I know, I know, I'm living in the past but...

It wasn't that long ago when not only was the
DNA evidence grossly misunderstood and
misused, but it was inaccurate! Just plain
wrong, in other words. There were LOTS of
mistakes...

One fantastic example if misunderstanding,
and it still often applies, would be something
like the insane "Molecular Clock," the steady
rate of mutation on mtDNA.

False. The fact is that mtDNA is under heavy
selective pressure, or at least was for most
of human history.

Homo needed to evolve new mtDNA lines to
live into old age, and to adapt to cold climates.

If you live in one place, you have a stable climate,
your culture isn't morphing rapidly... there's no
selective pressure on your mtDNA. But if you're
moving someplace colder, your culture benefits
from "Elders" then there's TONS of selective
pressure on your mtDNA. And of course tens of
thousands of years later, if some moron thinks
that mtDNA from the two populations mutated
as the same "steady, clock like" rate, of course
they are going to arrive at a ridiculously
exaggerated point of divergence.

Another incredibly stupid misrepresentation was
(is) the assumption that all interbreeding is
symmetrical.

(Psst. It's not)

Anyway, so most of us passed through this error
oops I meant "era" where DNA "evidence" was
always being thrown around, and it was garbage.
And a lot of us knew it even back then, and some
of us even admit to it... while most seem incapable
of admitting they were ever fooled.

Neanderthal interbreeding, anyone? Hmm?

So I admit that I'm somewhat living in the past here.
That, my hyper useful skepticism of yesterdecade
did serve me quite well, but things aren't as bad as
they once were. Oh, people still insist on interpreting
DNA evidence wrong, that much can never change,
but they've gotten a lot better at actually collecting
the stuff.

Unfortunately, they seem to have gotten a lot worse
at releasing it to the public...



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726946429995761664

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero wrote:


----------------------------------

You're probably cooking it incorrecty.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

When you have nothing to say, it is best to say nothing.

Then why are you still talking?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

When you have nothing to say, it is best to say nothing.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726557549488439296

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dexter <not@home.com> wrote:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

----------------------------------

You're probably cooking it incorrecty.

What? Meth, shrooms, cannabis edibles? It seems something psychoactive is seeping through despite ineptitude.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-08-31 9:04 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Dexter <not@home.com> wrote:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

----------------------------------

You're probably cooking it incorrecty.

What? Meth, shrooms, cannabis edibles? It seems something psychoactive is seeping through despite ineptitude.

Umm, check the subject line.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dexter wrote:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

----------------------------------

You're probably cooking it incorrecty.

Chianti and fava beans...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

Then

Honestly, do you really think you're clever? This is what
passes for "Oh so witty" in your trailer park? The other
folks at the AA meeting think you're smart?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726269948403564544


why are you still talking?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pro Plyd wrote:

Dexter wrote:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

----------------------------------

You're probably cooking it incorrecty.

Chianti and fava beans...

----------------------------------

At least somebody got it, though I don't
think one would find much DNA in Chianti.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM wrote:

When you have nothing to say, it is best to say nothing.

----------------------------------

Were you to take your own device, usenet would be
much less odiferous.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dexter wrote:

device

----------------------------------

[ Eyeroll ] ...should be 'advice'

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my zero wrote:


Not now jon jon, adults are talking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dexter wrote:

Pro Plyd wrote:

Dexter wrote:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

----------------------------------

You're probably cooking it incorrecty.

Chianti and fava beans...

----------------------------------

At least somebody got it, though I don't
think one would find much DNA in Chianti.

Obviously a lot more field testing is needed...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2023-08-31 9:04 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Dexter <not@home.com> wrote:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

----------------------------------

You're probably cooking it incorrecty.

What? Meth, shrooms, cannabis edibles? It seems something psychoactive is
seeping through despite ineptitude.

Umm, check the subject line.

Nah. I’m sticking by my original hunch.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Please, ONE reply per symptom of your personality disorder
per thread.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726388970389389312

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Not named Pro Plyd wrote:

Not

So now speaking of DNA triggers you.

