CharonY

How do you define "order of evolution"?

For high temps silicon and mineral oils are well suited, but are really only necessary if you keep the bath at high temps for long times (high throughput PCRs are often used in these baths kept at denaturing temps). Most ethylene glycol mixtures are suited up to 100 C, which is generally enough for melting experiments. However, in lab courses I know people doing denaturation at 95C simply with water. It depends a bit on the desired throughput and accuracy.

No, there are many more factors in play that renders a plant perennial. Just because it becomes sterile it would not be able to suddenly change its physiology.

But that is the point of posturing, isn't it? Israel does not need to, as it has the military superiority.

Well, he never had any position per se, he was just a grad student in chemical engineering.

From what I understand it seems to me that for an ideal political discourse the participants should have the information that allows them to make fact-based decisions. Thus, it would be beneficial to have access to education for as many people as possible to enable support of policies that may actually enable a given desired outcome. I.e. it would emancipate the voters from the politician's (and lobbyists) rhetoric, so to say. Of course there are also many matters that are so complex that even the best models would be at best speculative. It does not mean that uneducated should not vote. But rather it would be in their best interest to figure out whether their vote would actually result in what they hope to achieve. Either that or I need more coffee.

Also, it should be noted that the nonsense from this student should not be seen as the standard of the whole University (as already noted). In fact the University issued a statement: Also there a handful of publications out there from the University that are some decently cited (though far from class-leading). Or in other words, crackpots are everywhere and they should not be considered representative of a given population. If that was the case, imagine what SFN would be considered to be...

It would be incredibly inefficient and almost impossible to control the dosage. Typically anything larger is provided intravenously. That is why insulin (~5.8 kDa) pills are not available, for example (but there seems to be some work on it).

Well, there is a lot that can go wrong and without looking at the raw data or precisely revising protocols it is tricky to see whether there is something off with the protocol. That being said, Y2H has been shown to create massive amounts of false positives, if conduct large meta- and/or validation studies. However, typically under controlled conditions it is not as bad as what you described.

Well, the displayed biological knowledge is as limited as the mathematical, so at least there is some consistency here.

Typically with immobilized thrombin you will have less or no residual thrombin. In some cases digests seem to be less efficient (though not reproducibly so).

There is also immobilized thrombin that is covalently bound which saves a step over most biotin-thrombin protocols.

Your lecturer is referring to small molecules which are completely different beasts than proteins (most likely organohalogens or similar bioaccumulative compounds). Typically, proteins will be digested heavily by proteases (or bacterial actions) during the passage. Even if they don't, they have to be taken up actively by intestinal cells (where further degradation may occur). That is a rather rare event, but it is quite possible.

If immobilized thrombin or affinity columns are too pricey I guess you are limited to whatever separation method you have at hand (as new columns are not cheap either). Without knowing your target protein it is tricky to say but at least in theory reversed phase or ion exchange prep HPLC should do the trick. Even if inactive I would try to avoid additional contaminants in crystallization experiments as much as possible. Also, I typically check purity of overexpression purificaitions via LCMS as sometimes stuff stick to the column and get co-purified, which can be a problem if the desired proteins is not very highly expressed,

Change in genetics are are what causes inheritable morphological changes. OP specifically mentioned wings. In a number (if not most) of species the evolution is speculative, hence the insistence on immediate positive selection is unfounded. Most known elements, however, point to outgrowths of wings from a variety of structures (such as gills or arms) and not some completely novel, additional structures.

That is not typically how things happen. Mutations are typically neutral or sometimes detrimental, beneficial ones are very rare. For example, mutations in enzymes tend to happen in duplicated genes as they would not be selected against (or, as you put it, add overhead). The cost of duplication is, as a whole often not very high (i.e. only weak or no selection). For example, in organisms with bipedalism, changes in the arm strength is probably not associated with a high cost. Over time changes may accumulate that significantly change its structure from the precursor.

While that is partially true for wings as the intermediates are still functional appendages, it should be noted that changes do not need to be beneficial themselves. As long as they are not heavily selected against, they may persist and even spread throughout a population either by chance (e.g. drift) or by co-selection, for example.

That does not seem to be the case, if we assume that the panels are the weak point:

As others have noted elsewhere, this assessment is incorrect. It has to be recognized first that the war council was in charge of military affairs and the emperor basically had the sway only after the cabinet became evenly split after the second bomb and the Soviet attack. Even before the bombs dropped Japan was looking at terms to surrender, though the efforts started probably only in spring 1945, with the Soviets being instrumental as mediator. What happened then in detail is somewhat shrouded in mystery and obfuscation as there are few detailed records about who advocated what within the cabinet, which opens things up to one-sided interpretation. But even before that it is clear that Japan was far from an unified voice. Tomoshige tried to assassinate the then prime minister Hideki Tojo in order to set up a new cabinet under Prince Higashikuni and immediately sue for peace via Moscow (Summer 1944). Shigenori Togo (Minister of Foreign Affairs 1945) was a proponent of the Potsdam, whereas Korechika Anami (Minister of War) and Yoshijiro Umezo (Chief of Army) were opposed. The specific position of Prime minister Suzuki are more ambivalent. However, (and as usual for historic analyses) it is almost impossible to find an answer to what if scenarios (would they have surrendered without atomic strikes? Would they have surrendered if the Soviets had not attacked? Would they have surrendered if the Allies had promised to leave the Emperor untouched?) . As such any declarations with certainty to such speculations are unfounded.

There is no (Pacey et al. Hum Reprod. 2014) or only weak evidence for that:

It is used in low concentrations and it is readily converted to ethylmercury in the body, which is eliminated fairly quickly. There are efforts to replace thiomersal, especially for infants, though. However, in absence of alternatives the risk is far lower than that of infections and is very safe for adults (occupational Hg exposure in industry can be higher, for example).

ScienceDirect is not a journal, but a platform launced by Elsevier. You have to look at individual journals and their policies/costs. They vary to a very large extent.

I do not think that 10 mins would be enough to describe and list all the steps that you propose. I think you are getting lost in details that do not really help to understand the physiological relevance of the processes. Rather, I suggest that you describe in more rougher terms where the intermediates branch off into the respective pathways. It makes a lot of sense if you specifically check out the branches from TCA (as well as the role of glutamate).

it is a term that is mostly borne in social sciences in the 19th century following the assumption of a linear progression of society as proposed by Tylor, Morgan, Bachofen or Frazer. So technically it probably should be more discussed in the context of social Darwinism (another historic social science entity). Not that many creationists are careful in making these distinctions. With regards to Evolution, to me the Futuyma is a pretty good go-to-read. From there it would be a question of how much depth and which aspects would be of most interest to you.

Basically what Phi said. In the early days i.e. (19th century) evolutionism was used but it also entailed elements that are clearly not true (i.e. assumption of progressive improvement). As such it was ultimately dropped by the developing scientific community. It has been somewhat revived recently, typically by deniers.