CharonY

Well, in transposons quite often glucuronidase or galactosidase activity are often used. Positive selection is usually done with e.g. X-gal or X-gluc plates.

Some unis with core facilities also allow you to generate preliminary data using their facilities (typically things like sequencers, mass spectrometers, NMRs etc) on a tab under the assumption that you would reimburse them once the grant hits.

In addition to what chadn737 said: check the tree again. You will see that archaea and bacteria have a common root (look at the red part and do not get confused by the branching of archaea and eukarya, As a side note, bacteria are not species.

Actually, all cockroaches have wings...

Well there are news reports on that alligator. And apparently it was not trying to get through the fence, but on top of it, presumably to hunt a racoon. Link

Considering how established GR is, it would have to demonstrate in the proposal a certain likelihood of success. If that is worked out well, the reviewers would have a hard time refuting it. In addition the reviewer are generally not in contact with each other before they submit their reviews. Finally the panel often does not only consist of said referees and for controversial projects it is not uncommon to have panelists arguing either side. If everyone is established in the panel, there is actually a bigger chance that some want the unknown one to succeed just to spite their rival, with whom they may have built up decade-long animosity (several layers of cynicism have been added which may not represent reality).

Yes most studies point towards a common ancestor between archaea and bacteria and would be the common ancestor to all. There is at least one proposed deviation from it, but to my knowledge it is not very well substantiated (though Arete may want to comment on this).

Well, the ancestor is not around anymore and for unicellular organisms it is highly unlikely that fossils will be found. I am not sure whether there is a misunderstanding, however. Consider humans and chimpanzees (different level of trees, similar principle), for example. Neither spring from each other, but both share a common node, or ancestor.

I think in the US it is getting more vocal as the issue is being politicized here. In other countries there are generally no parties that have voting stake into supporting that (fundamentalist) stance. The reason why the arguments appear to get crazier is obviously that this is all that is left. To be honest, I was a bit apprehensive when starting to teach in the US, but neither me nor colleagues (including those specialized in evolutionary biology) have little trouble with students, indicating that at least among those interested in science the number of (vocal) creationists is low, even in the US.

Nope they are not placed after bacteria. That would imply that archaea are a group of bacteria. Current molecular (well, since Woese in the late 70s) evidence point to a common ancestor of archaea and bacteria, i.e they are different groups and are the result of an early split. Also note that many archaea are not extremophiles and there are also bacteria that are.

This is an excellent point and a cautionary tale with regards to extrapolating certain biochemical processes to organismal or phenotypic changes.

I think the initial confusion was whether the fire ant venom would be called a venom? The application to themselves obviously would not classify it as a venom. However, they are able to spray it. There are actually a few more definitions being in used for venom, which does include presence of toxic proteins, for example, all of which would be the case for fire but not for crazy ants. However, spraying as mode of delivery is a bit of an issue. For example, spitting cobras are undoubtedly venomous. However, they can spray their venom which does harm without a delivery system into the body other than ingestion or absorption. And again, we see that these kind of definitions are often trickier than they appear (and more importantly, nature does not care for these distinction). Passive vs active are generally useful rule of thumbs, though experts in these areas would use some finer terms to distinguish between the mode of toxin production, delivery and mode of action. Edit: also crossposted. With regards to the nettles, most likely not, but it would be interesting to see how topical application to fire ant stings would work (or any mild acid for that matter),

No, it is used accurately. The distinction is normally based on delivery (simple thing to recall, if you bite it and you die => poison, if it bites you and you die => venom). Fire ants deliver their venom actively and are not simply covered in it. With regards to the mechanism It is possible that the formic acid denatures the proteins in the venom, though it is pretty much speculation at this point. Edit: I should add that fire ants also have stingers, albeit relatively delicate ones, compared to some of bigger ones out there.

I agree, the methodology of the provided article appears to be more sound to me (judging from abstract alone). It is also interesting to note that fewer articles are likely to have a definite stance on AGW as all the evidence towards it and it appears a bit moot to ruminate on it.

