CharonY

Let us aim for 1000 years. Long enough to not be able to predict what is going to happen.

Well, recombinant DNA actually refers to DNA that has been altered in any form in vitro, i.e. it does not necessarily refer to a cloning vector or a particular gene (though the insert or the whole molecule can be considered recombinant). That being said, the fate of the vector depends on the host. If the vector is compatible with it, it will stay in the host and replicate with it. If it is incompatible, it can get lost, (i.e. only the original cell keeps a copy, but none of the daughter cells will have it). Another possibility is that the whole vector gets integrated into the cell via homologous recombination. In that case it becomes part of the chromosome (but can loop out and get lost again, in some instances).

Interesting the next paragraph in the link provided in the OP the situation is far more complex [...] It has been cautioned that the studies are overall still limited with regards to the effects of immigration on social cohesion.

In short: we have a lot of tools and can change things. On the practical level we basically have no idea what they do. And there are a lot of detailed technical problems (ignoring all the ethical issues). So as already mentioned, knowledge is the limiting factor.

Another thing that could help is a decent mentoring system. Though that depends on the interaction between the mentor and the mentored.

I have seen the first kind of measure employed fairly often. Unfortunately, people are rather guarded at the beginning, so it is tricky to get reliable information out of these interviews. Sometimes you can spot that something is really off, though. Fixing it is a different issue, of course.

Insights into the interactions between the colleagues (aka, politics). Unfortunately, there is no way to get it objectively.

Is it a membrane protein?

FAIR is a known anti-immigration partisan group that repeatedly purports made-up numbers. Even the conservative CATO institute has demonstrated that they are wrong http://politicalcorr...ck/201107200006. However, considering that the core of this discussion has shifted several times it appears to me that there is only one consistent theme: So the premise is that that economic problems are caused by large populations. The source is apparently secondary. If that is the case, one should just need e.g. to correlate economic success (or lack thereof) with population size to test his hypothesis. So let's take public debt as an example http://en.wikipedia...._by_public_debt. Apparently huge countries like Saint Kitts and Navis or the Lebanon should cut down on their population growth. Top of the pack is Japan, however even including immigration they appear to have a population decline over the last few years. So the aging population should put the right back on track, right?

So you are focusing on the cost of asylum seekers? As opposed to the rest of legal as well as illegal immigration? This is quite a a different premise than initially stated. Also note that the number of asylum seekers Australia (and most other countries, I think) accept is regulated. Quick googling indicate roughly 12-13k people per year. I am doubtful that this constitutes mass migration. Note that legal immigrants also contribute to the infrastructure and pay for water etc. So just focusing on the cost side is unjustified.

To declare things as patently obvious (without providing data) is not a good way to argue. I would think this is blatantly obvious.

The main factors are generally contamination with proteases, that destroy the enzyme. However, to me the restriction does not appear complete to me. Is it possible that the enzyme already lost a significant amount of activity? Also, what is the difference between the lanes labeled Lambda-HindIII and HindIII(temp), the bands appear to be identical. For the test I would first aim to get a complete digestion taking the minimum required time, and use the RT-stored enzyme for the same amount. Even if it has reduced activity, if you treat it long enough you may still get significant digestion. In the end the RT-storage will only result in a gradual reduction and you will have to time your experiments accordingly (but again, first go for complete digestion).

Well, it depends a little bit on the phrasing of the question. It could be interpreted as to what are the proximate factors resulting in being a carnivore or herbivore. This could be a physiological question, of course. Evolution defines their history as to how they became the way they are. But the question is not (to me) stated clear enough to be sure what is being asked.

