LucidDreamer

delete

Definition of synergy: working better together than separately. He gave two options: One is where there was a causative nature or one where they both improved each other. Either way, I think it implies that there is a relation to culture and civilization. He just used the word selection, but I think it's obvious that means natural selection.

If you look at what I wrote you will not find one instance of me accusing the HHMI press of trying to slant their article or try to put a spin on it' date=' nor am I accusing the researchers of being racist. Perhaps you have a problem with the word implied. I am referring to the researcher’s comments about the correlation between the emergence of the popular polymorphic forms and the emergence of culture and civilization. If I said "In the case of Microcephalin, the origin of the new variant coincides with the emergence of culturally modern humans," wouldn't you say that I am implying that Microcephalin had something to do with the emergence of culturally modern humans or vice versa? That's a direct quote that you wanted by the way. This is what I have a problem with. As far as the implication of superiority, look at these: So they have identified two genes related to brain size and possibly cognition and that are important to the differences between human and chimpanzee brains. Then they looked for further changes in the human population of the same genes. So now they found two variations of the genes involved in cognition and one variation is more prevalent than the other variation and they believe that the popular version was selectively chosen by natural selection. Furthermore, the frequency of new variations of genes that codes for cognition that have been selectively chosen are found in Europe and Asia, but not sub-sahara Africa. I'm not sure how the implication that the European/Asian variations of these genes endow some sort of cognitive superiority that allows for better culture and civilization could be any clearer. This is really what he is saying in the bolded area "Just because you have one gene that makes you more likely to be a little smarter, doesn't mean you will be smart, given the complex effect of all your other genes and of the environment." I'm not sure it could be any clearer that he is implying that the two genes that he studied affect cognition and that the popular European/Asian variation is a version that is more likely to make you smarter or superior than the other variation, all other things being equal. Also, I have already supplied a quote where he relates his genes to improved ability to create culture and civilization. How could that not be considered superior if we are talking about humans? Why would I suggest that the publication was being unscientific? It's scientists that need to follow the scientific method and back up their claims with evidence. I am not claiming that there is anything wrong with the article; I am claiming that the scientist that they quoted is making claims that his research can't back. The fact that they found these genes that are related to microcephaly' date=' identified a great evolutionary changes from apes to humans, and have identified variations within the human population all seem very scientific to me. The problem lies with these statements: "Their analysis indicated that for each of the two genes, one haplogroup occurs at a frequency far higher than that expected by chance, indicating that natural selection has driven up the frequency of the haplogroup." There are a variety of reasons why one variation of a gene will be more widespread or popular than another; natural selection is not the only means. Asians have hair follicles that have different numbers of groupings of hairs than Europeans, but I don't believe that natural selection had any real influence on this. There are thousands of other examples of genes with variations with varying frequencies and ubiquitousness that seem to have little to do with natural selection. What the hell is this guy talking about? 37,000 years ago coincides with the emergence of culturally modern humans? If you want I can provide evidence of human culture from 75,000 years ago or a great explosion of art around 20,000 years ago so that he could claim that whatever period that his variation emerged it coincided with culturally modern humans. There are examples of culture all over the timeline from up to 77,000 years ago with various kinds of statues, cave paintings or what have you in various parts of the world. Pretending that it exactly coincides with his studies is just ridiculous. And another thing, I'm not sure what he did exactly to determine the timeframe that these variations emerged, but I from what I know of mutational studies you can't really predict an exact time. If there were any means to verify it I would bet everything I have that the variation did not emerge exactly 35,000 years ago. Those kinds of studies can usually only predict a very general range of time that it might have emerged and trying to strap that together with the emergence of culture and civilization is wishful thinking and has nothing to do with science. I provided the quotes to back up my argument, but if you really want to get into this then make a challenge, something to the effect "Microcephaly and ASPM have a strong correlation to the emergence of culture and civilization respectively, and the only plausible means of the emergence of the variations that we observe in the human populations is due to natural selection," and I will disagree and accept the challenge.

