Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Population Genetics
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 76 of 90 (390649)
03-21-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Fosdick
03-21-2007 12:05 PM


(btw: I blame crashfrog for my rude behavior; he taught me how to bash good people for bad reasons.)
Yeah, that's our new motto 'Spare the rod and spoil the newbie'. The trick is to make sure you bash them twice as hard when the reason is good.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Fosdick, posted 03-21-2007 12:05 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6209 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 77 of 90 (390650)
03-21-2007 12:19 PM


Hoot Mon,
Thanks, I am keeping my mind open and asking by showing where I have
a bad understanding of, points in which I myself must resolve.
A proccess that is part of learning.
Zcoder....

  
Allopatrik
Member (Idle past 6187 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-07-2007


Message 78 of 90 (390653)
03-21-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Wounded King
03-20-2007 5:25 PM


quote:
One of the virtues of recent trends in academic publishing is that to a large extent you no longer need to go to a university library to get access to even recently published research.
Another avenue is to look up the author on the web. Often authors have pdf reprints of their articles on their lab websites that may not be available elsewhere without a subscription. Some will even email them to you if asked.
A
Edited by Allopatrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2007 5:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 79 of 90 (390654)
03-21-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by zcoder
03-21-2007 12:14 PM


zcoder writes:
Most of your assumtions about Christians are wrong. But like anything else you will find radicals in any form of belife. But if you assume all are of the same mold, then you also diqualify your self as a good scientist.
I'm not sure who you're addressing it to, but that's about what I've been trying to tell you.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 12:14 PM zcoder has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 80 of 90 (390659)
03-21-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by anglagard
03-20-2007 10:17 PM


anglagard wrote:
Why would anyone want to take such extreme credit for ignorance? To embarrass any descendants?
Yes. I've found it to be an excellent method for keeping my descendants from coming around and bothering me.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by anglagard, posted 03-20-2007 10:17 PM anglagard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 90 (390662)
03-21-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Fosdick
03-21-2007 12:05 PM


(btw: I blame crashfrog for my rude behavior; he taught me how to bash good people for bad reasons.)
You learned all the wrong lessons, I guess. I was trying to teach you to stop posting nonsense with the assumption that we're all too stupid to tell the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Fosdick, posted 03-21-2007 12:05 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 82 of 90 (390744)
03-21-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by zcoder
03-21-2007 9:11 AM


Your right about the fact that I should not use creationist infomation, But I also can't use evolutionists infomation. For instance, I can read evolutionists infomation for leads and understand that side of the coin, and then I can read the creationist infomation on that side also.
Rather than distinguish between creationist information and evolutionist information, I would suggest looking at the distinction between scientific information and just assertion of concepts. Scientific information would be based on theory, evidence predictions and testing of concepts. Assertions of opinions are relatively worthless, especially where there is contradictory information or evidence. As you note, many scientists are christians eh?
It is relatively easy to find evidence for almost any position: you can probably cite some that is readily observable any day or night that the earth is the center of the universe around which all else revolves. In spite of such evidence almost nobody believes in a geocentric universe -- just some folks normally described as deluded or irrational or similar. Why is this? Because of the rather overwhelming evidence that contradicts this concept.
Scientific information looks at all the evidence and tries to explain all of it. If any explanation is contradicted by evidence then that explanation is discarded and another one developed that answers those contradictions.
Any position that is asserted to be true or valid but that does not deal with any contradictory evidence or information is not being scientific - or fully rational:
de·lu·sion -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
An example of this kind of position is the age of the earth: the amount of evidence for an old earth is as overwhelming and pervasive as the evidence that the earth orbits the sun in an outer arm of a rather ordinary galaxy.
Again, it is easy to find evidence for an young earth - due to constant tectonic activity - but there should be absolutely no evidence for an old earth if that was the case. The failure to deal with the contradictory evidence is not scientific, and the position asserted in the face of contradiction is one of delusion rather than reality.
See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for an introduction to that evidence.
Then taking the two views and start my search using info from sources like (AAAS) and (NAS) this way I can confirm arguments of both sides, to see who's argument is in true regards with (AAAS) and (NAS) who by the way should be on no sides.
This is good, but still not going to original sources of information - scientific studies where theories are actually tested.
I can also suggest The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), and one of their website pages in particular, Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
quote:
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. In matters of science and Christian faith, we offer Christian scholarship, education, fellowship and service to ASA members, churches, educational institutions, the scientific community, and society.
These are people committed to science AND christianity - they see no conflict between belief and scientific knowledge.
Anyway I now understand why some people are evolustionists while others are creationists, and it all comes from what your predisposition is before you started your learning all this.
For example, IF am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), then no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise.
This is known logically as a false dichotomy: creationism and evolution are NOT divided by belief in god vs non-belief. There are many people that fall on the evolutionist side of the argument that are people of faith, many of them are christian.
If I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that god created the universe in such a way that the natural laws govern the ways things happen, then those laws apply to the natural realm and can be used to understand how it works - whether it was created or not. This leaves me free to evaluate all the information on the basis of how well it explains the details of how it works.
On the other hand, if I am dedicated to the concept that the earth is young in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, then I am in denial of evidence for how it works AND in denial of the way the universe was made.
But so far my journey is early, but already I have concluded only one fact and that is that both sides have already proven that the universe had a starting point. sorry if thats not an accurate description, I am trying not to use the word created.
That is not entirely accurate either. The "big bang" theory is still theory, a widely held one, but still not "proven" (a level of certainty that rarely exists in reality), and there are some others that involve possible recurring universes.
Anyway I am in no way done, so I am sure I will have more things I run into and I might post it to see if others could inject more on it in hopes that, that may lead me to more understanding, or possiblilites. I just hope it wont be taken wrong. and if my predisposition seems to appear as a creationist then it might be becouse I am from a religious background.
Having a religious background is not a problem. Where the problem with creationists comes in is in denial of the contradictory evidence and the failure of creationism to deal with the issues.
Where you end up is your path to truth.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 9:11 AM zcoder has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 90 (390831)
03-22-2007 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by zcoder
03-21-2007 11:38 AM


