Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The best at being a message board.

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 - VoxRat

I get a laugh everyday at the idea that broken things contribute diversity to the gene pool. That's pretty freaking twisted.
Did God create the O allele?  :hmm:
Good question actually.
Indeed it is.
Because it highlights the absurdity of YECism.

This is another good example of how YEC is useless as a model for generating productive questions

I.e.  how would go even try to answer this one?
I get a laugh everyday at the idea that broken things contribute diversity to the gene pool. That's pretty freaking twisted.
So it's "twisted" to say people with autism or color blindness make a population more diverse?

Or, for that matter, white people since I'm pretty sure our lack of color is due to broken genes.
Broken is a word that has meaning only relative to the environment.
Relative to the environment of the real world, your brain is broken.

you forgot "neener neener!"
. I do believe it's theoretically possible for the Alaska subpopulation to still maintain maximum diversity, that is, 4 alleles per locus and yet the population adapt to the cold climate.
Four alleles per locus is maximum only for a population of two people. And from the viewpoint of being able to adapt to a new environment it's very low diversity.

Lord have mercy, you're dumber than a bag of hammers.

No Jon

It's also true for the entire population if the founder pair started with 4 alleles per locus.

Remember, I don't count alleles which result from copying errors.
Davination doesn't work.

Alleles are different forms of a gene no matter how they arose. Usually we can't tell how they arose.

You've said NGE can create SNPs. How do you tell whether a SNP arose via NGE or a "copying error"?

Hint: you don't.
If it's good it's NGE.
If not, it's a copying error!
We already use evolutionary algorithms.
Different thing. Again, please stick to chicken advice.
It's a hell of a lot less different from what we're talking about than the moronic car analogies you keep trotting out.
What it means is that the evidence supports the idea of H. sapiens colonizing the world well before 50,000-60,000 years ago. In other words further in the past.
Let me see if I understand this correctly:
You're saying that longer ago = further in the past.

Whatever would we do without "Socrates" to clarify these technical details for us?
The analogy is admittedly imperfect. It could be improved by making the mutations occur in the software which controls the machines which make the cars.
The analogy is complete shit.
It could be improved by ditching it entirely.
One more time:
Cars. Do. Not. Reproduce.

Now: embed the software in a computer virus that does reproduce, and somehow make that replication
    (1) less than 100% faithful and
    (2) dependent on the success of the car whose design is embedded in the virus

... and you have something approaching a plausible analogy.
Albeit an extremely clunky and not particularly useful analogy.

No, "Socrates".
It is not a particularly "novel" idea.
Signs of human H. sapiens in Skhul and Qafzeh were reported decades ago.
The Fuyan cave find was reported in 2015.
No one acknowledges that.
Did you understand my point about the Norse colony centuries before Columbus?
And doing some totally random thing like grabbing a sandwich or dancing a jig probably won't help at all.
Unless it's, say, planting striped posts near where your goats fuck.
Odd how you focus on the insults and carefully avoid the questions.
I was just picking posts at random because Darwinists say that's a good thing to do.
Things Hawkins sucks at:
NOW you are getting somewhere ... because you are intelligently putting limits on the randomness

If your DNA sequence has a G at position 256793, and it turns out an A results in a protein with improved function in some new environment, is the cell "intelligently" limiting to 3 its list of alternative nucleotides to substitute?
Those ages buck the conventional wisdom that H. sapiens from Africa began colonizing the world only around 50,000-60,000 years ago, says MartinĂ³n-Torres. Older traces of modern humans have been seen outside Africa, such as the roughly 100,000-year-old remains from the Skhul and Qafzeh Caves in Israel. But many researchers had argued that those remains were only evidence of unsuccessful efforts at wider migration.
"This demonstrates it was not a failed dispersal," says Petraglia, who has long argued for an early expansion of modern humans through Asia on a southerly route. "This is a rock-solid case for having early humans -- definitely Homo sapiens -- at an early date in eastern Asia." Chris Stringer, a palaeoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London who had argued that remains from Skhul and Qafzeh signified unsuccesful migrations, says that he is now swayed by the Daoxian teeth.
Those ages buck the conventional wisdom that H. sapiens from Africa began colonizing the world only around 50,000-60,000 years ago, says MartinĂ³n-Torres.
Do people understand that point? If so, how do you understand it?
I believe there was a Norse colony in North America centuries before Columbus!
Do you understand my point here?
If so, how do you understand it?
If a thing is pretty crap, far more changes, deliberate or otherwise, and whether or not random, have a chance of making it BETTER.

No. Not both.

Deliberate changes yes.

Random changes no.
For reasons you can't articulate. ::)
You didn't say who the parents were.
... because he knows that, if he did, the ridiculousness of the "analogy" would be as plain as the egg on his face. 
The "parents" he has in mind don't have the traits of their "progeny". 
They are not subject to the selection pressures having or not having those traits entails.


