Admit it Mike, you are just really bad at extrapolating conclusions from data.Lausten, I don't see it the way you do. For one, there are no scientific conclusions at this time of the domesticated mutations. Mainly because to test and study mutation rates in the field takes hundreds and maybe even thousands of years. No known studies of that type have yet been done. This study at the University of Pennsylvania is the only field study that I am aware of. A field study would have to place animals in different environments and different stress levels and see how the genes react. There are questions that I have that science has not gotten around to studying or finding answers to yet. For example, there are levels of domestication, what are they and what are the rules? A pig for example when left in the wild will over several generations revert back to how it was in a wild state. Where wheat and rice are fully domesticated and cannot revert by to it original wild grass. The point being is that I have no solid conclusion on domestication and I am open minded and would like to know more. Of course you don't see that way, no one does, except for a few websites that are crackpot and your misinterpretation of actual data. No one is going to do the experiments you are talking about because that's not how evolution works. Pigs don't "revert back", where did you get that? Genes don't "react", the only mechanism they have is mutation, and it doesn't have any kind of direction or reasoning. If someone proposed an experiment saying they wanted to see how "genes react", they would not get funding because they would be showing they don't know what they are talking about.
Lausten, you are right of course. But I phrase in my own words to make my point. In words of the scientists it would sound like this. There is some evidence that genetic mutations, for reasons that are unclear, may affect the excitability of individual neurons or neuronal nets. Therefore, research on genetic influences on neural synchronization is appropriate. But since this is not the topic of this thread I prefer to just generalize these points so that I can stay on topic.
On the pigs, I was pig hunting in California. The pigs were domesticated pigs that escaped from old Russian settlements. But they had grown the tusks of the wild pigs. Looking this up as to why the domesticated pigs had these big tusks I read that domesticated animals living in the wild will try and un-domesticated in some degrees or some might say rapid temporal reversal. It is said in a paper written by Jonathan B. Losos, Thomas W. Schoener, R. Brian Langerhans and David A. Spiller that some animals can have some types of reversal within one generation.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Wild-Pig
In the early 1700s Spanish and Russian settlers introduced domestic pigs to California as livestock and many became feral. In the 1920s a Monterey county landowner introduced the European wild boar, a wild subspecies of Sus scrofa into California, which bred with the domestic pigs. The result of these introductions is a wild boar/feral domestic pig hybrid.It isn't domestic pigs somehow reverting to their wild nature, they are cross breeding with wild boars.
Tough we mate prime bulls with prime females and treasure them, nature has no such feeling. It creates a greater variety of offspring, and that the probabilistic part of evolution, it's in all directions.Are you saying that domestication, the breeding of animals creates a greater variety of offspring?
Darron, That was my first thought that farm pigs crossed with wild boars. And the hunters I was with told me about the different types of pigs that they hunt in the area. But these pigs showed no signs of the wild boars and were over three hundred pounds. It took four men and poles to carry a pig. When growing up and the price of beef was down. We would raise sheep or pigs to supplement. The pigs we were hunting were closer to the Yorkshire we raised on the ranch with maybe some Tamworth. The Sus scrofa you are talking about were also there. But they were much smaller and restricted to bow hunting. I am not saying that it is not possible that cross breeding didn’t occur. The hunters that I was with claimed the pigs were the feral pigs from the 1700’s. We need a DNA test to really find out.
That seems implausible except for the 300-lb part. Boars don’t grow that bg and neither to feral hogs that have crossed with boars. That still doesn’t change the obvious, this talk about pigs and domesticated animals is a distraction from where this thread had gone. We’re in the midst of the sixth great mass extinction. Obviously a lot of life will survive and adapt, but much more will go extinct, as will our society. Billions of people are in danger because of climate change.
This domestication sidetrack is just another of Yohe's red herrings. The point was we're in the midst of a manmade mass extinction. Arguing about the rate of evolutionary change in domesticated animals returned to the wild is irrelevant to that point. The majority of species on Earth will die off if we don't reverse our trend of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Don't let Yohe sidetrack yet another interesting discussion.I've learned to just ignore him since he never has anything of value to say and is usually incorrect in what he posts. But I'm not sure we can reverse the increase of CO2. It seems like we are heading towards a great extinction of mankind. I mean even green technology is made through the harvesting of rare and limited metals. Recycling isn't green due the exhaust from the vehicles that transport it. There are many complicated issues. But since all life on the planet is doomed eventually (either from a possible future asteroid hit or the eventual expansion of the sun) I can't really bother either way. Forsaking modern technology puts the earth at risk of an asteroid hitting it and wiping things out, the same with the sun. Modern technology is really the only way to prevent such global disasters. It's almost like a catch 22.
