CharonY

Reading through the wiki articles should be a good basis. In addition, you really have to be clear for what the internal standard is being used. Depending on whether it is for normalize elution time or signal area, for example. In some cases an external standard is much more useful.

Are you using UV detection or MS? If it is only UV you cannot use the same compound as internal standard since, as you pointed out, you would measure the combined amount of sample+standard. In an MS you would use an isotope labeled compound where you could distinguish standard from sample. Instead you can only use an internal standard (to judge the run quality) that is a different compound not found in the tissue. To your questions: 1) You would generally use a matrix that is similar to your sample (ideally leaf tissue that is completely free of SA) and spike it with the known amount. Alternatively you can make a baseline subtraction (i.e. measuring the base SA level and compare it to the spiked sample). The latter is a bit less reliable, though. The recovery rate is then based on the area of a pure SA sample (i.e. you do three runs, pure SA, spiked sample, pure sample). There can be an additional error introduced by the sample prep itself, if e.g. additional UV absorbing components are present. 2) Yes, hence you also to run non-spiked samples.

It indeed refers to the insertion or deletion of a base at that position (so either absence or presence of an additional G) on the respective chromsome (remember, we are diploid).

For complex multicellular organisms unlikely, at least in the way described. That being said, horizontal gene transfer is quite common and is a major force in evolution. It would not be a directed response to a stimulus though (i.e. developing heat resistance after sensing heat). Instead after acquisition of external DNA either from other organisms (e.g. via mobile genetic elements) or from the environment (i.e. via transformation) would be more or less random-ish (i.e. transfer rate is independent of phenotype) but could be selected for due to the environmental pressure. Another analogy is the error-prone repair mechanisms of some single organisms, in which case the mutation rate is higher under stress.

I think this is not the point. What is being wrong, if the bottom line is similar? Also it has not been established that it would be better (or worse) without the EU. To me there is a lot of opinion in this thread, but almost no data to support them. Also if debt is any indicator of good policy then we should promptly copy, say, Iran (about 1% government debt as % GDP). Or Sweden (-17%!). Wait no, Sweden is being destroyed by the EU.

Ouch no, that is wrong. I appreciate your enthusiasm but please do not post guessworks and proclaim them to be facts. You may confuse people. Endorphin is a summary term for endogeneous peptides that bind to opiate receptors. What OP is referring to is probably the difference between alpha-endorphin (a specific peptide in that group) and alpha-neoendorphin. The former being a peptide with the sequence Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Met-Thr-Ser-Glu-Lys-Ser-Gln-Thr-Pro-Leu-Val-Thr and the latter Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Leu-Arg-Lys-Tyr-Pro-Lys. Proenkephalin B the precursor of alpha-neoendorphin is way larger (254 AA). Generally, peptide and protein nomenclature does not follow the same rules as other, smaller C-bodies and can be a bit confusing at times. Even worse, many have several names, depending how it was identified and characterized.

I think in this context it is relevant to note that politicians in other countries have pushed for a similar control over science, including the US and Canada. http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/04/u.s.-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteria-choosing-nsf-grants http://business.financialpost.com/2013/05/14/how-should-science-research-funding-be-determined/?__lsa=d350-a2a2 In several grant mechanisms in Canada you have to submit the direct benefits (in terms of health or economy for Canada) of your proposed research. These things cripple fundamental sciences, of course. There is also a general push towards sustainability of programs, i.e. the research is supposed to generate revenue to finance itself, again something that is virtually impossible for basic research. Considering that almost the only source of basic research are government funding, this paint a very bleak view for the future of discoveries.

To be fair, from the description it does not really look like that religion is prime reason, rather that one being a dick and the other one having lack of self control (and too much drugs and booze).

I assume you are aware that these criteria are neither universal nor undisputed and essentially is descriptive? I.e. the definition is essentially derived by first declaring something to be alive (i.e. cell) and then distinguish it from everything else.

There is a push towards open source publishing. However, many prestigious journals are still in the hands of publishing companies that want to turn a profit. Note that the scientists actually have to be pay for publishing and in some cases open source journals are more expensive. Some for-profit journals are actually free to publish in, if you do not include color prints, for example. Obviously, most scientists would be happier if more people could read their work. but sometimes budget constraints are very, very tough.

I think there is a pattern here somewhere. Quickly, write up a grant proposal to investigate it!

Sorry, but the post has some serious errors that I feel I have to point out. That is wrong, the term is not interchangeable. Prokaryotes include bacteria as well as archaea, both characterized by having no nucleus That is true but it is a weird distinction as eukaryotes obviously also covers all other animals as well as fungi. Chemotaxis refers to directional movement not tot the means of movement. Also chemotaxis can be negative as well as positive (i.e. the chemical response is not only to nutrients) and there are other cues to which cells can respond. Also wrong, cytosol and cytoplasm are present in all cells. Cytosol essentially refers to the soluble part of the cytoplasm (in both cases). There are also a number of minor inaccuracies or omission (e.g. depending on the type of pili they have a lot of different functions including movement and attachment). Or the fact that the genome is by definition the sum of all genetic material (chromosome+plasmids) and so on.

