Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play.

I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population.

However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival.

Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance?

oh_noes wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 6:04pm:

Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play. I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population. However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival. Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance?

Show me the absolute evidence for "genetic drift"?  Show me where this has been demonstrated in any scientific method experiment?

Neither "natural selection" nor "genetic drift" have been proven to be scientific, because they are both just based on observations and opinions.  There is no trail of genetic drift that ever would go beyond the genetic structural framework of any genealogy. 

There is no real evidence of any "fish" ever crawling on land and breathing air, growing legs. There is no possible way for this to happen.  And if it were to happen there would be "many" fish that did this.  If it works at all, then it always works and you would see this today in many species of fish with legs developing, for no reason.

I don't know if you have any idea how insane this sounds to me, realizing that all you have is a religious belief and no evidence.
Read this feculence and tell me that it isn't just more dumb ass believers and their opinions.  This is laughable and so low intelligence that it is hard to believe people are this stupid.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081015144123.htm

The reality is this creature is a unique creature that arrived fully developed and there is no trail of it ever evolving.  It is not transitional, because there are no transitional parts.
There is no evidence of anything before or after this species.
Nothing but belief and religious fervor of these pseudo scientists.

This fish has no meaning, without DNA to show any tie to any other creature.

There are far more extinct species, just like this the came, remained the same for millions of years, then went extinct.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 6:04pm:

Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play. I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population. However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival. Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance?

Actually -- both are quite vital components for population survival... As genetic drift as natural selection. Trough time genetic... Um... "information" changes, which change our structure, make us more resilient to one form of disease, and natural selection to weed out the ones, that didn't get the mutations.

One of the most perfect (and most graphic) examples for those would most likely be the black plague...

glowingape wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 7:03pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 6:04pm: Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play. I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population. However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival. Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance? Actually -- both are quite vital components for population survival... As genetic drift as natural selection. Trough time genetic... Um... "information" changes, which change our structure, make us more resilient to one form of disease, and natural selection to weed out the ones, that didn't get the mutations. One of the most perfect (and most graphic) examples for those would most likely be the black plague...

This is one of those "slogans" of evodelusionism that has no evidence and absolutely no use of the scientific method.
People survive the plague, because of genetics and for no other reason.   

We can conjecture all day about things like this but you don't have a f**king clue what you are talking about.

It has nothing to do with evolution, not a even a little.

This is not evidence it is f**king opinions based on belief that you would project your f**king beliefs on genetics. Genetics only shows the need for survival. That is even in the 30,000 code changes cause by smoking. The "doctor" said that the persons DNA shows it wants to survive. It doesn't want to evolve.  That is what is shown in the DNA.

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and no human emotional mental garbage opinions in it?

glowingape wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 7:03pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 6:04pm: Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play. I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population. However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival. Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance? Actually -- both are quite vital components for population survival... As genetic drift as natural selection. Trough time genetic... Um... "information" changes, which change our structure, make us more resilient to one form of disease, and natural selection to weed out the ones, that didn't get the mutations. One of the most perfect (and most graphic) examples for those would most likely be the black plague...

Another popular example is the Jar-Marble analogy

The process of genetic drift can be illustrated using 20 marbles in a jar to represent 20 organisms in a population. Half of them are red and half blue, and both colors correspond to two different gene alleles in the population. The offspring they reproduce for the next generation are represented in another jar. In each new generation the organisms reproduce at random. To represent this reproduction, randomly select any marble from the original jar and deposit a new marble with the same color as its "parent" in the second jar. Repeat the process until there are 20 new marbles in the second jar. The second jar will then contain a second generation of "offspring", 20 marbles of various colors. Unless the second jar contains exactly 10 red and 10 blue marbles, there will have been a purely random shift in the allele frequencies.
Repeat this process a number of times, randomly reproducing each generation of marbles to form the next. The numbers of red and blue marbles picked each generation will fluctuate: sometimes more red, sometimes more blue. This fluctuation is genetic drift – a change in the population's allele frequency resulting from a random variation in the distribution of alleles from one generation to the next.

glowingape, that is pretty much what I had in mind with my example. The immunity for black plague obviously arises through a mutation of some kind (or series of mutations), but its chance of spreading through the population is influenced by selection pressure. If none is present then your marbles example is perfect. That would actually model genetic drift extremely well for ease of understanding.

At such a time that black plague is not prevalent in a population it is possible that immunity to it would still evolve and spread through the population simply through chance in the same way as any other allele can upon arising. Only when black plague started to spread would natural selection kick in to spread immunity faster (or rather, to remove those unfortunate enough not to have it, thus reducing population size). The increased fitness provided by immunity is the positive selection pressure.

