CharonY

As a general comment, of course it is not possible to reconstruct the evolutionary history of each and every trait. But that is not what evolutionary science is about. As an analogy particle physics is will not explain where each atom came from. Actual science on the subject (if we go away from hand wavy narratives) it depends a lot on the subject being investigated. Here, you typically look at specific alleles and search whether there are differences from a null model (linkage disequilibrium being an obvious example). Thus traits under some form of positive or negative selection will exhibit different frequency distributions than neutral ones. In simple organisms as bacteria it can be investigated much more directly by applying a stressor that acts as a selective force. "Favorable" as a term is not terribly helpful as it would have to be linked to the selection itself. I.e. instead of stating that you are doing an antibiotics selection you would have to state that you are creating a condition favoring resistant bacteria resulting in a pool with higher frequency of bacteria. I have no clue why one would change well-established linguistic usage for no apparent good reason. Also one difference is "favor" implies something directional or positive. However selection can be positive as well as negative (the latter probably more common in stable situations), resulting often in non-directional (or sometimes disruptive) selection. Again, the use of selection is much deeper than the discussion actually touches upon (as Ophiolite already implied) and I feel that the whole discussion is prolonged unnecessarily by focusing on some misunderstood concepts. Maybe if you replace the word "selection" with "filter" it would make more sense to you (but it would not follow common usage). It is a bit like discussing why quantum mechanics is not called something else because it is in truth not about mechanics (just to pull something out of thin air).

The mandate of the FDA or CDC is independent of companies and before vaccines are approved the companies need to submit rigorous documentation of safety and efficacy. There are various databases to mine, such as http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/VSD.html The data tracked by these agencies tend to be the most thorough, as they obtain and track data from large populations, whereas specific studies tend to be more limited. For example, they may specifically track the safety for high-risk groups, such as children with kidney issues, pregnant women and other groups that would get lost in the overall data tracked by agencies. I would advise you to make a quick google scholar or pubmed search or vaccine safety, as they are far too many to list. If you are interested in non-experimental vaccines that are generally regarded as safe you will probably have to go back in time a bit. You may be interested in the development of the pertussis vaccine that started off as whole-cell vaccines, but then got refined to only gone an antigenic protein (Lambert, J Infect Dis. 2014). In a way we only have a discussion about vaccine safety because they are so effective. Before they effectively reduced or almost eliminated the disease, it was a no-brainer to vaccinate as serious health issues and death due to the respective diseases were so devastating. Now that the disease levels are so low, people start for looking for the very rare events of vaccine-related issues. Sadly, this could result in re-emergence of the disease which starts the whole cycle again. Until of course, pathogens emerge that somehow changed so much that existing vaccines stop working...

The efficacy of vaccines varies, depending on the disease. I am not sure what you means with third party but organizations like WHO, FDA and CDC provide information about effectiveness and safety of vaccines. Negative side effects are vanishingly small (typically found in the order of a few incidences per million vaccination) which makes it very hard to figure out whether these were the result of vaccination or caused by something else entirely. One known risk is the use of certain live vaccinations in immunodeficient people (such as polio vaccine which was phased out in the late 90s). Other than that long-term effects are almost impossible to figure out, as you are exposing your body continuously to potentially harmful things in the air (especially in homes), food, water etc. A singular exposure due to vaccination is likely to vanish in the noise of overall exposure.

The answer is obviously "turtles."

The example was provided in the context of random effects, such as drift and luck). Which means that all individuals were equally likely to be eliminated. But of course in Strange's example it is not a stochastic event anymore, as now there are individuals that are less likely to die from rock fall. To summarize, a stochastic event in this context is essentially anything affecting the gene pool regardless of its composition. If there are differential reproductive success due to events (such as disease or antibiotics resistance) they are not considered random anymore, as they shape the gene pool in a specific manner. Also note that phenotypes generally do not arise as a response to something. Mutations leading to sickle cell arise with or without malaria. However, their frequency in the population are affected by it.

Well, what known Venusians life forms are there from which we could speculate survivability under Earth-like conditions?

In a fictional setting the chances are exactly as the author wants them to be.

No, these are aspects are stochastic events that contrast with natural selection. The latter is specifically tied to differential reproductive success under given conditions. I.e. selective forces act on a given gene pool and shapes the resulting frequency.

I agree completely with that assessment. Also a new theory would, in my opinion, only be useful if it is able to synthesize all those directions in a cohesive way that allows quantitative predictions. However, the analysis of these mechanisms is split between disciplines with a lot of unknown in each area. In fact, one could argue that the complexity of the processes and their implications need to be broken down into sub-research topics as there is not enough information available to research in a unified manner.

That is a morphological characterization.

Actually there are different types of classifications, depending on the context and approach (e.g. function, morphology, reaction to certain dyes etc.).

