Arete

It could possibly be described as such, but as I tried to demonstrate previously with HWE calculations, removing or preventing individuals in which a deleterious, recessive genetic disorder is expressed does nothing to address the fact that the bulk of the reservoir in which these genes are held in the population are individuals in which they are not expressed. So removing the small proportion of individuals who suffer from the ailment from the breeding population will have a negligible effect on the prevalence of the disorder. As such even if it is eugenics, it's ineffective eugenics.

I guess what I meant to reinforce is that the preservation of genetic diversity is redundancy for an environment which doesn't yet exist. Basset hounds/bull terriers are 100% dependent on a set of environmental conditions (nominally, direct human intervention) for continued survival. If that goes away, those populations become extinct. Evolutionarily speaking, domestic animals are very fragile and they have very low long term viability prospects. In a similar sense, if we select for say, intellect (even though, as I explained doing so probably won't result in a predicable outcome) we could a) breed in a suite of deleterious genetic diseases, like we have with domestic animals b) eliminate genetic diversity important in a future environment - e.g. we would significantly reduce MHC complex diversity, which would make humans, as a species, more susceptible to a range of novel pathogenic diseases. It's not that far fetched that something like H1N1 could have a devastating effect on a population with reduced MHC diversity. Edit - I can has no spell guud.

Sorry, I must've edited my post while you were replying - Like most things, in selective breeding, you rarely get something for nothing and virtually every trait amplification will come with a trade off. Evolutionarily speaking, basset hounds are genetically depuaperate, which leaves them much more susceptible to disease as a population/breed than a genetically diverse population. Also, in selecting for your desirable traits, you've eliminated a whole suite of traits essential for survival in a natural Canis lupus population (i.e. a wolf pack). I personally have staffordshire terriers I love, but evolutionarily speaking, by selecting for the traits we desired we have vastly reduced the genetic and phenotypic variation of domestic species and thus the ability to adapt to changes in the environment. Hope that makes sense.

As thoroughly discussed in this thread already - a) For a multi-genic, environmentally correlated, abstractly interpreted trait like intellect, there is so many interactions between variable genotypes that a selective breeding regime is highly unlikely to produce a predictable outcome. b) Any selective breeding regime decreases Ne (effective population size) which reduces the genetic variability of a given population, which has demonstrably negative impacts on the evolutionary potential of the population in question. c) Selective elimination of individuals in which recessive deleterious conditions from the breeding population will not significantly reduce the expression of those genes, which are carried without expression in a much larger proportion of the population than the proportion in which they are expressed e.g. for every sufferer of an autistic condition, there are 35 silent carriers of the associated genes. So eugenics violates basic population genetic principles, reduces the evolutionary potential of a population and ultimately doesn't work. Consider the domestic species we've selectively bred, how likely they are to be successful in nature without human intervention, and how many undesirable traits hitchhiked along with the ones we selected for - e.g. almost all domestic species are genetically depauperate compared to their wild cogeners and suffer subsequent reduced immunity and a vast range of heritable conditions from the inability to fly in chickens, hip displaysia in dogs, mastitis in dairy cows, etc, etc.

Right you are... I wasn't lying when I said very, very amateur... F stop was 6.3, exposure time 1/640 seconds and focal length was 63mm.

I guess the first question that comes to mind is "Is age of consent representative of the actual age that people have their first sexual encounter?" In the US, age of consent varies by state but is between 16 and 18. This report by the Kinsey Institute suggests that over a quarter of US teens have have had sex by the age of 15 and up to 40% of US teens have by the age of 16. So I think the relationship between having sex at a young age and the nation's age of consent needs to be shown to be positively correlated before one can make assumptions of national sexual behavior based on the age of consent. Further, the US ranks in at 13th youngest in terms of when individuals experience their first sexual encounter: I'm not convinced there is any correlation. I see what you did there.

Apologies; I can't remember precisely but it was fast - It was a hovering hummingbird hanging out at a feeder and it took me about half an hour to get a semi decent photo. They're very territorial and will chase each other off from a feeder - and appealing very much to my childish side they defecate at each other whilst doing so, so it's not just monkeys that use poop as a weapon...