I've learned to just ignore him since he never has anything of value to say and is usually incorrect in what he posts. But I'm not sure we can reverse the increase of CO2. It seems like we are heading towards a great extinction of mankind. I mean even green technology is made through the harvesting of rare and limited metals. Recycling isn't green due the exhaust from the vehicles that transport it. There are many complicated issues. But since all life on the planet is doomed eventually (either from a possible future asteroid hit or the eventual expansion of the sun) I can't really bother either way. Forsaking modern technology puts the earth at risk of an asteroid hitting it and wiping things out, the same with the sun. Modern technology is really the only way to prevent such global disasters. It's almost like a catch 22.Almost? It is the ultimate Catch-22. Technology has given us many advantages, but also brought many problems. We're finding ways to destroy our ecosphere. Technology also offers our best hope for overcoming the problems we created with the way we use our technology. It's all in how we decide to use what we've developed. Unfortunately, far too many people in our society listen to Faux News and other propaganda outlets instead of seeking reliable sources. They're doing everything they can to prevent or at least delay taking responsibility for our actions. Inactions have consequences too.
Lausten, the change rate is understood for wild animals. It varies by species, but still takes thousands of years for a change to occur. The tree foul that the chicken came from for example takes 100K years for mutations. Yet in a fifty year program at the University of Pennsylvania on chicken mutations, they have had three mutations in the fifty years. Thus, one would have to think that it is possible that we don’t have the same timeline for domestication mutations as for evolution mutations. Probably because we messed with Mother Nature. Therefore, the domesticated animals should have a better chance of survival with Climate Change.Why? Domestication brings relaxation of senses. A very bad thing when you must rely on pure survival skills. Mostly, physical conditioning in an ideal environment makes one more vulnerable, especially in complex organisms. Where simple adjustments of behavior are no longer required for sustenance, natural selections favors all who survive , and continue in controlled safe environment. If they live , they thrive. 4 milk cows are better than three. But not really, 3 good milk cows are better then 4 mediocre, but we have taken the function of natural selecti, by selecting them all. Tough we mate prime bulls with prime females and treasure them, nature has no such feeling. It creates a greater variety of offspring, and that the probabilistic part of evolution, it's in all directions. Write4u, don’t get to wrapped up in the domestication and Climate Change because of what I stated. It was more for humor with Lausten. At this point in the studies of species, the scientist still need to define “what is a species". It is tough to classify organisms because delineating species requires sharp biological breaks that don’t always exist. Yet by looking we can see that they are a different species. Point being, can a species really become extinct if the species itself is made up of other species. For example, humans have the some of the DNA from the tardigrades. It is looking like all living organisms share a beginning ancestry. And it seems a little confusing when things like fungi (mushrooms) have now been revealed as being closer to animals like humans than to other plants like lettuce. That's what I said. As long as the planet is alive there will be living things. That is because all living things share a few hundred bio-molecules which naturally occur on an earth-like planet.. The question is, after the extinction, will life have to start as a stromatolite again? Aku Aku still supports living things, but not human life, except for a few visitors trying to find out what caused their extinction on Aku Aku.
I've learned to just ignore him since he never has anything of value to say and is usually incorrect in what he posts. But I'm not sure we can reverse the increase of CO2. It seems like we are heading towards a great extinction of mankind. I mean even green technology is made through the harvesting of rare and limited metals. Recycling isn't green due the exhaust from the vehicles that transport it. There are many complicated issues. But since all life on the planet is doomed eventually (either from a possible future asteroid hit or the eventual expansion of the sun) I can't really bother either way. Forsaking modern technology puts the earth at risk of an asteroid hitting it and wiping things out, the same with the sun. Modern technology is really the only way to prevent such global disasters. It's almost like a catch 22.Almost? It is the ultimate Catch-22. Technology has given us many advantages, but also brought many problems. We're finding ways to destroy our ecosphere. Technology also offers our best hope for overcoming the problems we created with the way we use our technology. It's all in how we decide to use what we've developed. Unfortunately, far too many people in our society listen to Faux News and other propaganda outlets instead of seeking reliable sources. They're doing everything they can to prevent or at least delay taking responsibility for our actions. Inactions have consequences too. I'm honestly not optimistic for the future. The smart people get ignored and the idiots have access to toys they have no idea how to operate.
Tough we mate prime bulls with prime females and treasure them, nature has no such feeling. It creates a greater variety of offspring, and that is the probabilistic part of evolution, it's in all directions.Are you saying that domestication, the breeding of animals creates a greater variety of offspring? No, I am saying the opposite. Domestication creates less variety, because we do the selection and thereby breed out the very survival skills for living in a wild state, and thus becomes dependent on our care.