quote:
Likewise I said in other posts that I don't buy into the young-earth thingy.
But that's exactly what most Creation "science" promotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 11:38 AM zcoder has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 90 (390962)
03-22-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Fosdick
03-21-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Moove over Beethoven
As one should in the first moovement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony?
Or the mooonlight sonota

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Fosdick, posted 03-21-2007 11:45 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 85 of 90 (390969)
03-22-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by zcoder
03-21-2007 11:38 AM


no YEC
Likewise I said in other posts that I don't buy into the young-earth thingy.
The question is, then whether your trust the information from websites that do promote the "young-eath thingy" as fact - given that the "young-earth thingy" information is false, can you trust any other information on that site to be true?
I would not trust an evolutionist site that had false or misleading information - and we can go through a list of what creationists claim are common evolutionist "hoaxes" and screen for sites that don't promote those and see what that result is (with one caveat: if the site deals with the creationist claim and shows that it is false information that is acceptable eh?).
This would eliminate most of the creationist sites from being potential sources of information: because they are untrustworthy on the age of the earth, they are likely to be untrustworthy on other topics involving science.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 11:38 AM zcoder has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 86 of 90 (392797)
04-02-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Allopatrik
02-17-2007 12:59 PM


Remine likes to complain that he is being suppressed, but Crow has publicly made it clear he thinks Remine’s paper could be published in another journal. I think so as well, though I must say, after reading it, that Remine clearly has no idea how to write a scientific paper. Its style is so poor it is surprising that Remine spent such a long time wrangling with editors and reviewers not only with the The Journal of Theoretical Biology but with Heredity as well. One would have thought he could have taken their input or at the very least look at some articles in them and modified his manuscript. Looking at what he eventually published online, it’s obvious he did neither.
Which is odd, because apparently Remine does have a couple of publications in his own field, so you would think that he would know that accusing people of being dishonest and the like is not what one typically finds in a scientific paper. I suspect that he, at least in part, purposefully wrote his paper in a non-academic style to hasten its rejection in order to cry foul.
Of note is the fact that Remine does not provide - nor apparently even know of - any evidence that would indicate that the number he derived employing Haldane's model to human evolution is 'too few' (fixed beneficial mutations) to produce a 'sapien out of a simian'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Allopatrik, posted 02-17-2007 12:59 PM Allopatrik has not replied

