Your opinion is automatically invalidated because you volunteered for that neo-Prohibitionist organization. I'll be modded troll for this, but that's my reflexive feelings about it.
And your opinion is instantly invalid because you tacted neo onto a word to make a point.
Seriously, just because he volenteers for MADD doesn't reduce the validity of his opinion.
Um, this is one of the first generations where we have seen athiests and other non-believers have their children become Christian in large numbers. IMHE, the born again and first generation Christians in my family especially do not associate their children with known marijuana smokers in our family even if they are PhD scientists. One of my first generation Christian cousins during Christmas a few years back called the cops on her 14 year old Nephew for smoking a joint outside his own house. It seems they believe more in an all encompassing Christian family than they care about mantaining a real one.
As a counter-point my group of friends are all baptists/catholics/lapsed catholics/new age weirdos and various other protestants. We have no trouble gettign along. It is the brand of christinity and not christianity itself that causes this.
What if you are a parent who does not want his kids renting Christian video games? Why are they only protecting kids from becoming violent and sexually active when some parents worry more about their children becoming part of a religion that typically distances themselves from non-believing family memebers?
Your thinking of a particular sects of technically non-christians that like to call themselves christian (the Jehova's witnesses). Most mainline branches of christianity liek Catholosism, Baptists ect.. have no such policy to have memebrs disassociate with non members.
There are a few things you will find difficult to stress test properly. It takes a full scale assault by potential users to see how well your hardware infrastucture stands up. In single player games this is a non-issue. In even multi server small scale multiplayer games it's a non issue as well. But when you have 64+ connections to a server then you have to see if you theoretical test bear out in reality.
Yes, but wouldn't the same thing apply to traditional encycolpedias? Or any information outlet for that matter? The big difference in my mind is that those traditional media typically have fewer people involved, and therefore fewer agendas...
This doesn't make it more benign. Those few agendas tend to be fairly malevolent (corprate greed beign #1).
Wikipedia is an excellent online source of information. But because of its name, critics hold Wikipedia to the same standard as an encyclopedia. I certainly don't think it's the same thing as an encyclopedia, a wiki's open and collaborative nature is fundamentally different from the construct of an encyclopedia. It's not better or worse, it's just a different thing.
I have foudn that encyclopedias are often similarly biased, just as often incorrect, and not nearly as broad.
Wikipedia provides a good initial starting point to find more information on a subject. It's need to be "balanced" actually skews a lot of the articles because it will list blantanly baseless points of view in the interest of "fairness" and "balance". I wouldn't write a University thesus with Wikipedia being a primary source but I would write a high school essay. It's "good enough" for that and it's pretty broad in the subjects it covers and although often not 100% accurate it's "good enough" to start with.
I remember hearing this business about our losing our scientific edge even as Apollo was landing astronauts on the moon. In itself, I really don't worry about it much. This has been a nation mostly of crackpots and bumpkins right from day one.
Our advantage never came from having the brightest of populations, it came from having an economic and legal system that placed few barriers in the paths of the talented, which also made this country an attractive place for talented foreigners to migrate to as well (think Andy Grove, Albert Einstein or Andrew Carnegie).
I'm a lot more worried about losing the advantages our legal and economic system afforded us than I am about some egalitarian vision of providing advanced education to the Great Unwashed.
Actually, your competative edge came first from freely stolen european IP then from stolen german innovation. Combined with an abundance of resources, a hardworking populace you have a recipe for wealth creation. A system for freely available capital was a important innovation as well.
- Obsessively post the same message over and over again? - Try to make every topic of discussion, no matter how unconnected, a forum for their views? - Consistently demonize other points of view? - Counter well-meaning factual arguments with name-calling? - Use guilt by association to try to discredit their unbelievers? - Use fear as a motivator?
That sums up the bush administration and their supporters nicely. Good job.
I think the culture argument is mostly baloney, and the state of IP in the US contributes substantially.
People 'do' science because they find it cool, not because they become rock stars. And there are of course science shows like "Numb3rs" (awful) and "CSI" and "Star Trek" and about a million others that try to some degree to spotlight science. The number of "Adventures in Engineering" or "Women in Engineering" camps has grown considerably over the last 10 years in these parts.
