GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum - Natural selection vs Genetic drift

Simianus YaBB Newbies Offline Seek Truth! Posts: 26	Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift Reply #30 - Dec 29^th, 2009 at 11:51pm Yes, Glowingape! Thank you very much. Damn my sketchy memory, but that is the name I was looking for.
Back to top	IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #31 - Dec 31^st, 2009 at 1:02pm

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

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

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

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...

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.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

Simianus

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Seek Truth!

Posts: 26

Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #32 - Dec 31^st, 2009 at 3:23pm

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

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

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

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

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...

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #33 - Dec 31^st, 2009 at 4:10pm

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.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

Simianus YaBB Newbies Offline Seek Truth! Posts: 26	Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift Reply #34 - Dec 31^st, 2009 at 4:19pm Yeah, that one.
Back to top	IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #35 - Jan 5^th, 2010 at 12:32pm

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.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #36 - Jan 14^th, 2010 at 3:28pm

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

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

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...

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)

Back to top

800px-Mosquito_in_amber.jpg (53 KB | 258 )

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login
	YaBB is sponsored by XIMinc!