Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetics and Human Brain Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 157 (358907)
10-25-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by eggasai
08-18-2005 9:44 PM


You appear to be debating this twice, in parallel.
The other thread was actually started so you could provide the ID/creationist explanation of various features of the chimp and human genome. Perhaps you could give that a go, when you're not too busy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by eggasai, posted 08-18-2005 9:44 PM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 157 (359431)
10-28-2006 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by eggasai
10-28-2006 1:12 AM


Re: Getting fundamental biology right
I noticed that you are not as hypercritical about mistakes when it's one of your own. I just wonder how many creationists you have poisoned the well for, but no matter. Rest assured that the deleterious affects of mutations on neural genes is going to be discussed.
"One day"?
No they don't, amino acids code for proteins, nucleotides are just the basic element of precise amino acid sequences. I'm neither baffled nor dazzled by how you conflate that basic biology and try to magnify percieved errors. I've done this before and I know what happens when you guys are confronted with the evidence.
Okay, now I'm just going to laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.
And then I'm going to ask you: why didn't you learn the first darn thing about genetics before you tried to lecture us on that subject?
Why?
You titled your post "getting fundamental biology right" and yet you yourself were too lazy to do so.
Why?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by eggasai, posted 10-28-2006 1:12 AM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 157 (359433)
10-28-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by eggasai
10-28-2006 1:29 AM


Re: Demystifying fossil evidence.
This is what the thread will be about...
So it won't be about "Genetics and Human Brain Evolution"?
Well, I guess you have lost that debate.
But if you want to start a new debate, you should really start a new thread.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by eggasai, posted 10-28-2006 1:29 AM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 157 (359672)
10-29-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by eggasai
10-28-2006 7:07 PM


Re: Maybe I should stay out of this.
The Talk Origins shelf of skulls gives the illusion of a gradual anagenesis of the human skull. Homo habils had a cranial capacity just over 500cc
Rudolphensis is 750+ cc.
... while the Austropithecines are thought to have averaged above 400cc.
Averaged, eh?
What size was the largest?
The period from at least 5 mya until under 2 mya represents a prolonged period of stasis with about a 200cc variance not counting dimorphic variables. Homo habilis was most likely contemporary with Turkana Boy or only seperated by a couple of hundred thousands years.
Habilis is also contemporary with australopithicenes. So are some specimens of erectus. And we are contemporary with monkeys. What's your point?
Turkana Boy weighs in at a cranial capacity above 900cc
880 cc.
and Homo erectus cranial capacity remains static for at least 1 million years.
Courtesy of the Panda's Thumb weblog.
Now, if you would like to take a walk through the shelf of skulls I would be delighted to debunk this optical illusion with substantive details. By the way, Homo rudolfensis was originally dated 3 million years old and only moved because Homo habilis was 200cc smaller. The dates assigned are obviously bogus...
Saying this won't make it so. If you have evidence that any of the dates are "bogus", please produce it.
On the contrary, I have the Chimpanzee Genome Consortioums conclusion that natural selection was not a factor in the evolution of humans from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.
You have no such thing.
I have the selective coefficients from the divergance between human and chimpanzee genomes. I have the comparative anatomy of contemporary chimanzee and human morphological traits to use as a based line. Finally I have the divergance of the respective genomes and the observed mutation rate for hominids, the fixation rate and the deleterious effects of mutations on protein coding and functional genes.
And yet you have presented no quantitative reasoning.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by eggasai, posted 10-28-2006 7:07 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by eggasai, posted 10-29-2006 6:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 157 (359698)
10-29-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by eggasai
10-29-2006 5:27 PM


