Mokele

But what about learning, for instance? This can clearly affect survival in important ways (ex:"don't eat that plant/snake, it's poisonous/venomous) and occurs at the organismal level based on experiences. While the ability to learn is coded for by genes, the actual content is not. I'm confused. While we've been saying "gene", shouldn't we properly be saying "allele", in that alleles are competing for representation in their locus/gene? If so, shouldn't the sickle-cell and non-sickle-cell alleles be in direct competition? Or am I missing something? I'm more on the organismal level (as you've probably guessed), so this is sort of at the edge of my purview. I'm not sure about this statement. I'd think that short, fast lives (like insects) would be beneficial, in that the genes would have shorter times between replications. So far as I know, selection works equally well on elephants and dung beetles. It's an accident all around. My position is that the genes are the currency of evolution, and that they *do* act in a manner like you describe, but that it's what happens to the organism that is selective. The genes put together the best organism they can, then selection happens to that organism, and then the genes either profit or lose as a result. Just like the team works together to play the best game they can, and the whole team wins or loses, and that affects everyone's careers. You're kidding me, right? Hell, you already know more than (and can discuss better than) most of the people I graduated with. In all seriousness, your extracuricular reading has and will serve you well; it certainly helped me. An additional tip: ask the teachers about undergrad research. While classes are great, if you can get in with a lab doing what you want, it can be a major boost and generally give you a really good idea of just what you want to do and how to do it. Hell, I only did it for 1.5 years, and, since I stayed at the same place for my (current) masters work (not always recommended, I had special circumstances), I'm already 3/5 done with the first chapter of my thesis, before I even start. Well, stick around here, of course, but http://www.talkorigins.org also has a lot of information (and I mean a *lot*), as well as, oddly enough, wikipedia. Irony of the day: I did most of my extra-curricular reading in Gould. ;-) Mokele

Tell them only my giant atomic reptile powers can save earth, and they should each send me $1000 cash.

Well, maybe for public exhibition, but not necessarily for actual scientific study.

My favorite was "Giant dinosaur eats scientist in Brazilian jungle", with a picture of an rhino iguana and a pair of badly-photoshopped legs sticking out of it's mouth.

Ok, now, I don't really have much to add to this debate except for on this point. The answer to the question has been a resounding "We don't know". This has been because, apparently, access to pot for experimental purposes is severely restricted, apparently more so than some other and worse drugs. This has greatly hindered our understanding of what it does, how it does it, atc, especially in long-term studies. Without this information, it's hard to make informed decisions, either personal or political. Mokele

And why do you dismiss the possibility that they *were* born gay, but were simply unable to figure it out until recently? That's not uncommon, especially given how society's views on the subject can lead individuals into deep denial for the sake of mental self-preservation. Mokele

::nods:: Thanks very much! The only reasons it's on a mere 5V is that a) I was afraid it's get too cold and freeze the plant and b) I couldn't find a power supply that would "fit". The two peltiers together are 3 Ohms, and I looked all over for something that would give both a high voltage *and* could take the resultant amps. (I posted about that before, and IIRC, you also responded to that one). The best I could find was an old laptop power supply at 5V. Or at least, the best which didn't cost far more than I was willing to spend. It was only recently I hit on the idea of using a scronged computer power supply instead. Of course, if there's some cheap and obvious alternative that I'm just not aware of, please clue me in, since I know that this electronics project is about 4 levels above my experience/knowledge in the subject, and I'm sorta (ok, *really*) winging it. Mokele

Can you explain why not? I'm a bit lost at this point... It's actually a model (in a way) of what goes on in the arm of a brittlestar (they move by means of muscles in the arms, as opposed to the usual starfish use of tube-feet). The arm is a series of disks, acted upon by peripherally arranged muscles which only span the distance between successive disks. So basically, imagine this as the last two joints of the brittlestar arm. I'm trying to figure out, if the muscles on one side contract simultaneously (generating two equal torques about the joints), what the force would be on an object at the very, very tip (like a pebble the animal was bracing against). Mokele

Factually incorrect. A modest amount of googling should dispell this myth for you, and I suggest you start at the PFLAG website. Homosexuality has a genetic component, as well as environmental components. The latter appear to occur no later than age 4, iirc. My bet would be on in-utero chemicals or pheremones, but the jury's still out. However, even *if* it was a choice, well, so's religion. We have laws stating you cannot persecute someone for their faith, and most civilized individuals would consider something like that to be intolerant and hateful. So why balk at showing the same courtesy to other sexual orientations? Mokele