The mutation to provide immunity for black plague is far more likely to arise in the millions of years before black plague strikes than during an outbreak, but it is only during hte outbreak itself that the repercussions are noticed. The selection pressure speeds up fixation, as it were.

I suspect that the majority of genes do not get fixed through genetic drift but that huge diversity accumulates within the population, all the better for survival of the species as this provides a better chance of adaptation to some new selection pressure.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 11:55am:

glowingape, that is pretty much what I had in mind with my example. The immunity for black plague obviously arises through a mutation of some kind (or series of mutations), but its chance of spreading through the population is influenced by selection pressure. If none is present then your marbles example is perfect. That would actually model genetic drift extremely well for ease of understanding. At such a time that black plague is not prevalent in a population it is possible that immunity to it would still evolve and spread through the population simply through chance in the same way as any other allele can upon arising. Only when black plague started to spread would natural selection kick in to spread immunity faster (or rather, to remove those unfortunate enough not to have it, thus reducing population size). The increased fitness provided by immunity is the positive selection pressure. The mutation to provide immunity for black plague is far more likely to arise in the millions of years before black plague strikes than during an outbreak, but it is only during hte outbreak itself that the repercussions are noticed. The selection pressure speeds up fixation, as it were. I suspect that the majority of genes do not get fixed through genetic drift but that huge diversity accumulates within the population, all the better for survival of the species as this provides a better chance of adaptation to some new selection pressure.

The mutation(s) for plague immunity would have spread very quickly during the first few generations after the plague sweeped through Europe.  It's probably still kicking about in a large number of people, and as has already mentioned unless theres any other advantages from it it'll just 'slush' about in the gene pool's of the various European countries.

Just thought i'd add in that quick thing, new to the boards and still poking about.

That would depend on how far along the genes were to fixation in the population. Those with natural immunity have increased fitness and so the probability of their genes spreading would increase. The rate of spread would be dictated by the advantage conferred, and i don't know the figures.

I would suggest that the genes failed to become fixed because it is now hypothesized that black plague immunity might confer immunity, or at least some resistance, to HIV, but it is also clear that many Europeans do not have this resistance.

The gene is likely to be wide spread however and could well be on it's way to fixation.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 2:45pm:

That would depend on how far along the genes were to fixation in the population. Those with natural immunity have increased fitness and so the probability of their genes spreading would increase. The rate of spread would be dictated by the advantage conferred, and i don't know the figures. I would suggest that the genes failed to become fixed because it is now hypothesized that black plague immunity might confer immunity, or at least some resistance, to HIV, but it is also clear that many Europeans do not have this resistance. The gene is likely to be wide spread however and could well be on it's way to fixation.

Your right, appologies for being a bit imprecise, put it down to seasonal intke of food.

But yes, the rate of spread would depend on how many people had the mutation(s), and also if there was one instance of a beneficial mutation or more than one.  Also bear in mind that after something like that there would likely have been pressure for lots of babies (with lots of oportunities for the genes to be passed on).  However this is a fair amount of assuming on our part, and not theres also the fact i'm talking outside of my specialism.

On to something i can say clearly, and you'll need to accept my appologies for not having a link sorted in relation to this.  The mutated allele that codes for cystic fibrosis is thought to pose an advantage to fertility, i.e. if you are a carrier it improves your fertility.  Now i'm a bit shakey on the specifics as it was a while ago that i did this (i dabbled in first year genetics and evolution at uni) but it was when i did a number of lectures on genetic disorders.  I will dig about on wiki to see if i can find a place for you to start on this.

As promised, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis

The section you want is theories about prevalence, it's got the susual citations if you want to double check it.

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 3:06pm:

As promised, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis The section you want is theories about prevalence, it's got the susual citations if you want to double check it.

I take it that you see evolution when there is none.  You also do not understand what real evidence is.

Sitting around and making up "ideas" about how things work is not evidence.  Do you understand the difference between real empirical evidence and beliefs being bantered about.

Opinions are not evidence.  It does not matter who's opinions they are.

it is difficult for me to be dealing with brainwashed people who have no idea they are brainwashed.

You all sound like nut jobs.

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 3:06pm:

As promised, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis The section you want is theories about prevalence, it's got the susual citations if you want to double check it.