Re: some data and arguments on brain sizes in primates
Homo rudolfensis KNM-ER 1470 was originally dated 3 million years old which would make it older then the australopithecines. It had to be moved up a million years because it didn't fit into the anagenesis of Darwinian naturalistic a priori assumptions.
This is not true, which is why you are completely unable to substantiate it. A mere glance at the graph would tell you that that would still leave australopithicines earlier than rudolphensis; and a moment's common sense would have told you that the scientist who proposed the 3 mya date was a Darwinian.
They are placed in the chart in such a way as to give the illusion of anagenesis. What you are calling a phylogenetic analysis is really Darwin's tree of life revisted. It is an a priori assumption that has no genuine frame of referance.
This is not true, which is why you are completely unable to substantiate it. You are evidently entirely ignorant of the methods used --- why don't you go and find out about them?
You are trying to use a very precise measurement and apply it to skulls that are often crushed, fragmented and dated using highly subjective criteria.
Make up your mind. A moment ago you were arguing that the data on cranial capacity supported you. Now you are attempting to rubbish the data.
Cranial capacity represents a cerebral rubicon that marks a clear line of demarkation in the transition from ape to humans.
Please point it out on the graph.
The genetic basis for such a morphological innocation simply does not exist.
This is not true: we know of many genetic differences between humans and the other apes; we know that these differences affect brain proteins. See, for example, the paper you quote below.
"We’ve proven that there is a big distinction. Human evolution is, in fact, a privileged process because it involves a large number of mutations in a large number of genes,” Lahn said.
“To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time”a few tens of millions of years”requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits.”
Yes. And?
Let's hear a bit more from Lahn et al. From the same artcle, had you read it.
To further investigate the role of selection on brain development, the researchers compared the evolutionary rate of brain-related genes against a control group of 95 genes, which are involved in basic functions necessary for each cell in the body to survive.
“If there is something inherently different about humans in the evolution of their genes, not related to selection, the control genes should reveal it, too. These basic, conserved genes are the last to change,” Vallender said.
The control genes looked the same, indicating there was not an excess of changes in these genes during human evolution. This provides a sharp contrast to the tremendous excess of changes in the brain-related genes.
Generally speaking, the higher up the evolutionary tree, the bigger and more complex the brain becomes (after scaling to body size). But this moderate trend became a huge leap during human evolution.
Where is the "huge leap"?
The human brain is exceptionally larger and more complex than the brains of nonhuman primates, including man’s closest relative, the chimpanzee.
But not much larger than H. erectus.
Now you can use all the scattergrams and tree like charts you like. The genetic basis such such a morphological giant leap does not exist except in the mind of Darwinians.
Actually, the "giant morphological leap" exists only in the minds of creationists.
The absolute values are of paramount importance whether they interest you or not. They are crucial because your explanation of natural selection would not have been a big factor.
"Although it is more difficult to quantify the expected contributions of selection in the ancestral population, it is clear that the effects would have to be very strong to explain the large-scale variation observed across mammalian genomes. There is tentative evidence from in-depth analysis of divergence and diversity that natural selection is not the major contributor to the large-scale patterns of genetic variability in humans." (Chimpanzee Genome Consortium, Nature 2005)
You have misunderstood them completely. Most of the genetic differences between humans and chimps are of course the result of neutral drift. But the other biologists you have quoted have all said that selection must have been playing a very strong role when it comes to brain function.
How did we get here? Darwin's On the Origin of Species is just one long arguement against 'special creation'. It's not a genetic mechanism, it's rethoric used as a dialectical tool meant to seperate people from belief in 'special creation', nothing more.
This is not true, which is why you are completely unable to substantiate it. I know this because I have read the Origin Of Species. You should try it sometime, preferably before you next presume to lecture people on its contents.
Want to show me I'm wrong, no problem. Let's take a walk through that actual scientific research. We can look at the Chimpanzee Genome paper...
Yes. Start by reading that until you understand it.
I'm telling you before we start, the transtion from Homo habilis to Homo erectus didn't happen and the evidence is telling us exactly that.
Your claim being supported by ... what? Surely not those "skulls that are often crushed, fragmented and dated using highly subjective criteria"? 'Cos if so, then the graph clearly shows no great morphological leap. If, on the other hand, you are basing your opinion on something other than the actual fossil remains, I am at a loss to think what it could be.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by eggasai, posted 10-29-2006 5:27 PM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 157 (359702)
10-29-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by eggasai
10-29-2006 6:17 PM


Re: Maybe I should stay out of this.
Maybe you should read my posts and the scientific literature a little more carfully.
Funn-ee. Did you read a word of what you just quoted?
The Chimpanzee Genome Consortium say that there is little evidence that natural selection is the cause of genetic diversity in humans.
By what mental freak did you manage to read that as meaning that "natural selection was not a factor in the evolution of humans from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans"?
It's a complete non sequitur. To quote the late, great Thomas Ady: "Oh gallant! as the Wheel-Barrow goeth ramble the Ramble; so Peter Sherk owes me Five shillings."
---
If you had read the article about Lahn that you cited, you would have noticed that it is actually titled "Human cognitive abilities resulted from intense evolutionary selection, says Lahn". Didn't you even read the darn title?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by eggasai, posted 10-29-2006 6:17 PM eggasai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 10-29-2006 7:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 157 (359707)
10-29-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by eggasai
10-29-2006 6:54 PM


