Upload
Login or register

cleverguy

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/02/2011
Last Login:6/19/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 6334 total,  7426 ,  1092
Comment Thumbs: 5586 total,  7765 ,  2179
Content Level Progress: 22% (22/100)
Level 163 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 164 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:6
Content Views:197367
Times Content Favorited:476 times
Total Comments Made:7393
FJ Points:3124
Favorite Tags: for (12) | Reading (12) | the (12) | tags (11) | thank (11) | You (11) | a (6) | i (4) | dont (3) | im (3) | this (3) | his (2) | is (2) | its (2) | joke (2) | me (2)

Text Posts

  • Views: 67097
    Thumbs Up 3520 Thumbs Down 293 Total: +3227
    Comments: 594
    Favorites: 381
    Uploaded: 08/07/12
    Feminists Again Feminists Again
  • Views: 26697
    Thumbs Up 803 Thumbs Down 65 Total: +738
    Comments: 50
    Favorites: 16
    Uploaded: 11/19/12
    Bassists Bassists
  • Views: 14975
    Thumbs Up 379 Thumbs Down 63 Total: +316
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 21
    Uploaded: 09/23/12
    Anticscomic Anticscomic
  • Views: 2099
    Thumbs Up 65 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +60
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 07/20/11
    The Cleveland Show The Cleveland Show
  • Views: 2007
    Thumbs Up 44 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +39
    Comments: 11
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 07/30/11
    Stepladder Stepladder
  • Views: 3478
    Thumbs Up 31 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +25
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 08/05/11
    Nigel Thornberry Comp Nigel Thornberry Comp
First2[ 12 ]
  • Views: 1763
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +16
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 03/29/14
    Oh So Close Oh So Close

latest user's comments

#142167 - i agree with you for the most part, but i think its cuz christ…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/18/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#142190 - zlane (06/18/2016) [-]
that's admittedly true. no one follows the Bible to a T, and many Christians rationalize this with a host of excuses. our only disagreement is whether it would be sensible to follow the Bible to a T
#142110 - isn't it funny how fundamentalists of any given religion are g…  [+] (10 new replies) 06/18/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#142112 - zlane (06/18/2016) [-]
looking at Christianity in particular, i think the craziest members often event their own narratives and twist the Bible to suit these narratives. the most prominent example being the westboro baptist church protesting funerals based on a really weird interpretation of the Bible. i don't think the people who strictly follow the Bible and interpret it correctly are crazy at all.

looking at islam on the other hand, there's no way you can strictly follow that shit and not be crazy
User avatar
#142167 - cleverguy (06/18/2016) [-]
i agree with you for the most part, but i think its cuz christians can be pretty hand-wavy about things in the bible they're allowed to ignore.

i've been more and more convinced on that stance about islam lately

even judaism would be pretty nuts if you tried to follow it exactly, but literally almost no one actually does and certainly not people running governments
User avatar
#142190 - zlane (06/18/2016) [-]
that's admittedly true. no one follows the Bible to a T, and many Christians rationalize this with a host of excuses. our only disagreement is whether it would be sensible to follow the Bible to a T
User avatar
#142116 - platinumaltaria (06/18/2016) [-]
Well you're not a true christian, you don't stone the gays or keep biblically endorsed slaves!
User avatar
#142126 - zlane (06/18/2016) [-]
>implying i don't
User avatar
#142114 - caet (06/18/2016) [-]
You simply cannot be real. I refuse to believe that was a genuine sentiment.
#142118 - anon (06/18/2016) [-]
Yep. Anyone who takes the Bible literally is crazy, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous .
User avatar
#142157 - caet (06/18/2016) [-]
thats not what im referring to
#142182 - anon (06/18/2016) [-]
What are you even referring to?
User avatar
#142115 - zlane (06/18/2016) [-]
...?
#141699 - you havent read the whole thing have you?  [+] (1 new reply) 06/12/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#141700 - zlane (06/12/2016) [-]
i just skimmed it : P
#141625 - the papers that are cited measure fitness in multiple ways, de… 06/11/2016 on Religion Board +1
#141613 - what do you mean? different from your definition?  [+] (2 new replies) 06/11/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#141620 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
he means deleterious as in decreasing reproductive fitness.