  
gogekin
Junior Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-22-2007


Message 87 of 90 (401836)
05-22-2007 12:21 PM


A question about population genetics and evolution
This occurred to me when I was reading Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". He clearly separates two aspects of genetic information: (i) genetic "address space", which specifies the location of each gene, regulatory element etc. on the DNA, (ii) the genetic content.
In a single species, the address space is common, what defines genetic variety is the content.
My question is: In order to split into separate species, the address space has to change (e.g., via gene duplication, chromosome rearrangements). However, once a single individual has a different address space, it does not belong to the species anymore, because it does not have the same address space. It has a unique address space of its own. Assuming sexual reproduction, how can this individual reproduce and pass its novel address space to new generations?
Is there a theoretical explanation for this question? Is there any evidence that it actually happens? I think the answer should be simple, as creationist never use this in their arguments. But the answer can clearly help explain how "macroevolution" occurs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 05-22-2007 1:16 PM gogekin has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 88 of 90 (401848)
05-22-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by gogekin
05-22-2007 12:21 PM


Re: A question about population genetics and evolution
I'm not convinced that your 'address' space needs to change in order for speciation to occur. As you posit it all you seem to be doing is inventing a new genetic rationale for the old creationist argument about who the first member of a new species would have to breed with. This assumes an extreme discontinuity exists between a directly ancestral species and its direct descendant which is similar in scale to those seen between two extant modern species, an assumption for which there is no evidence.
One important thing with regards to gene duplication is that you don't change the 'address' so much as you just add a new one. Be that as it may there is not even any reason to assume that a single change in any particular 'address' space renders one no longer of the same species.
We certainly know that some 'address' changes can lead to infertility, or reproductive isolation in species terms, but that deosn't mean that all such changes do. To assume it does is the equivalent of assuming that all mutations must be detrimental because the vast majority of mutations seen in humans in biomedical research are associated with syndromes and diseases or because mutagenesis screens cause severe developmental abnormalities in fruit flies.
Similarly I would argue that there are cases where a change in the genetic content of a gene could be the causative factor in the development of reproductive isolation.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by gogekin, posted 05-22-2007 12:21 PM gogekin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by gogekin, posted 05-22-2007 4:42 PM Wounded King has replied

  
gogekin
Junior Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-22-2007


Message 89 of 90 (401888)
05-22-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Wounded King
05-22-2007 1:16 PM


Re: A question about population genetics and evolution
Thank you for the response.
You are right about the "need for speciation". Let me correct: Since different extant species have different address spaces, the address space has to change during the course of evolution.
What I am trying to understand is whether this change is "qualitatively" any different from the change in genetic content. As I understand, your answer is "no", which I am willing to admit. But I believe it is a good exercise (at least for me) on understanding evolution, so I will continue.
Theoretically, the difference between "changing a vector's value in one dimension" is qualitatively different from "adding a new dimension" to the vector. Therefore, although it is apparently true from a biological perspective that there is no qualitative difference between a gene duplication and point mutation in terms of effecting reproductivity, there must at least be a "sharp" quantitative difference. In other words, we cannot expect the gene pool of a particular species to fluctuate significantly in terms of its "genetic address space" (at least, I would guess this is what we observe).
Therefore, it appears to me that the distinction between "genetic address space" and "genetic content" should have something to do with speciation, or find some place in the molecular bases for "punctuated equilibrium". Sorry, I am not fully informed about population genetics, so I might be mentioning something obvious here. Still, I will appreciate if anybody could let me know whether there is any literature that could relate to this "address space" abstraction. Or should I just go ahead and read specifically about gene duplication, chromosome reorganization, etc.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 05-22-2007 1:16 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Wounded King, posted 05-22-2007 6:30 PM gogekin has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 90 of 90 (401902)
05-22-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by gogekin
05-22-2007 4:42 PM


Re: A question about population genetics and evolution
no qualitative difference between a gene duplication and point mutation in terms of effecting reproductivity
To be more exact, there are probably many such qualitative differences but there are also many between differences within the set of gene duplications or the set of different point mutations. It may be that one tends to have a larger effect but I don't know that that is equivalent to 'adding a new dimension'. A single point mutation can create or destroy a transcription factor binding site, thereby changing at least part of a genes 'address', and indels or domain swaps in the protein coding region can lead to the gain of novel binding properties or functions to a protein.
There is an interesting blog post which inks out to a number of research groups studying these sort of issues, evolgen archive: Why Study Speciation Genes? .
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by gogekin, posted 05-22-2007 4:42 PM gogekin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024