Actually, highschol culture is a huge reason why more people don't go into the sciences. That and the relatively low pay scales of scientists compared to other professions with similiar training periods.
Because if people think of it as a pencil they are more inclined to put it in their mouths and destroy all that nasty bacteria on their teeth. You see, sometimes, with clever branding and naming, there's no need for a manual!
The thing about disinfectants is that they do kill bacteria, but they tend to kill the good bacteria on your skin that competes with the bad bacteria. If the bad bacteria get a toe hold after then you have a nice little infection caused indirectly by the disinfectant.
Chinese history doesn't mention chinese advancements much. Everytime a new dynasty came in everything got all munged up.
The last one lasted 600 years. Although civil unrest was common. As well, China takes great pride in teaching it's children about itself. Much liek Europe, America, Canada ect...
I don't seem to recall any modern history books written from a Western viewpoint disputing ANYTHING you mentioned.
They just don't tend to mention it very much. Asian achievments that is. Their ussually hevily focused on European history. At leats high school texts. And often the facts in high school level texts are off.
I just can't help thinking about how ramen would have tasted 4000 years ago. Would it be plain, or maybe chicken flavored? I really wish I knew, but all we have now is a microscopic noodle-shaped, tubular shriviled up mass that would probably taste horrible if mixed with water.:/
Proponents of evolution sometimes forget that it is a theory and that other explanations are possible. They also dismiss the fact that evolution may only be a part of the big picture. Why could a great designer not design evolution itself?
Ic oudl support this idea. It doesn't deny facts, doesn't try to confuse legitimate science with religious rationalization. God designed evolution and set it on it's course.
I don't claim that it is impossible that evolution is the actual explanation for how life came to be. However, scientists do not have all the answers yet. A widely debated example is how the eyeball evolved. Some try to explain that given a million years this is possible. Then you have the eye socket and brain plumbing that go along with sight.
Mostly tangetial. Not too hard to postulate how it came about. We may never know for sure but it certainyl isn't impossible.
One argument against evolution that I have is you don't see all these half developed fossils being dug up. For example, you'd expect to see animals with 1 arm, 2 arms, 3 arms, 10 arms, no arms, half an arm, round arms, and so on for every part of the body while evolution is fine tuning this stuff. As far as I know, this isn't the case.
Now your getting stupid. Evolution doesn't work the way you think. I suggest actualyl learning about it.
I haven't seen this mentioned before but here is my theory for interest's sake: the living creatures of this earth may have been "put here" by some higher being or via the design of some higher being. Creatures are given the ability to adapt to their environment which makes perfect sense. If the creatures are expected to live on their own and make Earth their home for thousands or millions of years and the planet changes as it gets older, the ability to adapt makes good sense. In what ways can they adapt? Lots of ways, as programmed in our DNA. Parts of us which are no longer useful become dormant but in the future - let's say we all blow ourselves up and are back to the stone age - those things could come back. For example, hair all over our body. The possibilities are all preprogrammed and not just accidental.
This is now completely orthoganal to discussing anythign intelligent. Your just a pot head with a stupid idea at this point.
One thing I can say with certainty is to keep an open mind. Evolutionary fanatics clinging to this one theory need to realize how history repeats itself. Our beliefs can and have been turned on their head surprisingly in the past. The world is round.
Shameless rationalization. Evolution will change as new information get acrued. ID/creationism may as well however ID/creationism are meaningless religious ideas that are at best vague, at worse idiotic. Sometimes what is commonly believed is false, however you need soem framework to work with. Evolution is exstremely well supported. As much as gravity, thermo dynamics, ect... So to say it's all bunk and that a politically motivated religious idea is a credible alternative is stupid to put it bluntly.
I would dispute that this would be possible. If the traits are present in the isolated population then they had to be present in the larger population. With the very rare exception of mutation.
It's the luck of the draw, sinc eyour drawing members fromt he larger pool to create a smaller one it may end up that all the ones in the smaller pool have rare traits that don't happen to be in the larger one.
Anyway I think we have pretty much exhausted this discussion. It was a pleasure discussing the subject with you. I'd be happy to continue but I have a feeling we would just start repeating ourselves after this.
Pretty much we wont' agree, you have your severally wrong slant on the information and I have my 2.5 years of university genetics.
