yet driving serves a more common purpose (you have to get somewhere all the time) compared to guns, which you hopefully don't need to use frequently...

What I am saying is that if you are able to talk to guys, you are able to talk to girls, if you are not in the mindset of having a sexual relationship. If you also have problems talking to anyone you may have social skills issues that can be addressed in various ways. You concentrate on outward appearance front and center and while it is true that they do heavily social life, they just hindrances not insurmountable roadblocks. It may take more work for some than for others but for only very few does it happen without any level of effort. As others have mentioned, especially if you have cards stacked against you, you are not doing yourself a favor if you also further rig the game against yourself.

There is likely not a lot of active growth on a silver coin (it would be freakishly disgusting if they did), but the antibacterial properties are likely to go down in worn coins and especially when mixed with organic components from handling they may hang on there for quite a bit. Note that putting goo from your hands on it diminishes it (again, as direct contact is necessary).

But if you are mostly focused on yourself (while going to great lengths to justify that) and do not leave room for someone else, it should not come as a surprise that no one is willing to join you.

Ionic silver in solution is what affects bacteria. A big chunk does not release altogether that much of it. In fact, an old oxidized coins is probably more likely to release dirt and germs rather than kill it. I suppose grinding it up could work to some degree.

I should add that the argument from law enforcement was basically that it is unlikely to have any positive aspects, but in the rare case when something happens (which is generally not likely to skew overall statistics) it is likely to make law enforcement harder, not easier.

I remember that when a similar bill was proposed in Arizona the police openly came out against the idea of guns on campus. Their main argument was that it would make their job harder. So at least those actively involved in security think that it is not a great idea.

To be fair, in my lab I often do declare that it is a miracle that stuff works out.

I would argue the opposite. In many prokaryotes, especially those with reduced genomes, mutations are more likely result in phenotypical change, thus subjecting them to selective pressures. Whereas in eukaryotes with larger genomes but overall smaller proportion of genes random mutations are likely to be neutral. Antibiotics resistance is also mostly relevant for prokaryotes as they do not specifically target eukaryotes. That being said, there are quite a few, typically relatively simple, eukaryotes who have surprising resistances to adverse conditions. And also, asexual reproduction is nothing special, many simpler eukaryotes reproduce that way, so I have a hard time tying all the aspects together in an answer.

It does not help when politicians say things like this:

That was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment, actually, Sorry, that did not came through properly.

Take a look at the moiety responsible for the hydrogen bonds. Now think about whether they are hydrophobic or hydrophilic.

I think the differences are really just skin deep in practice. For non-visible groups I found that in both countries people rarely refer to themselves as XXX-American or XXX-Canadian in most situations. However, after realizing I came from Germany, many Canadians as well as US-Americans have mentioned that they have some German ancestry and sometimes vaguely remember the regions. Other than that they do refer themselves as Canadian or American. It could be that among Canadians/Americans it is more a thing as it helps to create subdivisions. But I doubt that there are a lot of differences there between Canadians and US Americans. Now with visible minorities I think you will find that the US system is not as much melty as you may think it is. The big difference are successful individuals, in the US success can in fact erase these differences to some degree. However, especially along the broader ethnic lines, all may refer to themselves as Americans, but the experience of specific group and how they perceive themselves and are perceived by others can be quite different. It would be foolish that these issues do not exist in the US and there is also quite a bit of crime that is limited to specific groups, which includes gangs and other criminal organizations. And I should stress that these are not limited to (visible) minorities (although they are often over represented). It just appears that Canada people are more cognizant about the differences and perceptions thereof beneath the surface. I would be interested to see whether there are studies that actually have found quantifiable differences, if they exist. However, based on personal interactions with US Americans and Canadians (i.e. anecdotes) I have not found that to be the case. The actual main differences seems to be that Canadians (regardless of background) seem to get slightly annoyed when mistaken for US Americans.

The cost for publishing is entirely the decision of the journal and is absolutely independent from IF. Often additional fees are applied for open access and colour figures. But really, Nature at this stage would almost be clearly a waste of time. It is basically trying to compete in an olympic marathon without knowing the route nor, in fact, which shoe to wear.

Note: none of this is intended medical advice nor should it be treated as such. What the Dr, may have told you is that there may be a case of GRIN1 disorder. GRIN1 is a gene coding for a type of protein that every human has. Now, there are different allelic variants of this gene, meaning that there are slightly different DNA sequences of this particular gene found in human population. Some of these variations perform differently and may cause certain disorders. Now, I am not a medical doctor and cannot tell you which variations and associated phenotypes are common. In literature you can find a wide range of disorders, associated with neurodevelopmental issues, but I do not want to list them as they may not apply in your case. Instead, your doctor should provide you with more information, or refer to you to a specialist that can.

My research is also interdisciplinary, but it is fairly easy to figure out. Essentially it is based on what lit you read for your research. Those are the likeliest candidates. As author you should know the respective field and how your research integrates into it (e.g. is it more technical in nature, are you describing a method, or a biological event, disease, etc.). Each paper should have a clear story and you have to think about who would like to read that particular story.

Except this is a summary report which should have collected the available information. There are also reports from various task groups looking at water discharge etc. I.e. as far as I can see there is a whole lot of lit out there. I am not sure whether someone has chopped it in simple bite-sized summaries yet, though.

Well, Nature only accepts whole manuscripts and they have really strong limitations on the article size. Much needs to be offloaded to the supplementary material. If lit is missing you can forget submitting there, it won't go out for review. The good thing is that they reject fast, so you won't spend a lot of time waiting. But again, do not expect it to make it past the initial phase. And yes, there is a huge difference between the nature publishing group and hindawi. If you think one of the journals of the latter will reject it, it is almost certain that especially Nature (rather than some of the more specialized NPG journals) will too.