Arete

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    1583
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Arete last won the day on November 18 2018

Arete had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1194 Glorious Leader

About Arete

  • Rank
    Biology Expert

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Ecological speciation, functional genomics, phylogenetics, population genetics and evolution.
  • College Major/Degree
    PhD
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Evolutionary Biology
  • Occupation
    Assistant Professor

Recent Profile Visitors

28887 profile views
  1. Yes, I read it. The population was closed to migration and 1/3 of the population had a de novo deleterious mutation. That doesn't represent a model of global extinction, so I repeat, how?
  2. How? That's not how deleterious mutations work...
  3. Area wide sterile insect technique with transgenic mosquitoes is already widely implemented to eliminate insect vectors, including Anopheles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946175/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20821345 Although, given that there are hundreds of species of plasmodium and thousands of species of mosquitoes that vector them, one has to wonder if the ecological vacuum left by eliminating one vector might be filled by something that makes you wish you had the species you wiped out back. The evolution of host and pathogen tends to proceed on a trajectory towards reduced virulence over time, which is why emergent zoonotic infections are often so nasty.
  4. If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so.
  5. The CDC states that condoms are 91% effective in preventing HIV transmission via anal sex. So im going to posit that the 50% figure was simply fabricated.
  6. Allow me to clarify - you justified why it was acceptable for you to simply make things up and dismiss evidence provided by others. When you did that, you demonstrated that nothing you have to say is worth listening to. A worthwhile discussion requires a preponderance of evidence.
  7. When your default position is “everything that contradicts my position is fake news” your position becomes dismissiable, in its entirety, with contempt. Especially in science.
  8. This is up there with the weakest rebuttal to a peer reviewed paper I’ve ever seen. Data is immune to ideology. If there is a study out there to support that abstinence only sex education reduces rates of premarital sex, I’m sure it would add to the discussion. Out of hand dismissal of the data and a rebuttal of “I’m sure I can find evidence to support my argument if I tried” is worthless and indicates a lack of good faith.
  9. Abstinence only sexual education goes hand in hand with the pro life movement. It's virtually impossible to disentangle the two. The problem with this is that abstinence only sex education doesn't reduce the rate of premarital sex. What it does instead is leads to people having sex without the knowledge of how to prevent the spread of STI's. So, it not only fails at its intended purpose, it needlessly exposes people to preventable infectious diseases. In a similar vein, stricter abortion laws are not only correlated with higher abortion rates, but also an increased risk of death for women seeking illegal medical procedures. Legislating morality generally backfires. Approaching people with compassion, without judgement, and trying to minimize suffering tends to lead to a positive result for all.
  10. If the OP had a genuine question about the practical utility of phylogenetic inference, I would have thought a handful of review papers explicitly explaining how it is used in various applied fields would be a useful answer - but as was demonstrated it was a disingenuous OP and they were rejected out of hand. Probably should've just said "Sure bud" and gone back to doing useful things with phylogenies, but hey, I had beer that needed drinking and the TV was boring.
  11. I would argue they do, The idea that heating/cooling cycles explained the shape of the continents was disproven when existing and new data fit the new idea of plate tectonics more precisely. I would accept (probably after a lot of hat eating) a better explanation of the incomprehensible quantity of data that fits the contemporary theory of evolution - but I wouldn't accept the notion that the data don't fit the theory in the absence of a better model, because they do.
  12. Plate tectonics is probably the quintessential example of a theory that resulted in a complete paradigm shift. Although, one day is hyperbole - it took 50 years give or take. In my field, though less dramatic, it's probably the emergence of methylation and epigenetics are heritable components of traits. Edit: You're partially correct - it is relatively standard to proceed using the best current model unless a new, better model is proposed which fits the data more wholly.
  13. Of course. If evolution were disproven tomorrow it would be the most exciting day ever to be an evolutionary biologist. But you'd have to come up with something pretty amazing to better explain the reams of data produced every day which boringly conforms to the predictions of contemporary evolutionary theory.
  14. The microbes will take any concept one has of the division between micro and macro evolution, laugh at you and do whatever the hell they want. Different species? Ha, it's a couple of genes that produce a totally different phenotype, and they're on plasmids, and can make the bacteria kill you or be totally harmless. I'm looking at you Bacillus ACT group.