CharonY

I would argue that this depends on the timeline. If we talk about species, we implicitly project long time lines (such as, until extinction, for example). Conversely societal benefits can be short-term. But if we add sustainability to the mix the timeline for what we consider societal benefit gets extended (i.e. it should not only be good for the current, but also for future generations). At which point what one might consider beneficial would converge. Edit: I should also add that one should not assume that selective pressure are all to the benefit of the species (as in creating a more successful species as implied by some comments). After all, a lot of species went extinct following highly successful and specific adaptations. It is possible to specialize oneself into a corner, for example.

Well, the group is a PAC (which is one of the weird US monstrosities) and from the looks of it might have been more anti-Trump rather than pro-Haley. Depending on who organizes that PAC it might be less about party, but I might be wrong.

1) yes, or more precisely we have the interconversion of NADH <-> NAD+ + H+ + 2e- 2) Not quite, it is the initial donor. The chain is basically a redox gradient, starting with NADH and ending with the terminal electron acceptors. 3) Also not quite, NAD+ is regenerated during the first step of the electron transport chain, following the reaction shown in 1). The electrons then continue to move through the chain, which powers the proton pumps. That is not part of regeneration of NAD+ per se, but just the process necessary to ultimately gain energy from the whole ordeal (the gradient in turn powers an ATP synthetase). 4) Simply put, yes. When there is oxygen, cells can use respiration to get more energy rather than having to rely on fermentation. That being said, under the right conditions (e.g. very high glucose surplus) some cells also conduct fermentation even in presence of oxygen. Here, cells prioritize rapid energy generation via glycolysis over the more efficient, but slower process of respiration. But this is only possible if glucose is not a limiting factor (as it is often the case in nature).

I think that is not entirely wrong but also (in my mind) not very helpful. A more specific way to think about it is to view fermentation as a means to regenerate NAD+. During glycolysis (as well as during oxidative decarboxylation of pyruvate and the TCA cycle under oxic conditions) NADH is generated which can power an electron transport chain, which we refer to as respiration (with the ultimate purpose to generate energy). In aerobic respiration the electrons are ultimately transferred to oxygen, but those able to respire under anaerobic conditions can also use e.g. sulfate or metals and so on. But if respiration is not an option, and the cell e.g. only uses glycolysis for energy generation, it will accumulate NADH that it has to convert back to NAD+, otherwise glycolysis will stop. This is where fermentation kicks in during e.g. ethanol formation NADH is converted to NAD+. Perhaps that is also not very intuitive, but if you look at the mechanisms, it is quite a bit more precise.

When she ran for presidency there were mixed perceptions on her record, but also the fact that she is from California. The latter paints her too elitist for the Mid-west crowd, and her former job as prosecutor (and associated track record) might have soured her to the left.

I think that is fairly anecdotal. In my field of work, and especially in the lab, I do see that on average women are better requiring focussed tasks (but of course there is a bit level of self-selection in terms of interest). To my knowledge, there are studies looking at task-switching and I think there is no clear evidence for differences. It might depend on task or there might be cultural factors and so on. That is very true and I see much in that especially among older colleagues (who likely had to fight very hard for their positions). Indeed. Acquiescing to a diminishing assumed centre (and defining it is pretty difficult to begin with) is likely not feasible. It is the reality that the less and less is found in the centre now and I will note that many of the sane GOP folks are very far away policy-wise. They are not center politically, they just happen to mostly acknowledge that there is an reality. Catering to that is supremely difficult and almost certainly a losing ticket.

No I am not making an argument about morals. But about efficiency. If saving the weak increases your reproductive success, that is what is going to happen. I.e. there is no prejudgment of what is weak and what not. What survives survives, and it can be alone or in collaboration with others. Protecting the young is a prime example of supporting the weak. Another is the behaviour of buffalos which have repeatedly being observed to try to rescue their members from predation. Not only species are doing it, but for those that do, it obviously provided benefits. Likewise there is emerging science suggesting that many social animals exhibit some form of empathy, which likely is necessary for social behaviour. In other words, animals (and humans) don't help each other because from some moralistic stance, it is because there are mechanisms in place, biologically, that makes us want to help each others. Otherwise we would be solitary animals. And this behaviour clearly has reproductive benefit. Therefore, using your clarified stance on what you describe as "strength" it means that in many species helping the weak actually promotes strength (aka reproductive success). Solitary animals or those that do not care for their young are not automatically stronger than those that do not. It has nothing do with morals, it is just a different strategy. And considering that either strategy still exists, it means that they are not better of worse as a whole (though a particular social animal has been very successful so far).

