Digital Genetics and Evolution Theory

[ElectricFetus]

Biologists should like each other.

Hercules, you seem easily upset if you think something like

is "condescending tripe".

Vkothii has said and done a lot of things to anger us. His attitude on any biology thread is to question the semantics being used, then claim a state of all-knowing in which we must answer his questions to later be told that we are wrong and provided with his "correct" answer. This is a classic setup done by those that want to feel important by controlling arguments and dictating what they believe to be true. Me, Hercules Rockefeller and others here have pointed this out to Vkothii (although Hercules Rockefeller has done so in the most virile manner) and Vkothii simply insults us back or screams for the moderator. We would rather like a more peer-to-peer causal relationship here, we don't want anyone playing professor and we must be his tarts, most of us get enough of that in real life be it from our PIs or higher ups in academic or industrial research (there not top to the peking order!). I could be wrong though: last time I fought a know-it-all here it cost me my moderatorship, but that was 4 years ago and now I'm a graduate student, NOW I'M THE KNOW IT ALL! HAHAHAHA, just kinding, I know nothing.

 

[CharonZ]

Biologists should like each other.

Since when has this ever been the case .

 

[Vkothii]

If you're angry, I doubt that it's my doing.

If you don't understand what your'e saying because of some sort of language-learning "problem", that's hardly my fault.

This is a classic setup done by those that want to feel important by controlling arguments and dictating what they believe to be true.

Is that what you and the other goons think they're doing?
Well, that's delusion for ya.

If you want me to insult you, I assure you that's no problem - I can be as insulting as anything.

Right now I'd say you could probably use a few insults - especially to your somewhat warped sense of importance - don't you know paranoia is a delusion of grandeur? So is a "complex" about persecution.

But peck away, (don't mind me) if that's what you think you should be doing.

 

[Exhumed]

Since when has this ever been the case .

I find it hard to dislike a biologist, comparatively speaking. There are 2 requirements for being a good person. 1. Be nice. 2. Be a biologist. And I find the biology wing of school to be the most harmonious place I've known. I assumed this was the case everywhere.

 

[ElectricFetus]

If you're angry, I doubt that it's my doing.

If you don't understand what your'e saying because of some sort of language-learning "problem", that's hardly my fault.
Is that what you and the other goons think they're doing?
Well, that's delusion for ya.

If you want me to insult you, I assure you that's no problem - I can be as insulting as anything.

Right now I'd say you could probably use a few insults - especially to your somewhat warped sense of importance - don't you know paranoia is a delusion of grandeur? So is a "complex" about persecution.

But peck away, (don't mind me) if that's what you think you should be doing.

I wouldn't call it paranoia, look at this thread for example, what happened here?, we were talking about evolution and aging then you demanded a definition on "gene activity" we gave you one, you rejected it and supplanted it with your own, then we explain to you that definition has no meaning in evolution, and that your ruining yet another thread, stop doing that!, You respond by calling us names, and here we are talking about you, another thread completely off-topic. I would say this thread has be complete fucked at this point, if you want to respond to me do so over PM or on "About the Members" forum.

 

[CharonZ]

Exhumed:

Ha, well let's put it like this (this goes for most scientists, though). Friendship ends when funding starts. From the viewpoint of a scientist there are only three types of scientists:
- collaborators: they got things you want, be nice to them until you got what you want. A certain subgroup of these are big-shots. They are like suns towards everything on congresses gravitate to. In that case continue to be nice to them. They are bigger than you.

-competition: don't tell them anything. lie through gritted teeth if possible. Identify their grant proposals and shoot them down if possible. Make it look like it was someone else. Usage of other's signature phrase in that process is encouraged.

-all the others: essentially postdoc and students. Use them. Get new ones once the old ones are worn out.

Successful scientists are not nice. They only got good people's skills.
I think I am only half joking here, actually.
K, enough of the thread jacking.

 

[Vkothii]

I would say this thread has be complete fucked at this point

Can I quote you on that?
If this thread is (completely) fucked, that's because "I fucked it".