You have just made my point. if two pools have traits that the other doesn't have and those pools came from a larger pool that had those same traits. Then the isolation has removed those traits from those populations. Your logic doesn't follow. The traits were accessible before isolation and now after isolation they aren't. Ergo the population lost traits.
What I'm trying to say is your confusing cause effect and your even drawing the wrong conclusion.
1- Isolation of this population does not cause a loss or addition of features, this was done when what ever event seperated the population. if the split is 100% representative then nothing is different. the isolation is independant.
2- Creatures don't get more less complex overtime, there have been documented cases of both.
3- Traits aren't like "has arm" it's things like height, eye color ect..
4- Your ideas abotu inbreeding are common but wrong. Inbreeding cause mroe homogenous individuals to be born because it's more likly peopel with the same genes breed. It doesn't cause a loss or gain of anythging. The total ratio of each allele is the same.
You have just made my point. if two pools have traits that the other doesn't have and those pools came from a larger pool that had those same traits. Then the isolation has removed those traits from those populations. Your logic doesn't follow. The traits were accessible before isolation and now after isolation they aren't. Ergo the population lost traits.... Look at it this way, The pool won't lose anything. traits aren't things like "an arm" it's something like blonde hair. You have this idea that for some reason an isolated population will lose this feature. It won't if it's included. The population is simply a subset of the larger population and is ussually a fairly representaive group. There may be soem triats that only reside in one pool or another but this has little to do with you idea of reduced complexity, features aren't lost, traits don't spontaniously disappear without being selected against. Your initial idea was that as time goes on creatures have becoem less complex and lost traits however this is gibberish. The loss of a trait ussually comes from selection against it, A trait is something like blonde hair, or black hair. It's not something liek "hair in general". The population is ussually just as complex. the origin of new traits comes from mutations. Complexity stays the same in the local time span, which isloation and speciation lead to more diversity and generally more complex systems and individuals.
Then the isolation has removed those traits from those populations.
Isolation doesn't remove anything, it all up to what traits are in the population. IT's not the isolation that removes anything. If it happens that the new pool didn't have a few traits the old one did it's just chance. It doesn't change the traits already in those individuals only what individuals happened to go. The Complexity of the creatures didn't change.
Ergo the population lost traits.
This is true, the pool may lack some genotypes. However this isn't due to the isolation. IT's due to which individuals form this seperate group. As well there may be traits in the new pool that didn't happen to also occur in the bigger one. By yoru logic isolation has now suddenly spawned these?
does indeed diminish traits compared to the population the subpopulation was taken from. the reason recessive traits surface more often is because dominant traits are less frequent and in some cases not present. This is by definition a loss of traits for the population as a whole.
Actually no, the traits don't disappear, if they were in the smaller population and are not selected against they still appear but the frequency changes. Left on it's own nothing diminishes. If the isolated sub population had all the traits of the main population and was big enough then all traits will continue to exsist. If you did some punnett squares you'd understand how silly your argument is.
If the isolated sub population had only 1/2 of the traits, then those traits would still continue on. It has nothing to do with losing traits. Selection that makes certain traits unfavorable will change the ratio as well, possibly removing certain traits. This is evolution. But your under the mistaken belief that this diminishes the complexity of individuals in this population. It doesn't. Each individual is just as complex as the larger population unless some fairly radical mutation occur. It only reduces the frequency of certain phenotypes(expressed genes). Reduction or increase in complexity of a creature happen at a fixed rate. Isolation doesn't change this rate. Selection for or against traits also happen regaurdless of how isolated the population is. The addition of new traits also happens at a fixed rate regaurdless of the "isolation" of a population.
All I need to refute yrou claim is one counter example:
Ashkanazi jews. In the 11th century they were estimated to be 10% of the jewish population. They were part of the jewish diaspora and are the nothern european jews. These people are essential a seperate breeding population because they had a religious ban against marrying gentiles. They had a selective factor thrust upon them (jews were only allowed in certain jobs). This selected for people who were smarter because the jobs they were forced to do all needed intelligence. 900 years later ashkanazi jews are more successful then any other group of jews, makign up 90% of the jewish population. They also have a much higher average IQ then the other caucasian groups, and marginally higher then even east asians (who also had a selective factor for intelligence). This was because their closed population and selection for intelligence favored any mutations that gave more/better intelligence. This trait was introduced via mutation into population and spread because it was advantagious. Over as little as 900 years the ashkanazi jews are now significantly smarter.
see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelli gence
Did being a isolated population diminish anything? are jews less complex then caucasians? no. They just have a different pool of traits because they were a seperate population, and they even gained a set traits that is not normally found in other populations.
