CharonY

If we talk about efficiency in capturing light energy, solar cells are more efficient. See Blankenship et al. Science 13 May 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6031 pp. 805-809 DOI: 10.1126/science.1200165

Nope. Prokaryotes are all haploid. Many have only one chromsome, though some have several. These carry totally different set of genes, however. The chromsome structure is also totally different from eukaryotes. You may want to look up the differences. It is quite interesting (and very important basic knowledge, too).

The problem with these assumptions is that they defy our current biological knowledge. As such, our current knowledge and extrapolations thereof are not applicable anymore. The consequence is that no meaningful answers can be derived and thus any speculations thereof are pure conjecture.

The hydrochloride is not an impurity. Morphine salts are purposefully synthesized to increase water solubility.

I assumed that this was not the final concentration but the standard stock Although in hindsight that may have been an issue. 19:1 is typically used for denaturing nucleic acid gels. Although technically there is no fundamental reason against using it for protein analysis. The limiting factor in polymerization is usually the availability of free radicals, though.

Depends, things acquired through an individual are generally not pertaining to evolution. However, in reality things are a bit more tricky, because a) the ability to learn has a genetic basis on some level and b) learned things can also be transmitted to the next generation. That being said, Dawkin's book is not refer to selfish or altruistic behavior per se, but rather puts forward the gene-view to explain that genes can propagate at the expense of the organism. The possibility of genetically-based altruism (of the organism) is just one of the many consequences (i.e. see kin selection). But it also explains the existence of mobile genetic elements such as plasmids, transposons and viruses.

Think for instance about prokaryotes.

Minor comment on that part, depending on how you count probably the minority are actual diploid. Regarding your question, I am not completely sure whether the statement is true, especially considering the vagueness of it. I.e. major gene can be used in any number of contexts. That being said I assume the author tries to say that in the ancestor of jawed vertebrates two duplications of these genes have happened.

Most of the post is accurate, I would just be add that not all animals are bilaterally symmetric. Animals that are belong to the group of Bilateria (what's in a name, eh?). But there are animals with different forms of radial symmetry (think about anemones or jellyfish), for instance.

Well, if it really functions as a an LPXTG motif, one would expect some signal in the cell wall. It is possible that it has the peptide sequence, but it is not really used as a signal (less conserved areas near the motif also pertain to function), or for some reason the sortase system does not act on it (e.g. due to some sort of posttranslational regulation, if the signal in the membrane fraction is strong). If the detection of the LPXTG motif is the only indicator that it is cell wall associated, my guest would be the first point. I remember a long time back a bioinformatician trying having problems to make sense out of predictions based on signal motifs. Especially the LPXTG motifs did not make any sense. The problem? He looked at a Gram negative bacterium ;p

This is much more defensible. However, the question is whether the rate of change of the gene pool is really lowered. Imagine, for instance an allele that strongly reduces survival/reproduction chance. Under normal conditions this will basically not enter the gene pool unless it occurs at high frequency (as it is strongly selected against). Now, assume that we have a pill now that remedies that. Now this new allele is allowed to enter the gene pool. One can change the gene pool without strong selection, however, the pool will be less shaped overall.

AFAIK enucleation originally referred to surgical procedures (famously for taking out eyeballs). While it can also be used synonymously with denucleation, the latter is a bit more specific. And yes, there are also ethical issues with that, that is why a) DNA from non-embryonic cells are used and b) the cells are not allowed to grow past 14 days. Most of the time regulatory systems do not work any more and it is likely that the development would fail fatally at some point.

Yes, definitely. You can see things, but if what you derive from it has no predictive power, you will not know whether you are right or just made stuff up that happen to fit with what you see. Overfitting is a good example. Just using your imagination is neither useful nor science. I have no idea what you mean with regards to fractal symmetry.

AFAIK the only thing that has been done is to inject human DNA into denucleated eggs of other mammals. After 14 days the cells are then harvested. That being said, I have no idea how anyone would make money for that. Right now (again, AFAIK) stem cell research is still relatively far away from any real clinical application but mostly serves for basic research. It is clear, however, that public debate will focus on the application side. Ethically the advantage is that no human eggs are needed, thus sidestepping the abortion problem.

Quorum sensing as well as other cooperative behavior are often analyzed within the frame work of game theory. Inclusive fitness theory is often tested within game theory parameters, for example. I do not know how that would fit in. But as mentioned, cooperative behavior such as altruism would fall under these examples. And quantitative studies exist for a number of organisms, including bacteria.

I would argue that, with the exception of mathematics, they differ in in the degree of precision with large overlaps in the fringes. Complex physical models are barely more precise (or predictive) than simple biological ones, for instance.

There are a couple of areas in biology, in which mathematical framewors (as opposed to, e.g. statistical inference) are used. Normally these are either simple systems, or, more commonly, simplified theoretical frameworks against which actual data can be modeled. Good examples can be found in the areas of evolution, for instance. Evolutionary game theory, as mentioned, is but one example. Without a mathematical framework or at least statistical inference these kinds of inductions are usually useless in the long run. The reason is that biological data is so complex and high-dimensional that you could figure out almost everything you want to, using it. Without a theoretical framework to model it against, you are just making assumptions. Of course, biology has a history of developing clever experimental setups solely based on conceptional (non-mathematical) frameworks, or qualitative models, if you will. But these often have limitations in terms of predictive power. Regarding the OP, game theory is, to my knowledge, mostly applied to evolutionary biology, and somewhat in ecological questions. And yes, they are useful.

I think Amazon allows you to self-publish?

One could try an outcome-based approach and see whether there is any potential improvement due to placebo (provided that the brand has higher effect). If the the outcome is sufficiently high, one could consider keeping them in.

Can you give a reference for the slow release strategy? It does not ring any immediate bells (or rather, I can think of a few contexts which could be meant).

As suggested, the selfishness of genes actually explains the altruism of organism. Altruism is, by definition, detrimental to the organism, and looking from that level, should not exist at all. However, if it is all about propagation of the genes instead, it makes sense. Check kin selection for details, for example. The suggestion is that (as a thought model) genetic mechanism try to promote their frequency, and this can be achieved by helping others that carry the same genes.

I do not think that you will find biological papers that support the notion that consciousness is unique to humans. More likely, animal studies with regards to consciousness are more likely to find similar mechanisms. Also the first part is most likely based on an incomplete understanding of the basics of evolution. Obviously tool use or medical advances will not result in stopping genomic variation. A Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium would essentially be a state where no evolution is happening. But it would be tricky to envision how inventions would achieve that. Or how consciousness will factor in that, as inventions are unrelated to that (see tool use in animals). Good luck with your paper, but the science is pretty weak in this one, I am afraid.

I do not think that this is a rule. In fact, certain reactions are way faster and hard to measure colorimetrically. I assume that it was an empirical value for your particular test. I.e. at short time frames the values are fluctuating too much, and after a minute or so it settles into a smoother curve.

I am certain I read papers regarding B. subtilis (must be oldish papers). For nothing pops to my mind. You may want to check up on sterilization recommendations, e.g. from CDC: My link.There may updates on that, though.

So, what are your thoughts on it, then? Learning starts with thinking about a particular issue and then discuss it.