CharonY

Well, it depends a bit on how you define the process or the history of your species. Species in the classical sense are reproducibly separated, i.e. they usually do not create offspring that can reproduce. However, if you are talking that your two populations are just somehow separated, there is no immediate mechanism that would allow them create viable offspring. In the classical terminology they would not be considered different species, though. Regarding the second part, I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head. Normally it is unlikely that a given organ can become vestigial in one population and remain functional in another without major changes in the genetic makeup, which in turn would inhibit reproduction. But maybe some minor changes (i.e. not whole organs) are possible. Like for instance skin between the fingers.

What is the difference to how it is now? If something is not FDA approved by not being effective could, if it is not harmful, still be sold as nutrient supplement, for instance. It just may not claim to cure anything. Still, it would be required to undergo stringent testing, how else are you going to be sure that it is effective/toxic? How else are you going to make a proper risk assessment? Now, these clinical trials are essentially what is expensive, and what makes or breaks a medication. Of course you could lower the requirements and lower the testing standards. This could lower prices. And as we all saw with the BP debacle letting the industry regulate themselves is always a good idea. And finally, the medication decisions is usually done with a physician. Self medication for serious conditions are usually not a good idea (which does not mean that one should not inform oneself on top of consulting specialists, preferably several).

It actually depends on the kind of denaturation. Essentially, it is based on the fact that proteins often have several stable states that they can arrange themselves under a given condition. Chaperones do indeed play a role by e.g. leading the protein to a particular stable conformation or, in other cases allow them get to that state at all (as it would not happen spontaneously due the requirement of additional energy). If chaperones are involved in the correct folding, obviously the renaturation won't happen easily (thought there are in fact stress-related chaperones whose main function is to renature proteins). However, in some cases removing the denaturant the proteins are able to retain their original confirmation.

Actually it is a problem that has been growing for quite a while. Reports early as the late nineties have hinted at a potential shortage. There are a number of reasons that have been explored in various details in different studies. The most often named factors include insufficient enrollments into medical schools, loss of physicians to the US and reluctance to hire foreign physicians. Further factors are that many physicians are reluctant to server rural areas and lack of certain specialists.

It is ironic however, that in other posts the OP claims that patients alone should make informed decision about medication and health effects of certain behaviors, yet here you want to keep information from the patients.

And of course you have sources to back up your assertions? There is indeed an issue with diagnostic screenings, but they are different from what you make out of it. They pertain to things like sensitivity, specificity and prevalence, and is partially connected to the inability of physicians to make good risk assessments and hence overtreatment of the patient.

Actually IA is correct. Water has a (very) low absorption of the reddish parts within the visible light spectrum.

I see goalposts moved a lot around here.

Most of the time multiple degrees do not help. The advisers usually didn't and probably most won't see any added value. General assumption is that you learn the important bits in grad school anyway, whereas everything before that just provides a basis to start learning from.

Avatars are overrated. Also they are non-unique identifiers. On the plus side, they require less reading.

Good point. Also most people are really bad at it. Otherwise people wouldn't have to think too hard about wearing seat belts. Actually the tobacco example is a perfect example for that. It compares the very uncertain decreased risk of Alzheimer's to the well-known effect of cardiovascular diseases (major outcome of smoking) and cancer. Even if we concentrate only on the cancer rates (and the impact on cardiovascular health is even higher) roughly five times of people die of lung cancer per year compared to Alzheimer's (also disregarding the high false positive detection of Alzheimer, as it is often confused with other forms of dementia). Adding that together the potential benefits are vanishing. However, presenting both as viable alternatives will skew the perception. It is kind of like suggesting throwing kids down stairs as the repeated bruising could strengthen bone and muscles. Also learning how to fall correctly will benefit them later on. One should make an informed decision based on that info whether one would like to incorporate that into PE classes.

No. Relation to viruses is also a kind of a misnomer as functionally they are closer to mobile genetic elements as transposons, plasmids, integrons etc. rather than autonomous organisms.

Then start with defining each RNA species in your own words and we will try to sort things out. Alternatively you can take a look at e.g. wikipedia. I believe for basic things the articles are generally pretty accurate.

One could also add the Qin Shi Huang, the emperor of the the Qin dynasty ca. 220 BC. After unification of China he started burning books, killing scholars (from other kingdoms) and banning languages and writings except one that became the official language.

In addition to what Cap mentioned: The link between Alzheimer's and smoking is not as clear as the OP suggests. There were a number of (epi-)studies in the 90s that indeed there may be an inverse relationship between smoking and Alzheimer onset. However meta-analyses of larger data set later on indicated the reverse. If experts are not able to satisfactory extract a mechanistic dependence, how is the layman suppose to make an informed choice? (Hey, maybe I should let the kids inhale more smoke to prevent Alzheimer's). You can add alcohol to the mix. Small amounts of red wine are supposed to have antioxidant properties and may have a bit of a benefit. However, these benefits may be offset by the alcohol consumed at the same time and large amount of alcohol consumption are definitely unhealthy. Finally, how about the suggestion to eat more fruit. Is that puritan? Incidentally I love fruit.

Common ancestry is about as certain as it gets.

Geez, take a look at the publication, will you? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Aug;100(2):297-302; discussion 303-4. Transplantation of chondrocytes utilizing a polymer-cell construct to produce tissue-engineered cartilage in the shape of a human ear. Cao Y, Vacanti JP, Paige KT, Upton J, Vacanti CA. Department of Surgery, Children's Hospital, Baston, Mass., USA. Abstract Also yes, cloning is possible as has been shown with Dolly, and before that, Xenopus. None of which qualify as creating life, btw.

It makes perfect sense. Up to the blastocyst stage there is no cell growth. Embryogenesis is quite different from usual "simple" cell division. It is a common theme in biology that there are few truly universal rules. Different mechanisms need to be employed to achieve specific outcomes.

I am not sure about the values but in my memory more complicated tasks or very varied stimulation result in more than 10% activity. It will be hard to pinpoint down a definite number, though. Of course if all fire at once there will be trouble as there is no way to modulate activity anymore (thing about a cramp as an analogy, if you want). As mentioned above, epileptic seizures (not strokes, there are something entirely different) are charcterized by an abnormally high neuronal activity.

Ah, I see your point now. Of course it is only speculation, but based on what is described it does not appear that there is any indication of underdigestion. If it was one would easily see the undigested plasmid. Unfortunately SDS is only really useful if you have got a massive degradation of the enyzme (and even then degradation products are often not easy to see, depending on how the gel runs). It would have made sense if the enzyme was purified by oneself, but nowadays I hardly think anyone is doing that anymore. Well, outside of classes that is.

Read my post again. It was neither a human ear, nor was it grown off the mouse. It was grafted to it.

Ahem. The modern synthesis was coined in the 40s. Not quite recently. I will respond to the op a bit later, if I remember. Have to finalize some stuff first.

Well, if there is a wiki article about it, I am not sure what your question is. Litmus is actually a polymer consisting of chromophore subunits (at least as far as I recall). Though the basic reaction is of course still protonation/deprotonation.

Actually just using the 280/260 ratio would be much faster. However I do not really see how that relates to the OP?

Litmus is an extract from lichens and contains over 10 different chromophores, if memory serves. Most of the time one uses a synthetic pH indicator, though.