Isolation did not diminish the pool of traits. the fact that it was a seperate pool means it both didn't have traits other pools did, and had traits other pools didn't. Your idea that isolation intrisically reduces the number of traits is ridiculous.
The following article might be illuminating. Pay close attention to the use of the term heterozygosity which is a reference to the measurement of the presence of different alleles of a gene at one or more loci. A decrease of heterozygosity in a poplutation is a decrease in genetic traits available to that population. In other words genetic "traits" are lost.
Yeah you just said that a smaller population has less traits. it has nothing to do with inbreeding. heterozygosity is having 2 types of alleles in one organism like me. I'm a hetrozygous for alpha thalasemia, having 2 alpha thalasemia genes is lethal, having only 1 result in malaria immunity. In a inbred population the % of hetro zygotes drops because more coupling have homogenous traits. This does not diminish traits, it simply means reccessive traits surface more often in the population. This isn't nessacarily good or bad. some benign recessive traits like red hair or blue eyes would show up more often, some advantagious traits like my alpha thalasemia as well and some bad traits like hemophelia woudl happen more often. This doesn't remove traits/genotypes/phenotype from the pool. It only magnifies the occurance of reccessive traits. Recessive traits doesn't mean it's good or bad, just that you need two recessive genes to create the phenotype.
I could say the same to you. How exactly do you support the statement that losing features is rare? Compared to gaining its anything but rare. Anytime a sub-population is isolated traits are lost. ? it's apparent you haven't read any then. When a population is isolated the rate of mutation is the same as if they weren't. So your not going to suddenly lose/gain a genotype/phenotype just because their isolated. Speciation happens when that isolated population just can't mate with the other popylations. The rate of muatation is eviromental. The reason isolated populations speciate mroe is because often the selective factors are different leading to a change in gene frequency, not loss of features.
That is why inbreeding poses such a danger.
It magnifies any type of genetic diseases already in the population, it's a urban myth that it causes deformities in and of itself. IT only magnifies anything that is already int he pool. Do some punnet squares. It doesn;t magically weaken the speceies. Many many species actually do inbreed regularly.
It's hardly a rarity. More a law of nature and genetics. Seperation from the larger genetic pool by necessity causes a loss of traits. Some of those losses aren't immediately visible morphologically but it's still there.
yeah, strange theory, completely unsupported by facts. Speciation is not loss or gain of features it is reproductive incompatability which happens for many reasons. The pool might not be diverse and in this way you "lose" traits. But it simply means individuals with those traits aren't in that group. This isn't a change in the genes of individuals, just a reduction in the diversity in the pool. This doesn't cause sepciation and you can actually have a 100% representative group isolated as well. Sometimes it results in greater diversity. For instance the galopagos islands and the numerous varieties of finches. Isolation has lead the finches to find their own niches, having a variety of phenotypes greater then the population it comes from.
The difference is not one of scale or complexity but of mechanism. You point to mutation as the method for the introduction new traits. However there is no evidence that such events have occured on the scale necessary for evolution to occur. Speciation through the loss of traits is however both observed and documented. Saying, well we know it's theoretically possible and therefore it must have happened that way is not proof. I happen to think that it happened in reverse. We started out more complex and lost traits as time went on resulting in speciation. And there are reputable scientists who agree. It's like you have this blind spot to an entire area of research just because you "assume" that evolution through mutation and specialization is the way it must have occured. Your world view won't allow for any other options. Science may start out with an assumption but ignoring other options isn't a valid way to conduct research.
You haven't read many scientific papers have you? Gaining features is rare, losing them also equally rare. Speciation is a accumulation of changes. Gain or loss, and it isn't always losss. It is often some distinct change. There is ample evidence, sift through nature.com and read up on evolutionary research.
Slashdot Mirror
as long as we have enough ion cannons for the evitable 'zerg rush
Ion cannons wouldn't help. We need losta firebats and medics.
