MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Origins of....Species (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17
View previous topic :: View next topic  
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Excellent.

Brilliant Inspired.

Loved it.

Would have suggested Haper & Lee, (one who lives near a laye) but yours is a lot better.

Damn you etc.

PS I quit.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250006.php

I'm sure you all noticed the biggest science story of the year - junk DNA is no longer junk. Apparently, it's just as important as the "real" thing. But no-one here has commented on the fact that this means that the genetic clock, so beloved by biologists, must be bullshit. Their justification for the accuracy of the clock was that junk DNA is not subject to the rigours of Darwinian selection to the same extent as "real" DNA, and that explained the regularity of the clock. But if junk DNA is no more, the genetic clock cannot be reliable. It cannot possibly tick to a fairly regular beat if it's subject to selection pressures.

So all the calculations about when man split from the apes etc can no longer be trusted.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250006.php

Why has no-one commented on the biggest news story this year? Either the genetic clock doesn't work or Darwinism has been debunked. Why?

Some scientists are saying that junk DNA doesn't exist. Now junk DNA was essential for an accurate genetic clock. DNA which changes regularly enough to be used for dating cannot be subject to selection pressures because selection pressures normally prevent change. (In the past it was postulated that as 90% of DNA was pointless it changed at a regular rate, thus justifying the genetic clock.)

If we try to hold on to the clock we have to assume that regular change is due to something other than Darwinian selection.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You're forgetting that the whole theory was just back-of-the-envelope stuff to start with. What happened was that the biological clock theory came along and in order to get a hearing they used the existing time-frame (ie palaeoanthropology) as their hypothetical rate. (You can't check the genes of fossils at this level,)

But of course the palaeoanthropologists were highly desirous of a 'scientific' underpinning for their own theories (based mainly on strata theory and peer review) so they seized on the biological clock.

When it's a question of hanging together or being hanged separately the turkeys have not been voting for Christmas ever since.

We have now reached the absurd position that (for instance) Out-of-Africa is based on the ticking clock even though it's an inescapable fact that everybody on earth has exactly the same clock that has been ticking for exactly the same length of time! Doh!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A fascinating piece of Darwinian careful ignoral occurred on Britain's Big Wildlife Revival last night (watch here:) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0392d0s

Earnest experts were bemoaning the fact that adders were bound to die out fairly soon from the entirety of Britain because their habitats were being cut off from one another so that genetic diversity would soon be lost as populations became inbred.

Five minutes later the same experts were telling us that just two escaped (c 1870) American grey squirrels had managed to populate the entirety of Britain with such vigour that the poor old native reds were in danger of extinction. You can't get a more inbred breeding stock than that.

Solution to the snake problem: wait till the adders have died out completely. Then import a male and a female from somewhere else and let them escape. Wait a few years. VoilĂ ! A Britain full of adders.

PS: Has anyone examined the genetics of the British grey squirrel? It will surely tell us a lot about genetics. Perhaps too much. Which may be why this remarkable opportunity has not been taken up.

PPS They also said that a grey squirrel disease that doesn't affect them but does affect reds is one of the reasons for the grey success. So apparently one of these two original squirrels had the disease. Funny that.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Red squirrels starred in a Ray Mears tour of the Isle of Wight. Reds are usually found in pine woods but not here where the trees are deciduous and the undergrowth is undisturbed allowing more cover to a variety of animals. There are no deer on the island but there are of course predators, mainly aerial e.g. buzzards.

The precarious situation of red squirrels elsewhere may be less about inbreeding than loss of ground cover. They are clearly more visible than greys which must be a disadvantage.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
the pattern of gene expression that builds the bones in its fins is much the same as the one that assembles the limb in the embryo of a bird, a mammal, or any other land-living animal. The difference is only that it is switched on for a shorter time in fish.

Mr. Fish: 'You know love, one of these days one of our kids is going to want to venture out onto dry land and when he does he's going to need limbs'.

Mrs. Fish: 'Yes dear, we'd better hurry up and develop some genes to enable him to grow some'.

Mr. Fish: 'Good idea love. But we'd best not leave them switched on too long just yet -- the bloody things would get in the way down here!'


There's always one who can't be bothered to turn the switch off...

Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This research ought to kill Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection, but it won't. The old paradigm will cling on. It can't die until there's something to replace it (and nothing will replace it until the old paradigm is dead).

Phobias may be memories passed down in genes from ancestors

Researchers at the Emory University School of Medicine, in Atlanta, found that mice can pass on learned information about traumatic or stressful experiences -- in this case a fear of the smell of cherry blossom -- to subsequent generations....

In the study, which is published in the journal of Nature Neuroscience, the researchers trained mice to fear the smell of cherry blossom using electric shocks before allowing them to breed.
The offspring produced showed fearful responses to the odour of cherry blossom compared to a neutral odour, despite never having encountered them before.
The following generation also showed the same behaviour. This effect continued even if the mice had been fathered through artificial insemination.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Megalithic Empire majors on (inter alia)
1. reindeer, a species prone to an existence somewhere between domestic, wild and feral
2. anomalous extinctions of species that are wild/feral now but the Megalithic Empire claims were once domesticated.

In North America reindeer are known as caribou and if you read this https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/caribou-are-vanishing-at-an-alarming-rate-is-it-too-late-to-save-them/ they are undergoing an anomalous extinction. Or at any rate the experts haven't got a clue what's causing it but just say "Oh, you know, 'environmental factors' like we always say when we don't know."
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17

Jump to:  
Page 17 of 17

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group