CharonY

There will be a single difference, though.

Teflon (PTFE) is quite good for use with corrosive substance (I use piranha solution, for instance), though nickel plating also works well. From the same supplier as above: http://www.2spi.com/catalog/tweezers/blunt-tip.shtml But you may want to check out other clean room suppliers, for instance. Alternatives are the "generic" lab suppliers as VWR or Fisher.

This depiction is rather unrealistic. At least unless the paper accepted sign is actually a concealed trap.

I am not sure about the length you may need but for wafer etching I use these guys. http://www.2spi.com/catalog/tweezers/wafer.html

Without reading the paper I of course do not know what the authors concluded, however your answer is a bit.. how to put it... hollow and generic. I assume that the specific points touched with the article are meant. Scientific articles are usually based on hypothesis and have specific aims (e.g. providing evidence for said hypothesis or use that as basis to generate more evidenced-based hypotheses). Usually the abstract as well as the discussion section gives important clues what the main arguments in the paper are. The fact that ants kill of plants is merely an observation, or a result. The important bit is into which context do the authors put it. You said it is puzzling, the question is, why is it puzzling? What is the hypothesis that states that it should not happen (otherwise it would not be puzzling but expected)? What is the consequence (as denoted by the authors)?

And we all know which part, right? Though I am impressed that that part can use complicated words like "monogamy".

Reading... hard.

Nonsense. I argued against it. Read the posts again. And the post above mine. Read up what quote tags are. The two-fold cost of sexual reproduction is a known fact to anyone even remotely familiar with evolution of sexual reproduction. In fact, it follows common logic. If you really want some reference read, go get some wikipedia article. Alternatively, try that for starters: Arkhipova IR Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;110(1-4):372-82. Wright and Finnegan Curr Biol. 2001 Apr 17;11(8):R296-9.Click here to read There are also a number of reviews around, though I won't look for them, given the fact that chances are low that they will help you understanding the issue. Also, try to get the Futuyma. Then we can talk.

Chemglass has drawings in their catalogs, maybe they got them online, too.

JillSwift is being nice. The bottom line, however, is that this forum is not a personal sandbox in which you can put in some random thoughts of yours. Read this http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13. I have pointed to obvious flaws in your arguments and you resort to tantrums. I did choose to ignore you because evidently I am less patient than Mokele. Mokele (repeatedly) counterpoints your arguments and you start getting personal again. Please revisit your arguments and address his points, otherwise you are just stating personal opinions without any value.

Well, kind of. The catholic church has officially issued no conflict of evolutionary theory with christian belief insofar as the accept the age of the earth as well as the existence of evolution. Interesting it also kind of rejects intelligent design up to a certain point. They still want to hog emergence of life, though. It is kind of ironic that in Europe generally the catholic church is the more conservative body (as compared to the protestants), whereas in the US the the roles appear to be reversed.

Well, it does not necessarily mean that they have not been exposed, just that only relatively few contracted it. IIRC the frequency of transmittance per act was well below 1% (somewhere around 0.1-0.2). But yes, it is still early days, so to say. However, this vaccine had the highest success rate so far. One question is, of course. And of course there is the trouble with getting the right population for a clinical trial. Getting 16,000 high risk people to volunteer and get monitor for six years is quite a task (not to mention the costs).

I assume that you are in the USA? In principle you can enter PhD programs with a bachelor. Though you should think carefully later one if you really want to teach in university, if you have already got a job. The good thing is that (I assume) for computer sciences having industrial experience may actually benefit you for getting a teaching position. But then you have to consider the time required (roughly five to six years) and the fact that the competition in academia is rather fierce. Usually it is not a very good secondary option. But then I my experience is mostly limited to natural sciences and I think the situation is somewhat different (as mentioned) in you field.

A more important question that I would have right now is why would you need a PhD in computer engineering? I am actually not quite sure whether there are a lot of jobs out there that require a PhD (academia aside).