Re: "natura non facit saltum"
"Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins, as listed in Supplementary Tables 4 and 5)."
The International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium, Nature 27 May 2004
These are inframe indels in protein coding genes, notice it's 20.3% of the ones on PTR22. Actually these are just differences in side by side comparision but when assuming a common ancestor it must have been an indel that produced it.
Why do you mention this?
What it contradicts is the a priori predictions of Darwinians who expected anagenesis progressions rather then a major overhaul of protein coding genes.
I don't know what you think "anagenesis" means, but you're wrong. This makes this sentence singularly meaningless.
(1) Anagenesis is the evolution of one species from another without branching, as opposed to cladogenesis.
(2) There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution which requires evolution to be anagenetic: on the contrary.
(3) The question of whether a particular transition was anagenetic or cladogenetic has, obviously, absolutely damn-all to do with the question of whether "a major overhaul of protein coding genes" took place.
It seems as obvious as it needs to if you are aquainted with the scientific literature on the subject.
But you aren't. You've made one dreadful howler after another on the most basic facts of genetics, and are apparently unable to understand the papers you cite.
Why don't you google mutations and human neural genes or just read some of the papers I often quote, cite and link.
Why don't you read them, instead of merely quoting, citing, and linking them?
Heck, why don't you read a copy of Genetics For Dummies until you at least know what an amino acid is?
"How then did these different starting points evolve from a common ancestor?"
Natural selection.
Sheesh.
Another non-quantitative argument from incredulity. Just stick it next to all the others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by eggasai, posted 10-29-2006 6:54 PM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 157 (359711)
10-29-2006 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by AdminNosy
10-29-2006 7:07 PM


Re: Caution Dr A
I shall try to take the edge off my tongue, since you ask it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 10-29-2006 7:07 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 157 (360000)
10-30-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by eggasai
10-30-2006 9:03 PM


Re: Eggasai is producing mashups of his previous posts.
I would have been happy to provide quotes, citations and links early in the thread but I don't think I will now.
Since you have been wrong about the contents of every paper you've cited, ceasing to cite papers might well be a smart move.
But then, you see, we shall have nothing to go on except the say-so of a guy who hasn't learnt the most basic facts of genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by eggasai, posted 10-30-2006 9:03 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by eggasai, posted 10-31-2006 10:24 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 84 of 157 (360155)
10-31-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
10-31-2006 11:21 AM


Re: Getting the numbers right
The subject was also discussed at Cross+Flame and all the same errors are being repeated here. Folk are free to continue responding but should understand that the final outcome will simply be the initial starting point.
You mean to tell us that he's been shooting this line for a year or more, and he's still coming out with stuff like this:
it was concluded we descended from apes before biology was even a seperate discipline in science
and this:
Biological evolution makes assumptions and then makes homology arguments from any simularity.
and this:
mutations affecting neural genes are exclusivly deleterious
and this:
Relaxed functional constraint would be deadly
and this:
The point is that 4 mya the cranial capacity was just over 400cc and remained static until about 2 mya.
and this:
The first step is deconstructing Darwinism and genetics is doing a fine job of that on it's own.
and this:
makes sense that certain genes are going to be different but not in genes involved in the brain or liver. However, it is exactly here that you see the spectacular mutations. Sure, 40,000 amino acids don't seem like a whole lot until you take into consideration that this is 120,000 nucleotides at the very least. Not only do they have to be substituted in triplet codons but fold into meaningfull proteins.
and this:
Major mophological adaptations in a relativly brief period of time. This is exactly what a creationist would expect
and this:
The Human Genome Project has a website with educational material on DNA and how it works. Not once is evolution even mentioned.
and this:
Turkana Boys cranium has been compared to modern Chinese and it is only slightly smaller and as far as then can tell to internal proportions are pretty close.
and this:
Projecting into the prehistoric and primordial past is well beyond the purview of science
and this:
natural selection is not a big contributor to human evolution
and this:
What you really are trying to hide is the fact that your presumption of a single common ancestor has nothing to do with the actual science. Biology does not need the single common ancestor model. Mind you, I'm not saying that there are no common ancestors (plural), just that your insistance on a single common ancestor is pure undiluted mythology.
and this:
Then the amino acid seqeunces are translated into proteins
and this:
4^4 is 64
and this:
The chances of an amino acid seqeunce turning into one of the amino acids of life is less then one in three.
and this:
Codons don't code for anything, triplet codons are formed together in amino acid seqeucnes, the amino acid seqeunces are translated into proteins.
and this:
amino acids code for proteins, nucleotides are just the basic element of precise amino acid sequences.
and this:
the amino acid sequence is translated into proteins in the ribosome
and this:
Watson and Crick determined that codons were triplet by removing 1 or two of the nucleotides.
and this:
The amino acids in a specific sequence make up the 'code'. My point was that there was no such thing as a coding nucleotide
and this:
The trend in the early hominids suggests to me that the trend in ape lineages was a decrease in absolute brain size.
and this:
Every ape skull dug up in Africa from prehistory is automatically put in human lineage.
and this:
remove a condon and you got nucletides
and this:
I have the Chimpanzee Genome Consortioums conclusion that natural selection was not a factor in the evolution of humans from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.
and this:
Homo rudolfensis KNM-ER 1470 was originally dated 3 million years old which would make it older then the australopithecines. It had to be moved up a million years because it didn't fit into the anagenesis of Darwinian naturalistic a priori assumptions.
and this:
Darwin's On the Origin of Species is just one long arguement against 'special creation'.
and this:
They are placed in the chart in such a way as to give the illusion of anagenesis. What you are calling a phylogenetic analysis is really Darwin's tree of life revisted. It is an a priori assumption that has no genuine frame of referance.
and this:
Cranial capacity represents a cerebral rubicon that marks a clear line of demarkation in the transition from ape to humans.
and this:
The only reason that the mutation rate is not 0 is because of the physiological costs of adaptation.
and this:
a reading frame is just the the amino acid sequence
Good grief.
This isn't an argument, it's a collection of idées fixes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 10-31-2006 11:21 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by sfs, posted 10-31-2006 2:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 157 (361130)
11-03-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Hyroglyphx
11-03-2006 9:53 AM


