Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Why would selection appear to favor sperm that work together instead of sperm that outright out-competes its competitors, related or not?
Can you imagine doing your graduate work on sperm?! Let alone your career!
Because Turkeys are apparently too stupid to mate (successfully) with themselves.
[+]
Is that from that newer crappy disney show Pleebs?
I have no idea, lol. More random ***I pick up from the internet.
[+]
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Um, this is not altruism, this is altruistic, in that it is self-sacrificing. You could say that hair and skin cells show altruistic behavior, in that in their death, they provide additional protection for other cells of the organism.
Arguing that cellular level altruistic behavior is the same as high level cognitive behavior (altruism) isn't just misleading, it's also wrong.
Arguing that cellular level altruistic behavior is the same as high level cognitive behavior (altruism) isn't just misleading, it's also wrong.
I provided the slime mold example above. One doesn't restrict evolutionary mechanisms only to high level cognitive species.
As far as the wood mouse example I dunno what to say. I mean the wood mouse sperm is a very classic example that is used to present altruism/altruistic behavior.
There is no trigger or activation, no accumulation of chemicals or exposure, which externally activates?
Hell, examining cells in the slime mold which underwent apoptosis (against each other) versus cells in the fruiting body that did not
(also against each other).
In the case of the sperm, there is no external trigger which causes these reactions?
Jetackuu said: »
Is that from that newer crappy disney show Pleebs?
I have a confession to make...I was obsessed with Wizards of Waverly!
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The individual mouse is potentially sacrificing its chances at reproducing so its relatives can have an increased advantage over non-relatives. That's pretty much the textbook definition of biological altruism - a trait or traits that confers increased fitness to other organisms at the cost to one's own.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Uh... no, genetics is the study of the genome. It's about mapping traits to specific sequences of genetic code, deconstructing them mechanisms of procreation on the chemical level. Darwinian evolution hasn't been redefined, it's been refined with ADDITIONAL information from 2 centuries of study.
Evolutionary genetics.
I don't see how you can separate genetics from "evolutionary genetics", genes change in any reproductive process, it's completely encompassed within ANY type of genetic research.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
I have no idea, lol. More random ***I pick up from the internet.
It looks like it's Jamie Lynn Spears, according to google image search.
I was thinking of this chick:
Olivia Holt
John Stuart Mill would be proud of the sperm.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Is that from that newer crappy disney show Pleebs?
I have a confession to make...I was obsessed with Wizards of Waverly!
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The individual mouse is potentially sacrificing its chances at reproducing so its relatives can have an increased advantage over non-relatives. That's pretty much the textbook definition of biological altruism - a trait or traits that confers increased fitness to other organisms at the cost to one's own.
Odin.Jassik said: »
I don't see how you can separate genetics from "evolutionary genetics", genes change in any reproductive process, it's completely encompassed within ANY type of genetic research.
EDIT: Evolutionary genetics, along with population genetics, are subfields of evolutionary biology and genetics. They have more to do with evolutionary biology than genetics, in that studying the whole genome isn't so relevant as to answering why and how often a specific trait is occurring in a population. I mean it's really like comparing genetics to molecular biology they are very much related but have differences. I re-read @Altimaomega post. Darwinian evolution(old school evolutionary bio) had more to do with phenotype changes over populations rather than genotype changes over generations. That's how it was revised/redefined. Evolutionary genetics addresses that by tracking genotype changes over generations.
Also genes don't always change in every reproductive process. Prokaryotic fission and viral(non-retroviral) replication are two examples that produce genetically identical copies.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
I don't see how you can separate genetics from "evolutionary genetics", genes change in any reproductive process, it's completely encompassed within ANY type of genetic research.
Evolutionary genetics, along with population genetics, are subfields of evolutionary biology and genetics. They have more to do with evolutionary biology than genetics, in that studying the whole genome isn't so relevant as to answering why and how often a specific trait is occurring in a population.
Genes don't always change in every reproductive process. Prokaryotic fission and viral(non-retroviral) replication are two examples that produce genetically identical copies.
Asexual reproduction DOESN'T produce direct copies, bro, why do you think viruses and more complex asexual organisms experience changes from one generation to the next? Every single genetic reproduction has some mutation, at least, every one we have observed.
Evolutionary biology? Genetics is genetics, regardless of what portion of the genome you are studying. It's not some subfield of social science or even biology, it takes elements from organic chemistry, physics, biology, and other fields. It is researched in conjunction with those other fields as well, and they are finding more and more the way genetics touches those fields. In the early 90's when they were first starting to explore the inner workings of the genome, you could have called it a subfield, though.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Is that from that newer crappy disney show Pleebs?
I have a confession to make...I was obsessed with Wizards of Waverly!
