CharonY

Are you targeting a specific fraction using FPLC or similar? I generally only used gradients (way back) to optimize wash and elution conditions and then used those parameters for purification. If you have a FPLC setup rather than control for total volume you would go for an appropriate flow rate for your system in combination with the column to get decent-sized peaks of your desired fraction.

As mentioned before, one big issue is detection rates- I am not familiar with the Indian health system, but I wouldn't be surprised if screening is less prevalent especially in underresourced areas. A recent study also mentioned that rates are increasing, in part due to demographic changes, but they also mentioned improvement in screening programs. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10231735/

Part of it was certainly decades in the making by e.g. the Federalist society. I think the efforts were only partially stymied by, well, conventions that were upheld to some degree by the various branches of government. It started most visibly eroding with the tea party and gained steam from there. A major difference was that the majority of the folks at least attempted not to look crazy. You are clearly not paying attention. The administration clearly defying the literal rule of law, targeting free speech, and actively demolishing the checks and balances that were put in place by the constitution. If they get away with it, the Democracy as we know it is not longer at stake- it is gone. There is no other way to put it. If the government controls what schools and universities are allowed to teach, which books you can or cannot read in libraries, sidelines traditional media in favour of far-right influencers, usurps federal powers to put pressure on states to follow the administration's ideologies, ignores frigging habeas corpus, pardons people involved in violent insurrection and the list goes on. What else has to happen before a threat to democracy is recognized? The threat to the Weimar Republic did not start with Gleichschaltung. It ended with it. A certain poem from someone who realized that things ended badly too late comes to mind here (Niemoeller). MSNBC.comJamal Greene: I’m a legal scholar. We're in a constitutio...Some will argue this country entered into a constitutional crisis only recently, but the moment I realized we were in one was on Jan. 20.The AtlanticHow to Hide a Constitutional CrisisThe executive branch is relying on the language of the law as cover to claim that it is complying with court orders when in fact it is not.

Which apparently is par of the course among folks who were undecided or neutral regarding Trump.

Yep. You can go back and read similar contemporary comments on the NSDAP in the early 30s. And it was too late by 33. I think I may have said something during Trump1 that it was a test of the resilience of the mechanisms of the US constitution and its checks and balances and that it has mostly held up. Project 2025 has specifically found ways to undermine these checks and balances, not unlike the use of Article 48 by the NSDAP.

I started counting when he actually entered the arena as politician.

These points don't even map cleanly to the rise of the NSDAP. Note that for example the direst economic challenge in the Weimar republic was the hyperinflation of 1923, just shortly after WWI. How strong was the NSDAP then? They tried to initiate the famous beer hall putsch, which famously failed (Jan 6 anyone?). After release the NSDAP was banned for a while and Weimar stabilized economically. When the Great Depression hit Germany, how successful was the NSDAP in the elections in 1930? They got 2.6%. If they haven't been supported and propped up but by the monarchists, they likely would have gone under. Instead what happened was (among other things) a coalition of right-wing conservatives, industrialists and related folks decided to use Hitler to make inroads within the working class ("I love the uneducated") under the wrong assumption that Hitler could be easily controlled (really, no parallels here, right?). Also notably, Hitler's rise to power happened during phases of economic stabilization. While the economic instability and the resulting unrest will have made the populace more responsive to extremist parties, it does not cleanly line up with the power grabs of the NSDAP. More recent research also on Trump increasingly shows that economic anxiety is a contributor, but not a main driver for such election models. As Swansont mentioned, the US is basically in a constitutional crisis where checks and balances are not working (see congress) or simply ignored. The Weimar Republic also had those, and they were also disabled (eventually). On the note of vibrant free press, well that has turned into a partisan issue, hasn't it. It is not a hyperbole to say that Trump's government is unlawfully sending unnamed folks into foreign torture prisons. Assuming that this is the worst of it is misplaced optimism. These points don't even map cleanly to the rise of the NSDAP. Note that for example the direst economic challenge in the Weimar republic was the hyperinflation of 1923, just shortly after WWI. How strong was the NSDAP then? They tried to initiate the famous beer hall putsch, which famously failed (Jan 6 anyone?). After release the NSDAP was banned for a while and Weimar stabilized economically. When the Great Depression hit Germany, how successful was the NSDAP in the elections in 1930? They got 2.6%. If they haven't been supported and propped up but by the monarchists, they likely would have gone under. Instead what happened was (among other things) a coalition of right-wing conservatives, industrialists and related folks decided to use Hitler to make inroads within the working class ("I love the uneducated") under the wrong assumption that Hitler could be easily controlled (really, no parallels here, right?). Also notably, Hitler's rise to power happened during phases of economic stabilization. While the economic instability and the resulting unrest will have made the populace more responsive to extremist parties, it does not cleanly line up with the power grabs of the NSDAP. More recent research also on Trump increasingly shows that economic anxiety is a contributor, but not a main driver for such election models. As Swansont mentioned, the US is basically in a constitutional crisis where checks and balances are not working (see congress) or simply ignored. The Weimar Republic also had those, and they were also disabled (eventually). On the note of vibrant free press, well that has turned into a partisan issue, hasn't it. It is not a hyperbole to say that Trump's government is unlawfully sending unnamed folks into foreign torture prisons. Assuming that this is the worst of it is misplaced optimism. Or even earlier, the pathway to power, which took him a bit longer than Trump. One should also keep in mind that there are others, like e.g. Miller and Bannon, who would love to have the Nazi time back. There is reason why the far right is making so many efforts to diminish the atrocities of the Nazis. And just listen to what Trump said the Merz during his visit regarding D-Day.

