CharonY

In addition the fact that it has not shown conclusively a link between religion and wealth, it strikes me as odd that the more important issue, namely history, has been rather completely ignored. These blanket statement is an example of extreme oversimplification with no real basis. During the early middle ages Islamic countries were extremely wealthy as compared to the west European nations (I am using nation in the loosest possible way considering the fluidity of the concept at that time). Much of it due to their role in trade between east and west. The interesting thing is that there was no strong feudalistic system in place and still they maintained a loose coherence based on faith (also note that there was no central church or similar organization). Nonetheless they developed a rich and highly advanced culture. Meanwhile after the installing a feudalistic system with close ties to a centralized organisation (i.e. the catholic church) the West was slower in consolidating its power base. Roughly during the later middle ages they became a power to rival the Islamic states. The true source of Western dominance were rooted in the industrial revolution which gave them a significant edge against other advanced nations. Together with expansive imperialism European nations became the de facto power in many areas of the Earth, with consequences still felt today. Thus, to understand the current situation in any country, it is important to track its history. As has been shown in this thread, religion (or any other single factor) is not going to be a good predictor for wealth.

The breadth is not too different, overall. The perspective is, though. Biochemistry looks at the molecular processes. Microbiology does that too, with less depth, but with a broader view on the physiological and ecological impact of said processes. I.e. it provides a biological context. At this point you may as well choose according to interest, unless you already know what your dream job is.

If you make two categories, morbidly obese and very thin, one would first define the the category quantitatively (i.e. BMI or any other measure). And then, and this is important, define the question properly. Then the population has to be defined. Is it e.g. for the US, or worldwide. Both will yield very different outcomes. A finer dissection is relevant to find confounders, but is not within the scope of the question asked (i.e. low weight is more strongly associated with higher morbidity than extremely high weight). In epidemiological studies you never assume a "clean" reference population as indicated above (i.e. amanda more's post). The identification of individual mechanisms requires a different approach and is currently not easily possible in humans. That being said, most epi studies that I have seen associate morbid obesity with higher risk than low weight. An example in US women age 30-55: My link In this study the very low weight class (below BMI 18) and the morbidly obese are somewhat underrepresented. However, at best a positive association between the chance of dying (during 16 years) and weight was observed. Note that the study started in the 70s where there were less obese people around. In a country where food is not readily available the trend is likely to be inverted as there food may be a limiting factor. Edit: found the study I was actually thinking of My link. Here extreme low BMI (17.5) does indeed carry a higher hazard ratio, but was still lower in non-smoking subjects. Comparing all subjects together, however shows no significant difference between extremely low and extremely high BMI.

Every scientist worth his salt is aware that the categorizations we do are oversimplifications and often done in order to create the context for testable hypotheses. A part of scientific endeavors is squarely aimed at developing methodologies that e.g. create more accurate physiological models. It is both, much more and much less of an issue than you make of it. Less, because it is pretty much well-known. It is more of an issue because it highlights our limitations of biological systems and complexity. Therefore the use of mathematical models are powerful, as they provide a quantitative context in which we interpret how the system works. Instead of normal and diseased we would be able to work on the natural continuum. However, we are unable to obtain this goal yet. To summarize, biology is bloody complicated and we need much more basic knowledge (IMO).

The reason is pretty straightforward. Energy conservation is usually meant in a very specific context, and is mostly used in a cellular context (i.e. ATP conservation). The easiest way is to list the different stages and the processes during each stage and what the consequences are if you bypass them. Ions do play a role, for instance.

This question has essentially two components (if we disregard social issues for now) a) how much of intelligence is inheritable and b) does it correlate with skin color. The problem to a) is that we do not really know. Studies vary quiet a lot, which to me is an indicator that there is a lot of plasticity there. And it makes a lot of sense, if one thinks about it. Even if a child has the perfect genes (which we do not know) to make it a genius, it will certainly under perform in about any tests if we keep it isolated and deprived of sensory inputs. Regarding b) black is a poor indicator of race. The highest genetic diversity is found on the African continent (small wonder since the whole species originated there). So "black" covers an incredibly wide range of genetic diversity (not to mention the problems of classifying anything below the species level).

Could it be infrasound (i.e. low frequency sound)?

I would not know how a Mg2+ would be bound to an amino acid. I do not know any examples, but theoretically it may be possible that during AA transport (probably especially for negatively charged one) Mg2+ may be accidentally transporter in. But again, I do know of any examples. If you chemically modify amino acids in a way, then it really depends on a) the specificity of the transporter and the impact of the modification of the overall structure of the ligand. But this has to be analysed on a case by case basis and involves serious modelling.

It is getting somewhat off-topic but anyway: Personalized medicine is something on which whole study sections are working on. The challenge is to find indicators that are predictive with any kind of certainty for a given physiological status and even more challenging to bring it into a medical and finally pharmacological relevant context. There are some examples for genetic markers that are indicators whether a certain drug may or may not work, but overall our biological knowledge is so limited that most markers are based on statistical inference, with all the problems associated with it. Homeopaths, naturally, have not solved the problem, either. The described study is in its design basically worthless as it provides no context. At the very least a control group would have to be treated with a placebo. If the success rate is also 5% it simply means that we can treat people successfully with sugar (or water, the hoemeopath's standard treatment). To see whether an individualized treatement with using homeopathic diagnostics is feasible one would have a large population tested with this methodology, assign them a treatment based on this methodology. Then half of the group would be treated with according to the suggestions, the other half receives placebo treatments. Then one can see whether they really have a method for individualized diagnostics (I faintly recall that such a kind of study has actually been conducted, but forgot about details). Few are arguing that personalized diagnostics is, in theory, superior to bulk diagnostics. However, we lack the knowledge to do so.