we don't see mutations affect the reproductive fitness of every offspring every generation or even over many generations, so i reject that
User avatar
#141625 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
the papers that are cited measure fitness in multiple ways, definitely not purely reproductive fitness
#141597 - i really dont see how thats different than sanford's argument  [+] (5 new replies) 06/11/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#141600 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
just because i don't think evolution would lead to extinction. i'll read the article and get back to you. first i have to deal with plat
User avatar
#141604 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
Sanford has a different definition of "deleterious mutation" in mind
User avatar
#141613 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
what do you mean? different from your definition?
User avatar
#141620 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
he means deleterious as in decreasing reproductive fitness.

we don't see mutations affect the reproductive fitness of every offspring every generation or even over many generations, so i reject that
User avatar
#141625 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
the papers that are cited measure fitness in multiple ways, definitely not purely reproductive fitness
#141591 - zlane has been putting forward the most thought-provoking argu…  [+] (40 new replies) 06/11/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#141696 - zlane (06/12/2016) [-]
he refers to this study www.genetics.org/content/168/4/1817.full to support his claim that 13% of mutations are beneficial. the study makes a very important important caveat:
“the protocol for measuring fitness may cause mutations that are deleterious in nature to be beneficial in the lab. In the complete medium of our growth assays, several metabolic pathways, such as those involved in amino acid synthesis, are not required. … **Mutations that reduce or preclude production of proteins in these types of pathways might be beneficial to diploid mitotic growth rate, even though they represent deleterious mutations in nature**.”

when he talks about beneficial mutations i think he’s just talking about mutations that increase reproductive success, and in this sense, beneficial mutations might be able “undue” deleterious mutations, but for beneficial mutations to solve the issue i’m referring to, they would have to be function-building. but as Behe says “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution is break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain" .what i’m saying is that many mutations that are called beneficial are actually deleterious since they are eliminating function- in the yeast example, metabolic pathways “such as those involved in amino acid synthesis” weren’t necessary in the fitness landscape of growth assay and “(may have) represented a metabolic load on a cell and cause reduced growth in complete medium” and this reduction of function “might be beneficial to diploid mitotic growth rate”. so these are not mutations i would call beneficial, and they don’t really help solve the issue. remember, i’m not really arguing that reproductive fitness will necessarily be reduced over many generations.

>Human life span is increasing

this is just due to environmental factors. i don’t understand how this goes against the argument.

>we don’t observe genetic entropy

i think the rate of degradation is too slow to accurately measure most of the time,
but there are examples of observed genetic entropy:

"Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years, the researchers report. On average, 164,688 of the variants — roughly 14% — were potentially harmful, and of those, 86% arose in the past 5,000 years. 'There’s so many of [variants] that exist that some of them have to contribute to disease,' says Akey" Past 5,000 years prolific for changes to human genome, Nature, 2012

"Things have gotten worse, though; with lessened selective pressures (or, more accurately, very very different selective pressures) and lower family sizes, humans are currently performing what might be called a large-scale mutational meltdown experiment (since basically nothing currently stops us from accumulating deleterious mutations)."

i touched on why we don’t see genetic entropy in microorganisms in my previous reply
User avatar
#141699 - cleverguy (06/12/2016) [-]
you havent read the whole thing have you?
User avatar
#141700 - zlane (06/12/2016) [-]
i just skimmed it : P
User avatar
#141633 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
i will give a more in depth response but first let me make a few points

Sandford's metric is based Kimura's studies, which i don't use.

> If the buildup of deleterious mutations were a real phenomenon, it would become apparent over thousands of generations in laboratory flasks of bacteria.

this is all do to body size

1. larger organisms have much larger genome sizes, which increases the mutation rate.
2. micoorganisms have many more reproductions per generation, giving selection more variation to work with. some are bound to be unaffected each generation.
3. natural selection's strength depends on population size

>Synergistic Epistasis

2 years after this article was written, John Sanford published this www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0013 addressing whether synergistic epistasis can solve the problem
User avatar
#141592 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
i will read the article but first let me clarify that my argument isn't the same as Sanford's

