CharonY

I have not read the full paper, but based on a skim, I think the authors may have overstretched their claims. To be fair, most of it is in the discussions, which allows for some level of speculation, but this is (IMO) somewhat close to a wild guess. The bacterial enzyme might be an adaption to the human metabolite as it might provide them with a selective advantage. But the analysis would not allow to make any statements regarding this process also being a selective advantage for humans. The authors speculate that the human precursor have no purpose and then speculate on how further processing might have a selective advantage. This is a rather broad extrapolation and would require a much deeper analysis of the metabolic processes leading on the humans side of things (i.e. the precursor). The production of them might not be the primary role of the involved enzymes, but rather a side aspect, that are exploited by bacteria, for example.

I will also note that genetic variance in humans, e.g. the ABCC11 also contributes to body odor (and ear wax type).

I generally do not use precast gels, so I don't have first-hand experience. But I believe that manufacturer generally recommend (obviously) their own loading buffer (LDS). While it is generally recommended to use the same buffer as the running buffer, I believe that most LDS buffer composition are also simple Tris-HCl at pH 6.8. I.e. it shouldn't make much of a difference either way. For power settings, I generally run at constant current as I prefer controlled and more homogenous separation (mostly as I approach this from a 2D perspective). But if your gel are the same size, you can keep the values the same (i.e. 10-15 V/ cm). But depending on the buffer the run time would change.

I think this is exactly it.

It is pretty much srandard case of an expert talking outside their area of expertise. That being said, it seems the current convention of media is moving towards non-expert talking nonsensense on all areas.

Well said.

OK, maybe you can tell me what I am doing wrong. Measure twice, cut once. Measure again: darnit. Cut just a little bit more. Hold on, was it inches or cm? Measure again: doubledarnit. Go to Home Depot and get more material and glue. Measure again, oh I forgot the wood screws, why didn't I get them while I was there? Measure once more. Hold on, why is the line not where it is supposed to be? Maybe the pencil sucks. Anyway, cut once. Hold on, why is it too short again? Oh goddamnit, I screwed up the frame in the first place, didn't I? Off to Home Depot, return, forgot the stupid screws again. Just for reference, in the lab I have built devices with <5 micron precision. And they worked! Why am I unable to get 5 cms right? Does this measure tape actually have cm on it?

I am so envious of everyones woodworking abilities. And here I am arguing with contractors about about all the random things they keep destroying for no god reason.

At minimum, interference from that court would need to be more explicitly partisan. Though some might argue that that ship has already sailed.

Found an interesting poll on K12 educators in the US. It is only a snapshot and I have not looked whether there is temporal data available https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/04/ST_24.04.04_teacher-survey_topline.pdf

On the one hand Smith made a very strong case by laying out specifically what might be considered official duties or not and the evidence is damning (and public, which is a major point). On the other hand, I am not sure whether it is enough, considering the length SCOTUS already went to derail the case.

Thanks, I am vaguely familiar with major processes in at vents and was under the impression that chemolithoautotrophy is the major mechanism of energy generation (and used for carbon fixation), which is an aerobic respiratory process (e.g. from hydrogen to metals). I was therefore curious about the non respiration part of your comment i.e. whether there are other energy harvesting strategies specific to the vents that I am unaware of (as it is more on the outer fringe of the organisms I know of). Thanks!

Potentially off-topic, but I am curious (and not familiar) with that one, do you have a link or other resources I could check?

! Moderator Note These declarative statements do not invite discussion and are a form of preaching, which goes against rule 8. Also, it has nothing to do with OP (faith in science). Don't bring that up again here.

The second part has been answered, there are sex differences in how cardiovascular diseases manifest and we need to understand those so that we can provide the best care. The first question is the direct reason for that. In the past, most medical research focussed on men. The research was done by men and on with male patients. I.e. in the past, without a specific mandate to include women in research, most researchers would use male subjects. IOW, most of our understanding of cardiovascular disease and its treatment is for men. It has been so ingrained to use men as default that especially in older textbooks you don't find "men" or "male" added to this data. Men are just the default for medical practice in most areas and only slowly do we get data also about women. Your proposition to go back to assuming that things are the same (despite evidence to the contrary), is essentially an exercise in willful ignorance and I fail to see any benefit to it. Otoh, the harms are well documented in literature.