Your opinion is automatically invalidated because you volunteered for that neo-Prohibitionist organization. I'll be modded troll for this, but that's my reflexive feelings about it.
And your opinion is instantly invalid because you tacted neo onto a word to make a point.
Seriously, just because he volenteers for MADD doesn't reduce the validity of his opinion.
Um, this is one of the first generations where we have seen athiests and other non-believers have their children become Christian in large numbers. IMHE, the born again and first generation Christians in my family especially do not associate their children with known marijuana smokers in our family even if they are PhD scientists. One of my first generation Christian cousins during Christmas a few years back called the cops on her 14 year old Nephew for smoking a joint outside his own house. It seems they believe more in an all encompassing Christian family than they care about mantaining a real one.
As a counter-point my group of friends are all baptists/catholics/lapsed catholics/new age weirdos and various other protestants. We have no trouble gettign along. It is the brand of christinity and not christianity itself that causes this.
What if you are a parent who does not want his kids renting Christian video games? Why are they only protecting kids from becoming violent and sexually active when some parents worry more about their children becoming part of a religion that typically distances themselves from non-believing family memebers?
Your thinking of a particular sects of technically non-christians that like to call themselves christian (the Jehova's witnesses). Most mainline branches of christianity liek Catholosism, Baptists ect.. have no such policy to have memebrs disassociate with non members.
There are a few things you will find difficult to stress test properly. It takes a full scale assault by potential users to see how well your hardware infrastucture stands up. In single player games this is a non-issue. In even multi server small scale multiplayer games it's a non issue as well. But when you have 64+ connections to a server then you have to see if you theoretical test bear out in reality.
Yes, but wouldn't the same thing apply to traditional encycolpedias? Or any information outlet for that matter? The big difference in my mind is that those traditional media typically have fewer people involved, and therefore fewer agendas...
This doesn't make it more benign. Those few agendas tend to be fairly malevolent (corprate greed beign #1).
Wikipedia is an excellent online source of information. But because of its name, critics hold Wikipedia to the same standard as an encyclopedia. I certainly don't think it's the same thing as an encyclopedia, a wiki's open and collaborative nature is fundamentally different from the construct of an encyclopedia. It's not better or worse, it's just a different thing.
I have foudn that encyclopedias are often similarly biased, just as often incorrect, and not nearly as broad.
Wikipedia provides a good initial starting point to find more information on a subject. It's need to be "balanced" actually skews a lot of the articles because it will list blantanly baseless points of view in the interest of "fairness" and "balance". I wouldn't write a University thesus with Wikipedia being a primary source but I would write a high school essay. It's "good enough" for that and it's pretty broad in the subjects it covers and although often not 100% accurate it's "good enough" to start with.
I remember hearing this business about our losing our scientific edge even as Apollo was landing astronauts on the moon. In itself, I really don't worry about it much. This has been a nation mostly of crackpots and bumpkins right from day one.
Our advantage never came from having the brightest of populations, it came from having an economic and legal system that placed few barriers in the paths of the talented, which also made this country an attractive place for talented foreigners to migrate to as well (think Andy Grove, Albert Einstein or Andrew Carnegie).
I'm a lot more worried about losing the advantages our legal and economic system afforded us than I am about some egalitarian vision of providing advanced education to the Great Unwashed.
Actually, your competative edge came first from freely stolen european IP then from stolen german innovation. Combined with an abundance of resources, a hardworking populace you have a recipe for wealth creation. A system for freely available capital was a important innovation as well.
- Obsessively post the same message over and over again?
- Try to make every topic of discussion, no matter how unconnected, a forum for their views?
- Consistently demonize other points of view?
- Counter well-meaning factual arguments with name-calling?
- Use guilt by association to try to discredit their unbelievers?
- Use fear as a motivator?
That sums up the bush administration and their supporters nicely. Good job.
I think the culture argument is mostly baloney, and the state of IP in the US contributes substantially.
People 'do' science because they find it cool, not because they become rock stars. And there are of course science shows like "Numb3rs" (awful) and "CSI" and "Star Trek" and about a million others that try to some degree to spotlight science. The number of "Adventures in Engineering" or "Women in Engineering" camps has grown considerably over the last 10 years in these parts.
Actually, highschol culture is a huge reason why more people don't go into the sciences. That and the relatively low pay scales of scientists compared to other professions with similiar training periods.