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The individual mouse is potentially sacrificing its chances at reproducing so its relatives can have an increased advantage over non-relatives. That's pretty much the textbook definition of biological altruism - a trait or traits that confers increased fitness to other organisms at the cost to one's own.
The altruistic component evidently is that after the train breaks up, some of the sperm in the train lost the ability to penetrate the egg, therefore some sperm 'sacrifice' the ability to fertilize the ovum, in order to allow quicker progression over the overall body.
By that logic, staged rockets are altruistic, with lower stages sacrificing themselves in order for the payload to achieve orbit.
In any event, on the second page, it essentially states that evidence for true altruism in Eutherian mammals is lacking.
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asexual reproduction doesn't produce direct copies,
Quote:
DNA replication is the process of producing two identical replicas from one original DNA molecule.
Such as in prokaryotic fission and viral(non-retroviral) replication. Mutation is not directly part of the process.
Retroviral replication does not produce direct copies, hence why i specified the difference in my post. The goal of binary fission and viral replication is to produce genetically identical copies.
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
So the argument is that in both the slime mold and the sperm, these cells choose death?
There is no trigger or activation, no accumulation of chemicals or exposure, which externally activates?
Hell, examining cells in the slime mold which underwent apoptosis (against each other) versus cells in the fruiting body that did not
(also against each other).
In the case of the sperm, there is no external trigger which causes these reactions?
There is no trigger or activation, no accumulation of chemicals or exposure, which externally activates?
Hell, examining cells in the slime mold which underwent apoptosis (against each other) versus cells in the fruiting body that did not
(also against each other).
In the case of the sperm, there is no external trigger which causes these reactions?
Microbial Cooperation - Altruism
Quote:
Programmed cell death (PCD) is another suggested form of microbial altruistic behavior. Although programmed cell death (also known as apoptosis or autolysis) clearly provides no direct fitness benefit, it can be evolutionary adaptive if it provides indirect benefits to individuals with high genetic relatedness (kin selection). Several altruistic possibilities have been suggested for PCD, such as providing resources that could be used by other cells for growth and survival in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.[14][15] While using kin selection to explain the evolutionary benefits of PCD is common, the reasoning contains some inherent problems. Charlesworth (1978) noted that it is extremely hard for a gene causing suicide to spread because only relatives that do NOT share the gene would ultimately benefit.[16] Therefore, the possible solution to this problem in microbes is that selection could favor a low probability of PCD among a large population of cells, possibly depending upon individual condition, environmental conditions, or signaling.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asexual reproduction doesn't produce direct copies,
Quote:
DNA replication is the process of producing two identical replicas from one original DNA molecule.
Wikipedia said:
Cellular proofreading and error-checking mechanisms ensure near perfect fidelity for DNA replication[1][2]
Imperfect DNA replication results in mutations. Berg JM, Tymoczko JL, Stryer L, Clarke ND (2002). "Chapter 27: DNA Replication, Recombination, and Repair". Biochemistry. W.H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 0-7167-3051-0.
[+]
You're not reading that sentence correctly. The job of DNA polymerases is to assemble an idetical DNA copy. There are variences occasionally, but NOT always.
Additionally, the statement you are quoting encompasses retrotranscription.
Additionally, the statement you are quoting encompasses retrotranscription.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
So the argument is that in both the slime mold and the sperm, these cells choose death?
There is no trigger or activation, no accumulation of chemicals or exposure, which externally activates?
Hell, examining cells in the slime mold which underwent apoptosis (against each other) versus cells in the fruiting body that did not
(also against each other).
In the case of the sperm, there is no external trigger which causes these reactions?
There is no trigger or activation, no accumulation of chemicals or exposure, which externally activates?
Hell, examining cells in the slime mold which underwent apoptosis (against each other) versus cells in the fruiting body that did not
(also against each other).
In the case of the sperm, there is no external trigger which causes these reactions?
Microbial Cooperation - Altruism
Quote:
Programmed cell death (PCD) is another suggested form of microbial altruistic behavior. Although programmed cell death (also known as apoptosis or autolysis) clearly provides no direct fitness benefit, it can be evolutionary adaptive if it provides indirect benefits to individuals with high genetic relatedness (kin selection). Several altruistic possibilities have been suggested for PCD, such as providing resources that could be used by other cells for growth and survival in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.[14][15] While using kin selection to explain the evolutionary benefits of PCD is common, the reasoning contains some inherent problems. Charlesworth (1978) noted that it is extremely hard for a gene causing suicide to spread because only relatives that do NOT share the gene would ultimately benefit.[16] Therefore, the possible solution to this problem in microbes is that selection could favor a low probability of PCD among a large population of cells, possibly depending upon individual condition, environmental conditions, or signaling.
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
At which point, the concept of altruistic behavior (sacrificing of self) is somewhat violated.