A more important question that I would have right now is why would you need a PhD in computer engineering? I am actually not quite sure whether there are a lot of jobs out there that require a PhD (academia aside).

Good point, but wouldn't it be under Skeptic's definition just count as zero change? Though of course polyploidy obviously does have effects, which in turn might be another argument against this as a metric. But just to get back on track, a common metric to clock evolutionary changes is based on phylogenetic analyzes of certain genes and/or proteins. The precise intention of the analyzes defines the choice of suitable sets (e.g. whether one uses more or less conserved ones that is). My personal opinion is that in the near to mid-future there will be a switch to using whole genome information. Though the feasibility has to established first. Nonetheless a complete phylogenomic approach would take e.g. synteny as well as gene duplications better into account than other approaches. Also horizontal gene transfer could have a lower effect on the results as their influence may be diminished due to the influence of the remaining markers. Downsides are, among others, computational costs as well as properly anchoring the sequence in less related organisms. I do have seen a few papers addressing these issues, though.

If you mean it as Dawkins described it, it would not change much, would it? Gene loss is gene loss. Or am I misunderstanding you?

While it may sound logical, it has several issues. One of them being that during evolution information can be gained as well as lost. As such it will be tricky to impossible to use that metric. Also, horizontal gene transfer is the single most effective way to gain large chunks of genetic information within and between species (and makes a big mess out of phylogenetic analyzes). This is incidentally also an argument against the assumption that higher multicellular eukaryotes may have a more efficient way of exchanging genetic information. Edit: shouldn't this be in speculations?

Framing the question correctly is important for proper discussion. Leaving parts open for interpretation results in people chiming in on something that may or may not relate to either the OP nor to any of the other posts. What iNow is most likely referring to is the fact that animals are also capable of communication. I assume that the question may be centered around human language abilities. In that case one could ask for instnace what elements are necessary and when did they first arise, even if they had functions in different contexts.

Either reverse osmosis or retarded ostriches.

Actually to get an industry R&D position a doctorate is often not strictly necessary. It is more applicable if you want a project leader position. Part time PhD is extremely hard, especially in life-science related fields.

That is what I was thinking. Airflows required to for larger amounts of fumes generally required a semi-closed system. Pumping systems or similar are simply not up to par for this. There are transportable fume hoods around, which are still kind of bulky. But other than that I am running out of ideas, sorry.

Or Dr. Strangelove. Actually precisely like that.

I have no hard data right now, but I would be surprised if cancer rates are indeed increasing significantly due to biological reasons (rather than due to enhanced detection rates). It will be tricky to separate that, though as obviously reporting cancer occurrences is dependent on the techniques of detection used. Why bother? Well obviously everyone is going to die of something, but good cancer prevention may enhance life span a bit as well as possibly increasing end of life quality. Also the value of going against cancer forms that are more common early in life have obvious advantages. Thing is, one should keep everything in perspective. Only because it is not increasing in frequency does not mean it won't affect you or your beloved. It is kind of a disease of modern times that only what is in the recent media will get any attention, and the sheer amount of available info makes it hard to separate crap from real important info. Edit: ok the last bit was a general rant without really being on-topic Edit2: actually certain cancer types, possible associated with diet may be increasing somewhat. Also skin cancer may increase in areas where ozone has worn off. Though of course it is tricky to define where to set the baseline from which one would calculate the increase.

Essentially you are on the right track. It depends a little bit on how you assert that cancer is on the rise as you implicitly proposed two different metrics. First is by tracking the proportion of the population that actually gets cancer. This is more correct if you want to directly measure the occurrence of cancer, though this includes lethal as well as non-lethal outcomes. In this case for instance improved diagnostics may be responsible for increased detection of cancer that may went unnoticed otherwise. It should be noted that depending on severity and kind of cancer people can die with instead of by cancer. An alternative way is to look at the proportions of deaths caused by cancer. For this metric both your hypotheses are reasonable assumptions. Other forms of death may have been more prevalent. One could test this by breaking down the cancer deaths. For instance taking a look at the age of with which cancer death occurs.