Although to be fair, biological and related topics are a bit all over the place here. E.g. there is not good reason why immunology and microbiology is grouped together and placed under medicine. On the other hand, the sub topics are easy enough to see in the main view, so it does not really matter. Likewise, considering the amount of posts (or lack thereof) it does not make a lot of sense to have a lot of topics, as they are likely to remain mostly empty. Finally aside from very rough categories the subdivision of disciplines tend not to be terribly helpful for newer research directions.

For that you have to ask yourself: - what does lysozyme do? - what relevant characteristics distinguish Gram+ and Gram- bacteria?

Actually it is also misspelled in the title above the video (though I should not complain about misspelling). However, there is an option to ignore signatures. I am not sure whether it works on mobile devices, though.

Everyone is in a funk every now and then. However, you should be aware that there will be some shifts once once you get towards a proper academic position (i.e. TT). Yet, if you are not terribly interested in what you are doing it will be quite painful as, a) the path to TT is very uncertain and stressfull and b) can take quite a long while with a lot of financial insecurity. Even after landing an academic job you will often take your work home with you, which is alright if you love what you are doing, but adds to stress if you do not. It would be a good time to evaluate what you want from life (e.g. work life vs private life balance, family, location etc.) and see which careers would provide you with what you want.While it is not universally true, some industrial jobs allow you to leave your job at work. Even if you are not terribly interested in it (but are decently competent) you could balance that part off with a fulfilling private life. An academic job tends to stay with you the whole time although in theory you could settle down once you achieve tenure. However, you are typically in your 40s (and in some countries even older) and by then you probably do not know how to do things differently anymore.... To summarize, the correct mindset is to think about what you want from live. What do you want to have and do in the next 5 years, ten years, twenty years? And go from there.

It should be noted that typical water filters do not provide microbial filtration. If the filter is not flushed, bacteria can grow in it, however.

To be fair, judging from med school students, many doctors hate biology.

A rest pulse of 90 or higher is sometimes indicative of some underlying health issue (although abnormal values could also highlight the need for a better measurement). The feeling of already having experienced something could be a déjà vu. I.e. a short-term inability of the brain to distinguished between new events and memory of a given event, so to speak.

Actually, I faintly recall that there was a weak correlation between brain size and IQ, but that skull size was not a very good measure of brain size. The overall variations are not huge in any case (as at some point the deformities would be detrimental). I also think that Einsteins's brain size was within the normal range. Of course these studies are limited as age of death would have a large influence on structure of the brain. In any case the mechanistic link between size and IQ (should it exist) is still not known and one has to be careful to make any inferences.

Hmm are you referring to Rowe et al (1999) J Infect Dis, which focused on convalescent patients (but there are likely more that I do not know/remember, so a reference would be very welcome)? But in either case that is actually quite relevant. The majority of rapid virus detection are based on Ebola RNA detection (using RT-PCR). Further analysis are often based on antigens, which yields a bit more information (as at least parts of virus particles have also to be present) However, the presence of RNA or even some antigens does not necessarily also mean the presence of infectious viruses (though it is often associated). I presume it is this confusion that leads many people to believe that it is easy to catch Ebola.

It would be more complicated, but I feel adding a timeline somehow would be very useful to see the shift in politics. Oftentimes these discussion are based on the current state of affairs and projected into the past (it was always that way) and into the future. Yet in many cases major political shifts have happened, that massively changed the relationship between groups and nations. As Willie71 said, the historic background is hugely complex and on top of it it was also a region that saw huge amounts of outside influence (especially, but not limited to the cold war). Without this context many aspects are very hard to understand.

Also, IIRC, he famously claimed that in 2014 there will be a sharp temperature drop which will lead to a new ice age. That is not consistent with existing data either.

Pretty much. However, the lines between acquired and and intrinsic are blurry at best.

The situations are obviously immensely complex and varies significantly from region to region. What I would caution is to use broad historical simplifications as an indicator for trajectories. Looking at the history of Europe, or even just the 19th and 20th century, most would agree that the region is a powder keg. In fact, the world wars started there. Looking at entrenched rivalries (e.g. Germany and France) it is hard to believe that there is any chance for peace in that region. Or looking back at the cold war similar things could be predicted. Rather, I would think that economic stability would have a stabilizing effect on society. A large, well educated and well-off middle class as a whole is probably less likely to participate in actions that would endanger their wealth. Of course this would have to come with political system that would allow that to happen, which could be one of the biggest problems.

The problem is that the UN and by extension the WHO is not funded to actually do something. Their main purpose is to track global information, develop strategies and make recommendations. The various nations are very careful in limiting the actually influence the UN actually has. No one wants the UN or WHO to be able to actually enforce quarantines or taking any sorts of action that may interfere with sovereignty . They do actually provide guidelines and emergency response strategies for emergency procedures but they are unable to just swoop in and to things. They further track the spread of ebola and AFAIK have the most up-to-date info on the events and they coordinate between local authorities and provide technical advice and supplies. And again, most health professionals do not see that quarantines outside of the affected regions are necessary or helpful. So why should they call for it? Edit: and I think it has been established that OP's blame on the US is misplaced.