Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
71 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,039 Year: 4,151/6,534 Month: 365/900 Week: 71/150 Day: 2/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 248 of 650 (648198)
01-13-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Admin
12-29-2011 8:33 AM


Member Ratings
Just a quick suggestion regarding the rating system. I have noticed that some people just go down the posts in a thread and, (or at least it appears) they cheer those posts they agree with and jeer those they disagree with regardless of quality of content. It ends up that creationists have a low score and evolutionists have a high score. I am sure that is not what you intend for the rating system.

What I suggest is only being able to rate a post that you actively participate in. In other words, unless you respond to a post or a post is a response to you, you can not rate it. This may help the ratings to better reflect the quality of a member's posts.

Perhaps a "like" button in addition to the rating button would allow non-participants to acknowledge a good reply without actually participating, but it would not affect the member rating.

Just a thought

HBD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Admin, posted 12-29-2011 8:33 AM Admin has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by nwr, posted 01-13-2012 9:27 PM herebedragons has seen this message
 Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2012 10:01 PM herebedragons has seen this message
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2012 10:15 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 253 of 650 (648278)
01-14-2012 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by RAZD
01-13-2012 10:15 PM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
As I understand it, the rating system is an attempt to identify good quality posts for the Post of the Month thread.

And members who consistently make good, thoughtful and considerate posts. At least, as I see the purpose.

I (don't) see any way for a rating system to avoid being a popularity vote

Your probably right. I kinda like Coyote's suggestion in Message 252. That way you wouldn't have indiscriminate jeering. Good, Better, Best. It could still be used as a popularity contest though.

I've been on other boards and the ratings and distribution of people were reversed.

I am sure that's true. I was just kinda thinking that it would be nice to look at a members rating and have an idea of whether it would be worthwhile to enter into a debate with them or not; rather than whether they are creationist or evolutionist. But I guess it doesn't really take too long to figure that out by just responding to a few posts.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : corrected link

Edited by herebedragons, : corrected link again!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2012 10:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2012 8:18 AM herebedragons has seen this message
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2012 9:40 AM herebedragons has seen this message
 Message 262 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2012 12:30 PM herebedragons has seen this message

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 254 of 650 (648279)
01-14-2012 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Coyote
01-13-2012 10:30 PM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
Actually, I like that idea.

Maybe not "Post of the ..." that would imply only voting for one post? Maybe just good, better, best?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2012 10:30 PM Coyote has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 393 of 650 (785440)
06-05-2016 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by caffeine
06-04-2016 1:47 PM


Re: Mitochondrial haplotypes
How is it that people can be said to have a specific haplotype at any locus for a mitochondrial gene. You don't only inherit one mitochondrion from your mother, but several. These will presumably accumulate mutations as they go, causing the mitochondria within a single cell to diversify.

In addition to what Dr. A said, the replication of mtDNA is severely down regulated during embryogenesis which reduces the per cell copy number creating a mitochondrial bottleneck.This also serves to restrict the mitochondrial haplotypes that are eventually put into oocytes.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the human mitochondrial genome is only about 17k bases as opposed to nuclear DNA which is about 3 billion bases. If the expected mutation rate for nuclear DNA is about 300 bases per generation, the expected mutation rate for mtDNA would be 0.0017 mutation per generation or 1 mutation every 588 generations. Of course, mtDNA mutation rates are higher than that for nDNA due to the less precise replication machinery and less redundancy in DNA repair mechanisms (some estimates are that the rate is 10x higher).

This study empirically determined the mutation rate to be 3 mutation in 705 mtDNA transmissions:

quote:
we sequenced the mtDNA control region in 272 individuals, who were related by a total of 705 mtDNA transmission events, from 26 large Icelandic pedigrees. Three base substitutions were observed, and the mutation rate across the two hypervariable regions was estimated to be 3/705 = .0043 per generation (95% confidence interval [CI] .00088–.013), or .32/site/1 million years (95% CI .065–.97).

The Mutation Rate in the Human mtDNA Control Region

So we would expect that most of the time the offspring would inherit the exact same mtDNA as the parent had.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by caffeine, posted 06-04-2016 1:47 PM caffeine has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2016 1:04 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 397 of 650 (785483)
06-05-2016 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by NosyNed
06-05-2016 1:04 PM


Re: H. e. l. p. !
Ok, now I will sound like Faith. There is kinda a lot of jargon in there but I would like to wrap my head around it.

Oh, no problem Ned. I'll admit I can use "jargon" at times, the reason is that it is not "jargon" to me. To me the meaning of "down regulated" is just as obvious as "mutation" and neither term seems like "jargon" to me. So it can sometimes be difficult to know when a commonly used genetic term needs more explanation.

When I read some of the physics threads, especially stuff on quantum physics and string theory, it is completely meaningless to me, gooblygook is the correct term I believe. But then again, I don't claim to have any knowledge about the subject matter nor am I especially inclined to try and understand the physics "jargon."

ABE:

I was going to respond in a different thread, but decided it was easier to just do it here. If the conversation needs to continue, we can move it then.

The ovum, or egg, has a large number of mitochondria. But during embryogenesis, the replication of mitochondria is down regulated, meaning simply that they replicate very slowly rather than at a normal pace. As the blastocyst forms, the mitochondria are partitioned into the dividing cells. Because they are not replicating, the number of mitochondria in each cell is greatly reduced compared to the original ovum. Normally, the mitochondria would be replicating so that the number of mitochondria in each cell would remain constant (of course different cell types have differing numbers of mitochondria - some have higher energy requirements than others).

The mitochondria don't begin replicating at a normal rate until I think gastrulation, when cells begin differentiating into different tissue types. By this time, the cell line that will develop into new oocytes will have a limited number of mitochondrial haplotypes. So even if there many haplotypes in the original egg, they have now been segregated into many cell lines and there will very few haplotypes (possibly only 1) that are passed on to the next generation.

Now to put this in the context of this discussion (which I haven't been working hard enough on). This means that the "slate is wiped clean" or almost so regularly. Thus changes we see have to be due to new mutations?

I'm not sure "wiped clean" would be accurate, instead just a relatively small number of mitochondria are funneled to new oocytes and so the number of different haplotypes being passed on to the next generation is limited. Also the mutations that will accumulate in the mitochondria that will be passed on to the next generation are only those that occur in the cell line leading to the reproductive cells. So we don't expect large numbers of mutations in each generation nor do expect to see significant numbers of haplotypes being passed on. More like it is a very reliable method of inheritance.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2016 1:04 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by NosyNed, posted 06-06-2016 9:01 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022