On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>  It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."

No, really, it doesn't.  At least not to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> The distinction you're looking for is between eukaryotes and
>> non-eukaryotes.
>>
> Uh, yeah. Couldn't think of the proper term though. But, the rest is
> correct. If you don't have excess resources to waste on messing with
> extra baggage, you don't live long if you have it. If you do have the
> "power plants", you can afford to waste more space in the genome on
> things that don't work, duplicate results, etc.

>> I'm not sure I actually agree with this assessment.
>>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/how_to_afford_a_big_sloppy_gen.php
>
> As to the cite for prokaryotes not having as many copy errors, I think
> it would be more accurate to say, "They don't *preserve* as many." If
> they did, they would have way more junk DNA, which is precisely what
> they can't afford to have laying around in the first place. The actual
> number of such errors that happen is likely the same, but, when it comes
> to costs, if you can't afford them, you don't see those copied chunks
> sticking around long.

I think we need to distinguish between DNA that isn't used for anything, 
and DNA which actually produces proteins, but they don't do anything 
really useful.

Just having a sequence in your genome doesn't really cost that much. 
Synthesizing it into a protein is much more expensive.

It wouldn't surprise me if non-eukaryotes have fewer genes turned on, 
and possibly smaller genomes, but I doubt that they have radically 
"cleaner" genomes.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 04:12 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> If you can't, take a look at dogs. Some kinds can't interbreed with each
> >> other, if only due to huge differences in size. Humans did that.
> >
> >    I don't think that is what defines a species. It's about genetics.

> How about this: There are two species of grasshopper that never 
> interbreed. The females of species A ignore the songs of males of 
> species B. However, if you mute the male and play back a recording of a 
> male of species A, the two will mate, and produce viable offspring. It's 
> just that this only ever happens in the lab.

  The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behavior.

> Similarly, there are probably classes of birds where you could do the 
> same thing by putting coloured visors over the bird's eyes, or moths 
> where you could mask one chemical pheromone with another. Are these 
> separate species?

  It's about genetics, not about behavior.

> You can apparently mate a lion with a tiger, producing either a "liger" 
> or a "tiglon". (Go look them up.) But this never happens in the wild (as 
> far as we know). Are these separate species?

  The offspring must be fertile. Ligers and tigons aren't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>    The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behaviour.

I disagree.

By human intervention, you can cause all kinds of matings to occur that 
would never, ever happen in nature. That does /not/ mean that all 
animals are of the same species.

>    The offspring must be fertile. Ligers and tigons aren't.

Apparently it was long thought that ligers and tiglons were infertile, 
but apparently they have in a few rare cares produced long-lived offspring.

But in any case, yes, I agree that the offspring must be fertile.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Surprisingly enough, it really is trivial.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

  It talks about preference, not about capability. Just because some man will
not mate with fat women doesn't make the man a different species.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> I fail to see how telling
> >> people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close to
> >> establishing a state-sponsored religion
> > 
> >   For fair balance, shouldn't there be a "Nation Day of Atheism"? You
> >   can
> > make the exact same arguments: It's not promoting atheism nor forcing
> > anybody to be atheist. You can be atheist if you want, but it's your
> > choice.

> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as 
> the NDP IIRC.

  Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?

  Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >    The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behaviour.

> I disagree.

> By human intervention, you can cause all kinds of matings to occur that 
> would never, ever happen in nature. That does /not/ mean that all 
> animals are of the same species.

  The definition of species is that two individuals are of the same species
if they can create fertile offspring. Behavior is irrelevant.

  If a man never has sex with fat women by choice, that doesn't make the
man a different species. That would be just ludicrous.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 13/01/2011 13:15, Warp a écrit :
>   The definition of species is that two individuals are of the same species
> if they can create fertile offspring. Behavior is irrelevant.


Ok, so, 2 males are never (?) of the same species, right ?
They cannot create fertile offspring by themselves.

Same for 2 females.

(but science is so great... )

(Just playing around!)







More seriously, does such definition get transitive ?

A & B are from the same specie because they can produce fertile offspring.
B & C are .... too.

Does that means A & C are the same specie automatically ?

What about a long chain : A & B, B & C, C & D, D & E, E & F...
till X & Y;
Are automatically A & Y of the same specie ?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It talks about preference, not about capability. 

How do you talk a fruit fly into mating with another fruit fly if it doesn't 
want to?

I think you think "species" is much more strictly defined than it is.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:06:52 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> I fail to see how telling
>> >> people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close
>> >> to establishing a state-sponsored religion
>> > 
>> >   For fair balance, shouldn't there be a "Nation Day of Atheism"? You
>> >   can
>> > make the exact same arguments: It's not promoting atheism nor forcing
>> > anybody to be atheist. You can be atheist if you want, but it's your
>> > choice.
> 
>> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
>> the NDP IIRC.
> 
>   Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?
> 
>   Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.

Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a 
brick wall.  It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message