Quite an interesting article that. I got particularly interested in the proposed heterozygous advantages that could lead to the spread of a potentially deleterious allele through the population. The link to diarrhea and lactose tolerance sounded the most plausible to me so I read the cited article at

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n3/full/5201749a.html

Clearly it is an area that requires further research and is not even close to resolved, definitely a great example of propogation of a mutation through the population that cannot be said to be necessarily negative or positive, and indeed emphasising natural selection.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 4:02pm:

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 25th, 2009 at 3:06pm: As promised, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis The section you want is theories about prevalence, it's got the susual citations if you want to double check it. Quite an interesting article that. I got particularly interested in the proposed heterozygous advantages that could lead to the spread of a potentially deleterious allele through the population. The link to diarrhea and lactose tolerance sounded the most plausible to me so I read the cited article at http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n3/full/5201749a.html Clearly it is an area that requires further research and is not even close to resolved, definitely a great example of propogation of a mutation through the population that cannot be said to be necessarily negative or positive, and indeed emphasising natural selection.

Yep, i had a little poke about there myself, nothing as intensive it seems as you.  I do appear to have been a bit off, unless my lecture was before this paper came out (which is very likely).

I doubt it, it's so little understood yet that your information could still be considered up to date. We look at the frequency of the allele in the population and note that there is an anomaly in Europe, the only explanations are increased mutation rates or a positive selection pressure (or lack of a negative one).

We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery.

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 2:58pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 25th, 2009 at 2:45pm: That would depend on how far along the genes were to fixation in the population. Those with natural immunity have increased fitness and so the probability of their genes spreading would increase. The rate of spread would be dictated by the advantage conferred, and i don't know the figures. I would suggest that the genes failed to become fixed because it is now hypothesized that black plague immunity might confer immunity, or at least some resistance, to HIV, but it is also clear that many Europeans do not have this resistance. The gene is likely to be wide spread however and could well be on it's way to fixation. Your right, appologies for being a bit imprecise, put it down to seasonal intke of food. But yes, the rate of spread would depend on how many people had the mutation(s), and also if there was one instance of a beneficial mutation or more than one.  Also bear in mind that after something like that there would likely have been pressure for lots of babies (with lots of oportunities for the genes to be passed on).  However this is a fair amount of assuming on our part, and not theres also the fact i'm talking outside of my specialism. On to something i can say clearly, and you'll need to accept my appologies for not having a link sorted in relation to this.  The mutated allele that codes for cystic fibrosis is thought to pose an advantage to fertility, i.e. if you are a carrier it improves your fertility.  Now i'm a bit shakey on the specifics as it was a while ago that i did this (i dabbled in first year genetics and evolution at uni) but it was when i did a number of lectures on genetic disorders.  I will dig about on wiki to see if i can find a place for you to start on this.

WTF does this have to do with evodelusionism? 
Where is your absolute evidence, irrefutable and physical.

This is bovine feculence, conjecture by idiot brainwashed and now we can ad arrogance and delusional believers.

It is clear to any sane person that you take all sorts of fantasy ideas and run a muck with them, when there is no scientific evidence to back it.

No creature has ever evolved into an entirely new species, much less a genus or "clad".  No fish has ever evolved into a reptile.  No reptile has ever become a bird or mammal. No creature has violated the laws of genetics and become something totally new. 



There are two things contained in evidence of the fossils as badly dated as they are.

1/ Creatures came into existence, remained the same, in some cases over 50,000,000 years (or much more by some dating systems) by your dating, and then went extinct when the environment was not suitable for their existecne.

2/ We have aprox 90% of the existing vertebrate fossils of the non bird creatures now living. They look identical to the ones still living.  Because we have the huge majority of fossils of current creatures, up to 125,000,000 years old, this shows the fossilization is more common than the religious believer in the pseudo science of evolution want to accept.

There exists no magical processes, or mystical voodoo in science.  You are supposed to just look at evidence and transh your, garbage Evodelusionism religious idea. This is the nature of human emotional mental garbage, contained in beliefs that are not founded in reality nor science.
Evolution is a pseudo science and causes people to be stupid. Beliefs destroy credibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ

oh_noes wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 4:12pm:

I doubt it, it's so little understood yet that your information could still be considered up to date. We look at the frequency of the allele in the population and note that there is an anomaly in Europe, the only explanations are increased mutation rates or a positive selection pressure (or lack of a negative one). We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 4:12pm:

We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery.

There are quite a few "outbreaks" concerning beneficial mutations in europe. For instance a kid was born in Germany with a double copy of anti-myostatin gene and  there are also some people in some village in Italy, which has a mutation, that allows them to have a high tolerance for HDL serum cholesterol.

But mostly I'm interested in the gene called FOXP2, which is related to speech (and perhaps in some way even to the intelligence... I could be wrong in this part, tho.)

Oooh some interesting reading there, but thats not quite what I meant. I was referring particularly to the high incidence of carriers of the gene that codes for cystic fibrosis. There must be some heterozygote advantage to enable it to spread so we are looking for what the advantage conferred might be.

