Mokele

Also, neither the mitochondria eve nor the Y-chromosome adam were the only humans alive at the time. Mokele

Well, micro and macro evolution have little do do with the scale of changes and more with the state of the population. Microevolution is changes within a population, like bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Now, if we have two populations of bacteria, and one evolves a cell wall that cannot be penetrated by a particular antibiotic, but which also makes it unable to conjoin (exchange genetic information) with bacteria who lack the modified cell wall, it would be macroevolution, as the two populations have become genticly isolated. In general, microevolution means below species level, and macroevolution means speciation, and evolutionary processes at higher taxonomic levels. However, it should be noted that they are two sides of the same coin; microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution. The distinction is more an artifical categorization that we impose to make it easier to talk about than any real divide. Mokele

Well, first, you're right, the plural of "species" is also "species". Secondly, the problem with breeds and how they correspond to species is partially one of word definition. Species are technically defined as two populations that are no longer able to interbreed and produce fertile hybrids, but this definition falls down in the real world when faced with things like allopatry or clearly different species that can make fertile hybrids. I even know of cross-genera hybrids, though I don't know if they're fertile. "Breeds" is even worse, and are mostly defined by the presence of particular physical traits, with only tangential relation to ancestry, reproductive compatability, or genetics. Basically "breeds" is a crappy word, from the scientific perspective. Basically, a "breed" is a population which has been exposed to very strong directional selection until certain traits are 'fixed' in that population. How long they were isolated for, overall genetic difference,and reproductive compatability can vary tremendously as a result of the breed being defined only by phenotypic traits. Black labs and chocolate labs are different breeds, defined by traits, but are so close that the evolutionary distinction is almost nil (at most, the level of 'varying populations'). Chihuahuas and Alsatians, on the other hand, have probably been separate for a long time, likely have some big genetic differences, and cannot interbreed in one way (though a male chihuahua might be able to father pups with a larger dog), and yet they are still "breeds" So basically, "breeds" is an almost meaningless term for populations that have been isolated and selectively bred (and inbred) for varying lengths of time at varying intensities with varying results. Mokele

Well, this thread degenerated fast. Is the original topic (what little there was of one) going to resurface?

The extent to which species or population level selection occurs is debatable, but the range of answers is only from "a bit" to "never". Only very, very rarely do the sorts of factors you talk about come into play. For instance, say a species of aliens landed, with less selfish ways. While their species is better in the long term, competition for resources is at the individual level, as is evolution, so the selfish humans would sequester more resources and win out in the end. There is *some* level of kin selection, yes, but beyond cousins it vanishes. Evolution acts on the individual (it's the individual who lives or dies, screws or doesn't, etc) and the effect shows in the genes. Populations don't really 'evolve together'. If a new beneficial mutation appears and spreads, it does so because the original mutant and it's descendants and kin are selfishly out-competing others of the population (since there is always some level of competition in populations). Sure, "the population" benefits, but a population is nothing but an aggregation of individuals, and the only ones who actually benefitted were those who descended from the original mutant. Not specifically, however, I am more than familiar with his arguement. While genes are a nice way to measure and watch evolution, the actual unit that is acted upon is the organism, not the gene. No, *we* aren't. We can easily see the big picture. The point is that *evolution* does not see the big picture, but rather acts on a short-term, selfish, individual level. In a colonly of bacteria on an agar plate, the one that breeds the fastest will use up the resources first. But it will also outcompete the slower-breeding forms simply because, if 50% die every generation at random due to starvation, and the fast breeders produce more offspring than slow, over time the slow ones will die, even though they took the long term perspective. Do I agree that human selfish behavior will cause problems for us? Absolutely! But that's the way we are, and no amount of protestation will change the nature that is coded into us by evolution. Mokele

The problem is the difference between "guided" and "teleological". The latter, meaning "goal-directed" in the sense of long-term goals, definitely does not apply to the process of evolution, which is strictly short-term. Evolution itself does not try to produce anything, nor are organisms striving towards anything. However, being "guided" from outside the system is something that cannot be evaluated. For instance, I plan on starting a plant breeding project soon, attempting to maximize the size and vigor of the purple pitcher plant via selection. The process is just like in nature, and thus not inherently teleological; the gametes assort randomly, some live and some don't, etc. There's nothing in the process specifying any particular end. What specifies the end is an outside force, me, who choses the selection regime and introduces new mutations (hypothetically, I'm not about to buy an x-ray generator for this project). Even though the mechanism of evolution does not have a long-term goal, there is nothing to say that one cannot be imposed upon it by an outside force, be it God, spirits, aliens, or Cthulhu. And, because the outside force would be utilizing the system itself to produce the results, the system would show no direct evidence of such guidance. In essence, it's God of the Gaps, in which a deity guides evolution through "random" processes, and therefore leaves no trace. I don't personally agree with it, but it's more an issue of philosophy than anything else. Mokele

The liver and kidneys already cleanse the blood of toxins, and that's actually one of the primary roles of the kidneys. Every time you urinate, you're simply releasing toxic byproducts of metabolism that your kidneys cleansed from the blood. The liver have various ways of detoxifying things, producing steroids, lipids and protiens that act against various chemicals (which if why alcoholics often get liver damage). Basically, your body already does a very good job and so long as you don't add too many new toxins, it can keep up and eliminate most of them. Mokele

You mean the one that got banned?

