CharonY

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.

That is one of the points that I would have highlighted. I.e. by re-framing the question you could highlight why the premise is wrong or at least misleading.

Sona, I would suggest that you check the dates to threads you are replying to. OP has not been active for almost an year.

That is not analogous as in this case the system is very clearly defined (i.e. enzyme, DNA, buffer system). In the case of the mice blood cell you have a) a more complex system and b) the idea behind it was to induce stress response in the cells. One of the responses was pluripotency. Originally, it was known from plant cells that this may occur, so it was not a matter of throwing random stuff at cells.

That is very true. Times like these call for persistence and huge deal of flexibility.

Read Phi's post again. He asked about how you are being perceive by others. I.e. he asked to try to put yourself in the perspective of others. Your answer is the same as every post you made. All about you, what you like etc. Things that you deem likeable in others are again all related to you. At best this appears narcissistic, which is very disruptive for a communicative situation. Communication is an exchange between people. That situation does not arise if you believe it is all about you.

Well, for many applications a certain amount of purification is necessary e.g. to get rid of dimers though a simple column clean up is often more than efficient. Especially if you do lots of cloning (i.e. plates) you would like to have a certain amount of purity (again, I am no fan of gel purifcations myself). Inactivation of ligases is sometimes done for electroporation. Ligase binds to DNA (which you can see as a band shift in gel) which reduces electroporation efficiency. But I agree, for heat shock transformation it is pretty much a non-issue.

If I had to guess I would have to think they may mean delusional. Or at least a very distinct lack of perspective and ability of reflection. For example:

I find it weird that it is generally accepted that drunken driving is a bad thing but the same logic is lost with guns. How about drunken chainsaw wielding in public...?

Whether there is an association between meat an osteoporosis or not, the proposed mechanisms (acidification of blood) is unsupported. Severe acidosis of the blood generally only occurs if there are other indicators (e.g. renal failure, diabetes) and not due to diet. However, diabetes and renal issues can impact calcium homeostasis and result osteoporosis. The idea that an increase of pH in blood directly leaches Ca out of bones is a very naive view on calcium metabolism and homeostasis and is a big warning sign that the author is just making things up. Mind you, diabetics do benefit from certain diets, as it can for a variety of reasons. But it does not mean that the proposed mechanism makes sense. Finally, the studies on protein and osteoporosis are association studies and the findings are inconclusive (there are studies that show the opposite effect), if you look across literature, but that has already been mentioned.

And the nice thing is that we do find (as expected) that the audible ranges scales with body size, though sometimes certain anatomic tricks (as swansont mentioned) to enhance ranges. It should be noted the audible range is not even and higher amplitudes are needed at the extreme ranges to be perceived. But to give some values that I have handy all in (Hz) mouse: 1000-91,000 rat: 200-76,000 dog: 67-45,000 horse: 55-33,500 Elephant: 16-12,0000

It is not a very insightful question but one could tackle it from a different viewpoint. The question would be: what would be the relationship between those two? One problem is that probably the selfish gene analogy is poorly understood when one states such a question. But by taking a step back one might try to frame it better.

It is telling that you completely fail to recognize that Ophiolite mentions qualities except technical competence (whatever they may be) that in his view would disqualify from getting it. If his perception does not correlate with what you wanted to convey, then I would also polish communication skills.

I try to understand cellular activities by abusing, poking and teasing apart cells and their contents. I also develop new methods to do so. The area of research could be described as systems biology with an emphasis on high resolution omics.

I was under the impression that it is based on a scenario outlined to Lawrence Krauss. Maybe it would help to provide a transcript to outline the (I assume) hypothetical scenario?

As mentioned above, hiring is generally done within the scope of a position (e.g. research scientist, faculty whatever) and not on a project basis. There are positions with high turnover (postdocs for example). In that case the hiring is still usually for 1-2 years and after fulfilling a particular project, the PI is free to put him/her on another one (or work together to put new proposal together).

I have honestly no idea what the context is. Take on board for what? What position(s) are we talking about? What kind of perversions? A position that requires some kind security clearance would be more strict than in a public uni, for example. If the perversion is watching naked ladies on the internet I would not be concerned unless the person decides to do it during work. If the perversion is cannibalistic in nature, I would be somewhat concerned. But I agree with chadn737, I do not see how being a scientist would be any different than, say, a plumber, if context with regards to the job is unclear. The last post seems to be even more confused than the first one. If pressed, my answer would be fish and chips and a stout.

That is the part for glycolysis. Now you need to find the reactions for ethanol fermentation.

Agaricus should not be able to utilize agar (i.e. liquefy it). I wonder, does it grow on V8 medium at all? I was under the assumption that it does not prefer acidic conditions, but I could be wrong. I believe malt extract is more common. Arc, just so you know, agar has been used as a polymerizing agent specifically because there are not so many microbes around that are able to hydrolyze it.