However, I'm now intrigued about the kid with the instance of double anti-myostatin genes. Do you have a reference I can go and take a peak at, I'm envisaging some kind of Arnie Kid.

Actually, is this the kid who was all over the news as the worlds strongest child?

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/08/diet-heart-hypothesis-oxidized-ldl-part.html

It is the hydrogenated oils that cause clogged arteries.

glowingape wrote on Dec 26^th, 2009 at 5:21pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 25th, 2009 at 4:12pm: I doubt it, it's so little understood yet that your information could still be considered up to date. We look at the frequency of the allele in the population and note that there is an anomaly in Europe, the only explanations are increased mutation rates or a positive selection pressure (or lack of a negative one). We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery. oh_noes wrote on Dec 25th, 2009 at 4:12pm: We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery. There are quite a few "outbreaks" concerning beneficial mutations in europe. For instance a kid was born in Germany with a double copy of anti-myostatin gene and  there are also some people in some village in Italy, which has a mutation, that allows them to have a high tolerance for HDL serum cholesterol. But mostly I'm interested in the gene called FOXP2, which is related to speech (and perhaps in some way even to the intelligence... I could be wrong in this part, tho.)

Ok first of all a bit of a caveat. I haven't done my research on this one yet. However, I wanted to ask a quick question on FOXP2. Is that the gene that appears to be essential for communication in all mammals, and possibly much wider ranging still? I'm sure I remember reading something about FOXP2 in bats and whales, for example.  I even seem to recall reading that it could have played a role in the evolution of consciousness, but I might be making that up and will have to go check.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 26^th, 2009 at 5:27pm:

Oooh some interesting reading there, but thats not quite what I meant. I was referring particularly to the high incidence of carriers of the gene that codes for cystic fibrosis. There must be some heterozygote advantage to enable it to spread so we are looking for what the advantage conferred might be.

Yeah. My apology. I've managed to missed, that the topic was about the cystic fibrosis. But let me make it up for it, since I've found something quote interesting from the genetic and evolutionary perspective;
How this happens:
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=cysticfibrosis and the description of the gene, that causes CF, called appropriately CFTR located here: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=cftr

And I've also found a possible evolutionary treat for this, quoting:

Quote:

Cystic Fibrosis Balanced polymorphism may explain why cystic fibrosis is so common- the anatomical defect that underlies CF protects against diarrheal illnesses, such as cholera. Cholera epidemics have left their mark on human populations, causing widespread death in just days. In the summer of 1831, an epidemic killed 10 percent of the population of St. Louis, and in 1991, an epidemic swept Peru. Cholera bacteria causes diarrhea, which rapidly dehydrates the body and can lead to shock and kidney and heart failure. The bacterium produces a toxin that opens chloride channels in the small intestine. As salt (NaCl) leaves the cells, water follows, in a natural chemical tendency to dilute the salt. Water rushing out of intestinal cells leaves the body as diarrhea. In 1989, when geneticists identified the CF gene and described its protein product as a regulator of a chloride channel in certain secretory cells, a possible explanation for the prevalence of the inherited disorder emerged. Cholera opens chloride channels, letting chloride and water leave cells. The CFTR protein does just the opposite, closing chloride channels and trapping salt and water in cells, which dries out mucus and other secretions. A person with CF cannot contract cholera, because the toxin cannot open the chloride channels in the small intestine. Carriers of CF enjoy the mixed blessing of a balanced polymorphism. They do not have enough abnormal chloride channels to cause the labored breathing and clogged pancreas of cystic fibrosis, but they do have enough of a defect to prevent the cholera from taking hold. During the devastating cholera epidemics that have peppered history, individuals carrying mutant CF alleles had a selective advantage, and they disproportionately transmitted those alleles to future generations. However, because CF arose in Western Europe and cholera in Africa, perhaps an initial increase in CF herterozygosity was a response to a different diarrheal infection.

(quoted from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session7/explain_b_pop1.html ), which references Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications (Second edition, 1997) pp. 247-248 by Ricki Lewis


Quote:

However, I'm now intrigued about the kid with the instance of double anti-myostatin genes. Do you have a reference I can go and take a peak at, I'm envisaging some kind of Arnie Kid.

Sure do. The best is found here: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392292&cat=1_2 and the reference about the myostatin (the protein, that breaks the development of muscle) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin


Quote:

Actually, is this the kid who was all over the news as the worlds strongest child?

