Arete

You may find this software interesting: http://www.naturepatternmatch.org/Using color to infer evolutionary processes is not a new concept. However, I think you're misleading yourself by pitching it as a singular method to delimit species/populations. We already know that it is unreliable for that purpose. I tend to disagree. Any six individuals are extremely unlikely to be exactly the same color, so being able to delimit individuals without being able to segregate individuals into predetermined categories (i.e. taxonomic units) is of very limited utility. To be more succinct, the issue with trying to delimit taxonomic groups of organisms solely on the basis of coloration is that variation within species tends to overlap with variation between species. There's a natural distribution of coloration in any group of organisms, and in related species, they often tend to overlap. To display this graphically, say we have species A in blue, and species B in red. Species A tends to be color 1, Species B tends to be color 2, but there's a proportion of the distribution of both species (shaded in purple) where the observed color distribution overlaps. Individuals falling into this region of each species distribution will be mis-classified using a singular approach based solely on color, no matter how sophisticated the approach is. Ergo, using a singular dataset (in this case, coloration) to try and classify such a group of organisms is fundamentally flawed, and will never function well. The most accepted approach, as I previously stated, is to use a multifactorial approach taking into account various data forms, such as morphometrics, genetics, and the physiological limits of a given species to delimit taxa. Coloration can be a component of a multifactorial approach where applicable, but it's unlikely to be taken seriously if pitched as a sole delimitation practice. To conceptually frame your method in current evolutionary thinking, I'd strongly suggest a read of this paper by Kevin De Queiroz on species concepts http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18027281 and, hopefully it's not too presumptuous to self cite here, but here's an example of how multifactorial species delimitation works in practice I published a couple of years ago. https://sistromlab.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/sistrometalmolphyecol.pdf

Species delimitation is a field in which I have some expertise, so I think I can offer a few insights. Color can sometimes be a useful delimiter of species. However, on its own, is generally considered inadequate. There are a few major reasons why this is the case. 1) Color often shows high levels of intraspecific variation - i.e. individuals of the same species can often exhibit different coloration. E.g. these are all color polymorhpisms of the same species: 2) Cryptic species generally do not show distinct coloration, despite being distinct species. E.g., these are all distinct bumblebee species: 3) Singular data forms of any kind are generally considered inadequate to delimit taxa. Generally, a multivariate approach is considered necessary to do so these days. Multiple morphometric, meristic, genetic and ecological datasets should be collected, and analysed using a multivariate approach, giving axes of differentiation between populations and species. This is not to say that categorizing organisms by color is always a futile exercise, as sometimes it can yield interesting insights: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00462.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00507.x/full http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/963.short But we already know its unreliable as a singular datum to identify and catalog biological entities.

It's a common misconception that "mitochondrial eve" and "y-chromosome adam" were actual people. The terms are more concepts rather than references to actual individuals as they are references to the time point at which the particular genetic components (i.e. the mtDNA and the Y chromosome) coalesce back to a single allele. More than one individual could carry this allele, and it's quite possible (probable) that it represents a population bottleneck, rather than the origin of Homo sapiens. Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your initial question - yes, you could generate an estimate of the observed variation assuming a 6,000 year old origin using similar methods and compare it to the observed variation, but the above cited studies should already tell you what the result of that undertaking would be.

Yes there is - using a estimate of mutation rate and generation time, one can estimate the time to most recent common ancestor, given the observed genetic variation of a population: http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftdna/quick.html http://www.genetics.org/content/158/2/897.full.pdf It's been done for humans both with the Y chromosome (approx 99 - 148,000 years to the most recent common ancestor): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/562 and mitochondial DNA (approx 192 - 307,000 years to the most recent common ancestor): http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract While confidence intervals are wide, and ongoing research is refining our estimates, the observed genetic variation in humans clearly refutes an origin of humans in the last 10K years. Edit: correction to date with more recent studies.

This is exactly what the Lederberg experiment demonstrated back in 1951. Random mutation generates variation within a population, which selection then acts upon. Selection doesn't lead to new variants in of itself, it merely adds direction to the random generation of variation. On the other hand, a population can evolve in the absence of selection via the action of genetic drift.

Sorry, but this is trivially falsifiable. As the genome of a biological entity is the heritable component, changes which affect phenotype without altering the genotype are not passed on to subsequent generations. I think what you're proposing here is Larmarkian evolution which as long been falsified. Again, observation has long proven your first assertion to be generally false; mutations are by and large random - See the Lederberg experiment. Yes, this would commonly be referred to as genetic drift, and is not a new idea. As previously stated, the genome of a biological entity is the heritable component, changes which affect phenotype without altering the genotype are not passed on to subsequent generations - thus cannot cause evolution. Evolution via natural selection has been thoroughly validated by empirical research. In biology, the term evolution has a well defined meaning: Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Using it in another sense, in a biological context would be incorrect. You seem to be thinking deeply about evolution, but unfortunately a lack of fundamental understanding about the theory and evidence for it seems to be leading you astray. I would suggest some basic research would allow to refine your thinking and steer you back on the right path. Good luck.

If you're saying biological evolution requires the presence of self-replicating biological entities, well, sure...

Without meaning to offend, there's numerous reasons I'm not going to click on your link. Would you care to provide an abstract or a discussion point?

No, it does nothing of the sort. It further demonstrates that hypertension is better explained by genetics than environmental factors. Human races remain clinally rather than discretely differentiated. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929709001578The study cited above samples opposing ends of a gradual spectrum.