Also the multiple parties is extremely relevant as they are obviously representatives from a given nation. More importantly, the parties are made up from certain parties of the originating countries, which also means that the EU parliament members obviously are also involved in national politics. As such the EU is a huge battleground for national interests as well as an international platform for national in-fights rather than a tyrannical organization that can dictate the individual member states with impunity. Due to its very system it would be the most useless tool for tyranny as we not only have conflicts along party lines, but also between nation representatives belonging to the same umbrella party. Also note that throughout the EU severe austerity measures are in place. So severe that many economists (most vocally Krugman) argue that they will heavily hamper growth. Although that would lead to a different discussion (as financing a complex system such as a nation is markedly different from the simple calculations one would do for a private household).

In addition to what iNow said, there are quite a few religions that assume interconnectivity between humans and animals. According to buddhistic doctrine humans can be reborn as animals and vice-versa. As such humans are not apart from the rest of the animal world. Similar beliefs are held by smaller religious groups, such as Australian aborigines, who believe that animals and plants were people during the creation period. Essentially the premise of OP is flawed in several ways.

I feel that I have been controlled by my brain my whole life, though.

An upturned bowl works just as well.

All things considered this is highly speculative so, I'll move it to that section for now.

At that age I feel that facts and factoids are only of limited value in biology as in many cases the context is not presented sufficiently to be useful in many cases (I could write a long essay about the issues with teaching bio, but that is another matter). Instead, I prefer to make kids curious about biology and have them start asking questions, rather than having them learn answers (which we often only partially provide). As such these are the books that I read around that age and which left quite an impression on me (they could be slightly advanced in some cases, though). - The man who mistook his wife for a hat (Oliver Sacks): I distinctly remember that this was one of the books that challenged our notion of how we perceive things - Various books from Konrad Lorenz and Desmond Morris (including "Here am I- Where are you") Though often outdated by now and more in the area of behavioral sciences (rather than topics outlined in OP) they were still wonderful reads (and probably no less accurate than many high-school text books). There are definitely more but I would have to think a bit more to remember those, and they may be even more off-topic. Among more recent books that I think could be appropriate include: Alex and Me (Irene Pepperberg); It is light on science but quite enjoyable Animal Wise (Virginia Morell); Gives nice overview over some of the ethological works in an accessible manner and is certainly thought-provoking Animal Architects (Gould and Gould); Well written but on the brink of being too technical maybe I apologize that it is heavy on behavioral sciences, but I think these are more accessible for kids. In contrast good science books about diseases or toxins could be quite advanced as the processes (as far as they are known) tend to be quite technical and dry and do not easily lead to fun narratives.

Well, obviously the fatty acids would only deliver the precursors required for AA-anabolism.

Interestingly that is precisely what crossed my mind when I read OP. But I was sure that he could not really mean that UFOs could be giant insects, as the first part of the post (as has been noted) clearly describes the size limitation. But alas, I was proven wrong. It should also be noted that flight is quite energy-demanding, requiring even higher respiratory rate which makes large flying insects even less likely.

Viruses obviously need hosts and if they were not able to use the cells being present, there would be no viruses to begin with. Also the recognition of hosts is mostly based on surface interactions between phages on hosts and has little with metabolic activities per se.

Considering that OP repeatedly announced that this thread is really just an opinion piece with no evidence (and no desire to provide evidence) and since furthermore the discussion is more about some conspiracy theory, I do not think that this thread belongs into the medical science section (or any science section for that matter).

Assuming that the genes are from sequenced organisms you can get the complete sequence e.g. from uniprot or from NCBI (using the nucleotide database). Note that gel-based size confirmation can sometimes be insufficient. The best would obviously be sequencing the amplified products, but lacking time and funds a simple restriction analysis can give at least an additional layer of security.

As others have mentioned, there are too many misconceptions to address appropriately. I will just say that individual genes code for proteins and each of them have a specific range of biochemical functions. E.g. converting one metabolite into another one. Most phenotypes are the result of many of them acting in concert in a quantitative manner. In addition all cells in our body carry basically the same genetic content. I.e. to introduce phenotypes above the single cell level, the genetics of all the cells contributing to a tissue, for example would have to be altered. Well, not directly, but obviously via the TCA cycle there are intraconversions of the major biomolecule classes.

Viruses are much more fragile than bacteria and need a host to reproduce. In contrast to bacteria they cannot just go out and seek prey. So if their host metabolizes and reproduces slowly, so do they. The cold could conserve the viruses so after escaping their host they would just be lying there and accumulate over time (very, very slowly). Essentially there is nothing that is eating either the viruses or the bacteria in any significant amount of time allowing them just to hang on there.