Archive for setembro 15th, 2012

Haeckels’ Recapitulation: Duvidas se era fraude ou não. Matrix/DNA interessada/Por Evolução continua e memorização

sábado, setembro 15th, 2012
  • ( Youtube – Bill Nye)

    The only reason you know about Heckel’s embryos or Piltdown man is because SCIENTISTS exposed them as frauds. Ignorant creationists contributed nothing because they don’t understand evolution or how it works.

    Also, do you have any evidence that these frauds are still being taught in Biology classes, as you claim?

    VesusSheist in reply to Angela Pearce (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

  • lol you claim to know the one true god. and have a better explanation of evolution and life than world class professors and scientists. and I’m the know it all?

    tsub0dai in reply to baseballbro1000 (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

  • How does creationism explain vestigial features in whales? Are whales not mammals? Why would some god put bones in an animal that serve no purpose?

    IDisnotscience 3 minutes ago

  • (cont.) I have a good friendship with one of the biologists/zoologists overseeing his museum and my wife’s cousin works in the “Haeckel House” and is responsible for cataloging 40,000 pages from Haeckel’s personal correspondence. As late as 1995 Haeckel’s drawing of Rekapitulation was included in a biology textbook authored by Ernst Mayr — who is the patriarch of the synthetic teaching of evolution. What excuse is there presenting evidence which has been exposed as a fraud for over 75 years?!

    RoccoP777 in reply to truvelocity (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

  • Then why was the fraud of Haeckels Embryos published in 2006 American biology books? Those were exposed back in 1901. Looks like the darwin cult members prefer frauds in science books than facts.

    Angela Pearce in reply to Peter van der Meer (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

  • hackels embryos were drawings. and usually used as a case for bad science. Again , if science knew evolution was a fraud. what do they gain from keeping it. exposing the fraud would win them the nobel prize.

    tsub0dai in reply to Angela Pearce (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Genética: Esta informação organizada a ser trabalhada pela Matrix/DNA

sábado, setembro 15th, 2012
  • http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=gHbYJfwFgOU&page=1xxx Just for the clowns here,who think they are junk and the majority of their DNA is an Evo left over,The encode project team has published a very interesting results for you,i let Jubi the pleasure to slap you with it: /watch?v=pUlLp0xmsZ0#t=12m00s
    the clowns are: DarwinsFriend,rogerdenrog,Jarl­axleDearthe,Thezuule1,narco73,­mechanicmike69,Atharkas,TheHig­herVoltage,truvelocity.and not to forget the biggest clown PZ myers,the maker of this show:/watch?v=DRsN7w7iW08

    YamiYami17 8 hours ago

  • ROFL Genesis Week… You must have the reading and listening comprehension skills of a third grader. 13 Papers came out (which I know you didn’t read) that identified SOME function to DNA that was thought to have been “junk dna.” That’s nothing, so what? Congratulations they figured out a few bits of it do something, they’ve also figured out what a lot of it USED TO DO AND DOES NOT DO ANYMORE. Like the fact you still have the DNA for making a tail, some kids still grow them….

    Thezuule1 in reply to YamiYami17 8 hours ago

  • “they figured out a few bits of it do something” We went from 15% doing something which is PZ’s claim,to at least 80% of it doing something,you claim an increase of 65% to be a few bits? Yes congratulation to all real scientists who really care to study DNA rather calling it junk!

    YamiYami17 in reply to Thezuule1 8 hours ago

  • Junk DNA is an anachronistic term pulled out and waved about by people who are not in the field of genetics. It was a bad term for non-coding DNA which just meant that it did not code for a known protein – there are other functions that DNA performs besides coding for proteins. The whole Junk DNA discussion was a sidetrack off of the real questions of what the DNA was doing regardless of whether it coded for a protein of not.

    albdavidt in reply to YamiYami17 7 hours ago

  • This comment has received too many negative votes

    I’m not sure if you want to play on words,but anyone who saw PZ’s lectures or other Evo gurus lectures will understand that,Evo left overs is the majority of our DNA,and thus the majority of our DNA is pure junk! Encode papers slapped the evolutionary hypothesis very very hard!