That's fair. But I suppose that Phi alludes to the fact that old white guys have dominated this (and other) positions of power for quite a long time. I.e. any divergence from that would more likely add perspective as a whole.

In other words it is all about reproductive success in whatever form, which would include collaborative behavior, rather than the original notion that suport leads to weakness?

Again, that is not necessarily true. Predators are not necessarily the key selector in a given species. Many species have virtually no defence against predators, but rely for example on high reproduction rates or life cycles that minimize overlap with predators and many more. I.e. the "strength" here is just being one of the lucky ones to reproduce before predation (or anything else happens). And if you broaden it up to be more accurate in having any traits that helps with reproduction, the argument of taking care of the weak kind of evaporates. For example, some may have large testes and high sperm load increasing likelihood of reproduction. But they might run slower. Parents that take care of that "weaker" one to fertility suddenly gain a higher chance to influence the gene pool. It is indeed not a complicated argument. Just not a scientifically accurate one.

The issue here is that I don't think that there are any studies out there that really are able to investigate e.g. which genetic factors could lead to prey escape. As you can imagine that would be incredibly difficult to do. What has been studied to my knowledge are specific elements with a genetic basis (e.g. coloration) and detection by predators. While it makes intuitive sense, I just don't think that we have the data to establish that as fact. And biology has many ways to be really counter-intuitive.

Likewise, group protective behaviour (i.e. regardless if it involves exclusively your offspring) can improve overall reproductive success. And conversely, risking "weaker" (however they might assess it) offspring can backfire dramatically. Though again, that does not make much sense to me in the context of predation as used in earlier posts. After all, even the strongest offspring is unlikely to survive a predator and survival would be more a matter of luck than individual strength (assuming lack of protective behaviour).

The last part is the important bit, as it can lead to traits and behavior that make a species less suitable for the environment (but for example more attractive to their potential mates). The tricky bit here is that extrapolating this to general behaviour is a bit like using anecdotes to apply to human. We could take footage from a stampede during a terror attack or some other mass-incident and then claim that humans have the propensity to trample each other to death. Individual animal behaviour takes a long time to explore, something that the field is has only started to recognize very recently. Not only for that reason it is silly to try to apply these vague narratives to human societies (either for or against certain elements in society). And also, if predators get to the injured and sick ones, it does not mean that it has any effect on the quality of the gene pool. After all, even fit folks can get injured or sick. Though especially for the latter there is no need for predation, it would be between them and the pathogen.

I see here and in the following quite a bit of mixing up of biological, political and culturally concepts. It is important to note adding biologically to these discussions generally just muddles up things as the relationship is not well understood and it is easy to falsely extrapolate. But this sentence has already multiple misconceptions. As mentioned in the biology section on this forum, survival of the fittest relates not to strength or even survivability, but to reproductive success. There are many, many species who prioritize the letter over what one might presume to be strength. In addition, "strength" is not a universal unit, and it can be very very counter-intuitive. In many species there is sexual selection towards some sort of outward features that are a hindrance. A stronger rival may be present but lacking the ability to attract partners could then consider a weakness. I.e. strength and weakness in this example are on two entirely different traits. Also, many species protect their young, who are by definition weak compared to adults. It is not that they just watch to figure out who is strong just groom those that survive. Some herd animals (e.g. buffalos) band together to protect the young and in others (e.g. elephants) elderly members stick around for a long time and do not just get abandoned outside of emergency situations. There are reports from bisons that members of the herd stayed behind to protect the rest of the herd from wolf attacks, similarly African buffalos form up defensively (interestingly, aggressive dominant males are occasionally pushed out, typically by other males and are thus more vulnerable, despite being one of the strongest of the herd). Another interesting behaviour is that it has been frequently observed that when a lion has brought down a buffalo, sometimes the herd returns on mass and retrieves the fallen individual. Animals are not automatons and can exhibit a wide range of behvaior that frequently do not align with simple narratives. Behavioral studies have shown that frequently there are altruistic as well as cheating behaviors in social animals, which means that e.g. cheating cannot eliminate the benefits of altruistic behaviour. In other words, the description of animal behavior and evolution itself is erroneous and as such already not a great platform to extrapolate politics from it.

Agreed, there are well-established trajectories to attack her (e.g. the stupid diversity hire line).