The problem is, what about someone who doesn't love or respect the US, yet lacks the means to sever that dependence (for instance, given the context of this discussion, a kid who is still under his parent's control and therefore cannot move away or otherwise sever said bond for legal and practical reasons)? Also, some individuals (of certain religions, iirc) cannot take oaths and make pledges to any power other than god directly, so requirement to take the pledge would violate their 1st ammendment rights. Plus, on a less legal note, I think pledges and oaths should be taken more seriously than the US pledge currently is. Perhaps some non-oath alternative until kids are old enough to make an informed decision? But that's just me, I don't like swearing to something unless I know damn well what it is. Mokele

A small side note: The 9th ammendment to the US constitution states that the government shall not deny or disparage any right simply because it is not enumerated explicitly. (Unless, of course, there's legitimate reason, like someone claiming the right to be a serial killer) Also, iirc, one of the other ammendments (14th? Anyone know?) guarantees all people "equal protection under the law", which basically means you can't have a law that only applies to one group of people for no good reason. So, while there's no explicit mention, there are sections of the US constitution that are applicable (and, iirc, form the legal basis for the pro-marriage arguement). Mokele

Well, considering it's on 5V now, I'm pretty sure. The stats I got from the dealer said my model was rated up to 15V, iirc. Special "hi-temp" thingy. Mokele

I like the analogy of genes working in "teams", but doesn't that reinforce my point? They're stuck in their team, and whether they get to the next round (reproduce) depends on the *whole* team. If one team member screws everything up, they all go down. As for sickle-cell, I'm not sure that really does bolster your point, either? How does gene-selection theory account for heterozygote advantage? Seems to me, it would predict a total take-over by one or the other (in a 'selfsih' manner), rather than a stabilizing effect. Genes are what is affected by selection, and are the best currency to measure evolution in, but the act of selection itself mostly occurs at the organismal level, at the level of the "teams of genes". Or, to abuse the team analogy a bit, even if the players are cooperating but still looking out for number 1, it's the team as a whole who wins or loses the game. Mokele

Yes, I understand. My point is that while that particular trait may be superior, the process of inbreeding will bring out so many other traits, mostly bad, that the *cummulative* effect of the animal's fitness with be a decrease. But population bottlenecks and founder effect are *rarely* selective, so your small population would not have all good traits. On top of this, even if it *was*, many damaging mutations could be hiding in recessive form (and since selection acts only of phenotype, they could not be totally weeded out). These hidden deleterious traits would be exposed via inbreeding and increased in frequency. This would *damage* the otherwise strong population. The experiment I described, with birds, was actually done in the wild, IIRC, so they were exposed to natural selection pressures. As for drawing conclusions, I'm not saying it can *never* be beneficial. It is possible, just very, very unlikely. My point (overall) is that it probably has either a) no detectable effect compared to other factors like selection and founder effect or b) has a negative effect in so many cases that positive effects should be considered an anomaly, not a mechanism of evolution. Breeding of any sort is randomly assortive, but is not selective. In the bit above, you describe two things: the reproduction and the action of natural selection on the offspring. The selective part is the latter, the former is non-selective (aside from the usual competition for mates). Basically, say Bob is heterogyzous for a lethal disease allele. When Bob breeds, there is a 50% chance of the kid getting the bad allele, and 50% chance of the kid getting the good one. In short, the process of gametogenesis and fertilization do not distinguish between "good" and "bad" genes, and are therefore not selective. Once the kid is born, then it is exposed to natural selection, which can weed out or keep those genes. You're right, we're just talking past each other, at different levels. The likelyhood of borthers and sisters sharing genes *is* increased, so if they mate together (rather than with non-siblings), they will be more likely to produce of a homozygote. For recessive lethal genes, this means more likihood of birth defects, but this applys across the board - because brothers and sisters are more likely to share the same allele at *all* loci, there is an increase in homozygosity at *all* loci in the inbred population over time. The birth defects are simply the "flag" that this declining heterozygosity is occuring. And, of course, because gametes don't assort by the selective effect of their genes, which trait becomes fixed is pretty much random. Mokele

That's what "Overnight" means? Damn, so that's why I still haven't gotten my Fed-Ex packages....