Also, there is meat. I would not necessarily downplay, people hire you for a reason (though not always good ones...). But it is important to get a feel for the environment, see where you fit and where your abilities benefit the group best. It is better to demonstrate ones abilities based on tangibles.

Depends on the transport mechanism and the substrate to be transported. Some molecules are so similar that transport systems have trouble telling them apart, and some transport are somewhat promiscuous in what they transport. However, there is always a certain selectivity in there.

Depends on the length of exposure. First thing is numbness then frostbite. Eventually the finger dies off. I doubt that with -25° you are able to make tissue so brittle that it breaks easily. Maybe after very long exposure you may find stress fractures (my guess is that you require lower temperatures, though, maybe -40). There are likely to be reports from expeditions with details, though. Also, I wold not try it out, as much as one might encourage experimental validation.

It is important to realize that even if someone is highly capable one has to fit into the overall social structure. This is pretty much universal in human society, whether it is academia, company or just a random group of friends. Coming in and trying to everything different is usually not warranted, unless it can provide demonstrable benefits (and even then it usually takes some convincing). Proclaiming to be an independent thinker is also kind of dangerous because it may mean that one is not a teamplayer (and there are hardly any larger projects that can be done without a team). And of course there is always the risk that one is not really as capable as one thought one was. Bottom line: humans are social animals, social skills are always needed on top of technical skills.

To be honest, I do not think that any major in one of the natural sciences area locks you in too much for anything. Biochem is less specialized than some more specialized bio or chem majors, however, should you want to switch to anything it is usually not too much of an issue. Especially not if you are thinking about biotech/pharm/med etc. More importantly, does biochem interest you at all? I.e. would you enjoy learning it?

Note that selection is not the only mechanism shaping a population. Depending on the actual history (and that was what Gould argued, IIRC) different stochastic events may have changed the pool to an extent so that selection would result in a different outcome.

Well, it is not sensitive in all or even many animals. Flatworms like to fence with it, for instance.

There are probiotic supplements that are used to help in certain intestinal conditions. But I am not aware of one that would help i.e. during acute diarrhea (also some may help to alleviate it for certain causes).

I have lived in Germany up until a few years ago, the shame thingy does not pervade the personal interaction part that much anymore (especially not in the newer generation), but is still a factor in politics (which of course is dominated by elder people). Being a foreigner in US as well as in Germany there is not that much of a difference in bureaucracy. One main differences is that in Germany they expect you to understand all the finer points of German laws (but are peeved if you point out where they are wrong) in the US essentially nobody knows how things are supposed to be and if all goes wrong it is your fault. I found the distinct lack of strong (outward) nationalism quite liberating on the hand, but there are other elements which are kind of used instead of that. For instance the insistence that German culture is based on christian values, which is but an empty phrase to exclude certain parts of the population (i.e. mostly muslims). Being an atheist is absolutely fine, though. I never understood the concept of being proud of ones heritage, instead of ones own deeds, though.

Weird, I rather like the Australian accent. At least to me it is one of the easier to understand accents out there. And kind of sounds nice, too. Though it may depend more on the speaker than anyone else. Oh and venomous critters. Beautiful poisonous animals. We were talking about the positive sides of Australia, right?

Absolutely agree with that. Initially I found the obsession with diversity a bit strange, when I came to the US. I However, I came to realize that the exposure of students to members of different cultural background vastly enriches their perspectives. Some of the most important lessons in college can be learned outside the curriculum. Eh, actually agree completely with swansont's interpretation, too. Which makes this reply rather redundant.

This does, obviously, include humans. As already said, minimum requirements are bacteria (composition depends on habitat, e.g. availability of electron acceptors, temperatuer, light etc). The rest are window dressings, as you put it.

Ack, no only a limited number of DNA is taken up an utilized that way (and not all bacteria are capable of it). The normal mode of action is to break down and utilize it. Same with corpses and basically anything organic. At the end of the chain bacteria are breaking it down.

Species are kind of tricky to apply to bacteria, in terms of distinguishable phylotypes the last sequencing publication I remember put it slightly below 400 for the intestine flora and around 100 for skin IIRC. However, these habitats are very specialized ones. A minimum would probably involve chemoautolithotrophic bacteria. Depending on habitat, technically a single well-suited bacterium could easily survive (evolution would take care of diversity over time, however). Indeed.

This is interesting. I assume the research council is one of the major funding sources in the UK?

I think ajb means luck with the topic. Especially in experimental areas you may have great ideas but a) the experiments take bloody long and may still fail and b) the idea may have been excellent, unfortunately nature decides not to work that way. The very bright part can accelerate the undergrad time, but in the actual lab work things are slowed down by external factors, usually. However, sometimes (too rarely, though) things fall neatly into place.