CharonY

I would argue that life is an emergent property. So it is not merely a function of complexity. It has been speculated that the precursors of life came from replicating nucleic acids (and the rest of life is a kind of an add-on).

Bacteria do not have a nucleus. The lowest measured intracellular pH that I came across in bacteria (and remembered) was around 5. Edit: short sentences and I managed to introduce numerous typos. I suck.

This is far from being a fact, depending on the system. That in principle such cycles exist is not the issue, though. The question is whether these are examples of equilibrium systems. And as ecologists have pointed out, there is, as a whole, little evidence for such systems. The experimental recreation is an example of a non-equilibrium hunter-prey cycle, for instance.

This is indeed the crux of this discussion and something that Greg does not appear to accept. L-V has so far not been validated on a broad basis. And I think this is the reason: In secondary school "facts" are taught. The problem in teaching at university is that you have to unteach many of these facts. This is an incredibly big deal. We are not talking about rough trends, but about direct relationship. If there is none, we just matched random patterns (and again, the linked papers discuss it in that terms). Only because it looks neat it does not mean it survives statistical scrutiny (which is what ecological model have to provide, otherwise it is just gut feeling). Let us spin this around, if there are copious examples of it, why do text books rely on these few that have been thoroughly criticized in academic literature? Text books are good introductory reads. By their very nature they tend to make shortcuts to provide easy to understand narratives. And sometimes these narratives are wrong or incomplete.

Without reading: human ear is already wrong (as in it is not a human ear).

Do the afterimages appear similar to the "shape" of the glare you see on the screen?

The point is not the time. The problem is that the data set where collected from different areas. I.e. connections between these two populations are likely by chance, not by mechanism (in order to show that they have to be from the same region, obviously). If you look at the respective graph, you will also notice that at times the lynx increase predates the hare increase, a point also discussed in the Hall paper (have hares started hunting?). Also it was mentioned that similar cycles are also found in populations where hares alone live, further indicating that the found association was just chance. Really, check those papers out. They should be worth your time.

Here is the thing: unless it is in the public domain or otherwise distributed freely, it is not legal. I agree that textbooks are too expensive. Getting used ones is probably the best way to reduce costs, though some argue that this is one of the reasons why the prices are so high...

Greg, I think you missed the point. Due to the spatial separation there is cannot be any connection between the indicated lynx and hare population. In the review (which is really a good read and with a few hundred of citations it is also one of the central reviews in this area), the authors showed that overall empirical data is not in agreement with predictions of equilibrium models, including the study John mentioned. The conclusion is that there is no good direct evidence of truly equilibrium systems to be found.

Most organelles have a turnover. Same goes for proteins, lipids etc. If your question is whether the molecular make-up of a neuron is static, then the answer is no. The components are more or less in a coordinated flux.

Indeed. I pretty much find ties to be the silliest part of the attire. But wouldn't ideas just drip through the holes? That is why I prefer self-releasing knots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_swallowing

Eh, this is more a evolution/ecological topic, but I have to point out that the assumption of a baseline, over which the whole ecosystem oscillates is rarely true. There are often oscillations, but the baseline tends to shift, often much more rapid than geological time scales. If you want to find something that oscillates around a stable baseline for any given time you really cherry-pick your parameters (i.e. population size, area, time frame etc.).

I am not quite sure that I grasp the problem entirely (also, it is not precisely my field), assuming the SNP is nuclear, why shouldn't it be homozygous?

I hope you also wear a top hat.

Well getting dirt on a suit is annoying. And repeated dry cleaning really messes it up over time. I have not yet seen washable suits in stores yet, though. But what about ties? It is almost impossible to get stains off the silk! But then suits are not supposed to be practical. They are like high-heels for men with lower risk of spine injury.

Upon re-reading I realized that my wording was too strong. What I meant is that a girl was less worth to her family than a boy under certain laws, precisely for the reasons you mentioned. Often all possessions would be transferred to the husband and thus be lost to her family. A marrying male would in contrast bring goods to the family. Marriage for political purposes is a valid point, but I would think it is more limited to the ruling class. Essentially a family lines ends with the last male child.

Neurons are optimized towards long-distance information transfer (via APs). Without any information to relay anywhere else they are not able to do much (as bombus implied). Chemical memory is quite a different thing, and even bacteria have it. In chemotaxis postranslational modification of a sensor system provides information on the chemical gradient the cell was facing, for instance. In short: existing chemical situations modify future biochemical reactions (or rather, their rate).

There is also reason in the evolutionary history of development. For developmental reason certain elements may be replicated with others it is not possible.

From a human point of perspective it could be bad if the resulting system is unsuitable to sustain human life.

I do not understand how the number of people having a major in an area is going to make it worthless. The only thing you get with a major is some first theoretical insights in it. It is not really a technical training at that stage. Again, the major alone is unlikely to set you on a certain career path.

Simply put, the major is not really terribly important. A strong focus on premeds is a bit unfortunate, but if they teach a decent foundation in ecology you should be good. The decision of the major will only have a relatively small impact, especially considering that you have not a particular career path in mind.

Natural selection is neither good nor bad. It is just a mechanism that exists.

There are many assertions that are unfounded. In many rural areas of China women are working the fields side-by-side with men. The rest is even more ridiculous and self-contradictory (females are treated better because they are worthless? Males want to kill babies, too, but are not allowed to- what?).

Actually in many societies (although it also depends on the specific subgroup) females are treated as expendable. For instance many inheritance law only allowed the sons to inherit properties. Thus, females were groomed to become brides to someone else at best. Under certain combinations, as e.g. the one-child policy in China in conjunction with the preference for males, sometimes female babies are simply killed (if not aborted earlier, depending on level of health care, I presume).