So who the fuck am "I"?
I'm the king of thread-fuckers, that's who.

P.S. Thankyuh. Thankyuh vurramuch.

 

[iceaura]

Yes If you assume that an animal has a fixed limited reproductive life, then there is no evolutionary point in living beyond that reproductive period. However, there is no obvious reason why there would be any fundamental limitation on reproduction and if the animal is designed to have a limited reproductive life then that is against Darwin's theory.

It is not at all inconsistent with Darwinian theory, once you see that it 's not the individual multicellular organism that is reproduced (normally) but the genes, the strings of DNA and so forth. Allowing the failure of, or even getting rid of, an aging carrier organism, to make room for more effective, younger, differently immune, even just smaller or differently colored etc, carrier organisms is almost always to a gene's advantage, on average - at least, by not being much of a disadvantage compared with some overwhelming benefit of a feature that is suicidal for the organism in the long run (increasing size in a palm tree, say).

In organisms that do clone in normal reproduction - mostly unicellular ones - we do often find no fixed reproductive span or lifespan. It's possible - not very likely, and definition of "identity" dependent, but possible - that there is a bacterium or two on the planet that is three billion years old, and still reproducing

But if a particular variation of a gene caused an organism to have a shorter life, shorter reproductive life, or other individually adverse design (altruism) then how would that variation spread?

Any of several possible ways. By overwhelming its competitors with the extra reproduction available due to diverting resources from repair, somatic growth, and disease resistance, is a common one. Remember that reproduction compounds, like money at interest. What's better for your bank account in a hundred years: a dollar a week for 5200 weeks, or 2000 dollars in week one and then nothing for 99 years of compounding interest ? Depends on the interest rate. Likewise with reproduction - depends on the circumstances.

 

[sciborg]

True, but predators and disease usually get you at a certain point, also it is noted that populations of animals without predators tend to have evolved longer lifespans to take advantage of unlimited reproductive cycling. There was a scientific American article on it a couple of years back that showed mathematically that if you produce a certain number of offspring it does not matter how many more you produce afterwards, evolution no longer effects you, it was a matter of the offspring reproducing and spring their gene at a rate near equal to those that lived longer.

Yes I think it is obvious that something that killed you before you had any offspring would be more serious than something that killed you after you had (or had an opportunity to have) at least some offspring. Medawar popularized this idea in 1952. However at what point does it not matter at all as in zero or zip? This has been a point of argument ever since then. Keep in mind that most people think of evolution as extremely incremental. Some tiny change results in a tiny advantage. Somehow this tiny change propagates and adds to all the other tiny changes producing tiny advantages. It seems unlikely that the advantage of being able to produce more descendents would ever go to zero. Medawar made a lot of assumptions that subsequently turned out to be dubious. The book cited earlier discusses this as does various other literature on the subject.

One of the issues cited by others is that aging obviously has other adverse symptoms besides "death" (weakness, loss of agility, loss of sensory acuity). These symptoms cut in at what appear to be very young ages, increasing the implausibility of the idea the impact could be zero.

 

[sciborg]

The code itself has evolved.
The DNA code has variants, or different codon "meanings".
Mitochondrial codons have other assignments than the host cell, for example

The DNA triplet code is redundant, and the redundancy is symmetrical, indicating it has evolved from an earlier duplet encoding. The "evolution of evolvability" is actually part of the modern synthesis.

I think it's come a ways since the idea of an accidental, or chance configuration of the DNA or RNA polymer, into a stable and fundamental form.
If we know it evolves, then presumably it has evolved.

Yes, this is part of the mystery. Darwin says evolution proceeds because of expressed differences between organisms, that is, differences that could affect survival or reproduction. All those complex aspects of the genetic system don't affect the actual fitness design of an organism. An ape would be exactly the same if its genes were organized in a different way, or if different codons were involved, or if its genes were on different chromosomes, etc. So how did the design of the genetic system evolve? I agree evolvability is the key.

To me the nice thing is that evolvability ALSO explains deliberate limitation of life span by organism design, altruism, sexual reproduction, and other troubling issues with Darwinian theory.