Yep. That was him. But it's not human-only mutation. Also, the cow called "The Belgian Blue" has this exact mutation. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Blue )

oh_noes wrote on Dec 26^th, 2009 at 5:59pm:

Ok first of all a bit of a caveat. I haven't done my research on this one yet. However, I wanted to ask a quick question on FOXP2. Is that the gene that appears to be essential for communication in all mammals, and possibly much wider ranging still?

Not just mammals. Geneticists also did a test on the birds as well; They've knocked out the FOXP2 gene, which caused serious dysfunctions of the one's singing... (reference here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050321)


Quote:

I'm sure I remember reading something about FOXP2 in bats and whales, for example.  I even seem to recall reading that it could have played a role in the evolution of consciousness, but I might be making that up and will have to go check.

There is a layman information about FOXP2 available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2 (and non-layman information about it here: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=foxp2 ), which interacts with protein called CDBP1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTBP1  or http://server5.xennexinc.com/v3//index.php?path=/GeneCard/card/CTBP1/5686e72e01c091f3175713cf05b7aded )

Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum.

prolescum wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 6:16am:

Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum.

What, like the PMing system ;)

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 7:03am:

prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am: Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum. What, like the PMing system ;)

And the once upon a time active post editing facility...

prolescum wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 7:26am:

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:03am: prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am: Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum. What, like the PMing system ;) And the once upon a time active post editing facility...

Really????

Censorship much?

:-X

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 7:28am:

prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:26am: Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:03am: prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am: Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum. What, like the PMing system ;) And the once upon a time active post editing facility... Really???? Censorship much? :-X

Oh yes, here's an image from waaay back in November.

---

prolescum wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 10:32am:

Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:28am: prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:26am: Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:03am: prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am: Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum. What, like the PMing system ;) And the once upon a time active post editing facility... Really???? Censorship much? :-X Oh yes, here's an image from waaay back in November.

Ack!!

But anyway, we've got to let this thread get back to the topic.

Of course, where were we?
Ah...

glowingape wrote on Dec 26^th, 2009 at 7:08pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:59pm: Ok first of all a bit of a caveat. I haven't done my research on this one yet. However, I wanted to ask a quick question on FOXP2. Is that the gene that appears to be essential for communication in all mammals, and possibly much wider ranging still? Not just mammals. Geneticists also did a test on the birds as well; They've knocked out the FOXP2 gene, which caused serious dysfunctions of the one's singing... (reference here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050321) Quote: I'm sure I remember reading something about FOXP2 in bats and whales, for example.  I even seem to recall reading that it could have played a role in the evolution of consciousness, but I might be making that up and will have to go check. There is a layman information about FOXP2 available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2 (and non-layman information about it here: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=foxp2 ), which interacts with protein called CDBP1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTBP1  or http://server5.xennexinc.com/v3//index.php?path=/GeneCard/card/CTBP1/5686e72e01c091f3175713cf05b7aded )

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 10:27pm:

glowingape wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:03pm: oh_noes wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 6:04pm: Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play. I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population. However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival. Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance? Actually -- both are quite vital components for population survival... As genetic drift as natural selection. Trough time genetic... Um... "information" changes, which change our structure, make us more resilient to one form of disease, and natural selection to weed out the ones, that didn't get the mutations. One of the most perfect (and most graphic) examples for those would most likely be the black plague... This is one of those "slogans" of evodelusionism that has no evidence and absolutely no use of the scientific method. People survive the plague, because of genetics and for no other reason.    We can conjecture all day about things like this but you don't have a f**king clue what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with evolution, not a even a little. This is not evidence it is f**king opinions based on belief that you would project your f**king beliefs on genetics. Genetics only shows the need for survival. That is even in the 30,000 code changes cause by smoking. The "doctor" said that the persons DNA shows it wants to survive. It doesn't want to evolve.  That is what is shown in the DNA. Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and no human emotional mental garbage opinions in it?

Do you really not believe in the dangers of a limited gene pool and interbreeding? How could we have overpopulated the earth without some chaotically random differenciation in our genes? Or perhaps we haven't, and we're all victims of our own propensity to copy ourselves. Either way, you must admit we're either genetically challenged, clones, or genetically drifting.

I don't claim to be a scientist, but this seems silly. Doesn't it?

I vaguely remember learning about an early scientific theorist who believed that evolution was caused by immediate need. So if I were a fish and decided that I'd die from lack of nourishment in the lake, I could grow legs and go eat grass. I can't remember names, I'm sure someone here knows. Obviously, this theory is funny, and I'm curious if this is what you see of Darwin.

Darwin is more about the extinction of species and their naturally mutating genepool, not about magically growing random limbs.