    YamiYami17 in reply to albdavidt 7 hours ago

  • The “junk” term is not accurate in that it is not descriptive. If your knew more about genetics you would already know that “junk” is not used by anyone studying genetics and DNA, it is used by the media to sell more papers. DNA contains many areas that code for products other than proteins. Interesting genetic research looks at the DNA and what the gene products code for. The ENCODE papers do a poor job of actually describing specifics.

    albdavidt in reply to YamiYami17 7 hours ago

  • “If you knew more about genetics you would already know that ‘junk’ is not used by anyone studying genetics and DNA….” Que? You might want to inform Larry Moran of the U. of Toronto, who still uses the term to define the up to 90% of the genome he estimates is nonfunctional. Why would the papers use the term “junk DNA” except to write wildly overhyped articles about how ‘function’ has been found for it? “DNA sequence characterized: does absolutely sod-all” isn’t going to win any Pulitzers.

    Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 7 hours ago

  • Coding for proteins is only one of the functions of DNA. Ignoring all DNA that does not code for protein and calling it junk simply because we do not know the function of it right now is sloppy science. Junk implies that that there is no use for it. A true scientific response would be to say that we do not yet know what that DNA is doing right now but are studying it. Junk is not descriptive either, if it is a duplication, call it a duplication, if it is a parasite, call it a parasite.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago

  • “Ignoring all DNA that does not code for protein and calling it junk simply because we do know the function of it right now is sloppy science.” Yes, that would be sloppy science, so it’s a good thing that that’s not what’s happening. There are persuasive positive arguments for why the majority of the genome must be junk, which were made after the existence of functional non-coding DNA was established. The only ignorance I’ve found is among those who insist the genome is primarily functional.

    Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 3 hours ago

  • It would be ignorant to say that the majority of the genome must be junk when no one knows what if anything the the majority of the genome codes for or if it is used or not. Even if it never codes for gene products within an organism, extra DNA would be a source of future variation that would not be available if it did not exist in a gene pool. Lack of variating in a population makes extinction more likely so there are benefits to maintaining non-productive DNA. Junk is a sloppy term.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago

  • “extra DNA would be a source of future variation that would not be available if it did not exist in a gene pool.” *ring, ring* Excuse me, a Mr. Darwin would like to have a word with you. He says that no DNA ever becomes established in a population because of its potential future usefulness. That kind of argument is dangerously close to teleology. Natural selection requires that this DNA be expressed in the phenotype *now* or not at all. *click* Also it also doesn’t satisfy the onion test.

    Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 2 hours ago

  • Populations go extinct for lack of competitive variation. Extra DNA is expensive in terms of the time it takes to replicate. If cost were the only factor, extra DNA would be selected against. Having additional variation available in the form of alternate genetic information means more variation to select against. Populations with higher variation are less likely to face extinction than populations with less variety.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 2 hours ago

  • This comment has received too many negative votes

    1) *Some* might. 2) Show me a selection coefficient that supports your claim that natural selection would sweep out extra DNA, and explain why it doesn’t apply to *this* DNA. 3) Show me that it is probable that this DNA will provide selectable functions, and how it is possible for natural selection to fix DNA in populations simply because of hypothetical usefulness. I’ll give you a starting point: 50% of the human genome consists of DEFECTIVE transposons. What’s their hypothetical function?

    Transposable elements can be means of duplication & mutation – a mechanism for creating new alleles, most still being deleterious. Errors in DNA replication make small mutations, transposable elements can make duplications & mutations. From what they do, transposable elements look like something between a parasite, in most forms, and a domesticated servants (like mitochondria and chloroplasts are to eukaryotic cells) in the case of our spliceosomes resemblance to type II introns. Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 2 minutes ago

    “Any other functionality that they possessed…” …which would be none. What use is a transposon that doesn’t transpose? “…would still be available for production of gene products,…” The product of a transposable element *is* the transposon. It’s not like transposable elements also carry along the gene for ATP synthase. “…or as a candidate for a mutation event.” As I already said, junk DNA provides loads of opportunities for mutation because none of it is under selective constraint.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 7 minutes ago