Re: Theater of the absurd
The jab has less to do with immorality than it did with an amoral outlook. I was merely pointing out that the irreligious have no reason to stay honest when there are no repercussions other than one's pride.
A mere glance at this thread would show you that there must be some reason other than "pride" that explains why irreligious people are so honest.
After all, if pride alone made one truthful, then eggsai's monumental vanity would have kept him from reciting the ludicrous and pitiable string of falsehoods which you can read on this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-03-2006 9:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 131 of 157 (361131)
11-03-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by eggasai
11-03-2006 1:00 PM


Re: Remedial reading for egg
"No, like counting all the base pairs in the indels and applying them to the mutation rate as measured in mutation events, which is what you've just done here. The 2x10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs. (It's also just the single-base substitution rate, but that's less important.) It doesn't matter how many times you make that comparison: it will be wrong every time you do."
He says, 2 x 10^-8/bp/generation is the number of mutation events, not the number of base pairs.
And this is true. It is the number of mutations, per base pair, per generation.
That's why it says "2 x 10^-8/bp/generation".
It is not "the number of base pairs".
If you are genuinely unable to understand that, then ordinarily you would have my sympathy. However, in this case you have forfeited it by your revolting and hysterical accusations of dishonesty levelled at anyone and everyone who tries to give you the basic education that you so desperately need.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by eggasai, posted 11-03-2006 1:00 PM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 157 (361195)
11-03-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by crashfrog
11-03-2006 2:09 PM


This is the most terrifying thing about fundies.
Their dogma reduces them to a state where they cannot even imagine an unselfish action; they cannot even imagine a person who prefers good to evil; they cannot even imagine a person who prefers truth to falsehood. Not only do they themselves lose these preferences, but they cannot even admit that other people do not share their sociopathic attitudes.
Most wicked people know that they have fallen short of virtue: fundies don't even know that virtue exists.
What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the approval of his imaginary friend and lose his soul?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2006 2:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 140 of 157 (361693)
11-04-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by eggasai
11-02-2006 11:49 PM


More remedial reading for egg
For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation). How many mutations happen per generation? Estimating mutation rates is not easy (at least without assuming common descent): it is hard to find a few changed nucleotides out of 3 billion that have not changed. By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes. Using this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry). At that rate, in 350,000 generations a copy of the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number.
The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.
Despite the fact that it has been clearly demonstrated that divergence is 100 Mb greater then previous estimates, only the single substitutions are accounted for. No one was predicting that the indels would dwarf the single nucleotide substitutions.
You have, once again, entirely misunderstood what you read.
No-one was predicting anything about the number of indels. Their methods allowed them to predict the number of single nucleotide substitutions, which they did accurately. They were not estimating the number of mutations of all kinds, just the number of single nucleotide substitions. And they were right.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by eggasai, posted 11-02-2006 11:49 PM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 145 of 157 (362527)
11-07-2006 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by eggasai
11-07-2006 7:21 PM


Re: bp does not mean base pair no matter what
Yes Steve I do understand and all this semantical slight of hand doesn't change anything. I didn't just bust in here and jump into someone elses conversation. I've been asking you about the indels for sometime and you have yet to answer a fundamental question, how did the divergance get there with an observed rate of 2 x 10^-8/bp/generation? The obvious answer is that it didn't happen at 3 x that rate.
Actually, the obvious answer is contained in my previous post, where I point out your childish error.
So you guys just pretend that a 1 bp mutation is the same thing as one a million base pairs long!!!!
No-one has said this. You made that up.
You said that bp does not mean base pairs.
Wounded King did not say that. You made that up.
I do know what I'm talking about because I learned to find, isolate and emphasis other peoples fatal errors from experts
This delusion seems to be at the root of all your other delusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by eggasai, posted 11-07-2006 7:21 PM eggasai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Wounded King, posted 11-08-2006 4:53 AM Dr Adequate 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