Because if people think of it as a pencil they are more inclined to put it in their mouths and destroy all that nasty bacteria on their teeth. You see, sometimes, with clever branding and naming, there's no need for a manual!
The thing about disinfectants is that they do kill bacteria, but they tend to kill the good bacteria on your skin that competes with the bad bacteria. If the bad bacteria get a toe hold after then you have a nice little infection caused indirectly by the disinfectant.
Chinese history doesn't mention chinese advancements much. Everytime a new dynasty came in everything got all munged up.
The last one lasted 600 years. Although civil unrest was common. As well, China takes great pride in teaching it's children about itself. Much liek Europe, America, Canada ect...
I don't seem to recall any modern history books written from a Western viewpoint disputing ANYTHING you mentioned.
They just don't tend to mention it very much. Asian achievments that is. Their ussually hevily focused on European history. At leats high school texts. And often the facts in high school level texts are off.
I just can't help thinking about how ramen would have tasted 4000 years ago. Would it be plain, or maybe chicken flavored? I really wish I knew, but all we have now is a microscopic noodle-shaped, tubular shriviled up mass that would probably taste horrible if mixed with water. :/
This differs fromt he modern version? how?
I thought it was a concrete fact that the chinese invented it and it migrated west. The italians haven't had them for all that long.
Proponents of evolution sometimes forget that it is a theory and that other explanations are possible. They also dismiss the fact that evolution may only be a part of the big picture. Why could a great designer not design evolution itself?
Ic oudl support this idea. It doesn't deny facts, doesn't try to confuse legitimate science with religious rationalization. God designed evolution and set it on it's course.
I don't claim that it is impossible that evolution is the actual explanation for how life came to be. However, scientists do not have all the answers yet. A widely debated example is how the eyeball evolved. Some try to explain that given a million years this is possible. Then you have the eye socket and brain plumbing that go along with sight.
Mostly tangetial. Not too hard to postulate how it came about. We may never know for sure but it certainyl isn't impossible.
One argument against evolution that I have is you don't see all these half developed fossils being dug up. For example, you'd expect to see animals with 1 arm, 2 arms, 3 arms, 10 arms, no arms, half an arm, round arms, and so on for every part of the body while evolution is fine tuning this stuff. As far as I know, this isn't the case.
Now your getting stupid. Evolution doesn't work the way you think. I suggest actualyl learning about it.
I haven't seen this mentioned before but here is my theory for interest's sake: the living creatures of this earth may have been "put here" by some higher being or via the design of some higher being. Creatures are given the ability to adapt to their environment which makes perfect sense. If the creatures are expected to live on their own and make Earth their home for thousands or millions of years and the planet changes as it gets older, the ability to adapt makes good sense. In what ways can they adapt? Lots of ways, as programmed in our DNA. Parts of us which are no longer useful become dormant but in the future - let's say we all blow ourselves up and are back to the stone age - those things could come back. For example, hair all over our body. The possibilities are all preprogrammed and not just accidental.
This is now completely orthoganal to discussing anythign intelligent. Your just a pot head with a stupid idea at this point.
One thing I can say with certainty is to keep an open mind. Evolutionary fanatics clinging to this one theory need to realize how history repeats itself. Our beliefs can and have been turned on their head surprisingly in the past. The world is round.
Shameless rationalization. Evolution will change as new information get acrued. ID/creationism may as well however ID/creationism are meaningless religious ideas that are at best vague, at worse idiotic. Sometimes what is commonly believed is false, however you need soem framework to work with. Evolution is exstremely well supported. As much as gravity, thermo dynamics, ect... So to say it's all bunk and that a politically motivated religious idea is a credible alternative is stupid to put it bluntly.
I would dispute that this would be possible. If the traits are present in the isolated population then they had to be present in the larger population. With the very rare exception of mutation.
It's the luck of the draw, sinc eyour drawing members fromt he larger pool to create a smaller one it may end up that all the ones in the smaller pool have rare traits that don't happen to be in the larger one.
Anyway I think we have pretty much exhausted this discussion. It was a pleasure discussing the subject with you. I'd be happy to continue but I have a feeling we would just start repeating ourselves after this.
Pretty much we wont' agree, you have your severally wrong slant on the information and I have my 2.5 years of university genetics.