Out of curiosity, how exactly do you explain the extinction of dinosaurs? They might never have existed had we not started growing larger heads to look around for fossils, subsequently making childbearing more painful and medically dangerous for human females than virtually all other species on this planet.

Simianus wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 7:43pm:

I vaguely remember learning about an early scientific theorist who believed that evolution was caused by immediate need. So if I were a fish and decided that I'd die from lack of nourishment in the lake, I could grow legs and go eat grass. I can't remember names, I'm sure someone here knows.

I can give a helping hand with this one. The person you're looking for, (if interested) is Jean Baptiste Lamarck, and the Lamarckian "evolution" is the term you're searching for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

Yes, Glowingape! Thank you very much. Damn my sketchy memory, but that is the name I was looking for.

Simianus wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 7:43pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 10:27pm: glowingape wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:03pm: oh_noes wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 6:04pm: Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play. I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population. However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival. Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance? Actually -- both are quite vital components for population survival... As genetic drift as natural selection. Trough time genetic... Um... "information" changes, which change our structure, make us more resilient to one form of disease, and natural selection to weed out the ones, that didn't get the mutations. One of the most perfect (and most graphic) examples for those would most likely be the black plague... This is one of those "slogans" of evodelusionism that has no evidence and absolutely no use of the scientific method. People survive the plague, because of genetics and for no other reason.    We can conjecture all day about things like this but you don't have a f**king clue what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with evolution, not a even a little. This is not evidence it is f**king opinions based on belief that you would project your f**king beliefs on genetics. Genetics only shows the need for survival. That is even in the 30,000 code changes cause by smoking. The "doctor" said that the persons DNA shows it wants to survive. It doesn't want to evolve.  That is what is shown in the DNA. Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and no human emotional mental garbage opinions in it? Do you really not believe in the dangers of a limited gene pool and interbreeding? How could we have overpopulated the earth without some chaotically random differenciation in our genes? Or perhaps we haven't, and we're all victims of our own propensity to copy ourselves. Either way, you must admit we're either genetically challenged, clones, or genetically drifting. I don't claim to be a scientist, but this seems silly. Doesn't it? I vaguely remember learning about an early scientific theorist who believed that evolution was caused by immediate need. So if I were a fish and decided that I'd die from lack of nourishment in the lake, I could grow legs and go eat grass. I can't remember names, I'm sure someone here knows. Obviously, this theory is funny, and I'm curious if this is what you see of Darwin. Darwin is more about the extinction of species and their naturally mutating genepool, not about magically growing random limbs. Out of curiosity, how exactly do you explain the extinction of dinosaurs? They might never have existed had we not started growing larger heads to look around for fossils, subsequently making childbearing more painful and medically dangerous for human females than virtually all other species on this planet.

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions and to respond to my statements.  All you do is to avoid the subject and go in circles.

If you don't understand what caused extinction, then what sort of scientist are you? 

I will explain it to you. When the conditions for life of any species ceases to exist, they die.   That is what is mostly shown in the fossil record. In my lifetime there have been thousands of creatures that have gone extinct.

If we keep going with utter bovine garbage, most likely humanity will go extinct or close to it.

The major cause of human self annihilation is religious beliefs and making factions from stupid beliefs, like nationalism, racism, religiosity, and greed. These are the dominant causes of all that is bad with humanity.  Beliefs are the cause of all that is bad on this earth. If we actually were operating from truth, there would be no boundaries, because those are fantasy; there would be no racism, because that is a fantasy; there would be no nationalism, because that is an artificial fantasy as well. There would be no religious differences, because there is only one truth.  There would be no wars because there would be no reason to kill each other.

Evodelusionism a fantasy religion, contributes to the hate, not peace.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 1:02pm:

Simianus wrote on Dec 29th, 2009 at 7:43pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 10:27pm: glowingape wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:03pm: oh_noes wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 6:04pm: Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play. I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population. However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival. Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance? Actually -- both are quite vital components for population survival... As genetic drift as natural selection. Trough time genetic... Um... "information" changes, which change our structure, make us more resilient to one form of disease, and natural selection to weed out the ones, that didn't get the mutations. One of the most perfect (and most graphic) examples for those would most likely be the black plague... This is one of those "slogans" of evodelusionism that has no evidence and absolutely no use of the scientific method. People survive the plague, because of genetics and for no other reason.    We can conjecture all day about things like this but you don't have a f**king clue what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with evolution, not a even a little. This is not evidence it is f**king opinions based on belief that you would project your f**king beliefs on genetics. Genetics only shows the need for survival. That is even in the 30,000 code changes cause by smoking. The "doctor" said that the persons DNA shows it wants to survive. It doesn't want to evolve.  That is what is shown in the DNA. Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and no human emotional mental garbage opinions in it? Do you really not believe in the dangers of a limited gene pool and interbreeding? How could we have overpopulated the earth without some chaotically random differenciation in our genes? Or perhaps we haven't, and we're all victims of our own propensity to copy ourselves. Either way, you must admit we're either genetically challenged, clones, or genetically drifting. I don't claim to be a scientist, but this seems silly. Doesn't it? I vaguely remember learning about an early scientific theorist who believed that evolution was caused by immediate need. So if I were a fish and decided that I'd die from lack of nourishment in the lake, I could grow legs and go eat grass. I can't remember names, I'm sure someone here knows. Obviously, this theory is funny, and I'm curious if this is what you see of Darwin. Darwin is more about the extinction of species and their naturally mutating genepool, not about magically growing random limbs. Out of curiosity, how exactly do you explain the extinction of dinosaurs? They might never have existed had we not started growing larger heads to look around for fossils, subsequently making childbearing more painful and medically dangerous for human females than virtually all other species on this planet. I am still waiting for you to answer my questions and to respond to my statements.  All you do is to avoid the subject and go in circles. If you don't understand what caused extinction, then what sort of scientist are you?  I will explain it to you. When the conditions for life of any species ceases to exist, they die.   That is what is mostly shown in the fossil record. In my lifetime there have been thousands of creatures that have gone extinct. If we keep going with utter bovine feculence, most likely humanity will go extinct or close to it. The major cause of human self annihilation is religious beliefs and making factions from stupid beliefs, like nationalism, racism, religiosity, and greed. These are the dominant causes of all that is bad with humanity.  Beliefs are the cause of all that is bad on this earth. If we actually were operating from truth, there would be no boundaries, because those are fantasy; there would be no racism, because that is a fantasy; there would be no nationalism, because that is an artificial fantasy as well. There would be no religious differences, because there is only one truth.  There would be no wars because there would be no reason to kill each other. Evodelusionism a fantasy religion, contributes to the hate, not peace.

Quote:

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions and to respond to my statements.  All you do is to avoid the subject and go in circles.

Using my own words on me?

It seems utterly pointless to address those things when I know you've already got your reply handy.

The black plague happend when people were here.

The deer that was killed because it was dark in a white environment was already existing.
The dog that got bigger or smaller from human hybridization was already existing in order for it to breed.

There is no trail of any sort that shows any creature came from another creature.  Don't you understand that.

Natural breeding and such is not any proof of evolution. 

Infections that kill people did not "create" the people that it killed. It has nothing in common with this idea of creatures coming into existence by magical processes that no one has ever seen.

There is no natural phenomenon that has shown magical, and mystical causes for creatures to come from other creatures.

Yeah, that one.

Simianus wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 4:19pm:

Yeah, that one.

If anyone tells you that seeking truth in science is not necessary, run!
If anyone tells you that a religious magical causes, and theory of how life got here is the truth, then run.
If you have no evidence to back the belief, then run away, it is just a trap for you to get caught in.
If every (and I mean every), scientific paper on this has no use of the scientific method and only has opinions, then run away from this nonsense.
That is what the theory of evolution is.

All religious bovine garbage needs to be removed from science. 
This is as bad as any mythological religion from any time in history. It is far more damaging to scientific progress than believing that the earth was flat.

If you want to see the truth in something, look at the results.

1/ Hateful people, who have no morals.  Trolls who pretend to be something they are not in order to try and argue with me.
2/ Medicines that are poisons for humans because the premise and the understanding of the human being is based on false premises.
3/ Factions and cult like behavior.  These Evo-nazis are pretty disgusting, closed minded pompous, elitists, bigots, racists, and create more factions and hate.

There is nothing good that comes from delusional religious mystical and magical causes. It is pseudo science with the worst possible negative results.

The belief that humans are scum, is the results of this belief.
The belief that humans are worthless, and that death is all there is, is a result of this crap religion of Evodelusionism.
Racism and creating more separation between people is the result of false religions. This is one of the worst I have seen in my life time.  I have studied most religions by the way and even the worst above board religion is not as bad as this human emotional mental masturbation garbage of Evodelusionism.

Not one "scientists", even PHD in genetics, has been able to refute my claims.  All they can come up with is pseudo science, religious slogans (like evolutionary pressure that has never been tested by any scientific method) and that is their "evidence". All they have is beliefs and opinions.  In all the papers (and I mean all that pertain to evoldelusion) there are only beliefs and opinions with no evidence that is even close to scientific.