    • Natural selection does select for efficiency in that individual organisms that use too much of their limited resources on one of many required tasks are out competed by other individuals with a better balance. In this case this would depend on the costs of reproducing DNA not currently being used, the costs of removing unused DNA, the benefits faster DNA reproduction, & the benefits of the availability of extra DNA information, rather duplication and subsequent mutations again.

      albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

    • You’re starting to understand the issue, and in the majority of eukaryotes the consensus is that there isn’t much if any advantage to compact genomes. The mechanism of loss for extra DNA would most likely be excision by misalignment in meiosis, but that produces one short copy and one long copy. How would nature know to select the right copy? Since shorter gametes are more likely deleterious (excision frequently is damaging), you’d need a very strong selective pressure, which has its own costs.

      Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 2 minutes ago

    Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 1 hour ago

  • We don’t know what the majority of DNA codes for, but for variation, you do have to have something to vary. Phenotypic variation come from recombination of available alleles in a population. New allelic variation can come from mutation or transfer. Most mutations are deleterious and in functional genes are catastrophic. A mutation in a gene that has already been duplicated allows for the original gene product to be produced while allowing variation on a duplicated version through mutation.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 34 minutes ago

    • Yes, and junk DNA does give you a lot of variation, granted, but it’s a lot of variation because none of it is under selective constraint. Sequences can be added, deleted, changed, and none of it has any effect on phenotype. If nonfunctional DNA is supposed to be a reservoir for variation, then it will rapidly degrade to the point that it can no longer encode for anything, and what possible use would that be? This is similar to the IDist notion of “front-loading” and fails for the same reasons.

      Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 1 hour ago

    • Any amount of DNA is an area of DNA that is available for mutation. The larger the amount of DNA, the larger the area available for mutation and the larger the amount of variation possible under a given rate of mutation. Some portion of mutations are beneficial in some way to an organism. Having a larger portion of mutations available gives a larger portion of beneficial mutations and viable variations. In dynamic environments, variation in a population is important for survival.

      albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 39 minutes ago

    • Again, none of this soul-sucking drivel in addresses what I said. “Having a larger portion of mutations available gives a larger portion of beneficial mutations and viable variations.” Only *if* those mutations are visible to selection. If they’re not, then they are not beneficial at all, but just neutral. And regions of the genome that are invisible to natural selection tend to accumulate mutations faster and without regard for how they might wreck the potential functionality of the sequence.

      Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 4 minutes ago

      • @”Most mutations are deleterious” Prove it.

        emfederin in reply to albdavidt 1 hour ago

      • Most mutations are deleterious in that they confer reduced fitness if not outright inviability. You just have to get over the idea of a proof in science, there are proofs in mathematics but not in science. Concepts in science are supported with evidence. Most mutations are observed to reduce fitness or produce inviability.

        albdavidt in reply to emfederin 1 hour ago

      • @”Most mutations are deleterious in that they confer reduced fitness if not outright inviability” You’re pulling that out of your ass. Most mutations are benign. I never said science has any absolute proofs. Hell, You can’t prove your parents are your parents. What YOU have to get over is that remote possibilities are somehow competitive with high probabilities.

        emfederin in reply to albdavidt 2 minutes ago

        I don’t think albdavidt has gotten as far as neutral theory, frankly. And he is being consistent–if somewhat uninquisitive. He holds that all or almost all DNA is functional, and if it were most mutations probably would be deleterious. He doesn’t ask himself, though, how any species can survive this mutational load given a genome that is (almost) entirely functional. In any case, he’s wrong about the genome having widespread function, which is one reason why most mutations are actually neutral

        Nullifidian in reply to emfederin 4 minutes ago

        If “functionality of a sequence is wrecked” and this causes lower fitness, it is selected agains, just like the majority of all mutations are, which are deleterious to an individual. More and faster deleterious mutations are selected against – more often and faster. If a mutation is beneficial to an organism, that organism has greater success than individuals without the mutation and the frequency of that mutation increases in a population.

        albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

        Transposable elements splice segments of DNA in and out of a genome. They can cary part or all of a gene product coding segment of DNA. This is gene duplication. The exon duplicating and shuffling process of transposable elements allows for rapid evolution as compared to mutation alone.

        albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 3 minutes ago