Dr. Dalek

Hi everybody. It has been awhile since I posted. I have been busy with school. Anyway I was doing some reading online and I found something interesting. Apparently Mules which are the hybrids of Donkeys and Horses and are normally sterile and are so because of their odd number of chromosomes. Since Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62 the mule has 63. When they try to breed the differing numbers of chromosomes don't match up with the gametes of the other mule and they fail to breed. I know there may be more too it than that however for simplicity sake this is all I will share on the matter. However if a female mule is bred with a pure horse or a pure donkey there can occasionally be offspring from this union. This has been documented and observed several times and even confirmed with genetic testing on one occasion. From what I have read this is said to occur occasionally because haploid gametes of the mule can have (on occasion) the appropriate number of chromosomes to match up with the gametes of either a pure horses or a pure donkey. However the circumstances have to be just right as to what gametes meet or the zygote will not form. Morocco's miracle mule. I am wondering if this is true can the offspring of the mules breed? If so this means that there can be genetic drift between horses and donkeys because of chromosomal crossing over during gamete formation. Someone I know asserted that this could not happen and that the offspring of the mules would be sterile. He gave to reason why this would be the case. If they had an even number of chromosomes (which must be the case because how else could they be born?) I don't see why they wouldn't. He simply asserted that he knew it was true and cited his high marks in AP Biology in high school (Nothing I haven't done as well) as evidence for his authority on the matter. Is there another aspect to this puzzle that would prevent the offspring of mules from breeding besides chromosome number. I know that the proteins around an ova are supposed to be selective to sperm and only allow the sperm of similar species to pass into the ova. However I do not see why this would be the case. If donkeys and horses were dissimilar enough to block out each others gametes there would be no mules in the first place. Does anyone have any information on this matter?

Not to mention all the animals that are accidentally killed when harvesting crops. I argue that too however many Vegans believe that as beings of superior intelligence we have a moral responsibility to treat other animals with the same respect we give each other rather than killing them and eating them they way they kill and eat each other. Kinda speaks for arrogance on the part of humans but it is odd. They believe that we are superior thus we must preserve all life, but at the same time others have used superiority as a justification for destroying life. The Nazis killing the Jews is a big example. I've met people before who have a MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! philosophy; they believe that since humans can kill more efficiently than other animals it gives us the right to destroy whatever we want for any reason. Makes them some what like my avatar. EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!! More over Humans in general are weird; I have an easier time understanding Wolves and Dogs than i do people.

How is that a defect? I thought a defect was a trait that gave the creature a significant disadvantage?

I read something about subterranean microorganisms that live near the mantle and produce chemicals which we find inside the Earths crust. I only saw it in passing; but I remember it was some theory related to the existence of Oil in the Earths crust. can anyone give me more information about this?

We could give the pedfiles virtual reality equipment.

There is none, but both situations are to reminisent of Typhoid Mary, they would never be allowed by pollitically correct politicans. Also I don't want a huge population of pedophiles living off the coast of my state. Besides if you are going to go as forcing them to relocate you might as well go the whole nine yards and develope surgery's or drugs to removed their sex drives.

A; Were are we going to put this Pedofile country? B; Forced relocation of popultions large or small always causes problems. C; This country would be destroyed by the United States not long after an American child was molested when his family changed planes in this country. D; These people are not just a minority that comes into conflict with other minorities they are people with a psycological condition that causes a pre-evolved system to encourage natural reproduction to malfuntion. They are essentialy sick. The only conceivable reason I can see to put all these people into one country is to isolate and EX-TER-MIN-ATE them. Which is what a lot of Conspiracy theorists think the motavation behind the creation of Isreal was. Uh . . . I'm not Christian myself but I do know that there are verses in the Bible that can be interprited as forbidding homosexuality. It doesn't justify intollerence though as the verses are ment to encourage individuals within the faith to avoid it.

I found this article on Wikipedia that refers a way of thinking known as Animal Supremacism. However I cannot find any information on Animal Supremacists or their philosophy. I was wondering if anyone has any information on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy#Forms_of_misanthropy

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o_o . . . . . . . . . . Uh, okay . . . . Anyway I recently hear a statistic that suggested that animals have less health problems in an environment they are native to. Since things like hoarses, and cows are not native to north America it is possible we would require less drugs for animals if we selecivly breed native, naturalized animals for the same purposes. So we wouldn't need as many drugs or test subjects if we ate more commercial venison and less beef. As for hoarses, domestic stock heavily mixed with mustangs would benifit from hundreds of years of natural selection against disease.

What I meant was you seem to be saying there isn't any predisposition because your assuming that genetic predispositions are automatically going to forbid acclimation. Which they don't. They just limit it. Would you mind rephrasing that please? I think you might have mistyped something. "the degeneration would be larger if not completely reduced" more detail would make this clearer. And simpler sentence structure. Right.

No they could but they would never be able to use them to their fullest potential. Thats what I'm trying to say. You assuming that genetic predispositions are automatically going to forbid that sort of change/adaptation phenomenon. They don't they have an entirely different purpose, but in theory they would make it difficult to fully acclimate. Ok I'll try to find a link for this later, but there was an experiment that supports my point. Ferrets were once used in a test where the nerves of the audio and visual sensory organs (eyes and ears) were switched destinations in the brain. Meaning the visual info was going to the audio processing and the audio was going to the visual processing. After some acclimation the ferrets were able to see, but not well. They only had worse vision than the a normal ferret. The brain is adaptable and plastic but it has limits based on its genetic and epigenetic specialization mechanisms, and the fact that nerve cells grow more slowly than other cells in the body, at some point they basically stop growing all together.