So what your saying is you just don't agree with how biological altruism is defined?
Nigeria 'on red alert' over Ebola death in Lagos
Quote:
Nigeria says it has put all entries into the country on red alert after confirming the death of a Liberian man who was carrying the Ebola virus.
The man died after arriving at Lagos airport on Tuesday, in the first Ebola case in Africa's most populous country.
Surveillance has been stepped up at all "airports, seaports and land borders", says Health Minister Onyebuchi Chukwu.
Since February, more than 660 people have died of Ebola in West Africa - the world's deadliest outbreak to date.
It began in southern Guinea and spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone.
The man died after arriving at Lagos airport on Tuesday, in the first Ebola case in Africa's most populous country.
Surveillance has been stepped up at all "airports, seaports and land borders", says Health Minister Onyebuchi Chukwu.
Since February, more than 660 people have died of Ebola in West Africa - the world's deadliest outbreak to date.
It began in southern Guinea and spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Er, no; the train apparantly actually moves faster than individual sperm.
The altruistic component evidently is that after the train breaks up, some of the sperm in the train lost the ability to penetrate the egg, therefore some sperm 'sacrifice' the ability to fertilize the ovum, in order to allow quicker progression over the overall body.
By that logic, staged rockets are altruistic, with lower stages sacrificing themselves in order for the payload to achieve orbit.
In any event, on the second page, it essentially states that evidence for true altruism in Eutherian mammals is lacking.
The altruistic component evidently is that after the train breaks up, some of the sperm in the train lost the ability to penetrate the egg, therefore some sperm 'sacrifice' the ability to fertilize the ovum, in order to allow quicker progression over the overall body.
By that logic, staged rockets are altruistic, with lower stages sacrificing themselves in order for the payload to achieve orbit.
In any event, on the second page, it essentially states that evidence for true altruism in Eutherian mammals is lacking.
Your rocket analogy would fit better if, for some silly reason, each rocket was tasked with delivering their own payload but was designed to sacrifice itself when targeted for destruction. That is, each individual had its own goal but forwent its purpose to aid its cohort. Not the cleanest example but it's a hard analogy to work with.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
You're not reading that sentence correctly. The job of DNA polymerases is to assemble an idetical DNA copy. There are variences occasionally, but NOT always.
How am I reading it incorrectly?
That's horrible, are antivirals not available to the people? I know there are now experimental drugs for Ebola.
Ok you are arguing the "what if." Does it produce errors occasionally? Yes. Is it always erroneous? No. Is it as erroneous as reverse transcription? No.
The actuality is in viral replication and prokaryotic fission, DNA replication is afairly accurate process. The rate of error varies plain and simple. But to say that DNA replication isn't an accurate process is incorrect. Additionally to say that DNA replication does not produce identical copies is incorrect.
Never did I say DNA replication does not produce errors ever. What I did say is that DNA replication does produce identical copies.
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
The intent of DNA replication is to have an identical copy; the job of the DNA polymerase is to assemble the identical copy. The actuality is that it is pretty damn close to perfect, but errors do still occur.
How am I reading it incorrectly?
How am I reading it incorrectly?
Ok you are arguing the "what if." Does it produce errors occasionally? Yes. Is it always erroneous? No. Is it as erroneous as reverse transcription? No.
The actuality is in viral replication and prokaryotic fission, DNA replication is a
Never did I say DNA replication does not produce errors ever. What I did say is that DNA replication does produce identical copies.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
That's horrible, are antivirals not available to the people? I know there are now experimental drugs for Ebola.
As far as I know there are no antivirals that work and 75-90%~ of cases lead to death.
Here's the history pretty much of the outbreak so far
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_outbreak
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
That's horrible, are antivirals not available to the people? I know there are now experimental drugs for Ebola.
As far as I know there are no antivirals that work and 90%~ of cases lead to death.
Here's the history pretty much of the outbreak so far
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_outbreak
Yeah same company who came out with a broadspectrum treatment earlier this year made the news this month.
BioCryst Bets on New Ebola Drug to Fight Bioterror, Outbreak Threats
Interesting. Hopefully it will be ready for the next outbreak.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
At which point, the concept of altruistic behavior (sacrificing of self) is somewhat violated.
So what your saying is you just don't agree with how biological altruism is defined?
Does it matter, evolutionarily speaking, if some sperm is sacrified as long as it ensures a greater possibility that one from the host makes it, as opposed to one from another host?
And arguably, if we consider this particular strategy in a longer term, where now all of the population is able to chain equally well, and selection now refocuses on the viability after chaining? So that an increase in viabilty post train (a decrease in altruisic behavior, by the definition, if we return to 100% viability) now determines the competitive advantage, or fitness?
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.