Write4u, don’t get to wrapped up in the domestication and Climate Change because of what I stated. It was more for humor with Lausten. At this point in the studies of species, the scientist still need to define “what is a species". It is tough to classify organisms because delineating species requires sharp biological breaks that don’t always exist. Yet by looking we can see that they are a different species. Point being, can a species really become extinct if the species itself is made up of other species. For example, humans have the some of the DNA from the tardigrades. It is looking like all living organisms share a beginning ancestry. And it seems a little confusing when things like fungi (mushrooms) have now been revealed as being closer to animals like humans than to other plants like lettuce.This is the problem with people who makes up facts then think they know what the hell they're talking about. There is a very easy way to tell if individuals are from the same species. If they can produce offspring that in turn can produce viable offspring then they are from the same species. So the "scientists" have no problem at all defining what are species, this is more of the kind of highly dishonest mumbo-jumbo coming from this poster on things like climate change. As for all species sharing DNA, this isn't new science at all. I guess if you've spent your life thinking that god made everything from scratch then it may come as a major shock to learn how closely related everything on the planet is to everything else, that doesn't mean that it's all one species and that no species ever really goes extinct. Because it's not just specific genetic material that determines individual species, but how that material is placed on the DNA strand, whether it is repeated, how many times and how it is expressed by the epi-genetics. Different species often access the exact same genes but do so in different sequences, turning them on and off in unique ways that create highly different outcomes. For instance humans and chimpanzees share almost exactly the same DNA but have very different outcomes in form and behavior. Nature takes the most efficient path it can to produce the huge variety of lifeforms, for instance just a few genes are used to produce the vast differences in form we see in life. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9978/
As mentioned throughout this book, the expression of Hox genes provides the basis for anterior-posterior axis specification throughout the animal kingdom. This means that the enormous variation of morphological form in the animal kingdom is underlain by a common set of instructions. Indeed, one of the most remarkable pieces of evidence for deep homologies among all the animals of the world is provided by the Hox genes. As mentioned in Chapter 11, not only are the Hox genes themselves homologous, but they are in the same order on their respective chromsomes. The expression patterns are also remarkably similar between the Hox genes of different phyla: the genes at the 3′ end are expressed anteriorly, while those at the 5′ end are expressed more posteriorly (Figure 22.2). As if this evidence of homology were not enough, Malicki and colleagues (1992) demonstrated that the human HOXB4 gene could mimic the function of its Drosophila homologue, deformed, when introduced into Dfd-deficient Drosophila embryos. Slack and his colleagues (1993) postulated that the Hox gene expression pattern defines the development of all animals, and that the pattern of Hox gene expression is constant for all phyla.*This doesn't mean we're all the same species and that there is no such thing as extinction as Yohe is once again misrepresenting the facts, it means that the natural world uses a common playbook at a basic level to produce a huge variety of forms. Now maybe Yohe is equipped to physically copulate with a tardigrade, even if he did so there is no chance that an offspring would result because the complexities in development of a new organism are such that the huge differences in genetic structure between a human and tardigrade would prevent even basic development of life. If Yohe went to west Africa and sought out a Gorilla or Chimp though things could be different. It's possible - though not recorded that I'm aware of - that in copulating with another Great Ape Yohe could produce a hybrid, but the chance of this individual being fertile are almost zero. The 6 million year of separation between humans and other apes has created a barrier that does in fact delineate different species. And by losing other Great Apes we will in fact lose unique genes in unique combinations that do in fact make up distinct species. And the difference of fungi "to other plants" is only confusing if you think they're plants to start with. Here is what defines the three different kingdoms of life being discussed here. http://study.com/academy/lesson/kingdom-plantae-facts-characteristics-examples.html
There are creatures living among us that use air and water to make sugar! Sounds magical, doesn't it? You probably take them for granted, but you shouldn't. They make the air you breathe, the food you eat, the fiber for your clothes, dyes for fabrics, the building materials for your house and the legs for your table. I could keep going but you get the idea. Kingdom plantae is one of six kingdoms of organisms, and it includes every plant you could imagine from the moss growing on the forest floor to the mighty, towering fir trees.http://study.com/academy/lesson/kingdom-fungi-definition-characteristics-examples.html
What do mushrooms, bread, wine, beer, and rotting organisms all have in common? It is obvious that some are edible while others are not. Mushrooms are found in nature, while wine and beer are clearly beverages processed by humans. As for rotting organisms, those typically aren't of much interest to most people. However, all of these examples have a common thread: the kingdom Fungi. The kingdom Fungi includes a tremendous variety of organisms that are neither plant nor animal. These unique multicellular eukaryotes include edible examples like mushrooms and organisms such as yeast, which makes our bread rise and ferments our beer and wine. And their impact on our world as decomposers is absolutely crucial to every ecosystem. In this lesson, you'll learn more about members of the kingdom Fungi and gain a better understanding of how fungi function in our world.http://biology.tutorvista.com/organism/kingdom-animalia.html
The word 'animal' is derived from the Latin word animalis which means 'having breath'. The Kingdom Animalia is characterized by eukaryotic and heterotrophic organisms. They are multicellular and lack cell wall. They depend directly or indirectly of plants for their food. Food is ingested and digested in their internal cavity and food reserves are stored as glycogen or fat. Nutrition is holozoic, i.e., by ingestion of food. Animals follow a definite growth pattern, the adults have a definite shape and size. Higher forms of animals exhibit well developed sensory and neuromotor mechanism. Most of the organisms are capable of locomotion. Reproduction is by copulation of male and female which is followed by development in embryonic stages.Keep in mind Yohe is the main "expert" on the side of climate change denial here that has kept the "debate" going for years. And apparently lacks a fundamental understanding of what science and rational enquiry is. To be clear it's not making up whatever facts suit your beliefs then presenting them as being the authority on the subject.