That's pathetic.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726388970389389312

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 04:40:21 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

When you have nothing to say, it is best to say nothing.

You posted nothing.

Where is cite to research that shows that selective pressure to mammals increases
mutation rate in genome? Nowhere. You have such opinion, but we already know it.
It is your human right to have whatever unsupported opinion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Öö Tiib wrote:

You

You honestly don't seem to have any self control. It's like you
have to say something, you can't control yourself...

Where is cite to research that shows that selective pressure to
mammals increases mutation rate in genome?

Good God, you're an ignoramus...

Populations [A] & [B].

[A] remains in a relatively stable environment, [B] moves to a
new environment with new conditions, new selective pressures.
If you assume that same "Clock like" rate of mutations for both
populations, you just greatly exaggerated the point of
divergence.

Now add something make believe, like the Glacial/Interglacial
cycle. The "Average Temperature" doesn't just change,
weather patterns change. The "Permafrost" is far from
permanent. "Ice Age" animals have been melting out of it for
years. No, NOT because the planet is overheating. The ground
wasn't frozen when those "Ice Age" animals lived there.

So in this make-believe scenario BOTH populations [A] and
[B] might experience totally new environments, undergo rapid
do-or-die adaptations.

REMEMBER: Extinction is by far the more common outcome
to such a scenario. More often than not, a population that is
poorly adapted to an environment dies out, rather than
evolve into a population well suited...

But if you've got enough populations, spread out in enough
places, you're always going to have SOME survive. And if
you insanely claim that the "Evolved" at the exact same clock
like mutation rate they seem to change at during stable
times, you are going to *Way* over exaggerate the point of
divergence.

Well not you. You'd be lucky if you could manage to pee
without soaking your feet...



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726385068482936832

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 22:55:23 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:

Where is cite to research that shows that selective pressure to
mammals increases mutation rate in genome?

Good God, you're an ignoramus...

I understand your opinion that some kind of fierce pressure
should make population to mutate more in hope to reach
some new quality with less stress. But ideas are not enough
to produce truth.
When there are no research that supports opinion with
evidence then it is still groundless. So I ask cite.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Öö Tiib wrote:

I understand your opinion that some kind of fierce pressure
should make population to mutate more in hope to reach
some new quality with less stress.

What I just said is that more often than not it results in
extinction. You're looking at the winners ONLY, and telling
yourself that you're looking at all the players.

You have no grasp of the topic and for that reason I will
mock you... constantly.

Even you morons are supposed to recognize these selective
pressures... "Natural Selection," you idiots mumble.

Did you think this meant Mother "Nature" sat on a cloud,
picking species and how they would change?

Open a window, for Christ's sake. Let some air in.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727367817442230272

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 00:00:23 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:

I understand your opinion that some kind of fierce pressure
should make population to mutate more in hope to reach
some new quality with less stress.

What I just said is that more often than not it results in
extinction. You're looking at the winners ONLY, and telling
yourself that you're looking at all the players.

You have no grasp of the topic and for that reason I will
mock you... constantly.

Even you morons are supposed to recognize these selective
pressures... "Natural Selection," you idiots mumble.

Did you think this meant Mother "Nature" sat on a cloud,
picking species and how they would change?

Open a window, for Christ's sake. Let some air in.

So you have no cite? Nothing to say? Running with empty
insults is all you can do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Öö Tiib wrote:

So you have no cite?

For what? What does that fucked up, highly deficient excuse
for a brain think it needs a cite for?

Natural selection? Or is it the fact that "Natural Selection" is
just an antiquated means for expressing "Selective Pressure?"

I get it. You're a moron. You spewed stupid shit. Someone
demanded a cite, exposed you for the jackass you are, and
you're so stupid you think it was their magic word -- cite --
and not the fact that you were an idiot spewing nonsense
that made you look so stupid...

"I'll just randomly demand cites I would never read anyway,
and certainly couldn't understand, and then I'll look positively
brilliant!"

Nothing to say?

