Mokele

Wrong. Take the claim "There are white ravens." It is impossible to 100% disprove this, though many, many, many observations may come close. However, it *IS* possible to prove that a white raven does exist: catch one and let people see. Wrong again. Many potential sources of bias are, to some extent, predictable and accomodatable. Others would be noticed when the experiment is replicated and yields different results. In fact, there are many, many papers out there illustrating what we've learned over the years about bias. Suffice to say, we're far more aware of potential bias than you are, and even have a sophisticated system of nomenclature for the various categories. And yes, there is even a term for and acknowledgement of the (slim) possibility that invisible space monkeys are deliberately messing things up. Wrong yet again. See above. If you *really* want, I can even dig up the citation for the paper that explicity acknowledges that there are undetectable sources of bias we can do nothing about. Hell, you can dig it up. Just search the journal "Ecology" for the term psuedoreplication and read the first paper that comes up. Sure it can. If I believe there are no white ravens, and a biologist captures one and shows it to me, science have overriden my belief, end of story. No it isn't. Just because someone claims a difference exists doesn't mean there really is one; it may be their own wishful thinking. Let's take two examples, shall we? Both are of the same subject, and drawn from an area familiar to me. In the captive reptile market, there occaisionally crop up animals with color mutations of all sorts. Naturally, as rarities, they become desirable. However, in order to make money off them, they are used to found lines that are continually inbred. Now, in other animals, we have abundant data that inbreeding results in decreased fitness, decreased genetic health, higher incidence of genetic diseases, and, in extreme cases, severe birth defects. I claim this applies to snakes, because we have no a priori reason to expect snake genes to behave any differently from any other animal's genes. Others may object, as you claim, but such objections are without merit or basis unless they can give me a reason *why* snake genes don't work like all other animals (incidentally, their own breeding projects rely on the principles that predict their downfall, and subsequent data on snakes has shown that inbreeding affects them too). Now, imagine I make the same arguement for the evening primrose, a very pretty little flower. Here, the situation is different, as those knowledgable in the genetics of this plant can point out that there is something *VERY* peculiar about its mode of inheritance, and thus the normal rules may not apply. (google them to find out, but roughly speaking, there's no independent assortment of alleles due to a chromosomal peculiarity) Notice the difference between the two? In one case, there is a strong reason to suspect my claims are wrong (the screwy inheritance of this particular plant), while in another, there is no reason whatsoever to believe objections to my claims. Of course, there's always the simple way out: do the experiments again on an closer population or the one in question (if feasible). That sure does. Actually, no, most of the reasoning is quite simple, and is really hard to screw up. For instance, simple geometry predicts that if an animal increases in linear size while remaining proportionally identical, then all surface areas will increase to the square and volumes to the cube. Because this is interesting to me, I measure the mass versus length of a particular species of snake as it grows. I plot the data, and see it isn't cubic in scale. I therefore conclude that the animal isn't scaling strictly proportionally. Gee, that was hard. Sure, I try to figure out why, but that's the next paper, with similarly direct lines of reasoning, such as "if increased body mass confers increased number of eggs per clutch, females should be larger than males", and hey, look, the data agrees, which means I'm probably right. Then I test it in other species where clutch size is limited by other factors to see if that supports me. Whee it does! That's how science works. Simple questions, direct experiments/tests, simple answers. String a few simple answers together and try to make a slightly bigger answer, then test that with a bigger, more complicated experiment. Repeat. Science is based on empirical evidence, because for any assertion science makes, the train of reasoning *ALWAYS* comes back to an empirical experiment. Now, that doesn't mean it's always right, but that self-correcting nature of science takes care of that. Bullshit, and you know it. Just because people *think* their views are based on empirical evidence doesn't make it so. Most often, they're based on biased memories, annecdotes, and other such flimsy garbage that is prone to massive error. In contrast, if I claim that, say, boas have the remnants of hind limbs, I can actually show you the evidence. I can haul out a boa and show you the spurs; I can show you them on a skeleton; I can show you a series of cleared embryos with the limbs of boas and mice visibly stained by a chemical that binds to *precisely* the same genetic code, and show, via knockout mutations in mice, that this code is responsible for hind limbs. Yes, there are always people who will bury their heads in the sand when presented with evidence. That doesn't mean their arguements are worth anything. Mokele