Now maybe Yohe is equipped to physically copulate with a tardigrade.:ohh: :lol: That is funny, largely because it highlights the absurdity of Yohe's beliefs.
Now maybe Yohe is equipped to physically copulate with a tardigrade.:ohh: :lol: That is funny, largely because it highlights the absurdity of Yohe's beliefs. It really does, the purpose of science is to discover the most rational explanation for what we observe in the natural world, not the most obscure and irrational. Which requires actually putting the time and effort into learning what the most current and well supported science is. Not devoting yourself to making stuff up to conform to your belief systems not reality. There is a term for someone who totally denies reality because it conflicts with their worldview and it's not "rational".
@ Mike Yohe,
Another very important part of nature is that trees eat carbon and their waste product is oxygen.
Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy into chemical energy that can later be released to fuel the organisms' activities (energy transformation). This chemical energy is stored in carbohydrate molecules, such as sugars, which are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water – hence the name photosynthesis, from the Greek φῶς, phs, "light", and σνθεσις, synthesis, "putting together".[1][2][3] In most cases, oxygen is also released as a waste product. Most plants, most algae, and cyanobacteria perform photosynthesis; such organisms are called photoautotrophs. Photosynthesis is largely responsible for producing and maintaining the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere, and supplies all of the organic compounds and most of the energy necessary for life on Earthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis Yet we cut them down at a rate of 2,234,054 Forest loss this year (hectares) http://www.worldometers.info/
They ran out of food. They had to do something. They discovered that growing food was better than migrating for an unreliable supply. Survival of the fittest.What about all the after effects There are aftereffects to everything. The people who first started growing things could hardly have known the after effects. There are after effects to hunting and gathering, too. Eventually people outstrip the food supply. How would you have changed it, anyway. That's like trying to change human evolution.
@ Mike Yohe, Another very important part of nature is that trees eat carbon and their waste product is oxygen.As much as I love trees, lets not forget the lowly Phytoplankton
Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere. They aren’t sure because it’s a tough thing to calculate. In the lab, scientists can determine how much oxygen is produced by a single phytoplankton cell. The hard part is figuring out the total number of these microscopic plants throughout Earth’s oceans. Phytoplankton wax and wane with the seasons. Phytoplankton blooms happen in spring when there’s more available light and nutrients. http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen
Do you know if acidification is harmful to Phytoplankton? This is truly scary; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Other_biological_impacts@ Mike Yohe, Another very important part of nature is that trees eat carbon and their waste product is oxygen.As much as I love trees, lets not forget the lowly PhytoplanktonScientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere. They aren’t sure because it’s a tough thing to calculate. In the lab, scientists can determine how much oxygen is produced by a single phytoplankton cell. The hard part is figuring out the total number of these microscopic plants throughout Earth’s oceans. Phytoplankton wax and wane with the seasons. Phytoplankton blooms happen in spring when there’s more available light and nutrients. http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen
Do you know if acidification is harmful to Phytoplankton? This is truly scary; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Other_biological_impactsThe oxygen producing organisms arose in a high carbon dioxide environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoatmosphere, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Cyanobacter started in an atmosphere with virtually no oxygen and polluted with their waste until a significant proportion (currently 20%) of the atmosphere was their waste product, oxygen. Clearly, humans weren't the first organisms to influence the planet's climate. Nor did they trigger the mass extinction cause by cyanobacter (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/07/28/the_great_oxygenation_event_the_earth_s_first_mass_extinction.html) - but maybe if we work at it........
We needed fiber?