Sanford says that we get 10+ mutations every generation that harm reproductive fitness, leading to mass extinction. while it’s obvious that these mutations affect function(protein folding, binding, etc), and affect fitness in regard, i think Sanford might be overestimating their effect with respect to reproductive fitness. it’s conceivable there could exist complex organisms with loosely functional genomes, and i think that over many thousands of generations, that’s what we would be left with. evolution wouldnt necessarily drive everything to extinction, it would just create very different genomes than what we actually observe

so my argument is

(1) mutations negatively affect functionally constrained sequences every generation.(6-32 deleterious(not with respect to reproduction) mutations per generation. 20% is under functional constraint)

(2) natural selection is actually blind to most of these changes since they don't have immediate fitness repercussions. ( they only very slightly degrade function, making a fold is slightly less stable, a binding spot not as functional. like rust on a car)

(3)so they accumulate mostly unhindered

(4)therefore, given millions of years of evolution, you would not expect the genome to be under very much functional constraint(less than 1%)
(prominent evolutionists agree that evolution should create a genome that is only 1-2%functional)

(5) the genome is significantly functionally constrained

(c) evolution sux


and for anyone curious, this is the major argument against evolution i like to use
>>#141041
>>#141077
User avatar
#141597 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
i really dont see how thats different than sanford's argument
User avatar
#141600 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
just because i don't think evolution would lead to extinction. i'll read the article and get back to you. first i have to deal with plat
User avatar
#141604 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
Sanford has a different definition of "deleterious mutation" in mind
User avatar
#141613 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
what do you mean? different from your definition?
User avatar
#141620 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
he means deleterious as in decreasing reproductive fitness.

we don't see mutations affect the reproductive fitness of every offspring every generation or even over many generations, so i reject that
User avatar
#141625 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
the papers that are cited measure fitness in multiple ways, definitely not purely reproductive fitness
User avatar
#141596 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
Good thing the earth's only 6000 years old and flat, else we'd be in serious trouble.
#141606 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
oh and

> believing round earth theory
User avatar
#141608 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
>thinking the earth being round is a theory.
User avatar
#141611 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
>not accepting earth-on-turtles-back theory
User avatar
#141612 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
That's not a theory either! Stop baiting me and defend your stupid ;)
#141616 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
do your research man
User avatar
#141618 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
You see I wouldn't be surprised if you thought this based on what you normally say.
User avatar
#141621 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
i really do think that. stop attacking my beliefs
User avatar
#141622 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
Stop believing stupid shit.
User avatar
#141624 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
YOU CAN HEAR THE TURTLES. OPEN YOUR EARS
User avatar
#141626 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
>thinks there's objective morality
>thinks evolution doesn't happen
>thinks the earth is flat
See how these are similar.
User avatar
#141628 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
cept the earth is flat close minded phaggot
User avatar
#141629 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
Stop baiting.
User avatar
#141630 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
User avatar
#141631 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
You want me to necropost? Because this is how you get me to necropost.
User avatar
#141598 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
it is. and that's the obvious solution to these issues.
User avatar
#141599 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
;-; See I was going to leave those links alone but now you've forced my hand.
User avatar
#141601 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
nah that's alright. lets talk about anime or something
User avatar
#141603 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
2late2butthurt
User avatar
#141605 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
pls
User avatar
#141607 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
I'm sorry mate but you're the one who harps on about genetics with no understanding of how genes are even passed on...

IMO genetics is the best evidence for evolution we have, and I consider it insulting to the decades of work by countless men and women to have you shit on their ideas.
User avatar
#141609 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
just let cleverguy respond.
User avatar
#141610 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
What's he got to do with me? I haven't seen him say anything stupid yet, so he gets to remain unmolested.
User avatar
#141614 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
ur a monster. leave our private bits alone
User avatar
#141615 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
If you don't say stupid shit you have nothing to fear...
User avatar
#141617 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
stop molesting me
User avatar
#141619 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
I wouldn't even rape you.
User avatar
#141623 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
u want it the other way around eh?
User avatar
#141627 - platinumaltaria (06/11/2016) [-]
You aren't worthy.
#141588 - the strict answer to your question is yes, but like the articl…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/11/2016 on Religion Board +1
User avatar
#141595 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
>since they directly relate protein stability to their term "protein fitness", when they talk about deleterious mutations they are talking about something different than I was thinking of before

right so hopefully this gives everyone a better idea of what i'm talking about when i talk about deleterious mutations.
#141573 - by definition, a mutation that is deleterious is one that redu…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/11/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#141574 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Structural_Biochemistry/Stability,_Mutation_and_Evolvability#Relationship_between_Stability_and_Protein_Fitness

