Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: we stand with daap-umop-bup

Recent Posts

    Dave, this is SO disingenuous.People have been trying, throughout this thread, to get you to agree to the simple, and obvious, proposition that a variant that is deleterious in one environment can be beneficial in the next, and so on.  In other words that "beneficial" and "deleterious" are not properties of the variant but properties of that variant IN the current environment.You ignored the issue for pages and pages. Finally I laid it out.  You dismissed it.So I broke it down into small parts. You have since agreed with every one so far. So this is pure smokescreen on your part.  Certainly you need to open the box in your brain before anyone can put anything in it.  But you absolutely refuse to open that box.  You use tactic after tactic to keep it closed, from redefining what OTHER people mean by terms, from changing the subject, to demanding DETAILS if the general principle is threatening while urging them to "soar above the forest" if it is the details that are proving problematic. You fuss about the word "mutations" even though the definition is absolutely clear: it's a DNA sequence that is different from the original.  Doesn't matter HOW it got to be different - that's what it is.  And when you are really flummoxed you accuse people of writing in "RSPL".  The only person who can open your brain, Dave, is you.  And you don't even have to agree with ANYTHING any of us say.  But until you actually UNDERSTAND the case, you are in no position to criticise or reject it.  And yet you do.OK, in bullet point form:
    • A variant that is beneficial in one environment can be deleterious in another
    • Only viable variants get into the gene pool (because  any lethal or highly likely to be lethal variants get weeded out early
    • therefore most variants in a population at a given time will be near neutral
    • If the environment changes, some of the VSDMS will become VSBMs, SBMs, and BMs.
    • And some of the VSBMs will come VSDMs, SDMs, or indeed DMs
    • The now-DMS and SDMs will drop out of the gene pool, or become extremely infrequent
    • The now-VSBMs, and SBMs will increase in frequency
    • The population will have adapted
    • It was able to adapt because of its genetic diversity
    • But the cost of that adaptatation is a drop in diversity
    • So the population needs to generate new variants if it is to adapt to another, or continued, change in the environment
    • Therefore populations need a continual supply of new viable variants if it is to continue to optimise to new conditions
    • They need to be near-neutral in the new environment, so will be more similar to the variants that are NOW the most frequent than to the variants that WERE the most frequent.
    That is the basic case.  Now, you can argue about what KINDS of new variants need to be produced, and about whether only some mutatgenic processes, e.g. recombination can produce potential SBMs or BMs.  But that is a different and interesting question.But until you are clear on the bulleted points (and you have basically agreed, in teaspoonfuls, to all of them now), there's no point in trying to discuss HOW potentially useful mutations are generated, because you keep pounding the table and banging on about COPYING ERRORS CAN'T BE CREATIVE YOU STUPID DARWINISTS.OK?
This is nothing more than your usual bucket load of half truths.

You can't even State your big Point simply which seems to be... Copying errors are needed to generate the diversity we see in the biosphere.

Which is patent bullshit.

You've agreed to every one of those ,Dave.

And my big point is NOT "Copying errors are needed to generate the diversity we see in the biosphere".

My big point is "for a population to adapt continuously to changes in the environment there has to be a continually renewed supply of near neutral variants to replace variants lost through adaptation".

Apparently you agree with this.

So now let's discuss how near neutral variants could be continually generated.

Your phrasing "renewed supply"  makes me think you are talking about copying errors.

Despite the fact that the words "renewed supply" do not mean "copying error" nor do they imply "copying errors". They do not imply ANY specific source of "near neutral variants".

So let me annotate this in such a way that even YOU do not think I am talking about any particular source of mutations:

"for a population[1] to adapt[2] continuously[3] to changes[4] in the environment[5] there has to be a continually renewed supply of near neutral variants[6] to replace variants lost through adaptation[7]"

I hope it is now clear to you that my point is that NEW VARIANTS NEED TO BE CREATED TO REPLACE THOSE LOST THROUGH ADAPTATION, and that I am expressing NO VIEW at present on how such variants might be generated.

It would be good to discuss this with you.  But before we can move on to this, I need to know that you agree that NEW VARIANTS are need to replenish the diversity lost through adaptation. This is because diversity is needed for adaptation, and adaptation results in loss of diversity.

Do you now understand this?

of self-replicating organisms
have most of its members have alleles optimally suited to the current environment
year by year, decade by decade, century by century, millenium by millenium
e.g. temperature, rainfall, predators, food sources etc
the ecosystem of which it is a part
novel DNA sequences introduced into the population that have only very small effects on fitness
because as a population adapts to a new environment, some DNA variants become quite disadvantageous and become very rare or drop out completely

Listening to "Come Sail Away" by Styx while reading about the Stephen Paddock surveillance video in The NY Times is freaking surreal.
On tacticool and gun obsession:

How did we get here? Tacticool is the byproduct of a long evolution in gun design. From the first arquebus to the latest infantry firearm, every gun has held a fundamental purpose in common. Yet there is something distinct about the modern gun, especially the family of weapons based around the AR-15. These guns are, at their core, still weapons, but they are also personalized keepsakes, upgrade-ready and customized to their owner's delight. The story of how personal rifles went from mass produced uniform products to highly customizable templates for aftermarket accessories is so compelling, we're going to tell it twice: once with physical weapons in the tangible world, and again with virtual weapons as seen in games.

In general, "tacticool" describes stylistic choices in weapon modification that are at best irrelevant to the function of the gun, and at times compromise functionality in the name of giving the gun a more aesthetically pleasing appearance (even if it means shoulder protection be damned). The mainstreaming of rail-accessories from special addition for combat to hobbyist novelty is perhaps best reflected in the "tacticool" section at nerd-centric online retailer ThinkGeek, where you can find a tactical laser pointer styled after the ridges of a picatinny rail.

Which is how we get to the present day, when rails originally designed so that special operators didn't have to duct-tape flashlights to their weapons are now such a commonplace way for gun owners to show off their personalized tool that there are at least two different companies selling rail-mounted testicles.

at least two different companies selling rail-mounted testicles

I am soooo googling "rail mounted testicles" you have no idea.
Here is the description for the diagrams Dean W posted
824 Figure 1 title
825 Geographic origin and dispersion of mtDNA L haplogroups: A.
826 Sequential expansion of L haplogroups inside Africa and exit of the
827 L3 precursor to Eurasia. B. Return to Africa and expansion to Asia of
828 basic L3 lineages with subsequent differentiation in both continents

This is a big step toward the Out of the Middle East theory. It is obviously not completely there. But a good start.
So, for now, "Out of the Middle East" is still a frivolous conjecture, that remains suspicious due to it's obvious origin in bronze-age superstitions.
Mafia / Re: mu championship
Last post by divagreen -
I promise to make all of these 7 posts proud
Hey Dave,

Let's say you start with a population with its entire genome sequenced. You let it run for several years, and then you sequence its genome again. In doing so, you determine at least some of the mutations in the population.

Is there a way to tell which of the mutations are NGE, and which are "copying errors"?
I certainly wouldn't know how to do it and I don't think there are many researchers trying to determine the difference. Shapiro was encouraging people to do experiments along these lines 5 years ago.
So, no. And yet you are sure. Why is that?
Politics and Current Events / Re: Roy Moore is a pedophile
Last post by brugroffil -
Still happy with this thread title btw
Politics and Current Events / Re: Roy Moore is a pedophile
Last post by clete -
People associated with the Moore campaign tried to bribe the lawyer of the woman who accused Moore into:
1) No longer representing her
2) Making a public statement about it, saying he did not believe her.

Two Breitbart reporters were supposed to receive the statement, and Bannon seems to have been in on it.