Ok, so a few points - 1) Genetic engineering is a very specific tool at the more advanced end of the educational spectrum. You'll need a good foundational basis in biology before you undertake studies in genetic engineering. I would suggest that any course in the realm of biology, evolution, biochemistry, or biomedical science would touch in the basics. I would focus my course choices on genetics, molecular biology and evolutionary biology. I would also say that to actively work in a genetic engineering lab, you'll need postgraduate training. I would also strongly advise disregarding this: Any course preparing you for a clinical setting will likely not provide you with an adequate basis for a research career in genetic engineering. 2) Genetic engineering is more of a set of tools, than a specific study area. People using it range from molecular biologists, to microbiologists, to plant biologists, to cancer researchers, etc and so on. It would be rare that I would encounter a scientist who would first and foremost describe themselves as a genetic engineer, rather than a "something else". As such, I'd keep an open mind as to what overall direction you go in, especially at such an early point in your education. 3) The route you take also depends on what sort of position you're interested in - if you want to run your own lab, you'll probably want to do a PhD. if you want to manage a lab, or be a technician, you probably don't. Have fun, and let us know how you get on.

The use of anabolic steroids can cause clitoral enlargement in women. http://www.webmd.com/men/guide/anabolic-steroid-abuse-topic-overview?page=2 (btw, hope your antivirus software is up to date )

Just so we're straight, you're claiming that because husbands can give money to their wives, this: doesn't exist? Because, if that is truly the case it would seem like a rather ridiculous argument.

I never "found fault in it" but nice strawman anyhow. The point was that your own anecdotal experience is a prime example of the historical context of the gender pay gap - you spent extra time and effort at work, which was afforded to you by your female spouse taking on the bulk of the domestic duties. Your earning potential was increased by her not earning an equivalent sum. Yet you carry on with silly posts about a "tax on men" and implications that women just don't work hard enough, clearly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand. Women in the same roles, working the same hours earn less than their male counterparts. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ A resume with a male name is more likely to be considered competent, offered more pay and more career mentoring than a identical resume with a female name on it. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1 You can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's not an actual phenomenon because it suits your ideology to imply that your success had nothing to do with your socioeconomic status and was entirely down to your own efforts. My wife and I are both college professors, but I have no illusions that my circumstances led to me being where I am at least as much as the effort I put in. To try and suggest that everyone can be just as successful as everyone else with identical effort is utterly delusional.

I'm going to guess that your significant other's career took a back seat while you worked 60 hour weeks and raised children.

Always bring a towel.

"Wear your jacket or you'll catch cold" may actually have some truth behind it. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/3/827.abstract

I'll just echo the chorus in asking how the video of the man hugging a bear relates to the theory of evolution.

Something is wrong with people who expect to be paid for providing evidence of crime to the authorities.

Again, the idea is terrible. If you film a crime and refuse to hand it over to the authorities until they pay you a sum of money, it constitutes a crime called "obstruction of justice".

Well yeah - to quote you verbatim: No because you said things like this: Nice strawman. Me thinking your idea is bad for a number of reasons (which you've failed to address ANY of by the way) does not equal me standing in the way of someone being elevated out of poverty. Putting already vulnerable people in harm's way is not a particularly good way of helping them. Why not invest in mental health services? Drug addiction treatments? Provide more shelters? Anything but hand them a camera and say "go follow the cops around filming them", really... This is confusing, as it provides a powerful counter-argument to your suggestion. If a large proportion of the population already carries around cameras, what impact will providing a very small number of people with additional cameras do? Another nice strawman. I never advocated banning cameras at all. Criticizing your idea has no bearing whatsoever on banning cameras, nor does it lead anywhere near that suggestion. A) So you'd be fine with me putting one in a public restroom, then? or a doctor's clinic? or a counselor's office? or your lawyer's office? There are plenty of places and situations where it isn't OK to film. B) The film in this incident was not taken by a "paparazzi" but a regular citizen who noticed something happening. C) You still haven't addressed any of the criticism of the concept in my previous post.

This is ironic as one of the pervasive themes in the film is the ghoulishness/immorality of profiteering from other people's tragedy. The idea of getting random homeless people to follow around law enforcement, filming them is rather terrible. 1) Law enforcement do a lot of things it is inappropriate to film - attend accidents/suicides, support child services during forced removals, inform family members of deaths, etc etc etc. It would be a rather blatant breach of ethics to have some random walking around with a camera during such tasks. The presence of a random stranger with a camera during other events would be likely to escalate risky situations - police deal with unstable mentally ill people, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, etc, etc. Apart from being inappropriate to film, the potential escalation of such situations could lead to further tragedy. Also, some police tasks would be directly impeded or made dangerous for officers if a random homeless person was following them around filming -e.g. undercover operations or stakeouts. 2) A huge proportion of the population is already walking around with video recording devices on them all the time. It's doubtful that handing out a few more would have any appreciable impact on the number of events filmed. 3) There's an awful lot of ignorance bordering on offensiveness towards the homeless in your posts. You assume that the homeless like being outside, that they could get work if they wanted, etc. This seems ignorant of the circumstances which lead to homelessness (e.g. poverty, inadequate mental health services, drug addiction, domestic abuse...) and the extreme vulnerability of the homeless population. It's not a section of the population that need to be given something to do to keep them occupied, they need help. Overall, the whole idea is a bad one.

In this particular case, the officer in question has been charged with murder, so "offending officer" would appear to be entirely appropriate. I think the ultimate aim of police wearing body cams is both to allow for evidence to be collected in the event of police misconduct, but to act as a deterrent for the misconduct in the first place, which I think we can all agree would be the preferential outcome. The only question that really remains is whether or not they are effective at reducing police misconduct or not.

Why is it that "I won't post anymore" always means "I'm going to start a thread complaining about the moderators"?