No. If he keeps on with the stupid car analogies the thread will continue to go nowhere. Cars are not living things, and pretending that earlier models are 'parents' is stupid and leads to completely unrealistic scenarios when compared to living things.

Cars do not reproduce.

"Discussing" genetics or evolution with someone who fails (or refuses*) to understand the absolutely essential role of reproduction - without, in fact, even understanding what reproduction is - is a fool's errand.

* See:  militant ignorance
...  copying errors can sometimes be beneficial in some environments, but most are not.  And the ones that are very slightly deleterious do not get weeded out by natural selection so they are building up in all populations causing a slow but inexorable fitness decline.  There is no evidence that humans have been around for more than 10,000 years and there is ample evidence that we won't last another 10,000. 
Science, baby.

Careful reading.

Careful, tentative statements.

I believe the expression I'm looking for is...

Looks like the people going crazy about their guns being taken off them are the ones that should have their guns taken off them - seems like a good way to identify who that should be - if you posted a rape/violence threat on line - no guns for you
Clever move, Librul! 
A chess-like fork attack on the 1st and 2nd Amendments!
How many Third Wayers do you think there are, Dave?  I'd bet the majority of them are not working scientists.
The question is kind of meaningless, as Hawkins really has no idea what those few scientists who explicitly endorse this "Third Way" brand actually mean by the "Third Way".  To him, it's just a question of competitive cheer/sneerleading against "Team Darwin".  He likes to fantasize it as a step toward returning to Pre-Darwinist, biblical literalist times. Which certainly has nothing to do with what these guys (whom Hawkins has never read, beyond "nuggets" he franoogles up on the web) actually are talking about

But, speaking as a working scientist, I can tell you it's not really a thing. I go to state of the art seminars every week, where state of the art, paradigm-challenging  molecular biology and genetics are presented. Not one speaker has ever identified with, or alluded to, this "Third Way" brand. Though, of course, they incorporate the genetic mechanisms (transposition, viral transduction, repair mechanisms, epigenetics, chromosome remodeling...) that Shapiro talks about.

As I said before: science is a continuous dialectic. Things that Shapiro likes to brand as "NGE" have been standard, mainstream, science for as long as I've studied the subject. Yeah, people like McClintock met with considerable skepticism at the time. Not surprisingly. That's as it should be. If a discovery is not met by "Really!??? How can that be!??  I need to see some confirmation before I accept this as Gospel!" - then it's not that monumental a discovery.

But her discoveries are now part of undergraduate genetics courses.
There are no barricades being manned.
There are no dead-ender Neo-Darwinists.

Yeah, Dave seems to think that A, B, and O alleles very different in terms of sequence and therefore all of the 2000 SNPs will cluster into "A+RM", "B+RM" and "O+RM", proving that A, B and O are the original alleles that Noah carried. 

Though the > 2000 SNPs I mentioned were for peptidase A.
I find only ( heh! ) 827 for the human ABO gene.
I really want to know what Dave means by "very minor". 

I mean there are plenty of quite strong associations in GWA studies that are single nucleotide substitutions.  Are they "very minor"?

Single base pair substitutions make the difference between A, B and O alleles in the ABO blood group gene.
"Very minor" in terms of genetic difference, but fairly major in terms of phenotypic consequences.
A possible operationalization of Dave's claim: that the alleles can be grouped into 3 groups, corresponding to A, B, and O, such that the number of genetic differences (i.e. necessary mutations) within any of the groups is "much" fewer than the number of differences between any two groups, and that this can't be done with more groups. There is some ambiguity in "much fewer", though.
Which claim are you talking about?
The ABO thing is specifically about one particular gene - the major blood group antigen.
The gene I'm talking about is peptidase A, one I took at random from the Cavalli-Sforza table, for which he lists just 1 allele.
Bottom line: there is a hell of a lot more genetic diversity in the human population than is represented in that outdated reference.
Yeah. The wrenches have been beat up. They aren't new any more.
See, here's where your moronic analogies serve only to reinforce your militant ignorance.
"old" or "new", shiny or "beat up" has nothing to do with it.
There are    > 2000   known alleles for a the peptidase A gene*.
You asserted that it was a "hard cold fact" that there was just one.
Almost all of those alleles are fully functional.
Nothing "beat up" about them.

* and this is just one randomly selected example.
Great. Let's compare the sequences, shall we?
"We" already did.

What's your point?
Okay you say that there are 2,000? And Cavalli Sforza just used 3? I can't remember the exact number.  Here's my prediction. I predict that 1997 of these will be very minor variations of the 3 in Cavalli Sforza's list.  And if I am correct that there are three in his list, then I predict that there will be a wide sequence Divergence between at least two of them. Possibly a wide Divergence between all three.

Read the post you just quoted, "Careful Reading" Hawkins.
I believe there was a Norse colony in North America centuries before Columbus!