One just need to compare the Project 2025 with the historic precedence (in fact, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they just used what happened in Germany as blueprint adapted to the US). Importantly, Nazi Germany didn't immediately had concentration camps and full elimination of all democratic rules as Peterkin et al. pointed out. For example, they first "just" marginalized and marked Jews and other unwanted folks and the original idea was "just" to deport them. As it turns out that other folks didn't want to accept them it continued first with confinement and then the final solution. Likewise, press and other parties were not immediately eliminated. Rather they were first coerced, threatened and bribed to do their bidding. Rivals first faced threats and then violence not from the main party as such, but by various paramilitary groups. Just take those few examples and look at what the US government is doing now and where the trajectory is. In that regard, it should also be noted that the timeline under Trump is quite faster than what happened in Germany. Also, similar to Hitler, Trump is reigning using emergency measures and aims to normalize them as par of normal executive functions. The US is on an express train towards authoritarian rule and is passing milestones faster than the public discourse can keep up.

20x column is a rule of thumb for a mostly quantitative flush of the column. If running a gradient, it depends a fair bit on the purpose. E.g., whether you want to assess relative purity or optimize imidazole concentrations. The elution profile would roughly follow the same parameters as "normal" LC on parameters like peak width (related to flow rate and volume and gradient steepness), for example.

I think that is right. Fossil records were obviously even scarcer back then. Darwin discussed quite the challenges of fossil records quite a bit in the Origin of species and he was actually quite a bit more pessimistic than things turned out to be. I may be conflating different works, but IIRC he mentioned that soft tissue would never be conserved (which turned out to be not true) and he underestimated the number of fossils that would eventually be found and suggested in his book that fossil records would likely not be able to support his theory. Famously, it didn't take long after publishing his book for the discovery of the Archaeopteryx.

You have to understand how to contextualize observations. We do not have a full fossil records of all organisms that ever existed (fact), but this is not because there are flaws in evolution. Rather, you will have to understand that only few organisms will ever be preserved until today requiring uncommon conditions (see e.g. this link for examples https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/how-fossils-form.htm). From those that are preserved again only a small fraction will ever be found by humans, e.g. because they are inaccessible or were not recognized as fossils (context). As a consequence we only gain information by what kind of fossils we can find and can make only limited or no inferences regarding those we did not see. In addition, there is a fundamental flaw in this line of thinking which has been dubbed "fossil fallacy" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

Excellent point No! Leave my caffeine alone! ... sorry, what were we talking about again?

That is not a weakness of evolutionary theories, instead it is an expected outcome on how fossils are formed. Fossils require a set of specific conditions to happen to ensure that they are preserved and then they also have to be found. If anything, finding new fossils is the much less likely outcome.

While there are open questions, it also hold a lot of answers. However, many questions posed by folks, including those in this thread are not due to a failure of the evolutionary theories to address them, but by a lack of knowledge about biology in general and evolution in specific. Obviously one cannot expect everyone to know these things, but a good first step is to try to inform oneself a bit better rather than assuming that there are issues with it. It is a bit like declaring planes cannot possibly fly, as they are too heavy.

Already wrong. As any biological they are not inert, as you suggest. They mutate all the time due to chemical, biological and physical influence (e.g., UV radiation). It requires a complex repair apparatus (also biomolecules) to ensure that they don't mutate too much all the time. Considering that the understanding of even basic biology is missing, I would suggest not to try to overturn knowledge that has been established over many, many years.

Yeah that is wide stretch. Any kind of enjoyment by definition provides pleasure in psychological sense. That way, you could classify books as psychoactive drugs for book lovers.

I would go further and argue that any liberal democracy (liberal as an "free") requires universal principles, such as the recognition of human rights, that are uniformly applied. As a consequence, liberal democracies always struggle more with the implementation of these policies as just implementation is difficult and there will be many edge cases which have to be litigated. In contrast, autocracies, which in my book includes illiberal democracies (such as Russia), which only have the appearance of democratic structures (such as having elections but no processes to ensure that they are free or fair, for example), have always simple and clear answers. The only thing they need to look out for is to ensure that the ruling class benefits from whatever policy they implement.