Fair enough, I actually forgot about the tiny little pandemic we had. I picked the latest data I had on my drive but didn't check for updates, mea culpa. Actually with respect to OP, it wad also mentioned that sex/gender and race should only be used if it was the primary target (in the context of violence, I believe). However a race-blind approach to maternal deaths would obfuscate the fact that the rate vastly depends on race. Again taking the problematic 2021 numbers, the maternal death rate for white women is 26.6 (per 100k), for Hispanic women 28, but an incredible 69.9 for black women. Looking at data at a preconception of equality makes us blind to issues hidden in the system. I mean, yes? What other forms of abortion are there which does not concerns or legislates what happens to the women?

Not as a biological concept. Also, I would like to see a better characterization- the term neurodivergent can be used broadly (as I did) or medically, which assumes some impairment of functions in current societal contexts. Again, not applicable to biology (and so are the examples give in this thread). Unless you can define the traits of a, say neurodivergent bird (what would be a "normal" bird in this context?), we cannot really start a biological discussion.

One issue that also needs mentioning is how politics has created systems of power against women. Abortion is a prime example how, in the extreme form, forces women to lose agency over their bodies. The misogyny here is a bit baked in, as it often, pregnancy is almost treated as a minor inconvenience. However, even if we only look at deaths, maternal mortality in the USA is around 32.9 per 100,000 life births (2021 CDC data), which is higher than military death rates (26.3) and if compared with the deadliest (typically men-dominated) jobs, it would compare to the 5th riskiest job (https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/civilian-occupations-with-high-fatal-work-injury-rates.htm). Given that pregnancy is such an obvious distinction between sexes, and how its impact does not seem to be properly recognized, I would think that a closer look at gender-based issues is warranted, before one can even try to equalize them.

IMO terms like neurodivergence is not a biological term, at best it is medical. It assumes some sort of normative functions and considers sufficiently large differences as divergent, unless I am mistaken. As such, it is based on an assumption of normalcy. These are common in social and medical contexts, but in biology we would even consider detrimental traits as part of the overall existing biological variation.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged.

In that case, I think the timing is a bit off to be linked. For example, the number of a full-time mothers at home was the lowest around 2000 and then increased or kind of levelled off and even increased a bit in the US around 2012 (probably fluctuated since then, I don't have the latest numbers https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/). Some other data also suggest just some fluctuations around 2000, though there were also more stay-at-home fathers, to compensate. However, what we see in terms of education was most dramatic starting around 2010ish and only accelerated (so basically after decline had levelled off or even reversed). Some folks have suggested that the timing fits the increase in social media, but of course these are mostly correlations.

No, but I am unsure how it relates to the the observed drop in learning abilities. Could you elaborate?

I don't think there is so much a social change, but rather driven by practical change. The ubiquitous presence of cellphones/internet makes it easier just to type in the question verbatim and regurgitate the answer rather than thinking about the problem. But perhaps even worse, it is also a source of constant distraction and entertainment which reduces the mental capacity of kids to even want to tackle a challenge. The one social change that I might be seeing is that kids are less able to deal with challenges in general and do not like to uncomfortable. For example, they dislike being put in a position where they do not know the outcome and/or might fail a task (e.g. performing complicated experiments with uncertain outcomes). As a result, students are less able to fulfill even simpler tasks (even things like putting in homework in time), and because of that they are far more easily overwhelmed. Unfortunately, it seems that parents are heavily pushing teachers (and school boards) to address stressed out kids by making things easier, rather than focusing on building resilience. I am not entirely sure how feminism plays into that, though. Not only varied input sources, but learning how to process information in general, I think. I.e. processing vs regurgitating.

That is very much on topic. So much that it is in the OP

Sorry but these are just buzzwords lined after each other with no attempts to even describe how they relate to evolutionary theories. If that was the first time you did that, I would simply ask for clarification, but we are many pages into the discussion and I find it rather exhausting at this point. The most charitable interpretation is that you still do not understand the fundamentals of evolution and are unfortunately not able to able to integrate what posters are trying to tell you. But honestly, it really looks like a typical gish gallop at this point as instead of trying to figure out the misconceptions when pointed out, you keep bringing up other snippets (and in this case, nonsense) without even trying to link them together. In recent posts you bring up HGT and take incidence of HGT as a hit on evolutionary theories without ever explaining why. As you do keep weaving and bringing up additional topics without even trying to integrate that into your understanding. I always found that asking questions but not thinking about the answers to be an utter waste of time of everyone involved.