CharonY

Cooking is just applied biochemistry.

What you are talking about are generally not related to evolution as they occur only within the organism and are (generally) not transmitted to the next generation via the germline (there is evidence for some exceptions, though). In broader terms, it is important to note that DNA itself is not doing anything. Simplified, their main role is a data repository that needs to be first transcribed into mRNA and then translated into proteins. The latter are doing all the work. Obviously our cells (and by extension our body) need to be able to address changes in the environment, each cell type has to fulfill different functions despite all having the same DNA. So what is happening is that transcription/translation is regulated via a wide range of internal and external cues resulting e.g. different protein compositions in different cell types or adaptive changes in response to some environmental signals. However, this dynamic is within an organism and is not transmitted to the next generation (e.g. in a Lamarckian sense).

Also, yeast extract is typically used for flavoring. It is a cheap source for umami.

There is an even worse implication. If impeachment is a prerequisite, it means that the president could avoid all criminal liability by simply resigning (well or killing everyone who would vote for impeachment).

Not necessarily in that granularity but there are studies looking at it. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad318

Then the do not understand the impact of selection. And I have not seen that really reflected in most of the posts (with one or two exceptions). Folks have said that as a whole evolution has no goal, which is true, but that is not the same as saying it is random. No the DNA is left intact, for the most part. There are some exceptions, but if the article is what I think it is about, they are talking about RNA editing. RNA is basically a copy based on DNA (using different sugar and one different base). However, all eukaryotes process the resulting RNA. The canonical knowledge is the excision of introns, leaving a mature RNA with exons. There are also chemical modifications, caused post-transcriptional modification such as A-I editing by ADAR. What has been found in cephalopods is therefore not really something unique as such. I believe the main surprise is that canonically one assumed most of this editing does not really change the resulting protein sequence (i.e. they are neutral), but in cephalopods have a much higher frequency of these changes. It is not quite clear why (or perhaps the results in other organisms are somewhat underestimated, it can be tricky to as it varies from tissue to tissue) .

As noted, that is not how evolution works. We are apes and we share a common ancestor with extant apes, including chimpanzees. It is like asking why your cousin did not evolve into your brother.

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a given population over time, as has been stated before. Not sure what you mean with development, as I do not see it well (or at all) defined in your posts. Individual development is a different discipline. I have not read any of them, but the text and title alone are pretty horrible for the most part. None obeys the command of their DNA to the letter, during conception we shuffle or DNA as part of the process, we modify our DNA throughout our lives epigenetically, our immune cells do recombination to create antibody diversity. The first link goes to a rather horrible interpretation of a PNAS paper, where they looked at the pangenome of a bacterium and basically found that that it is more shaped by selection than drift (based on a machine learning models). While interesting, there was no supposition that evolution is super random in the first place. What is unknown for any given population is what the contribution of each to the current shape is.

I think you might be glamorizing it a bit more. There is something to say regarding better representation. But, in recent times, wedge issues are also immensely successful in disruption these processes. Take the rise of the far-right, for example. They do echo the US situation, while having a very distinct political system. The mixed economic model is probably as a whole better in many areas, especially for folks not swimming money. But there are also distinct issues there. I think in some areas there are clear advantages, but I don't think that they are necessarily to the political system, but based on what folks mange to agree on. Sure bi-partisan system encourages taking sides, but populations are not necessarily passive receivers. The immigrant-averse stance permeating much of the European population is quite at odds with many parties and which has fueled the success of the far-right. They also happen to be more aligned with the GOP, potentially due to the right-wing networks which have sprung up with suspected funding from Russia. Ultimately it is an interplay between system and sentiments in the population. And they often cross-feed each other. If folks did not had the simmering resentments, Trump and the GOP would not be able to profit from them. But once they did, they managed to shift the Overton window to more acceptance of previously considered extreme sentiments. That in terms gave an opening for even more radical changes and so on.

I mean, looking at the ingredients it does not seem too bad. The second one might have different design principles as they used a lot of coloring, potentially suggesting that the ingredients were not of great quality (though this is probably true for all sauce packages). The use of caramel for color is generally not harmful, but should not be found in decent quality soy sauce. It darkens during the fermentation process naturally, so adding colour just makes it appear to have aged longer, without providing the flavour. It is also possible that the production process bleaches out the colour and they restain it, but chances are that this will impact taste, too. But for bloating onion is a good first assumption.

Well, looking at Europe I don't think that representative parties are a clear solution.

Why are people using hammers when screwdrivers are so much better at putting screws into walls? The reason is that different tools are used for different purposes. Logic is helpful to investigate conclusions in relation to a given premise. If the established premise is valid for a given question, the conclusion might also be. Even if the premise is incorrect, it allows for speculative investigations. Logic is a structural element in thinking about a given issue and allows for the creation of nonsensical connections.

Not sure without seeing the whole protocol, but from what I see there no urgent red flags. TCEP being a few year old is not ideal, if it was opened years ago and not stored under nitrogen, or at least well-sealed. That being said, I have used fairly old powder without too much trouble (but used it in excess). As you are using Ni-NTA I presume that there are no metal chelators involved. I would probably run the sample through mass spec to see what I got. I am not a big fan of dialysis, as I tended to lose too much. But then that was decades ago, so perhaps the dialysis systems have improved.