Found a neat paper about how tawny crazy ants (Nylanderia fulva) are able to take on and displace the aggressive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). Apparently crazy ants somehow use formic acid that they produce themselves to somehow detoxify the strong venom produced by fire ants. While the crazy ants are now starting to displace the fire ants in the US, the arms race between those two species probably originated in South America where there habitats are overlapping. Article

Depends on what information you have. If you have the drag force and the dimension of a sphere, it is quite straightforward to derive the dynamic viscosity (it is, after all, part of Stokes's law). Edit: cross-posted, but assuming you have settling velocity as measured parameter, deriving the equation is actually relatively straightforward. You just have to start with balancing the forces acting on a particle (drag, buoyancy and gravitational force). Since you have not posted the experimental setup to derive viscosity the question could also relate to what you would have to measure to derive viscosity. In the end it all boils down to get the drag force (and all the hints have already been shown here).

Also note that publications are essentially open records. Eventually faults will be revealed if it is not possible to replicate results or if subsequent experiments fail to substantiate predictions. A common misconception is also that scientists are somehow all work together to keep their funding. The reality is that all are competing for the same money and the infighting between scientists can be vicious. There is no formal way to build a consensus but if many scientists independently and using different approaches come to same results, it will be used a consensus until a better explanation (e.g. model with better predictive powers) comes a long.

Indeed. Also living in the wild also involved utilizing resources efficiently. Even without technology (and seriously what level of tool use would be deemed "unnatural"?). Obviously migrating to somewhere where there is more game or more plants to eat would be more beneficial than staying at some place where resources are more limited? As being said but others, the particular viewpoint is a romantic view on naturalism and has as such little to do with actual events in nature. Animals move and spread and they have done it forever. And under the right circumstances adaptive radiation can occur rapidly.

Tightly connected to growth are also weakish selective pressures (and high survival rates) that allow rare variants to persist. One should add that in this context "new" genetic variants indicates existence and persistence in a given population.. They may have well existed transiently before but got lost. I.e. the assumption is that there was not an unbroken line of transmission or that it was below the detection limit of traditional approaches.

Also think of invasive species. Being adapted to a certain habitat does not mean that one is unsuccessful in others. In some cases the opposite is true as one may rapidly fill ecological niches. Humans have the ability to transform the environment according to their needs and they can use instruments to a much higher degree than other animals. As such, habitats with more resources that can be transformed to their use (e.g. for agricultural purposes) or have more resources for manufacturing are better suited for humans than where they originally adapted to.

Various cancer screens have been under scrutiny (including prostrate cancer). It is by far not the first study, but it certainly adds to the whole issue. In the end, it is a statistical problem. Cancer is still a relatively rare event and the false positive detection rate of screens is simply too high relative to that. Unless specificity of the diagnostic methods increase massively (and hopefully not the cancer rates), the impact on overall outcome is probably not going to be change much. Of course, a higher sensitivity and better early treatments could also contribute, though with low specificity overdiagnosis will remain an issue.

The premise is faulty. Many animals are migratory, even seasonal. Even if we only limit it to extant great apes (and thus ignoring migration in the past) we have two Pongo species (orangutan) in asia which have adapted to a more arboreal lifestyle than other great apes. Adapting to new ecological niches and migration are very common occurrences. Edit: aaand crossposted again.

That is precisely the point (and also why I mentioned the Kronforst et al paper. We do make distinctions that are useful in many cases but they do not necessarily reflect the amount of changes in allele frequencies. They are somewhat somewhat necessary for example to look at phylogeny as you need these (somewhat arbitrary) cut-offs to calculate distances, e.g. based on sequence similarities. This is especially relevant to keep in mind where reproduction is asexual. Edit: Crossposted with chadn737.

That is a bit misleading. One has to look at speciation on the population level. In principle a species does not evolve into another one. Instead, there must be a split within the population of sorts that results in reproductive isolation. I.e. generally one species does not become another over time but it splits (though one or the other can get extinct). In some cases, relatively few mutations are required as for example recently demonstrated for butterfly species (see Kronforst et al Cell reports 2013). Here the authors showed that initial divergence required only changes in a dozen or so loci though after the split genetic divergence accelerated (again, keeping in my mind that we are talking about populations here).

On a similar note as Arete, assuming that you are applying for jobs you should focus on fit rather than technical abilities (also never assume you are the best at something). And fit is the whole package. If people don't like to work with you, your abilities are secondary. Work experience is valuable not only because it teaches you the skills you need on the job, but also because you learn to work with other people (most of the time) and in different work environments. Learning that makes one often much more hireable.