The ones we encountered were approximately 2-3" in height.

A - it's a poison dart frog. They don't hide particularly well and they're super bright so they were pretty easy to find. I guess you don't need to run away or be camouflaged when you're as poisonous as a dart frog. B- Sure: 1) Scarlet Macaw 2) Gulf Anole 3) Red eyed tree frog 4) Litter skink 5) Cat eyed snake 6) Black vulture 7) Green and black poison dart frog 8) white necked jacobin

Done : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66966-field-trip-report-thread/page__pid__682976#entry682976 Feel very free to post your own stories and photos - be good to assemble a collection from various fields as if it's left to me it will soon fill with photos of lizards

Easily the best side benefit to being a scientist is going on fieldwork. As a request to another thread I'm throwing up a field trip report thread to post photos/war stories and reports on fieldwork anyone would like to share. I was recently in the Osa Peninsula region of Costa Rica - nominally looking at amphibian declines post chytrid fungus. The Osa is one of, if not the most biodiverse places on the planet, and well worth a visit for any reason. I took some very (very) amateur photos of some of the critters we saw and am posting up on request. The herpetological bias is unapologetic . Feel very free to put mine to shame, and if people would like I have photo sets from previous trips - mostly in the monsoonal and arid parts of Australia. All photos taken on my Nikon D40 entry level SLR with either a Nikkor 18-55 4.5 or a 55-200 4.5. Obligatory Ara macao shot Anolis polylepis Agalychnis callidryas Sphenomorphus cherriei Leptodeira septentrionalis Coragyps atratus Dendrobates auratus Florisuga mellivora

I just recently got back from a field trip to the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica - Corocovado National Park is nominally the most biodiverse int he world and we saw some amazing critters. Have fun exploring the jungle! - remember your bug spray! [i also have many extremely amateur wildlife photos - happy to start the amateur wildlife photo/field trip report thread if Phi would like]

I answered each of your questions directly, with supporting evidence - I just maintain a position in disagreement with yours No vaccine or vaccination program results in guaranteed non-infection. This is why we have testing for diseases as well as vaccination and treatment.

If someone expects that a vaccination program can allow you to guarantee 100% of individuals are 100% free from infection, they have a very misguided concept of what vaccinations are able to do.

Almost all immunity is imperfect. NOt sure what definition you are using to suggest that immunity means that an individual is completely impervious to the disease in question. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21034823 http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22561998

Reduction in herd immunity is not the only plausible cause of re-emergence - e.g. adaptation of a pathogen to a new vector/host can increase chances of contact with it http://www.stri.si.e...20SysBio04.pdf; Vaccine breakthrough of pathogens due to novel mutations can render the acquired immunity from a vaccine ineffective http://www.labnews.c...e-breakthrough/ Environmental change favoring pathogens/vectors/source populations can increase contact and thus the chance of transmission http://www.who.int/b...%289%291136.pdf Etc.

I'm not sure what you mean - by definition? If you're inferring that a lack/reduction of herd immunity, by definition results in increased disease prevalence then no -it's not by definition. E.g. bubonic plague - prevalence of the black death is severely reduced compared to historical outbreaks, herd immunity remains at similar levels. Prevention is due to vector control http://rarediseases.about.com/cs/bubonicplague/a/111602.htm Changes in herd immunity to Yersina pestis will have limited effects on transmission and prevalence in the absence of competent vectors - evolutionary theory would suggest that reduced exposure to the pathogen would render human populations more susceptible to plague now than in times where contact with the disease was more likely, yet we don't generally see outbreaks. Lapsed vaccination doesn't lead to disease outbreaks unless a) the vaccine is the primary basis for acquired immunity and b) the disease remains persistent at low levels in the population or a nearby source population.