I may have introduced the word, but the term is implied in the article Skye linked to. Evolution is about adaptation to pressure, which results in improvements in an organisms ability to deal with his environment. When we speak of culture and civilization we speak of the very essence of what makes us human and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. An adaptation in humans that allows one population to produce more culture and a more efficient civilization is the very essence of superiority with regard to humans. We could give lip service to idea that genes and alleles that allow more culture and a better means to organize are not necessarily superior to not having the alleles, but tell that to the Neanderthals. My point is this: There are three possibilities that I can think of that would result in the very loose correlation between the polymorphic forms of these genes, and the advent of culture and civilization: 1) The popular and "superior" polymorphic forms of these genes preceded the proliferation of culture and civilization and provided an important genetic endowment to establish a more advanced society. 2) The popular and "superior" polymorphic forms of these genes were introduced into the population after the proliferation of culture and civilization and are a beneficial adaptation that gives somebody better chances to survive and procreate in an advanced society. 3) The popular and "superior" polymorphic forms of these genes provide no real benefit over the other forms in the creation of culture and civilization or the survivalability of an individual inside an advanced society and the greater frequency of certain polymorphic forms can be attributed to other factors. Another possibility is that the popular polymorphic forms of these genes provide some other benefit not related to culture or civilization, such as a greater resistance to encephalitis. The first two possibilities are basically what it seems the researcher is implying with his comments and I was only trying to offer an alternative possibility. Martin, it seems strange to me that you think I am trying to purposely and unnecessarily use inflammatory language when the very essence of the article is that there are two genes related to brain size, culture, civilization, and intelligence and that there are differences between Homo sapiens and primates and even differences within Homo sapien populations. I think the word superior is a very relevant word; a man may not be superior to a chimpanzee, but we only give citizenship and attribute human rights to one. The other one is kept in zoos with nothing to occupy his time other than to throw poo at his fellow inmates.

Finding two genes associated with microcephaly in humans, comparing them to other primates, and then identifying polymorphisms among current populations of Homo sapiens is very interesting and important, meaningful science. Trying to associate the emergence and frequency of the polymorphisms with the creation of culture and civilization is speculative. Suggesting that the popular forms of these genes somehow endow people with a substantially superior capacity to create culture and civilization is unsubstantiated and silly. Not that anyone on this forum has really suggested this; it just seems to me that somebody might take that interpretation from the article. I haven't really delved too deeply into this study, but I'm not really convinced that the popular forms of these genes even give an advantage. Some alleles, that are mostly neutral in their endowment, are spread and propagated without the means of specific natural selection. The Romans weren’t necessarily genetically superior to other people, yet they spread their people's genes all over Europe and the Mediterranean. The English weren't necessarily superior when they were spreading their genes all over the globe during their imperialism. Outside factors can influence the frequency of polymorphic forms of genes.

The cell uses energy to: Create proteins Replicate and transcribe DNA Store energy Transport various molecules into and out of the cell Break down toxins and harmful things

Although there is no real pinnacle of evolution, I suppose you could classify the pinnacle of evolution as the lack of evolution. What I mean by this is that animals that have relatively small changes in thier genomes, which we would determine by examining the fossil record and comparing them to other similar species, over a long period of time can be viewed as well-suited to their particular environment and niche. Animals that might meet these requirements are sharks and alligators /crocodiles, because we have found fossils of creatures tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years old with very similar morphology to the creatures we find today.

Never. One of the other populations of man would have spread all over the world if the Europeans didn't. I am assuming that you mean that there is something preventing humans from spreading all over the world and that something keeps them isolated. The problem is that there is no definitive means to separate two populations into two different species. There is also no standard rate of evolution that we could use to estimate how long it might take to reach a certain level of difference. That means that any type of calculation would be at best a farfetched speculation. So my answer is: 197,000.7654321 years Seriously though, since it took a hundred thousand years to several hundred thousand years to separate Homo erectus from Homo sapiens, and given approximately the same amount of natural selection, I would say about the same amount of time to create two different species of man. But in a different situation with smaller more isolated populations and more selective pressures it could be conceivably done in a shorter period of time, probably less than 100,000 years.