Marxism is not simply a political program and arguably its philosophical influence ins more relevant in modern times. What is still relevant are the criticisms of capitalism and class struggles, though it is less frequently referred as that outside academic discourse, I suspect. But undeniably Marxist influence are part of modern economic system (mostly implicitly) if only to more or less successfully soften issues identified from Marxist frameworks. Social justice and related issues are often developed under frameworks that at least superficially appear Marxist. Some of the developments seem to me analogous to the development of Darwin's theories, though it is outside my expertise to really be certain.

People on this forum are saying that you are not reading your own sources and you are wildly extrapolating based on what you think and not what the information that you provide says. For example, from your earlier link it says: Yet your interpretation is that somehow the polls are faked.

It is important to note that published cancer rates are highly dependent on the monitoring systems in a given country. Typically, countries with earlier and more rigorous screening programs for cancer also have the highest cancer rates. This is not necessarily because the rate is actually higher, but because they are being detected at a higher rate. That being said, there are regional differences in the risk. One example is skin cancer which is associated with risk factors like fair skin, high solar radiation and high level of outdoor activities. These are more prevalent in some countries than others. Likewise, diet and smoking vary between countries and are associated with certain types of cancers. These factors are not intrinsic to the immune system or are not necessarily indicative of an altered immune system as such. The clearest interaction on the immune level are virus-associated types of cancers, where immunization against e.g. HPV has a promise to massively reduce cancer rates. But as others have already said, the only way not to die from cancer, is to die from something else.

This does not make any sense. Downsizing of military followed the end of the cold war. It is also a bit silly to extrapolate demands of a country, which isn't even part of the European Union to the whole of Europe. In fact, polls and articles around that time highlighted the different path Switzerland was taking compared to other European countries, including UK, France and Germany. This also highlights how badly this extrapolation works. In Germany, nuclear plants were deeply unpopular with a large swath of the population. While the Green party was pushing for it politically, most of the time, the anti-nuclear movement was a deeply populist movement with large protests throughout the 90s and 2010s against nuclear power. The Fukushima incident further empowered that movement and ultimately made a continuation of nuclear power politically nonviable. However, with the threat of global warming increasing, combined with high energy cost, the mood has been shifting in the last few years. Also you are misrepresenting the situation in Switzerland somewhat. First after Fukushima, there was a big push by the population to phase out nuclear power (from Wiki): The failed referendum was aimed to limit that lifespan. However: Germany is buying natural gas, not oil. There are lot of wild extrapolations in OP and none of them are pointing out, as the title suggests, "Anti-democratic political decisions in the Western countries". With the possible exceptions of abortions, which seems to run counter the popular vote in the respective country.

There are quite a few advancements in stem cell research and also the development of artificial organs. What has happened is that biology is vastly more complicated and folks assuming that there would be quick solutions were not the folks actually doing the hands-on research.

It should be noted that there are only few mutations ("defective or flawed is a bit of a misnomer, most of the time from a biological perspective, though I am aware that some folks in the medical profession use that in communications). There are only few genes known to be associate with Parkinson's, which is not the same as causing it. One example is a mutation GBA1 which increases risk of inflammation and negatively affects clinical progression of the disease (i.e., there are folks who have the mutation and are fine, but once it Parkinson's is diagnosed, the clinical outcome is worse in patients with this mutation. The hope is replacing the mutation could stop or stop progression and has been in clinical trials. However, at least one was terminated and at least as far as I am aware the rest are still ongoing. Other gene therapies target some of symptoms and try to increase dopamin levels genetically. One of these approaches has been in trial maybe a decade ago at least passing Phase II and I am aware that a 5-yr follow up suggesting that motor improvement was still observed in most patients in that time period (which was a major concern for this particular route). However, the improvements were generally moderate. I am sure there is more around, but

Good luck! One thing I cannot stress enough is to clean up the bench and only have stuff you need at the moment- removing clutter just reduces so many points of failures. For plates, I usually do a full stack in one go, as if you keep the bottle tilted (rather than putting it down to grab a new stack) you tend to introduce less bubbles. But YMMV. Also, especially at the beginning be slightly paranoid about contamination and make extra dilution streaks to at least visually confirm purity (or use a microscope if you access to and experience with it).

From the legal side of things, I suspect it depends a lot on what the commission does in practice. I think that the separation of church and state mostly stems from the first amendment: So, on its face I would think that if, as likely intended, the commission promotes Evangelism as the one true religion, it would clearly violate the constitution. If, on the other hand they use some backhanded means and frame it as promoting religious freedom it could pass initial muster. It could use similar tactics to allow e.g. school prayers but framing it around individual choice. This does result in de facto school prayers but make it seem less mandated, which can gradually shift perception. It will likely get challenged in court, where they will likely defend why whatever they come up with, will likely not apply to Islam or other religions. But that his all hypothetical at this point, of course.