Usually never - vaccines work on the basis of herd immunity. http://en.wikipedia....i/Herd_immunity No vaccine ever confers 100% immunity in 100% of individuals. They work on the principle that by increasing the overall immunity of the herd, you lower the prevalence of the disease. BY lowering the prevalence of the disease, you lower the probability of coming into contact with it, which lowers the rate of transmission, which lowers the probability of encountering the disease - etc. The reduction of transmission/disease prevalence will accumulate in a probabilistic manner. Vaccines in themselves don't eliminate diseases, but the accumulation of immunity in the herd and subsequent reduction of cases could theoretically drop the abundance of the pathogen below the critical threshold required for persistence of it in a population and ultimately result in it becoming extinct in the given population of hosts. Usually this would be inferred from the non-detection of the disease for a prolonged period, but you're up against trying to prove a positive outcome with a lack of evidence... and the re-emergence of controlled diseases in the wake of lapsed herd immunity has been observed. http://nationalhogfa...ion_lapses_lead http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10228076 http://www.humanillnesses.com/Infectious-Diseases-He-My/Measles-Rubeola.html

Marriage is not simply a symbolic religious gesture - it is a legal status with legal implications: For the purposes of immigrant visas, the US only recognizes spousal relationships and thus grants dependent visas only to married couples. If two people are prevented from marrying each other despite being in a committed relationship - (e.g. they are both of the same gender and gay marriage is outlawed) they are by default excluded from gaining a dependent visa for entry to the US. Eg. A gay Australian professor is offered a job in the US and applies for a H1 class visa. His partner wishes to apply for an H2 dependent visa to accompany him. This is disallowed as they are not married and the professor's partner is not permitted to stay in the US for a period of longer than 90 days. If they were a heterosexual couple, they could be married under Australian law and thus the H2 visa would be issued to the spouse no questions asked. As a result, the prevention of gay marriage in Australia results in indirect discrimination against gay couples.

I did. Which is false - a vaccine/herd immunity works fine even if applied/evolved after a disease is at high prevalence. The fact that a vaccine could prevent disease caused damage if applied in a timely manner does not make it "too late" to use it later. It simply means that damage will occur in the period before immunity is established. "it's too late to use the vaccine" is significantly different to a reality of "we could have prevented a lot of stock losses/ contaminated meat if used to vaccine in a preventative manner before all this happened." The vaccine is still effective in conferring immunity and worth applying once a disease has taken hold, contrary to the statement you made in your post.

Huh? I'm sure glad that they developed vaccines to measles, rubella, typhoid, polio, yellow fever, hepatitis, tetanus, HPV, etc and so despite the high prevalence of these diseases... Current prevalence does not negate future efficacy of a vaccine. If you can establish herd immunity you can eradicate, or at least severely reduce the impact of widespread infectious agents

Of course. Porn. This thread makes me think of this:

After all, the internet is, as we all know, serious business.

I'm not sure what yuo mean by a postdoc degree. A postdoc is a job you undertake after qualifying for your PhD, so I'm assuming what you actually mean is you wish to undertake a PhD in Australia: Here is a ranking of Australian Universities: http://www.australia...s.com/rankings/ In order to conduct a PhD in Australia you would need to have a university agree to sponsor your 574 visa - http://www.immi.gov....students/574-2/ http://www.globalvis...ent_visa_2.html This means you'd need to contact a lab which had an available position and was willing to take you on board. This would generally mean you would need to secure some sort of scholarship to undertake your research. http://www.studyinau...ps/Scholarships If you wanted to stay in Australia, you'd need to apply for residency upon the completion of your degree. Some nations have a compulsory return period after you studying abroad which you'd need to look into. Good luck.

The assumption of most phylogenetic analyses attempting to infer the evolutionary relationships amongst organisms are that the genes being analyzed are evolving under a neutral model of selection. All of the available software will let you construct a phylogeny of a gene under selection, but making inferences from the subsequently produced tree might be erroneous. You can test for the validity of this assumption using a test like Tajima's D, and you can also partition your data according to codon position and apply different substitution models to synonymous and non-synonymous substitution sites. Of course, there's plenty of reasons one might wish to investigate the phylogenetic relationships between functional genes under selection, but the relationships between these genes and the overall genomes of the organisms they are from may well be quite different.