Actually, that's not how it works at all. Evolution is strictly a short-term, individual-oriented approach. If it works for the individual, to hell with how it affects others or the ecosystem. A predator does not stop evolving a better method of catching prey because it might alter the ecosystem. Mokele

Besides, shouldn't the contents of the forums (and the useful information contained herein) be open to the public, in order to spread said information? Mokele

Actually, iirc, the periodicity is around 26 million years, not 100, with a steady rate of background extinction. Interestingly, Raup (where the above comes from) also noted that "mass extinction" seems to be a rather arbitrary designation, since the 'big ones' are merely the large end of a range of intensities. As for the re-emergence of large reptiles as dominant land fauna, it's possible, but so are a wide varity of other things, such as new mammal forms, terrestrial birds, or maybe something totally new. It all depends on the circumstances at the time. Mokele

Yes, and? I fail to see where the question is; all of this is well-known.

Or it's entirely possible that one or another might not even exist anymore; after all, parties have risen and died before in US history. It'd be quite interesting to watch the process firsthand. Mokele

Yes, I think it's a good idea to put an end to the time-wasting all around, espcially since you will not read the actual content of posts adressed to you nor actually answer points raised. Since you are clearly incapable of discussing your ideas in anything resembling a mature fashion, this thread is closed.

1) My wonderful and perfect girlfriend. How often do you find a beautiful, sexy, kinky brilliant woman who loves reptiles and, when taken to the movies actually says "Ooo, Aliens vs Predator, let's see that!" (before we realized how bad it was). 2) My insatiable thirst for knowledge and understanding. If there was a #3, it'd be my pets. Mokele

Why would I need to try it? I've already done it before, many times. NCIB offers a similar (and I feel, superior) search which allows you to find genes by nucleotide sequences located at *any* point in the gene, intron or exon. You've merely wasted your time creating an inferior copy of an already-exiting service. Why don't you actually try answering the question: Why do you think this is anything special? What makes you think this is anything but the result of randomness? Either actually present your ideas in full, admit you don't have anything, or stop wasting our time. Mokele

Well, first, we have an a-priori reason to expect constancy (that decay is governed by somewhat simple rules of atomic physics), which we don't have in any of the instances you raised before. But, more importantly, we can check by checking two against each other. If we get the predicted ages for one item with two methods, then take the age of a different sample with both methods, and all measures agree, we can be reasonably sure that both rates are constant and linear, since even if they agreed on the first, if one or both were non-linear, they would not agree on the second unless they were *identically* non-linear. The more different tests we check this way, the more likely it becomes that our a-priori prediction from physics of constant decay rate is right. Can we 100% know? Of course not, science is always inductive. But we *can* know to a very high degree of statistical certainty. Mokele

Not exactly. See, we have a long list of strata from places all over the world, and enough overlap so that we can make a total list of strata from now until almost the beginning of life. In many of these strata, we have volcanic inclusions of sorts that allow us to know that the lava was deposited at a particular boundary. The lava *does* contain uranium and such, at known initial concentrations, so we can use that the date the strata, then the strata to date the fossils. Mokele

Before you go, I *highly* recommaned Lamar's "Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere" as a guide for things not to touch. I'm positive that there are coral snakes down there (relatives of cobras) which don't obey the red-touches-yellow rule and can reach 6 feet long, along with some mimics. When in doubt, don't touch it. Best of luck, and name a species after SFN! Mokele

So, wait, there's 68 *billion* possible combinations via randomness, and you're *suprised* that each of the couple of million genes we've sequenced is different? That's like being suprised that each of the past 200 lottery numbers have been different. That's just *probability*, not "unique markers left by aliens". You're looking so hard for what isn't there that you're mistaking even random probability for evidence. Mokele

Google has a specific search, google scholar, that searches indices of peer-reviewed journals. This is basically the same thing as any other journal search engine, except that it's free. And better; I've found more stuff on google scholar than on any other journal search. Shit, the prof teaching my evo class admits *he* uses google scholar preferentially. Mokele

Word and excel. Seriously, I have made a lot of progress in experiments simply by taking them from ideas and writing them down on paper, explaining them to others, etc. Mokele

Towards evolution, almost none. C14 dating would only be useful for Pleistocene and Holocene specimens (and dubiously on the fomrer), and most studies involving fossilized species are much older and span much longer times, so C14 isn't used. There are numerous methods of radiometric dating, all with various limitations. But all also overlap to some degree, and thus can be used to calibrate one another. Mokele

Well, mystery solved, it turns out the guy who fixed the computer a few weeks ago made the account and forgot to take it off. So much for that, but thanks for all the help! Mokele

Ok, so if I can't see either of those, does that mean I actually *don't* have an admin account? If so, is there any way I can either make this account admin or see things anyway? Mokele