And anyone who believes in evolution is indoctrinated and brainwashed or just gullible and too stupid to see all the logical fallacies in this crap religion of Evodelusionism.

If anyone tells you that seeking truth in science is not necessary, run!
If anyone tells you that a religious magical causes, and mythological theory of how life got here is the truth, then run.
If you have no evidence to back the belief, then run away, it is just a trap for you to get caught in.
If every (and I mean every), scientific paper on this has no use of the scientific method and only has opinions, then run away from this nonsense.
That is what the "theory of evolution" is.  It is certainly not science.

Only a weak person who is prone to cave into popular beliefs by peer pressure, cultural disdain if you don't conform and fear of being hated and put down as stupid would fall for this garbage.

You have to be a weak willed, kiss ass, to think this garbage is real. 

Now prove me wrong.

Produce evidence that is physical, absolute, irrefutable, has no other plausibilities, and has no friggin dumb ass opinions in it.

If you can't do that, then you are insane for believing in this crap pseudo science.

If you believe without real evidence, then you are insane, and delusional.  It does not matter if a billion fools believe in this crap. Humanity has not had a good track record when it comes to mythology in academia.

prolescum wrote on Dec 25^th, 2009 at 1:32am:

glowingape wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:03pm: oh_noes wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 6:04pm: Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play. I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population. However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival. Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance? Actually -- both are quite vital components for population survival... As genetic drift as natural selection. Trough time genetic... Um... "information" changes, which change our structure, make us more resilient to one form of disease, and natural selection to weed out the ones, that didn't get the mutations. One of the most perfect (and most graphic) examples for those would most likely be the black plague... Another popular example is the Jar-Marble analogy The process of genetic drift can be illustrated using 20 marbles in a jar to represent 20 organisms in a population. Half of them are red and half blue, and both colors correspond to two different gene alleles in the population. The offspring they reproduce for the next generation are represented in another jar. In each new generation the organisms reproduce at random. To represent this reproduction, randomly select any marble from the original jar and deposit a new marble with the same color as its "parent" in the second jar. Repeat the process until there are 20 new marbles in the second jar. The second jar will then contain a second generation of "offspring", 20 marbles of various colors. Unless the second jar contains exactly 10 red and 10 blue marbles, there will have been a purely random shift in the allele frequencies. Repeat this process a number of times, randomly reproducing each generation of marbles to form the next. The numbers of red and blue marbles picked each generation will fluctuate: sometimes more red, sometimes more blue. This fluctuation is genetic drift – a change in the population's allele frequency resulting from a random variation in the distribution of alleles from one generation to the next.

First of all there is no such thing as random in breeding populations. There are causes and effects or causes and results.The term random can never be used with organic structures and the genome.  Random means extinction.

The number of breeders and competition for mating of a population of any species has never changed any population into a new species.  Has never happened.

What has happened is that normal genetics has has been turned into a circus by this religious and magical mystical concepts of Evodelusionism.

There has only been very slight cases of drift from one parent group into another, nearly identical species. Like a small horse becoming a larger horse. or a small dog becoming smaller or bigger by the environment.

This idea of some form of evolution has no physical evidence to back it. There is nothing in the fossil record that suggest this.

We have 88 percent of the now living non bird vertebrates as fossils. We have the fossils of 88% of the non bird species and there is no evolution shown. they look the same as the original fossils.  That tells us that fossilization is common, much more common than the Evodelusionist would like, and 2/ Evolution is fraud.

This idea that random exists in DNA and gene expression is ridiculous.  The only way for anything to affect the genome is by enviromental conditions, poisons, like tobacco, and bad foods etc or extreme change in diet will effect the genome.

The remaining issues of reproducting is this. The only place where any genes can come from is from the genealogy of the creature or person.  There is no such thing as mystical random base pairs in the human genome at birth.  The differences can only be transmitted from the parents.

The Evodelusionists, will not look back in the genealogy of any creature or human to see if these DNA codings are from ancestors or not.  If they did it would ruin their faith and belief in Evodelusionism, the religion of fools.

"However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function."

This statement is full of NO EVIDENCE and religious belief that some magical mystical events take place that are going to turn humans into mutant freaks as the mystically and magically evolve. The only problem is we have absolutely no evidence of this in the entire world.

All we have in actual evidence shows that creatures arrived here, somehow.  They remained the same morphology.  Then two things happen: 1/ they went exitinct and did not become any other creature.  2/ The ones we have now are identical in morphology to the original fossils some over 110 million years old.  In Amber we have 125,000,000 year old mosquito or weevil.
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/amber.htm

This mosquito is from 40 to 60 million years old. Why did it not evolve?  (There is no such thing as evolution)

---