There is collective disapproval, but kids also learn to clean up their classroom. That might also stick.

TCEP is routinely used in Tris under basic conditions. It is less stable in phosphate buffers at neutral Ph. Is your chemical or the solution very old?

Does not matter, selection happens on the individual not on the collective level. Also, the same issue applies. It is about reproduction not only survival. A group entirely composed of mails may survive as many hardships as they want, their gene pool will end with them. Well, that is a semantic issue, something can be either under positive, negative or neutral selection. It does not refer to the mechanism itself under which they are positive, negative or neutral. I think the issue is that you might be have a view on evolution that is not the one used in science. There is no real necessity to see intelligence as a fundamental different trait than, say the ability to use oxygen to create energy, for example.

Even worse, generally speaking affluent folks consume more and produce more garbage. As you noted, they are just better able to pay folks to clean it up and frequently things get dumped into poor areas/countries.

Yes at the time of reproduction, but if you manage to stay alive at the cost of not reproducing you are not contributing. Conversely, if you reproduce and then die, you still contribute. This is like in the example of salmons. If they don't go through the trouble of migration to their spawn sites, they would live a fair bit longer. But they would not contribute to the gene pool. In other words, if there was a mutation that prevents them from conducting that migration, it would improve their survival, but eliminate them from the gene pool and would therefore vanish as trait (negatively selected). Intelligence has shaped our environment, so the contribution to human evolution is indirect. We change selective pressures and that can affect our gene pool. The one part that could be somewhat considered direct is sexual selection. What is considered to be attractive in a mate can be culturally shaped and this could lead to proliferation of specific traits. Evolution and intelligence is harder to assess as we really do not know how it is inherited and estimates of inheritability have been diverging quite a bit. Mostly because it is seemingly a very malleable on top of the inheritable bits. I don't understand what you mean with your last questions. Evolution is not about the origin of life.

You are mixing different things here. Survival does not equal passing on genes. They can increase chances, but very contextually. Conversely, there are multiple species where reproduction is coupled to death. Secondly, improving chance of survival does not necessarily involve intelligence. Effectively one would need go back to the basic definition of evolution, where we ultimately end up with terms like inheritable traits that are under positive selection, for example.

I would argue that this not the case either. Mechanistically shaping the environment one or another might change selective forces acting on an population. But so does virtually any interaction as selective forces are only static in models. And if we call any action changing the selective landscape guiding, then, as others already pointed out, we would expand the term guidance likely to a non-meaningful way. I would probably rather state that guidance requires a sort of intention and goal, which are absent in this cases. I.e. the intent and goals of these actions are related to proximate survival but not with the intention focused on evolution (the only exception I could come up with would be breeding programs with specific goals).

It is like saying that mitochondria are the power plants of eukaryotic cells. Hence evidence for industrial revolution in cells.

I'll contest that. There have been different approaches to creating knowledge and the issue here is that Western science has trouble recognizing other school of thoughts. In fact, quite a few of the early Western science approaches loaned concepts from elsewhere but only over time did it become so successful. One important bit is that it actually did away with the spiritual aspects and became increasingly materialistic. In addition, there are many non-Western religious systems believing in some form of creator, so it really seems like cherry-picking the arguments a bit.

It is fairly simple actually. Having no evolution means that the gene pool does not change from generation to generation. This is a situation we call the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle In order for that to happen it requires certain conditions to be satisfied, such as infinite population size, entirely random mating, no mutations etc. These are obviously not true for human, or in fact almost all populations. In other words, evolution is the normal situation and having no evolution is in fact an extraordinary claim. How would you, for example ensure that the next generation has the same genetic composition as the previous? Simple answer is, you cannot. What you might be thinking about are likely large-scale changes in visually obvious traits, but that is not what happens in the short time humans have been around. Rather, the level of phenotypic change you should be thinking about are things like, the shift in lactose tolerance, pigmentation. A fun study found that shift in folks growing up in the UK were an allele associated with higher nicotine dependency was weeded out because folks died young (due to high smoking habits). In populations where smoking was rare and also in modern times (again, fewer smokers) these alleles are becoming more frequent again (as selective pressure have lessened). In short both theoretical as well as empirical evidence clearly demonstrate ongoing evolution and one might need to revise ones preconception of what evolution is to fully realize that.

Just very quickly and generally (not really specific to the trait in question). We can start at the locus (site) of the mutation that provides the trait of interest and then look at the surrounding regions, which presumably are not under the same selective pressures. If the mutation arose in different persons independently, we would expect to see some variations in those surrounding areas (think of it as different persons providing different backgrounds for the mutation). Blue eyes arose likely not due to a mutation in a gene associated with eye color (OCA2) but in an upstream regulatory element. The interesting bit is that the surrounding area is also conserved in all (tested) folks with blue eyes suggesting that they all share a common ancestor providing this mutation. However, as this analysis relies on testing of folks who are still alive, it obviously cannot tell us if there had been other mutations with the same phenotype or even independent cases of the same mutations. I.e. we can say all currently living folks with blue eyes (who have been tested) have the same common ancestor, we we cannot say that there were no other cases of blue eyes in the past.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/