ok so this talks about deleterious mutations affecting protein fitness. it says

" But for the levels of the organisms, the reproduction rates (fitness, W) are not simple and they hardly ever relate with the properties of one type of gene or one type of protein" "Because of the effects of redundancy, backup and robustness at a variety of different levels, the effects of mutations are therefore masked. For these reasons, it is safe to conclude that the effects of mutations is a difficulty for evolutionary biologists. But an equation can be utilized to therefore show a simple model of protein fitness. Protein fitness (W) is the fluctuation of an enzyme catalyzed reaction and this is then systematically related to the fitness of the organism in which this particular enzyme functions."

i'm having trouble understanding. isn't it possible for a mutation to be deleterious with respect to protein function, but not deleterious with respect to the organisms reproduction rate?
User avatar
#141588 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
the strict answer to your question is yes, but like the article says, a positive, new function mutation will still reduce protein stability, which is something i did not know.

this is also something that is very specific since the article seems to use a definition of "phenotypic mutation" that I'm not familiar with; i generally include a protein's function with an organism's phenotype, but the article makes some sort of distinction

i think what the article is saying boils down to: protein stability is calculable, but not linked to protein function in obvious ways

since they directly relate protein stability to their term "protein fitness", when they talk about deleterious mutations they are talking about something different than I was thinking of before
User avatar
#141595 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
>since they directly relate protein stability to their term "protein fitness", when they talk about deleterious mutations they are talking about something different than I was thinking of before

right so hopefully this gives everyone a better idea of what i'm talking about when i talk about deleterious mutations.
#141571 - here are some other terms that are more sp…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/11/2016 on Religion Board 0
User avatar
#141572 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975 this talks about deleterious mutations affecting protein stability. do all these 'deleterious' mutations necessarily have fitness repercussions?
User avatar
#141573 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
by definition, a mutation that is deleterious is one that reduces fitness.

if a protein is less stable (can happen due to an amino acid being replaced with one of a less fitting size, polarity, or charge needed for binding the substrate) it will be worse at its job.

proteins work by stabilizing something called the "transition state" of its substrate. there is an active site on the protein where the substrate binds to and the rest of the protein is for other things. the active site binds preferentially to the transition state of the substrate, which stabilizes it and lowers the activation energy of the reaction the protein catalyzes, which makes the reaction go faster. If the protein itself is less stable, then the protein-substrate complex will more than likely be less stable and thus the protein will not perform as well.

not all mutations make the protein less stable and some may make it more stable
User avatar
#141574 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Structural_Biochemistry/Stability,_Mutation_and_Evolvability#Relationship_between_Stability_and_Protein_Fitness

ok so this talks about deleterious mutations affecting protein fitness. it says

" But for the levels of the organisms, the reproduction rates (fitness, W) are not simple and they hardly ever relate with the properties of one type of gene or one type of protein" "Because of the effects of redundancy, backup and robustness at a variety of different levels, the effects of mutations are therefore masked. For these reasons, it is safe to conclude that the effects of mutations is a difficulty for evolutionary biologists. But an equation can be utilized to therefore show a simple model of protein fitness. Protein fitness (W) is the fluctuation of an enzyme catalyzed reaction and this is then systematically related to the fitness of the organism in which this particular enzyme functions."

i'm having trouble understanding. isn't it possible for a mutation to be deleterious with respect to protein function, but not deleterious with respect to the organisms reproduction rate?
User avatar
#141588 - cleverguy (06/11/2016) [-]
the strict answer to your question is yes, but like the article says, a positive, new function mutation will still reduce protein stability, which is something i did not know.

this is also something that is very specific since the article seems to use a definition of "phenotypic mutation" that I'm not familiar with; i generally include a protein's function with an organism's phenotype, but the article makes some sort of distinction

i think what the article is saying boils down to: protein stability is calculable, but not linked to protein function in obvious ways

since they directly relate protein stability to their term "protein fitness", when they talk about deleterious mutations they are talking about something different than I was thinking of before
User avatar
#141595 - zlane (06/11/2016) [-]
>since they directly relate protein stability to their term "protein fitness", when they talk about deleterious mutations they are talking about something different than I was thinking of before

right so hopefully this gives everyone a better idea of what i'm talking about when i talk about deleterious mutations.