Ok, this just completely made my day: The Thagomizer You just can't beat a science that names portions of animal anatomy after Far Side cartoons.... Mokele

Um, that's all backwards. A seahorse is a fish, and therefore shares a common ancestor with the horse about 370 mya. The starfish, on the other hand, is a totally different phylum, and has not shared a common ancestor with fish, horses, or any other vertebrate for 530 my. So technically, a sea-horse is more closely related to a horse than a star-fish is related to a fish. Also, fish (including seahorses), all other vertebrates, echinoderms, and an odd phylum called the Chaetognathes are all deuterostomes. Mokele

After you grab a snake is about 20 seconds too late to be pondering whether or not it's venomous.

Thanks for all the input, guys! After a bit of shopping around, I found that JesuBungle is right about paying for the case; I can get a Dell (who apparently own Alienware anyway) laptop with the same specs for about $400 less. As for the hard drive, I'm torn; It's not really a work machine, so I'm not sure I'll be doing much large-scale data movement on it, but on the other hand, I'd rather not box myself in with old performance if future software for some reason needs higher performance. Mokele

Not necessarily. What if that locus is the protien that governs sperm recognition by the egg? Now the two alleles are incompatable. The changes that genetically isolate two populations can be major (big morphological or habitat changes), but can also be minor (doing the wrong courtship dance, having the wrong colors to be identified as a potential mate, having a larval stage that requires the metabolic product one one host but not another). Of course, there's also the factor of when and where during life genes turn on and off. We're 98% identical to a chimp not because we're that close morphologically (clearly not), but because we build our bodies with the same developmental toolbox, and just change when and where certain tools are used. (Think of it like a house; most houses are made with the same materials and tools, but it's how the tools are used, how the materials are manipulated, and how they're put together that matter.) Of course, the reproductive isolation definition isn't perferct either; I've seen living offspring of cross-*genus* hybrids (though I doubt it was fertile). Plenty of hybrids are either self fertile or fertile with a parent species. So basically, it's a big, ugly mess without any nice clean rules that can be applied, and attempts to make nice clean rules will inevitably be foiled by the sheer messiness of nature. Mokele

I'm considering buying a laptop, and I was specifically considering one from Alienware. They seem very good and high end, and while I don't need too much high-end stuff, I figure if I get a good machine, it'll be longer before I have to replace it. So, a few questions: 1) What has everyone heard about Alienware in general? Good? Bad? I've heard generally good things, but a few problems due to high heat and weight (though the model I'm looking at, the 15" Area 51, is apparently only 6 lbs or so). 2) Is bluetooth worth the extra $30 or so? 3) They come with either 5400 RPM or 7200 RPM hard drives. I know the latter will be faster, but by how much? How important is RPM, especially in a machine with lots of processing power and RAM? 4) Does anyone know how upgradable laptops are? Can the manufacturer upgrade them for me, if it's not too old? Thanks! Mokele

I am having tremendous difficulty restraining myself here. You've just set yourself up so perfectly, but what I want to say, while funny, is probably way beyond the boundaries of good taste on this forum. Plus by now I think everyone's figured out what I was going to say. If not, well, I'll tell you when you're older.... Mokele

