Resident Experts
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CharonY last won the day on October 10

CharonY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1841 Glorious Leader


About CharonY

  • Rank
    Biology Expert

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    somewhere in the Americas.
  • Interests
    Breathing. I enjoy it a lot, when I can.
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology/ (post-)genome research
  • Biography
    Labrat turned grantrat.

Recent Profile Visitors

57582 profile views
  1. Mind exercise in Evolution

    I am still not clear what you are proposing, the modern meaning of the world in biological context is very clear. The meaning outside of biology has roots coming from terms related to ontogeny and even other uses before that (looking at the Latin word evolvere). Early one they of course had no relationship to species as the concept of changing species was fuzzy at best and was more likely used in other sciences. It is probably true that around the time Darwin proposed his theories, there were discussion about the model you propose: a progress of sorts (often with Lamarckian ideas mixed in). But since that has been cleared up (mostly) I fail to see how going back to 18th-19th century meanings is helpful today. If you mean whether it is understandable that folks would derive the meaning from other contexts and/or just misunderstand what the biological meaning of evolution is, sure. But again you could say the same for many technical terms.
  2. Mind exercise in Evolution

    As in evolution not used for biological evolution? Perhaps. But since the context is biological I do not see it how that would apply. It also really only captures the aspect of natural selection (and even that in a haphazard way and is therefore only rarely used) and does not account for other evolutionary mechanisms. That is actually an example where genetic drift is a driving force rather than selection. However, after in the aftermath the changed environmental reality would e.g. cause adaptive radiation.
  3. I think many folks underestimate the fascinating things that go on all around and within us.
  4. The Slick Sales Pitch of Trump

    Oh, right. Did not read that properly.
  5. I think it is more a matter of perspective, or perhaps the lack thereof. The idea of something seemingly becoming younger is fascinating. It just does not take into account how simple the organisms are and the fact that similar dynamics are happening in our very own bodies. The wiki entry itself seems to be take from elsewhere, I feel. Just can't point my finger to it, though.
  6. The Slick Sales Pitch of Trump

    So since we have the actual information on the applicable laws, do you think the endangered species act should be revoked?
  7. Well, not sure how the article applies to your title. But think of it that way. Simple uni or oligocellular organisms only do limited differentiation (if at all). Differentiation and multicellularism helps in solving certain issues, including those involving efficiency, but comes with a certain amount of baggage, including limited flexibility in other respects. As such, all unicellular organisms are theoretically immortal, though some newer molecular studies question that (which will also limit the immortality claim of jellyfish to some extent). Jellyfish are at a stage of less complex multicellularism where there is quite a level of specialization among cell types. However, they still maintain relative independence in contrast to more complex organisms especially in terms of regulatory control, which allows a transdifferentiation to a different state. Some cells in our body are able to do similar feats (though to a far more limited degree). I.e. cells that have already differentiated can de-differentiate and become other cell types or directly transdifferentiate. But these processes has to be controlled in our body as they would otherwise cause serious issues.
  8. The Slick Sales Pitch of Trump

    And it should probably be added that for the purpose of this thread, it makes most sense to focus on a) regulations that can be adjusted by the federal government and perhaps more important, regulations that are actually actively removed (or in the process thereof) by the Trump administration. It would also make sense to take a look on new regulation put out by the administration. This, is probably a good starting point.
  9. The Slick Sales Pitch of Trump

    I think it would be easiest if you could point out the actual regulation. As Phi stated, you seem to be mostly pointing to state and local regulations, which are not mandated by the feds.
  10. Hair sample storage in room temperature?

    You'll have to know that the DNA was mostly degraded in tissue samples and there was just enough stuff there (or more precisely, DNA quality was low) to allow the amplification of certain markers from initial isolates (or gut contents). It was not trivial to get sufficient high-quality material together to do decent sequencing. As a general rule in plaeogenetics, one starts of with grams of ground bone material to get out sufficient DNA as compared to the minuscule amount of fresh preparations. Of course, if only sufficient material for PCR is needed, keeping it dry and cool would be sufficient. Freezing is a possibility, but I would not add water. During the time needed for freezing and thawing you will have more degradation in an aqueous environment. For PCR probably not a big issue, but overall not helping. If you want to use a buffer, a higher pH solution with EDTA in DNAse free water would be a way.
  11. The Slick Sales Pitch of Trump

    Aka what they turned the EPA into.
  12. The Slick Sales Pitch of Trump

    I have heard that fairly often, but I think it is only true in a very, very narrow sense. Specifically in the area of social services and perhaps other aspects such as worker's rights (though that is not really universal either). In other respects (e.g. social values) it is bit all over the place and perhaps one of the largest differences you will see is in respect to immigration. Perhaps it is fair to say that the US as a whole has a stronger libertarian influence in that sector, for example. I.e. my point is that the simple right-left distinction is a bit tricky to transfer between systems as individual issues are often placed on different scales, depending on where you are. In a way that can be the worst of two worlds, the lack of competition due to government backing, but also typically insufficient accountability and inherent conflict between making profit and providing necessary services. Short term it often ends up with cutting corners to bolster the baseline. Government then often does not understand the concept of sunk cost and try to keep the crappy stuff afloat. Actually this is how it is typically done and also where we see issues. Not saying it would necessarily be better if the State builds on its own (most likely not, in fact). But often the contract goes through a tending process to the lowest bidder. Rather often in those contracts (or so it seems) folks go over budget. And rather than pulling the plug, often they pour more money in. Pulling the plug increases cost, and when trying to claw that back, the company in question may declare bankruptcy, for example. This does not seem to be isolated events but, at least to news reports (not sure whether studies exist), a rather common and almost world wide phenomenon.
  13. Even in the politics forum I do feel that relevant data and studies should be incorporated to the fullest possible extent. The alternative is an utterly belief-based representation of events. In the case of the original thread some of the misgivings in OP were based on the completely different procedure and mechanisms. Of course there is leeway in terms of interpretation of events. E.g. whether folks found either BK or CBF was more believable. However, I will note that only one party was fully accused to be a liar on the event in question with apparently quite a few folks immediately agreeing. That is presumably down to a rather simplicistic black/white attitude on events where apparently it is important to take a full stance with no room for nuance. E.g. it seems inconceivable for some that one can find someone's testimony believable but still be uncertain what actually happened.
  14. There is also the case when provided references are completely ignored and a position based on no data and/or faulty premises is vigorously defended. This seems just lazy to me and after a few attempts I feel that a negative rep is justified to express displeasure at the colossal (though admittedly self-inflicted) waste of time. I do have noticed that whenever I get a negative rep usually someone else nullifies it. The notification system makes it a bit more annoying than it used to be, though.