The loss that occurs when the seperation occured is a driving force of speciation.
Loss isn't the driving force in speciation, change is.
You have just made my point. if two pools have traits that the other doesn't have and those pools came from a larger pool that had those same traits. Then the isolation has removed those traits from those populations. Your logic doesn't follow. The traits were accessible before isolation and now after isolation they aren't. Ergo the population lost traits.
What I'm trying to say is your confusing cause effect and your even drawing the wrong conclusion.
1- Isolation of this population does not cause a loss or addition of features, this was done when what ever event seperated the population. if the split is 100% representative then nothing is different. the isolation is independant.
2- Creatures don't get more less complex overtime, there have been documented cases of both.
3- Traits aren't like "has arm" it's things like height, eye color ect..
4- Your ideas abotu inbreeding are common but wrong. Inbreeding cause mroe homogenous individuals to be born because it's more likly peopel with the same genes breed. It doesn't cause a loss or gain of anythging. The total ratio of each allele is the same.
You have just made my point. if two pools have traits that the other doesn't have and those pools came from a larger pool that had those same traits. Then the isolation has removed those traits from those populations. Your logic doesn't follow. The traits were accessible before isolation and now after isolation they aren't. Ergo the population lost traits. ... Look at it this way, The pool won't lose anything. traits aren't things like "an arm" it's something like blonde hair. You have this idea that for some reason an isolated population will lose this feature. It won't if it's included. The population is simply a subset of the larger population and is ussually a fairly representaive group. There may be soem triats that only reside in one pool or another but this has little to do with you idea of reduced complexity, features aren't lost, traits don't spontaniously disappear without being selected against. Your initial idea was that as time goes on creatures have becoem less complex and lost traits however this is gibberish. The loss of a trait ussually comes from selection against it, A trait is something like blonde hair, or black hair. It's not something liek "hair in general". The population is ussually just as complex. the origin of new traits comes from mutations. Complexity stays the same in the local time span, which isloation and speciation lead to more diversity and generally more complex systems and individuals.
Then the isolation has removed those traits from those populations.
Isolation doesn't remove anything, it all up to what traits are in the population. IT's not the isolation that removes anything. If it happens that the new pool didn't have a few traits the old one did it's just chance. It doesn't change the traits already in those individuals only what individuals happened to go. The Complexity of the creatures didn't change.
Ergo the population lost traits.
This is true, the pool may lack some genotypes. However this isn't due to the isolation. IT's due to which individuals form this seperate group. As well there may be traits in the new pool that didn't happen to also occur in the bigger one. By yoru logic isolation has now suddenly spawned these?
does indeed diminish traits compared to the population the subpopulation was taken from. the reason recessive traits surface more often is because dominant traits are less frequent and in some cases not present. This is by definition a loss of traits for the population as a whole.
i gence
Actually no, the traits don't disappear, if they were in the smaller population and are not selected against they still appear but the frequency changes. Left on it's own nothing diminishes. If the isolated sub population had all the traits of the main population and was big enough then all traits will continue to exsist. If you did some punnett squares you'd understand how silly your argument is.
If the isolated sub population had only 1/2 of the traits, then those traits would still continue on. It has nothing to do with losing traits. Selection that makes certain traits unfavorable will change the ratio as well, possibly removing certain traits. This is evolution. But your under the mistaken belief that this diminishes the complexity of individuals in this population. It doesn't. Each individual is just as complex as the larger population unless some fairly radical mutation occur. It only reduces the frequency of certain phenotypes(expressed genes). Reduction or increase in complexity of a creature happen at a fixed rate. Isolation doesn't change this rate. Selection for or against traits also happen regaurdless of how isolated the population is. The addition of new traits also happens at a fixed rate regaurdless of the "isolation" of a population.