You embarrassed this handle enough. Time to switch again.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726946429995761664

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 20:50:24 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:

So you have no cite?

For what?

I already wrote.
"Cite to research that shows that selective pressure to mammals
increases mutation rate in genome."
It is just your personal idea confirmed by no one.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Öö Tiib wrote:

I already wrote.
"Cite to research that shows that selective pressure to mammals
increases mutation rate in genome."
It is just your personal idea confirmed by no one.

*Sigh*

You honestly have no clue what so ever.

We're talking about populations here. A trait, and it's DNA,
characterize a population. A different trait, different DNA,
may exist in various individuals but this is not characteristic
of the population.

There are adult humans under 4-feet tall, for example. There
are blind and deaf humans. These traits exist but they do not
characterize modern humans. There is genetic variation within
a species, within a population but we identify and describe
Monarch Butterflies by what typifies them.

Please go away. Find a topic you have at least a grade school
understanding of.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726557549488439296

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 10:30:25 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:

I already wrote.
"Cite to research that shows that selective pressure to mammals
increases mutation rate in genome."
It is just your personal idea confirmed by no one.

We're talking about populations here. A trait, and it's DNA,
characterize a population. A different trait, different DNA,
may exist in various individuals but this is not characteristic
of the population.

Why you wiggle away from topic? Are you saying that it is not researched
or what?

There are blind and deaf humans.

Lot of blind and deaf in human population is caused by artificially
lowered pressure by social welfare and medical aid. More extreme
mutations are successful in population.
You claimed opposite that high pressure causes high mutation
rate. You won't find much blind birds or deaf rabbits in forest where
pressure is higher than in human society.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Öö Tiib wrote:

We're talking about populations here. A trait, and it's DNA,
characterize a population. A different trait, different DNA,
may exist in various individuals but this is not characteristic
of the population.

Why you wiggle away from topic?

You are clearly trolling.

There are blind and deaf humans.

Lot of blind and deaf in human population is

Swinging things BACK on topic: There are blind and deaf humans,
but those traits are not characteristic of the human population. If
you were to scientifically describe humans the way you might
describe Giraffes or Alligators you couldn't describe us as blind or
deaf. Those are traits that distinguish individual, not the species.

An outlier trait, a freak mutation possessed by a few individuals,
one not selected for, one perhaps even with some selective
pressure AGAINST, can take over in a single generation, from
a sudden catastrophe or even the "Founder Effect."

Now is a good time to pretend that you are familiar with these
concepts, and understand them, though absolutely nothing you've
said here could make any sense if that were true.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726557549488439296

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:05:25 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:

We're talking about populations here. A trait, and it's DNA, characterize a population. A different trait, different DNA,
may exist in various individuals but this is not characteristic
of the population.

Why you wiggle away from topic?

You are clearly trolling.

Nope, there are articles that bacteria have adaptive tuning of mutation rate on case of lethal stress. There are no articles that mammals vary their mutation rate. That makes sense as even for hamster it takes more
than two weeks to reproduce and whatever hard pressure does not wait
so long.

So if you claim that there is any correlation then I would like cite to research that shows that selective pressure to mammals increases
mutation rate.

There are blind and deaf humans.

Lot of blind and deaf in human population is

Swinging things BACK on topic: There are blind and deaf humans,
but those traits are not characteristic of the human population. If
you were to scientifically describe humans the way you might
describe Giraffes or Alligators you couldn't describe us as blind or
deaf. Those are traits that distinguish individual, not the species.

How is that relevant to rate of mutations in DNA? How can what
someone considers characteristic, defect, irrelevancy or disease alter
mutation rate?

Deaf have their Deaf community and culture and view deafness as a
"difference in human experience" rather than a disability or disease.
Their mutation rate is still about 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year.

Some racist can view difference in hair or eye colour from theirs as
disability or disease. Their mutation rate is still about 2.2 × 10 in −9
per base pair per year.