That’s an interesting question and I have thought about that too. This is a total random guess, but I would say no. I think we would have observed large bird extinctions during periods in the past where the poles change, and I haven't heard that before. So I'm assuming that birds also use other methods to find their direction, like the position of the sun and landmarks. I would also guess that young birds learn which direction to fly from the older birds as well as instinct and the birds learn which direction in their internal compass is the correct direction to fly by using other tools to determine their way. Plus the change of the pole’s polarity isn't instant and the birds would have some time to adjust, and any birds that were unable to adjust would have died out during past polarity changes.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12462&highlight=zombie+dogs

It could have something to do with sexual selection. Today, and through most of the history of man, woman are most highly valued for their looks while men are valued for their intelligence and achievements. So any mutation of the genome that resulted in a high intelligence for somebody with a XY chromosome pair would have been more advantageous than developing that same degree of intelligence in the XX pair. So it could work like this: Jennings, a well-known researcher of IQ, says that man has an allele for intelligence called the g-factor that when present gives the person an IQ of 130 or more. Perhaps the g-factor allele is present on the X chromosome and it is more expressive when it is exists in a single copy with the XY pair. So woman that have one of the copies of the g-factor allele express some of the g-factor intelligence, but they also express some of the phenotype from the other allele, so the overall expression of the g-factor is not as pronounced. Furthermore it could be that when woman have two copies of the g-factor that they end up with only approximately the same expression of the g-factor phenotype that the men with a single copy have. This could result in what we see with this research where a lot of women tend to be in the middle, because it is common for woman to have one copy of the g-factor and one of the other allele. The genotypes of woman would be (A=g-factor allele and B=non-g-factor allele: 1/4 AA with a full g-factor expression and an IQ of 130 or over, 1/2 AB with a partial g-factor expression with an average IQ, 1/4 BB with no g-factor expression and a below average IQ. Men’s would be (O=the absence an allele because X is a single copy in men): 1/2 AO with full expression of g-factor and an IQ of 130 or over, and 1/2 BO with no g-factor expression and a below average IQ. Since only 1/4 the woman have the full expression of the g-factor and 1/2 the men have full the expression, this could result in the results where twice as many men have an IQ over 125 that you mentioned. The puzzling thing about this is why don't you notice the difference until after the age of 14? It could be that a certain amount of accumulation of knowledge and experience with problem solving, combined with a maturation of the brain is necessary to initiate the changes in phenotype that we see with these results. It is known that there are several periods of brain reorganization during the growth of children where a certain amount of brain cells are actually sheared off and the it is believed that these events actually result in a more efficient brain that is especially adept at performing functions that the child has practiced many times. It could be that the last major reorganization, which occurs around the age of 13, is partly controlled by the g-factor allele. There are so many problems with the theory that I just stated. Just a few are the fact that the g-factor allele and the non-g-factor allele would probably not be present in the population in a 50/50% ratio, saying that these studies are related to the g-factor which is in turn related to the XY chromosomes which is in turn related to brain reorganizations is quite a stretch. The main problem is pretending that these studies might have any validity. It isn’t know exactly how much IQ is related to intelligence. These kinds of studies can be manipulated so much that they have no meaning. There are so many social factors at work here that its hard to separate what is actually due to genetics and what is due to social factors.