All I need to refute yrou claim is one counter example:
Ashkanazi jews. In the 11th century they were estimated to be 10% of the jewish population. They were part of the jewish diaspora and are the nothern european jews. These people are essential a seperate breeding population because they had a religious ban against marrying gentiles. They had a selective factor thrust upon them (jews were only allowed in certain jobs). This selected for people who were smarter because the jobs they were forced to do all needed intelligence. 900 years later ashkanazi jews are more successful then any other group of jews, makign up 90% of the jewish population. They also have a much higher average IQ then the other caucasian groups, and marginally higher then even east asians (who also had a selective factor for intelligence). This was because their closed population and selection for intelligence favored any mutations that gave more/better intelligence. This trait was introduced via mutation into population and spread because it was advantagious. Over as little as 900 years the ashkanazi jews are now significantly smarter.
see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intell
Did being a isolated population diminish anything? are jews less complex then caucasians? no. They just have a different pool of traits because they were a seperate population, and they even gained a set traits that is not normally found in other populations.
Isolation did not diminish the pool of traits. the fact that it was a seperate pool means it both didn't have traits other pools did, and had traits other pools didn't. Your idea that isolation intrisically reduces the number of traits is ridiculous.
The following article might be illuminating. Pay close attention to the use of the term heterozygosity which is a reference to the measurement of the presence of different alleles of a gene at one or more loci. A decrease of heterozygosity in a poplutation is a decrease in genetic traits available to that population. In other words genetic "traits" are lost.
Yeah you just said that a smaller population has less traits. it has nothing to do with inbreeding. heterozygosity is having 2 types of alleles in one organism like me. I'm a hetrozygous for alpha thalasemia, having 2 alpha thalasemia genes is lethal, having only 1 result in malaria immunity. In a inbred population the % of hetro zygotes drops because more coupling have homogenous traits. This does not diminish traits, it simply means reccessive traits surface more often in the population. This isn't nessacarily good or bad. some benign recessive traits like red hair or blue eyes would show up more often, some advantagious traits like my alpha thalasemia as well and some bad traits like hemophelia woudl happen more often. This doesn't remove traits/genotypes/phenotype from the pool. It only magnifies the occurance of reccessive traits. Recessive traits doesn't mean it's good or bad, just that you need two recessive genes to create the phenotype.
check here for more info.
I could say the same to you. How exactly do you support the statement that losing features is rare? Compared to gaining its anything but rare. Anytime a sub-population is isolated traits are lost.
? it's apparent you haven't read any then. When a population is isolated the rate of mutation is the same as if they weren't. So your not going to suddenly lose/gain a genotype/phenotype just because their isolated. Speciation happens when that isolated population just can't mate with the other popylations. The rate of muatation is eviromental. The reason isolated populations speciate mroe is because often the selective factors are different leading to a change in gene frequency, not loss of features.
That is why inbreeding poses such a danger.
It magnifies any type of genetic diseases already in the population, it's a urban myth that it causes deformities in and of itself. IT only magnifies anything that is already int he pool. Do some punnet squares. It doesn;t magically weaken the speceies. Many many species actually do inbreed regularly.
It's hardly a rarity. More a law of nature and genetics. Seperation from the larger genetic pool by necessity causes a loss of traits. Some of those losses aren't immediately visible morphologically but it's still there.
yeah, strange theory, completely unsupported by facts. Speciation is not loss or gain of features it is reproductive incompatability which happens for many reasons. The pool might not be diverse and in this way you "lose" traits. But it simply means individuals with those traits aren't in that group. This isn't a change in the genes of individuals, just a reduction in the diversity in the pool. This doesn't cause sepciation and you can actually have a 100% representative group isolated as well. Sometimes it results in greater diversity. For instance the galopagos islands and the numerous varieties of finches. Isolation has lead the finches to find their own niches, having a variety of phenotypes greater then the population it comes from.
The difference is not one of scale or complexity but of mechanism. You point to mutation as the method for the introduction new traits. However there is no evidence that such events have occured on the scale necessary for evolution to occur. Speciation through the loss of traits is however both observed and documented. Saying, well we know it's theoretically possible and therefore it must have happened that way is not proof. I happen to think that it happened in reverse. We started out more complex and lost traits as time went on resulting in speciation. And there are reputable scientists who agree. It's like you have this blind spot to an entire area of research just because you "assume" that evolution through mutation and specialization is the way it must have occured. Your world view won't allow for any other options. Science may start out with an assumption but ignoring other options isn't a valid way to conduct research.
You haven't read many scientific papers have you? Gaining features is rare, losing them also equally rare. Speciation is a accumulation of changes. Gain or loss, and it isn't always losss. It is often some distinct change. There is ample evidence, sift through nature.com and read up on evolutionary research.