All of them are about as far genetically from our common ancestors.
That Founder Effect reduces genetic diversity within population
instead of increasing mutation rate in it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Öö Tiib wrote:

Nope, there are articles that bacteria have adaptive tuning of mutation rate on case of lethal stress. There are no articles that mammals vary their mutation rate.

Mammals don't. Populations do. it doesn't matter how many people died
in WWII, the human population did not. Our species survived. And the
same is true for mutations: Doesn't matter how many crop up, it's all
about the population at large.

A founder effect, a disaster can transform a population in a single
generation.

If you lose your leg in a car accident, it can't change anything. Nobody
is going to re-write their definition/description of humans as "One
Legged usenet trolls."

But you are proving my point: Not only was DNA "Evidence" of the
past often wrong -- just plain wrong -- but even today moron are
constantly misunderstanding & misrepresenting it.

Like you just did here.

Swinging things BACK on topic: There are blind and deaf humans,
but those traits are not characteristic of the human population. If
you were to scientifically describe humans the way you might
describe Giraffes or Alligators you couldn't describe us as blind or
deaf. Those are traits that distinguish individual, not the species.

How is that relevant to rate of mutations in DNA?

Wow. You genuinely are retarded, it's not just an act...

"Rate of mutation" for what? Read the above, as a grown up to
help you with the words, and then answer the question: Rate of
genetic mutation for... whom?

Hint: It's the population, dickweed.

You're testifying to the fact that you can't understand the basics.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727585508731092992

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 23:30:27 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:

Nope, there are articles that bacteria have adaptive tuning of mutation rate
on case of lethal stress. There are no articles that mammals vary their mutation rate.

Mammals don't. Populations do. it doesn't matter how many people died
in WWII, the human population did not. Our species survived. And the
same is true for mutations: Doesn't matter how many crop up, it's all
about the population at large.

Size and diversity of alleles within population does not alter mutation
rate.

A founder effect, a disaster can transform a population in a single generation.

The ones who survived have still had about 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair
per year compared to their ancestors.

If you lose your leg in a car accident, it can't change anything. Nobody
is going to re-write their definition/description of humans as "One
Legged usenet trolls."

Losing a leg does not alter one's genome or mutation rate at all.

But you are proving my point: Not only was DNA "Evidence" of the
past often wrong -- just plain wrong -- but even today moron are
constantly misunderstanding & misrepresenting it.

Like you just did here.

You are avoiding telling anything about mutation rate.

Swinging things BACK on topic: There are blind and deaf humans,
but those traits are not characteristic of the human population. If
you were to scientifically describe humans the way you might
describe Giraffes or Alligators you couldn't describe us as blind or deaf. Those are traits that distinguish individual, not the species.

How is that relevant to rate of mutations in DNA?

Wow. You genuinely are retarded, it's not just an act...

Talking to yourself is weird.

"Rate of mutation" for what? Read the above, as a grown up to
help you with the words, and then answer the question: Rate of
genetic mutation for... whom?

Hint: It's the population, dickweed.

You're testifying to the fact that you can't understand the basics.

IOW you neither have cite nor can reason how some kind of selective
pressure changes mutation rate ... and there you run screaming nasty
words at yourself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Öö Tiib wrote:

Size and

You don't understand this stuff.

A founder effect, a disaster can transform a population in a single generation.

The ones who survived have still had

The population, you numb-brained reject from the Jesus camp.

The population.

You don't even now what you're supposed to be looking at,
talking about, you're so far removed from what you pretend
to be.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727701377221083136

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is a zero wrote:

Öö Tiib wrote:

Size and

You don't understand this stuff.

Which you learned all about in film school?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero wrote:


Please, ONE reply per symptom of your personality disorder
per thread.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Again, one reply per alter per thread per day.

I know you're too fucked in the head to see it but, you're
wetting your pants because DNA evidence isn't quite
the "Slam Dunk" it's misrepresented as...

Remember all the "DNA Evidence" that proved
Neanderthals and so called moderns never intermixed?
Remember how wrong you were, how stupid you looked
back then?

Of course you don't. Your personality disorder won't let
you...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727915015121829888

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)