I still fail to see why the absolute metric should be more important than the relative value, especially for a) comparative purposes and b) to assess burden. Both of which are points of the OP. And secondly, how do illegal immigrants get access to welfare? Legal immigrants on the other hand are only allowed to immigrate if they can demonstrate the ability to take care of themselves and are therefore influencing the economy in a positive way. As already state above, the basic premises should be cleared before we can move to the next step (which would include to put some numbers on the actual burden- and ideally from non-partisan groups).

recycled is not too bad a term. In most organelles you have ongoing replacement (turnover) going on. Whether they ever leave the cell is kind of a philosophical question. The components of the membrane are replaced on a regular basis, for instance. The C-bodies are eventually oxidized to CO2 or volatile fatty acids that may be secreted (depending on cell type). As such they get out of the cell. However, the membrane as a whole persists.

This is an oxymoron. By definition all rodents belong to Rodentia. If they don't, they are not rodents.

To be precise, I do not like the term instinct too much as the definition has been muddled quiet a bit. In general it refers to a series of behaviors that are initiated upon a certain stimulus. However there are many issues with that. A less complex behavior are reflexes. While less complex, they are still orders of magnitude more complex than certain regulatory circuits that are based on biochemical reactions (i.e. receptor-ligand binding leading to activation of transcription factors, leading to gene expression changes, to give a rough example).

As I mentioned, the direction is coupled to the tumble frequency. If it is on the right track it tumbles less and moves towards it. If it deviates, tumble frequency increases and will continue to do so until they are on the right track and the tumble frequency gets reduced. How they are oriented due to the tumble is by chance. But since the frequency is gradient dependent, the net movement will be towards the attractant. Essentially it is a random walk with a net movement towards the attractant (or away from a repellant). So, no, it is not a pure chance event.

I am not sure what you mean with differentially. Do you mean how the frequency is controlled? The system is overall very simple but incredibly clever. To clarify, the tumble is induced by either stopping flagellar movement or by rotating it the other way round. The latter is the case in some bacteria and it results that the flagella (which in this case are organized in a bundle) become disorganized and induce a random tumbling of the cell. The tumbling can therefore be partially active (unorganized movement) or, depending on cell size and morphology be a combination of diffusion, momentum and liquid viscosity. The trick is that the activity of the regulator that determines the movement of the flagellar motor is directly coupled to the concentration that the cell senses. There are other types of movements, of course which utilize a number of mechanisms.

It is not instinct either. It is in essence a biochemical reaction cascade (or the result thereof). We have a long way to go to bridge the understanding of these relatively simple chemical processes (which, to a large part, we still do not really understand), to the much more complicated question regarding intelligence and consciousness (or the illusion thereof).

A nitpick, but as Ophiolite pointed out, rabbits are related to rodents, but are themselves not members of Rodentia.

Unfortunately there is not enough information to do proper troubleshooting. Typical questions would e.g. whether you got technical replicates and how consistent the findings are on that level. Then what is the observed biological variance etc.

Can you imagine how socially awkward it can be if you are by far the dimmest bulb in a group?

One think I have to mention first is that flagella is used as a term both for eukaryotic as well as for prokaryotic systems. However, while the functions are similar, structurally they are not related. That being said, the best understood and common chemotactic orientation using flagella is the run-and-tumble mechanism. Essentially linear movements are broken up by random tumbles in which the organism reorients its path (randomly) and then starts moving again. The trick is that the frequency of the tumble is dependent on the taxis. I.e. in the case of positive taxis the tumble frequency is reduced while swimming towards the attractant, and increased, if moving away from it. This model for flagellar-mediated taxis has been derived from bacterial motility and elements are also found in zooplankton. But there are also other motility patterns indicating that more mechanism exists (depending on species) and likely include more mechanisms. Note that zooplankton includes a wide array of organisms, independent on the presence of flagella per se. Basically any smallish animal drifting in water can be considered one, which includes e.g. metazoa in various developmental stages.

We do not have a real cancer expert here. But even if we have, there is no good medical recommendation you can get in these kinds of forums, especially without details about the precise diagnostic information. There are websites for cancer patients in which they can exchange experiences and he could try to find information whether his condition is common, for instance. But again, there is nothing you can really do (except suggest that to him).