Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • I never cease to be amazed at how quickly this forum swings between properties of cryogenically cooled proteins to women covered in cheese slices.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Testy Calibrate

... But the point is that without some imperfection in the reproduction process, i.e. without most, or at least some, offspring being unique, populations are doomed not to adapt. Which is why small populations tend to be vulnerable to extinction. Which is also why the Ark story is so bloody silly, but I do realise that the subtext here is that somehow you've got to get a lot of extra genetic variance into those animal pairs but you can't bring yourself to call them "errors".  But you won't get them from recombination either.  You need new alleles, which means that at least some of the gene sequences need to split and recombine mid-gene in a manner that will produce a gene different from both parents.  Some would call this an "error" in the recombination process.
This was the crux of the issue back in the "Who says Adam didn't have HUNDREDS of alleles?"  days, and Hawkins seems to have made no progress on it since.

Where DID the tens / hundreds / thousands of alleles per locus in animal genomes come from ?

Hint: Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm getting off Pingu's latest stupid merry go-round ...

But this from Voxrat is interesting ...

I will revisit it
What an apt choice of words.
OK listen ...

Let's adopt a definition of "error" that we can both use ...

How about this ... "a difference from the parent sequence that escapes the error correction mechanism because of an error correction system malfunction" ... this would not include recombination or HGT.

Can we agree on this definition?

If so, then I'd like to know if you stand by your statement 
Therefore populations in which the "error" rate is low but non-zero are likely to adapt best and thus leave long lineages.

Did you hear about the mansplainer who fell down a well?

Actually, it was a manhole.
You do NOT need a "non-zero error rate" to ensure long lineages in bacteria because of HGT.
You do not need HGT to ensure long lineages in bacteria.
One of your fundamental
This is your basic misunderstanding.
Your basic misunderstanding is thinking that you understand this stuff.

See: Dunning-Kruger effect.

Your misunderstanding is that because I don't know everything, I must not know anything.

I obviously know more about this one narrow topic than Pingu.
It's hard to believe you know anything. But pingu (and everyone else) can see clearly that you don't understand the topic well enough to learn more about it.
I actually think I persisted in that error for only a few hours at which time I corrected it. And that was 12 years ago. And yes I know a lot more now. Apparently I know a lot more than Pingu.
Heh. The weirdness of that idea could generate several PhDs on human cognition.
By realizing that, by the definition she used, either recombination is an "error", or it doesn't even make sense to ask if it is an error.
YOU are the one not reading carefully. 

When she talks about an "error rate" that's low but non-zero being best for adaptability and long lineages, she is definitely not referring to regular old vanilla recombination.  She's talking about the same thing the Nature article describes which the cell works very hard to prevent, but it happens an little bit anyway.

You people are idiots.
She explicitly said "i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent"

That doesn't happen with recombination.
I assumed she meant "perfect recombination" ... which living cells approach closely, but don't quite ever achieve.

If she didn't mean that, then WTH did she mean?
Your stupidity is all encompassing
I cannot see how anyone can explain away the fact that this IS what she thinks.

And it's incorrect.

Good God you are an idiot Dave
Lucky you. Just change your last name to Johnson and badabing you belong!
There's no such thing as an error ... or a mistake.  So I'm told.
you got a lot of participation awards, eh?
So Dave,

Still looking for that "100% truth"?
I would think, like Dave, they would just ignore that sort of thing.
B-b-bbut, the rwnj's have such good insult names for adam schiff. He MUST BE LYING!
It's thread titles like this that really illustrate the ignorance of simplistic religious views.
It's all about training.
Hush you two
Whoops. Carry on.
the usual good faith concern here is that the "nazi" label might get applied to people who are not, in fact, militant genocidaires. but nah, pandora just straight up cares super hard about the right to recruit people for ethnic cleansing, cool stuff.
Does reality ever even wander through your brain, or is it comprised entirely of made-up bullshit that lets you feel morally superior to people who don't believe the same things you do?  I mean, sure, that sort of blind confidence has to be nice... but it's got to take a lot of energy to keep reality from intruding.
Sounds to me like you are defending as free speech,  the right to organize an openly Nazi political group.
another thing that is a right: being able to continue to live your life without someone ending it

im not sure you really thought this one through, lol
Oh I get it.  I also get that belief and talk aren't murder.  Murder is illegal.  Everyone has both the right to not-be-killed AND the right to free speech.  Have you found a way to murder people with words?  I know they say that the pen is mightier than the sword... but words don't literally kill people, you know.  All you hyperbole is just a convenient rationalization that lets you feel like you've got the moral high ground while supporting vigilantism and violence against people whose beliefs you don't approve of.
Have to say, the line is crossed when the words are about organizing political action to create a white ethnostate. We sorta know where that goes.
Gates pleads guilty...
But I'm sure your buddy Sundance will tell you how that's great news for Trump and Hillary is going to jail any second now, eh Dave?
manafort and gates are such old news. Come on.
That's today, Dave
Lol. Damn this is twisted. Brought down by his own narcissism. :fingerscrossed:
Let's say that my animal operations continue to go well and my little sheep operation becomes a sheep Empire like Joe hoppings and I'm buying up land all over my county or a neighboring County.

Then what?

And how could this be harnessed to save agriculture?
Because you are too stupid to ever make anything like that happen.
Yes of course she could.  And does.  James Shapiro gives a nice summary of how it works ...
Although there remain many gaps in our knowledge, we are now in a position to outline a distinctively 21st
century scenario for evolutionary change. The scenario includes the following elements:

(1) hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering;
(2) major disruptions of an organism's ecology trigger cell and genome restructuring. The ecological disruptions can act directly, through stress on individuals, or indirectly, through changes in the biota that favour unusual interactions between individuals (cell fusions, interspecific hybridizations). Triggering events continue until a new ecology has emerged that is filled with organisms capable of utilizing the available resources;
(3) ecologically-triggered cell and genome restructurings produce organisms which, at some frequency, will possess novel adaptive features that suit the altered environment. Novel adaptive features can be complex from the beginning because they result from processes that operate on pre-existing functional systems, whose components can be amplified and rearranged in new combinations. Competition for resources (purifying selection) serves to eliminate those novel system architectures that are not functional in the new ecology;
(4) once ecological stability has been achieved, natural genetic engineering functions are silenced, the tempo of innovation abates, and microevolution can occur to fine-tune recent evolutionary inventions through successions of minor changes.
These are mechanisms that have been seen in bacteria.

I have seen no evidence they play any significant role in animal genetics.
Which is what we are talking about here.

bacteria... Sheep... What's the difference? They all came from the same single celled organism, right?
Damn you're an idiot Dave
When I first told you people that I have "maintenance free" sheep, you didn't believe me.  Now do you believe me?  Or at least that they are virtually maintenance free?
Heh. This got an honest lol.