I'd like to see some documentation on this. Also from your description it sounds more like they found a way to "sense" something rather than "see" There is a significant different, if you face your tonge in a certain direction feel a sensation, and have been told the apparatus is supposed to allow you to sense objects then yeah you'll beable to do that without genetic predetermination. Using limbs is entirly different. Some of it is acclamation, some of it is genetic predisposition. After all something has to exist geneticaly to tell the nerves from the eyes and ears to link to certain sections of the brain, and what would be the purpose of predesignated locations unless the cells were already partly specialized for that task? Yes they require acclimation, but they are still designed for the purpose of imitating human limbs. Designed obvoiusly if it is a prostetic the designers would intend for it to be easy to adapt to. A number of tenticles is entirly different. I have to point out that we are both making assumptions, thought they are all based on facts we can't possibly know what would happen untill we stick a human brain in an Octopus body and see what he can do.

See with their taste buds? Did I miss something? Also the Brain IS predisposed to operate a certain muber of appendages, it could adapt to more through aclamation, but it would never be as adept as an animal predisposed to have them and here is how I know this. The brain develops in a set way, each persons brain (barring abnormalities or mutations) develops in a bilateraly symetric way to correspond with the operation and controll of different parts of the body. Some of this is the result of genetics and some of it is the result of developmental adaptation. The brain must have genetic predispositions or it would not develop in this way. Also prostetics are built in the image of already existing human limbs, we can learn to use them because they are copy of our natural limbs.

Again shaky assumptions! It is not a matter of weather it is harder or not its a matter of that it is different! A tentacle may not be as complex as an arm or a leg, but it certainly moves differently and has different methods of use and manipulation attached to it. A humans brain is designed to be plastic so that it could adapt to unusual attachments like tentacles, but the sheer fact that the brain is organized into different sections through inheritance indicates that these sections of the brain are genetically predisposed to handle certain tasks. If you woke up tomorrow with tentacles at first your brain would be trying to move them like the were arms and legs. Eventually you would become more proficient in their use, but your brain is predisposed to operate only four appendages, none of which are tentacles so you would not be able to use them as proficiently as an animal born to have tentacles. Its actually a very simple concept to grasp. Its not a matter of how many muscles you have its what your brain is designed to operate.

An excellent point. I agree. Thoughts are not as important as actions. in something like politics.

If something is genetically predisposed to have eight appendages than its brain will be genetically predisposed to accommodate them! You seem to be assuming at an animals ability to manipulate its limbs and handle its sensory organs is a direct function of the same kind of intelligence that humans measure with an IQ test. The brain is more complicated than that.

Experiments with ferrets have yielded results suggesting that a brain is plastic enough to adapt to unusual situations like that, still though I doubt that a human would be able to control eight appendages as well as an animal that is genetically predisposed to have eight appendages.

Uh . . .thats a fairly shaky assumption Ok a very shaky assumption.

Maybe the reports of coral die off were exaggerated by the media, that happens a lot. Or maybe there is another reason they are dying that has been overlooked. Also "cooling overall" is not suggesting that it is cooling everywhere some locations may be cooling and the other are heating up a little, and the coral just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also could u help me find that oceans cooling thing in writing, I have some Vendettas to settle.

Hmm, good point. However how are we going to discuss this in any way other than anthropomorphism. Were humans, unless we were raised by animals, or have clinical lycanthropy we can't see things from animals perspectives without making a shit load of assumptions and guesses.

I don't really understand on what battle this ground lies. I'm not really religious myself, but my understanding of ID is that religious people are approaching evolution basically the same as everything else scientific. A scientist says "Ok this is how it is and this is how it happened" and the only modification the religious puts to it is "Yeah God meant to do that." Its not scientific to make such assumptions because it is not falsifiable by current standards, but u can't really prove it wrong. So as long as the IDers don't put any crazy spins on the scientific theory other than that (which i don't know if any are) than it should not really be the topic of controversy. As long as they agree with what happened, just personally applying their faith too it and teaching it to their own children should they desire.

Maybe we are ignorant regarding a fact that animals have already learned. "We don't need to be all knowing to be happy."

I see your point, though I would rather like to judge an individual on there actions rather than their beliefs I agree that this could be indicative of a less than rational mind. A Democrat would just say "I believe in evolution" just because he knows its what people want to hear. I know I'm gonna catch heat for saying this, but frankly I don't care.

Well uh what about specialization? After all a botanist can discuss biology and perform their job easily and know absolutely nothing about politics. So why should a President necessarily need to know or even care about anything in evolution if its not a matter of national security? After all thats basically what the Executive Branch does, military, law enforcement. How does knowledge, understanding, or belief in evolution change you qualifications in that context.

Here is a little anicdote I thought might be relavent; Long ago people thought that the World would end by drying up. They believed that water erroded caves were evidence that all the water on Earth was slowly penetrating downward into the Earth and that in centuries the Earths surface would be dry and unable to support life. Naturaly this theory later turned out to be false when we learned more about the Earths interior and its workings, but it was the most reasonable logical outcome of the knowlage they had at the time. I read this in high school in a book about caves.