I dunno if this is what you're thinking, but Calligula once said "Let them hate me, so long as they fear me." ::Stomps my rampage in mid-stomp:: ::Looks sheepish and straightens up a building, which then crumbles to rubble:: ::Tries to walk off whistling and looking nonchalant and innocent::

Ok, Mullerian, as you probably know, is when two noxious species converge on a similar warning system to facilitate the learning process for their predators and gain mutual protection. But, once that system is up and running, any mutant in either species who lacks toxins will still gain the benefits of the coloration (all the benefits, none of the costs, in effect). If that's so, does that mean that mullerian mimicry pairs are inherently unstable, and will become Batesian the moment one enterprising species gets the right mutation? If not, why not? Mokele

Ahh, thanks very much YT and Lance, that explains it! Now let's hope I really do understand and don't burn my apartment down. Well, I'm plugging it in to a peltier system whose sole purpose is a heat pump (to keep the roots of a fussy plant cool). Currently, the system has 5 volts running across it, and it's not doing jack crap (the heat sinks on the hot side are barely warm, and the pot of the plant is definitely not cool enough). I'm hoping to experiment with this at a more leisurely pace over the winter, when the plant in question is in dormancy (and therefore won't be killed by my inevitable screw-ups). Mokele

So is my revised formula right?

I asked my Evo prof that one (hence why I mentioned it), and he didn't know (neither do I, hence why I asked). I was interested because I figured that if you have two toxic species with the same or similar enough coloration (Mullerian mimicry), wouldn't the one that "cheats" and loses its toxic potential still benefit from the mimicry but without the cost of actually being toxic (becoming Batesian mimics)? Maybe google scholar has something? Mokele

I recall a quote from confuscius: Do not try to be liked by everyone. It is better to be liked by the good and hated by the bad. Of course, I may be mis-remembering, but I need to run anyway. I'll check up on this later. Mokele

All moot points. Why would I want to keep my country infested with destructive, bald monkeys? Except maybe a few to feed the indigenous crocodile population.... Mokele

The misfits are just genetic variations, mutations that you're actually seeing because inbreeding makes them homozygous. That's not necessarily a good thing; many traits work best in heterozygous form. Yes, but inbreeding causes increased homozygosity at *all* loci. Your misfit might be great at one thing, but chances are it has *more* than enough now-homozygous negative mutations to outweight the benefits of that one beneficial trait. In experimental manipulations, inbreeding was found to cause a continual decline in fitness, because, as you probably know, negative mutations are more common, so if you make *everything* homozygous, you'll get more negative than positive. Mokele

The answer is that not all mutations are even significant, and not all possibilities exist. For the first point, note that most of DNA is just plain empty space, so mutation there will accomplish precisely nothing. Also, DNA is read in groups of 3, each group (codon) making an amino acid. But each amino acid is coded for by several codons, so even if a mutation occurs in the coding sequence, there's little chance of anything happening. On top of all that, there are four types of amino acid: acidic, basic, polar and uncharged. Replacing an acidic AA with another acidic one will likely do nothing. So, basically, most mutations do nothing (or at least not right away). On top of that, protiens can only do so many things, so you're limited by chemistry. And finally, the hot field of evo-devo: all organisms have developmental pathways, how the zygote becomes an adult. These constrain the possible effects of mutations, which is why you don't get animals with wheels. But developmental genes can *also* cause very rapid alterations in phenotype. In a recent experiment, a single mutant gene caused a mouse to grow enormously elongate fingers, like a bat. So, like all good questions, the answer to yours is "It depends..." Mokele

I think you are seriously overestimating the power of mathematics. Yes, there is a finite number of combinations, but which is the right one? Most yield functional protiens, so how do you choose? How do you *know* you have the right skin pigmentation, intestine length, breeding behavior, lung capacity, immune system or eyes? None of these fossilize, and we can't do anything except guess. What about (to steal a term from Zim) the dinosaur squeedlysploodge organ? We have no idea if they had entire organs that are unknown in modern species, because they don't fossilize. Basically, imagine you have a book, and you delete 99% of the letters, but not randomly. Some paragraphs are intact, but then you have 80 pages of blankness. How do you reconstruct that? The answer is you *can't*. You can make a guess, and make a crude fascimilie, but never truly recapture that data, since it's *gone*. Same thing. All we have are a few bones, with most of the important bits gone. Yes, with enough computing power you could engineer something that *looks* like a dinosaur, but it wouldn't really *be* a dinosaur. It'd just be a crude replica. Mokele