It means that an advanced form of Homo erectus and chimpanzees cohabitated that part of the rift valley about half a million years ago, not much more. The most likely scenario in my mind is that this is an example of re-cohabilitation, meaning that as man reached the level where he was capable of efficiently using stone tools he was successful enough that he spread throughout Africa into some regions where chimpanzees also occupied. The chimpanzees may have occupied that region for some time or they might have recently moved in. Both chimpanzees, man, and basically most forms of life will continue to spread out in all directions and then migrate or die off in those locations only to repeat the process all over again, sometimes to the same locations. The rift valley is full of rivers, lakes, valleys, and canyons. This area is quite active geologically with a variety of places where one population of the common ancestor to man and chimpanzee might have become separated from another population. The rift valley is a transition area from the lush regions of the west from the dryer regions of the east, but the area is in a constant state of change. The lakes dry up and the rivers twist, change locations, and form new lakes. Some areas that are lush become dry and some areas probably become lusher for a time. The transition species that represent the genus homo were constantly spreading and forming pockets that became separated from the other lines, only to reinhabit the same areas once again with the descendant species of their own line or another. The fact that a very similar species to Homo sapiens once lived side by side with its distant cousin within this area of the valley is not surprising to me. Also, it was mentioned by peon de that this could be an example of bones that man brought with him from another area that he hunted in or another human that he traded with, but I don't know the specifics of the find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rift_Valley

Accidentally reposted. Where is the delete post button anyway.

Both rRNA and tRNA are important to the process of translation, but they are not translated themselves. There are approximately 20 different kinds of tRNA molecules that all attach to a different amino acid. These 20 tRNAs also have a unique three base code, called an anticodon, that is complementary to the three base code on the mRNA, called the codon. Their role as an intermediary is in their function of bringing amino acids together with nucleic acids so that the ribosomes can interpret the mRNA code to produce the correct peptide (small protein).

rRNA is not translated. rRNA is transcribed from several different component pieces of RNA that come together to form a RNA complex. That complex performs an enzymatic role in the ribosomes. The rRNA complex, together with several proteins forms a ribosome, which translates mRNA into proteins.

Don't forget about the flimsy moral standards. Now I can skip both church and all forms of charity work and just wear a pirate outfit while I smoke, drink, gamble, and chase after loose woman.

I think certain parts of the bible are credible as a historical document. That doesn't prove that all of it is. Just because the Jews might have been in Egypt and Israel was occupied by the Romans, doesn't mean that the earth was covered by a global flood or that the earth was created in 6 days.

Helix is right; you should try to find some sort of science related job. Join every group under the sun that might look good on an application: a couple of charities, a physics group, a poetry writing group. You might try roaming around the physics labs at a university in Florida and see if any of them know anybody that works in the MIT physics department.

The terminology is in Latin, with the genus first and the species second. Homo sapiens= man wise So all of your names should start with Homo If the man's name was forest man he would be: Homo silva The use of a third word is for subspecies. So if there were two different kinds of forest man you would have: Homo silva sapiens and Hom silva erectus http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=latin+translator&btnG=Google+Search

True, the mutations must be present in the gamete cells. The process of meiosis involves the production of gamete cells. During meiosis there is one replication event, two chromosome division events, and an event where sister chromosomes exchange DNA, called crossing over. During any of these events, or during another event mutations can occur that will be present in the fertilized egg and all the resulting cells of the organism.

Spermiogenesis, the process of producing sperm, is more efficient at temperatures below the body's core temperature.

I agree with this. I'm not sure how to accomplish it, but that's what we need. I dont know enough about it to be sure, but it seems to me that they are colluding. But to be fair some of the refineries are out of order from the hurricane, right. Ok, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I do know Im pissed about the prices of gas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a flat tax with a tax exemption for income under 25k improve the quality of life for the poor, decrease the quality of life for the lower middle class and the middle middle class, slightly improve the amount of income that the upper middle class keeps, and greatly increase the amount of money that the rich keeps? So the overall result is that the upper middle class gets to buy the ski boat they have been wanting and the rich get to buy a summer home on the beach while the lower middle class have to make do with just one old car, put grandmother in a cheap government retirement home, and only be able to send one of their kids to college if his earns a scholarship? The quality of life changes little for people on the upper end of the spectrum while the quality of life for the people on the lower end is noticeably affected.