Am I invisible or something? I'll repeat: In the US, there are *NUMEROUS* governmental organizations that regulate laboratory animal treatment for *all* labs, private and academic. Why the hell hasn't anyone simply alerted these organizations? USDA, for one. They *will* inspect the lab (not that they don't regularly inspect anyway), and if there's a violation, it will be shut down. Seriously, where is this flat-out erroneous assumption that there's no regulatory agency to turn to coming from?! My university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee reports to SEVEN, count 'em, SEVEN different governmental and non-governmental oversight organizations, most of which also regulate private agencies and *ALL* of which heavily regulate mammals. If this is a legitimate issue, why hasn't anyone simply picked up the phone and reported it? It really is that bloody simple. Mokele

So, how do you even what species to look at when comparing genomes for changed genes? How can you understand anatomy, or behavior, without understanding the past? Genes are nice, but we can only study the genes of extant animals, which gives us a very poor picture of evolution as a whole. This was vividly illustrated when we tried to create a gene-based phylogeny for mammals. The results were totally different from all morphology-based phylogenies, and for a long time, nobody knew why. Then some very smart person realized that genes only come from extant species, and re-ran the phylogeny program using morphology from living species only. The results were the same. This means the gene-based phylogeny was *wrong*, because it lacked vital data only availible from paleontology. Genes can't answer why you have a hyoid bone, only explain how it forms. Only with paleontological data does it become obvious it's the relic of your gill arches. Ditto from your inner ear bones: no extant species has intermediate morphology. The only clue comes from fossils. Same thing for whales: genetic texts can never sort out which group they're closest too, and fossils show the reason, namely that they arose from a very basal group that's now totally extinct. History has a powerful grip. Often the ability of a species to adapt in particular ways is limited by anatomical or developmental factors that evolved hundreds of millions of years ago in totally different circumstances. IMHO, any biology student who doesn't have a basic grasp of the fossil record is half-educated. Mokele

Why not report this to any of the numerous government agencies in charge of laboratory practices? They're mammals, so if I recall, there's at least 7 different organizations (some governmental, some private & non-profit) that regulate this stuff. The USDA would be one place to start. Mokele

I won't do anything but make you smell funny.

Actually, UV makes bonds, specifically between adjacent thymines. This causes the DNA to "kink", and results it errors during replication. Not everyone can with the Darwin Awards. For those who can't but should, I recommend this guy's book. Mokele

There are numerous breed-specific genetic diseases caused by mutations and the deleterious effects of inbreeding. Two papers are: http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/10/9/1271.pdf http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/165 Both use the dog genome to identify mutations of interest. However, I also think you're drastically underestimating the rate at which germline mutations occur. On average, a newborn human contains 5 mutations that affect final protien structure. Here's a paper on the overall mutation rate in mammals, which is apparently a constant rate per year per base (accounting for the higher rates of some species). As you can see from the number (multiplied by the number of bases in a genome), mutations are very, very common. Even gene duplication events are more common than we think. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/2/803 Mokele

However, sometimes it's necessary to introduce a totally new concept. That's why I like analogies so much: even a totally new concept can be likened to something familiar. Mokele

But mutation is part of microevolution too. New genes arise and spread through populations. Consider the populations on two islands, which start out the same. Both will evolve to suit their environment, which involves mutations as well as just changes in frequency. Eventually, enough differences accumulate that the two no longer could or would interbreed if re-introduced. The important thing that I think you've missed is that mutation and new genes are not strictly macroevolutionary, and occur within populations during microevolution as well. It's also important to remember that all individuals have a resevoir of genetic diversity. On average, individual vertebrates are heterozygous at 5% of their genome, far too many genes for selection to effectively act on (plus most are neutral and constantly being mixed within the populations). Mokele

To hell with the economics, I'm just glad I might actually be able to afford my own home at some point in the future.

