Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: Turning the gain up on this shit.

Topic: Introduction to Systems Biology (Read 17109 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3625
Bottom line: there is a hell of a lot more genetic diversity in the human population than is represented in that outdated reference.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.
2000 ways to "damage" something, yet almost all are fully functional?  Oh no, there goes Dave's unwarranted assumptions!

My bet is that he still, even after been shown things like this, will not learn, and will come back with repetitions of his misunderstandings as though nothing was refuted.   This is not a risky prediction, at all.

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3626
See this, Dave:



Each column of dots represents a specific locus, i.e. a base-pair. The number of dots in the column tells you how many variants there are.  As you can see, there are far more than four at most loci.  And any one gene (or "gene" if you prefer) has lots of loci.  That means the number of variants of any one gene (or "gene") is vast.

And this particular GWA study is about SNPs with an association with intelligence - or at least with IQ.

A lot of GWA studies are about diseases, because people want to find "risk" variants, because that can be useful to know. But just because people are more motivated to do studies to find variants associated with diseases doesn't mean that most variants are associated with diseases. And in this case it was a study about IQ.

And it turns out that there are loads of very small variants that contribute to IQ.  Some are in genes that are expressed in brain development, but not all.

The point is that it this doesn't look like "beat-up wrenches".  It looks like diversity.  Some variants at some loci are associated with high IQ.  Does that mean that all the others are deleterious single-nucleotide mutations?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3627
The point is that it this doesn't look like "beat-up wrenches".  It looks like diversity. 
iow...

It doesn't look like some moronic analogy for what it is.
It looks like what it is.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3628
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?

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3629
I will even make a risky prediction.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3630
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
The best way for you to prove that my insinuations are not founded [...] would be for you to demonstrate that here by actually doing those things that good scientists would normally do.

I mean, I'm only using misogyny to try to bully you into agreeing with me. It's cool, though, because some people judge me based on my actions, history, and beliefs, which is the same as me dismissing you due to an accident of birth.
Her gender was not an "accident of birth."  Its a great thing to be born a woman. Or a man.

It's her sciencyness I have a problem with. And yes I sometimes bully and taunt and caricature - both men and women - for impact.

The only 'impact' it has is that people regard you with disgust every time you do it. It is not appropriate at all. It is stark misogyny, and sometimes you toss in a little racism, as you did this time.

Perhaps you've noticed that every time members taunt you with veiled accusations of child abuse, I have intervened, because it is not right to make such remarks when there is no indication that they are in any sense true.

The same goes for your nasty little misogynist remarks, usually tossed at Pingu or me at the same moment you are accusing us of lying or being stupid or incompetent.

This is ugly behaviour, Dave, and undeserved, not only by the women you interact with, but by all women.

Think before you jeer about women and minorities. If nothing else moves you to quit your gendered sneering, remember you're supposed to be some version of a Christian. I spend every Sunday morning in church. I'm pretty sure I've never heard there that women and minorities are lesser beings. If that's what you hear in your church, it's time to look for salvation somewhere else.
This is just Borealis spin ... again.  I've never once hinted that women or minorities are lesser beings.   The latest of many examples of my impartiality toward women is my high praise for Barbara McClintock. 
And some of your best friends are black, amirite?
Funny you should mention that. Dave's black friends are also from the hood!
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3631
I will even make a risky prediction.
Will anybody agree it is risky?
Or a prediction?
Or that success or failure can be distinguished?

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3632
I will even make a risky prediction.
Will anybody agree it is risky?
Or a prediction?
Or that success or failure can be distinguished?
I predict just one out of three.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3633
I will even make a risky prediction.
Will anybody agree it is risky?
Or a prediction?
Or that success or failure can be distinguished?
I predict just one out of three.
or less.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3634
Dave, this is another "I didn't realize Lenski's bacteria were clonal" moment.  There are FAR more than 4 alleles per gene in the human genome.  Best you move on back to explaining "genetics" to us without this nonsense, if you can.
Look, idiot.  I know that.  Woodmorappe knows that.  Cavalli-Sforza knows that.  Jesus Christ.

We're talking about MAJOR difference, not SNP differences.

Here's a link to a Preview of Cavalli-Sforza's tome.  You can see part of Table 1.3.1 referenced by Woodmorappe ... https://books.google.com/books/about/The_History_and_Geography_of_Human_Genes.html?id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

Most well studied loci ... which are given in this table have - as "W" points out -  between 1 and 4 common alleles.

Deal with it.
Pulling this forward
Why?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3635
I think it's pretty amazing that Dave has yet to even acknowledge, let alone answer, the question about whether he understands that a deleterious mutation can be beneficial in a different environment. 4th Law reigns supreme on that one.
And, at this point in his flailing, it's probably the only question that matters.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3636
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?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3637
How's that "risky prediction" coming along?

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3638
While you were getting your PhD in virology, I got my PhD in truth detection. :wave:  Dave Hawkins

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3639
I will even make a risky prediction.
Hey fuckface,

I'll make a risky prediction that you'll chicken out of this pointless bravado like the chickenshit piece of shit you are.

"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3640
I will even make a risky prediction.
Hey fuckface,

I'll make a risky prediction that you'll chicken out of this pointless bravado like the chickenshit piece of shit you are.


I'm sure he'll come up with something.  But, I predict it won't be "risky" and probably not even a "prediction."
While you were getting your PhD in virology, I got my PhD in truth detection. :wave:  Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3641
Here's an analogy, Dave:

When you learned to play the piano, Dave, did you start out by trying to play really advanced pieces? or did you start out with simple pieces, because that is the best way to learn the basic practice?

Start with biology 101. Because that's the best way not to make a fool of yourself on stage.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3642
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.

  • JonF
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3643
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.
Define "minor". And why should the degree of variation matter anyway? They are all different alleles which any viable hypothesis must explain.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3644
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.

Can you explain exactly what you mean by this?

By "very minor variation" do you mean "very small phenotypic effect" or what?
And what do you mean by "wide sequence Divergence"?

Please be precise, so that if you test your prediction we can all agree on the results.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3645
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 understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • uncool
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3646
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.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3647
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.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Peez
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3648
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.
Another way to look at it: presented with these 2000+ alleles, how could one determine which one was the 'original'?  None is more 'beat up' than any other.

Peez

  • uncool
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3649
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.
Ah, my apologies; I misread it myself.