Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: less funny that it used to be

Recent Posts

21
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/opinion/sunday/marine-gun-classroom.html

Op Ed by the author of the Jarhead memoir.


I thought you cancelled your New York Times subscription?
22
So make that Pingu ... AND Martin ... AND uncool ... that don't understand basic genetics.
Aaaaand ...
Here's Hawkins's signature totally inappropriate condescending  insulting bluster/bravado when trying to bluff his way through a subject in which he lacks the first clue.

No, Hawkins. It's YOU who doesn't understand basic genetics.

Remember how you went on for days (weeks? months?) condescendingly, insultingly, insisting that your biblical Adam and Eve must have had hundreds or thousands of alleles at every locus? 

:rofl:
:rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


Good times!  I suppose you would have us believe you've actually studied the subject since then, and now you've not only moved beyond such hilarious boners, your brilliant mind now runs circles around people who have studied molecular genetics all their lives.

Dave Hawkins:  poster child for narcissistic militant ignorance
FYP
23
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?
Bluffy, this is really lame. How could recombination be "perfect"? The only scenario in which it might occur would be if two identical clones mated.

So, once again, you made an assumption that was not based upon anything other than either your biases, your ignorance or both.
24
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.
Yes, that's what Pingu has said, and it's correct. There are mutations that are not related to recombination. Happens in Prokaryotes all the time. But it happens in Eukaryotes as well.

BTW, cells do not work "very hard" at anything. Cells don't know the difference between hard and easy. Cells don't know anything. Cells are not conscious.  There are mechanisms in cells that have evolved to repair DNA mutations. It's what those mechanisms do. Those mechanisms don't know the difference between hard and easy. Those mechanisms don't know anything at all. Those mechanisms are not conscious.

Does a spark plug work very hard to ignite gases? Do tires work very hard to roll? Does a test tube work very hard to hold its contents? Does a light bulb work very hard to produce light?

What a bluffoon.

25
I think Dave's off his meds.
Has he ever been, while at TR or virtually any other online forum, on his meds?
26
I cannot see how anyone can explain away the fact that this IS what she thinks.

And it's incorrect.

Hugely.
According to you. A nobody guy with no education, training or experience in related fields who lives in a pile of straw bales with a tarp for a roof and shits in a bucket and drinks a gallon of milk a day and sells stuff to gullible rubes who don't need that stuff and is a militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboy.
27
How am I misreading this?
Quote
In an metaphorical sense, it may be that a certain rate of  copying "mistakes" is optimal for conferring robustness and evolvability.  A population that reproduces totally without "error" i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent would be incapable of adaptive evolution by natural selection.  One that reproduces with a great deal of error may tend to go extinct rapidly because too few good viable variants are born.

Therefore populations in which the "error" rate is low but non-zero are likely to adapt best and thus leave long lineages.  This is the "evolution of evolvability" that is one of the core ideas of the Third Way people you love to reference, but apparently do not understand.
--Pingu

This indicates quite clearly that this "error rate" Pingu is talking about is referring to the same thing being discussed here ...  See especially the bolded ...
Quote
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are--not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409
Except when that mutation of the genes for DNA repair enzymes is beneficial, ie - is more effective at repairing mutations that are not beneficial and not repairing those that are.
28
I continue to be amazed at your lack of the most elementary understanding of basic biology and genetics.  For example, you say

Quote
A population that reproduces totally without "error" i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent would be incapable of adaptive evolution by natural selection.

which is completely false.

I return again to Ayala (Repetition Aids Learning) ...

Quote
Ayala, Francisco J., "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978).

p. 63
"It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations [1]by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,[2] it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation."
p. 64
"In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes--a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution--populations are usually able to adapt to it.

So Pingu does not understand basic biology or basic genetics.

But I'm the shyster.

Go figure.
1) Ayala is not the final authority on this issue. Nobody is. These are his opinions.
2) Ayala is, has to be, talking about eukaryotes, not prokaryotes, because prokaryotes do not reproduce by sexual recombination.
3) You denigrate any statements he makes that clarifies his opinions which conflict with your desired meanings of his word (using the parathesied phrase  - believes on faith) but totally accept whatever statements he makes you agree with. That's unethical, asymmetrical cherry picking. Something you don't suck at.
Ayala doesn't KNOW that these are "previously accumulated mutations" ... he BELIEVES IT ... on faith
Another statement of faith here
29
There's no such thing as an error ... or a mistake.  So I'm told.

I cannot believe you are stupid enough not to get this but on the offchance that this really is stupidity, not dishonesty, here goes:

A mistake is something you did instead of something you intended to do.

So it only literally applies to an agent capable of forming an intention.  That would include you.

But it sometimes used as a metaphor when applied to a molecule or a biological process.

You are literally making something out of a nothing burger.  Which is apparently what you do a lot because you don't have anything substantive to say.  No rational person would misunderstand what is being said about DNA copying errors in this article. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409  ... which I suppose means that you are an irrational person.  Also, according to your view, there's nothing fundamentally different between a human being and a cell from the perspective of forming "intentions."   The difference - according to you - is merely in degree ... that is, the degree of complexity.

But according to MY view of humanity, there IS something fundamentally different between a complete human and a single cell, namely, the human has a "soul" or a "spirit" which is "attached" to the brain and interacts with it.  My view is that no other organism whether single cell or multi cell has this feature.

Bluffy, got evidence for this "soul" or "spirit"? Physical evidence?
Not anecdotes, not myths, not religious doctrine, not rumor, not feelings, not suspicions, not views, not beliefs.
Physical evidence. Mass and/or energy. Effects based in physics and/or chemistry. Reproducible evidence.

BTW, you're still using your own davinitions of the terms "error" and "mistake", meaning deleterious and a failure. You refuse to use the scientific meaning of the terms. Because you have a bias.
30
Science / Re: Annual Blue Hill Observatory Climate Data
Last post by F X -
The Blue Hill data is one of those rare stations that isn't that adjusted (by NOAA or NASA), because they have been careful and scientific and even more importantly, the data shows long term annual warming, with out the need to adjust the past.
Well it seems I was wrong about this.  I know, I know, it's rare, but sometimes I am wrong.





It seems they just can't help themselves, or maybe the computers did it, who the fuck can know?

The extensive research Blue Hill has done with the data does show how the new electronic sensors bias the data, but it makes the daytime high higher, not lower.  Because the electronic sensors will record very brief transient highs, the ASOS data records a brief warm event as the daily high, which means the Tmax data from the new equipment has a warm bias, which of course makes the daily mean higher.

So the data should be adjusted down, but that is not what they do.  Blue Hill uses both the original equipment and the new sensors, and compares the results. The true believer could care less, but in science belief isn't what really matters.