Yes, but that value is purely mental satisfaction. Unless one restricts oneself to realistic possibilities, there's no actually value in the form of getting things accomplished. And your views will be on the polls? Really? I want you to find any bill or any voter referendum, ANYTHING, at ANY level that seriously moved towards reducing the benefits of married couples. You can't, because nothing like that will *ever* happen: humans are far too inherently selfish to give up advantages for any reason. When I go to vote, I'll be casting my vote for *realistic* alternatives, not waiting for the magic pink libertarian fairy to appear and wave its wand to make the entire political process and human nature change. Precisely; it's a forgone conclusion for any rational human with a brain bigger than a grape. So why bother wasting time on theoretical possibilities which will *never* work, when the solution is obvious? Like I said, it's like a damn String Theory conference: all bluster and pretty theories, but nothing with any actual use. Mokele

As I've said before, yes, it would be nice if the government got out of marriage altogether, but it will *never* happen. We might as well waste time hypothesizing about honest politicians or campaign finance reform or pink magical unicorns. None exist, none ever will, so why waste time with hypotheticals? Because it's the policy of a party which has never held any real power? Sure, it would be nice if the government didn't grant any relationship any special priveledge. It would be nice if I shit gold nuggets. Neither will ever happen. Seriously, try to imagine it. You could *never* campaign on it; you'd be shouted down as "anti-family" and "hurting America" before you even finished the sentence, your political career dead. No bill introduced to effect such a change would *ever* pass, because anyone who voted for it would be committing total poltical suicide. And even if someone activated the Infinite Improbability Drive, resulting in such a bill's passage, *everyone* voting for it would be voted out the next election, and the first act of the new legislature would be to repeal the bill and re-instate benefits, to great public acclaim. If you want to mentally mastrubate about a future where pink fairies constantly feed you sandwiches made of kittens who shit gumdrops while the Libertarians enjoy widespread public support, feel free, but at least use a damn tissue rather than leaving the results all over this board. While you're busy patting yourself on the back for fantasizing about what never can and never will be, some of us are actually trying *realistic* methods of alleviating the injustices wrought by the Stormtroopers-for-Jesus. If I saw any more mutual theoretical mastrubation, I'd think I was at a String Theory presentation. Act like scientists and deal with empirical reality as it is, not as you wish it was. Mokele

Those seeking to do as above (force their views on everyone) explicitly in the name of their religion (often while abusing their own religion's teaching to do it). Thanks! Mokele

Well, at least two states have had the balls to do the right thing. I guess now we wait for the American Taliban to once again strip the rights from other Americans for the crime of being different. Mokele

Rather than post the whole thing, I'll just use a link: Prologue of Morphogenesis There are links lower down, in the author's notes section, to the first chapter, and subsequent chapters thereafter (14 have been posted so far). It's not "High Science Fiction", in that it's not in space, far in the future, or anything like that; It's set in the modern day, but involves aliens, shapeshifters, socialist revolution, theocracy and invasive alien species. While the overall plot is relatively seriously, the general tone, especially in the dialogue, is quite humorous. Mokele

Those who seek to impose their moral rules on everyone else through laws, rather than simply letting people live according to their individual beleifs (you know, that pesky thing called "freedom"). This essentially means the Christian Right, though the same can be said for other organizations such as PETA. Mokele

No, it's a hollow ball of undifferentiated cells, period. The sequences goes egg+sperm -> zygote -> morula -> blastula -> gastrula -> neurula -> rest of development. The zygote divides into a bunch of cells, the morula, which hollows out to become the blastula, which then develops an invagination (which will become the gut, with some outgrowth cells becoming muscle, connective tissue, etc) to become the gastrula, then a fold forms on one side of the outside to make what will become the nervous tissue in the neurula stage. To apply "personhood" to something that doesn't even have the cellular precursors to proto-nerve cells yet is utterly ridiculous. Mokele

The only issue here is that the American Taliban are feeling guilty because the ad actually shows the suffering they are allowing to continue. IMHO, he did a good think. Everyone who votes against stem-cell research should be taken to a hospital burn ward, then given a chance to change their votes. Honestly, this is why I don't even listen to politics anymore. Most of them aren't even human anymore, by any moral standard. Mokele