Genes for traits that are too detrimental to the
Infomaniac, The crossed beaks: If you will take a Resco Dog nail clipper and shave a bit off of both bills, and do it regualarly as the beaks grow back, there will be significant improvement in alignment as the chick gets older. The chick should be banded or marked so that no eggs will be hatched from the chick, of course. If allowed to continue to grow naturally, the problem will be greater, and the chick may not thrive as well. Had one pullet with only the upper mandable crooked, recover so that she was indistinguishable from normal ones by 5 months. CJR
Cross beaks are sometimes caused by incubator conditions. The one eyed cross beaks that I tend to get could be genetic, but it doesn't seem to be a simple recessive. I get them in total outcrosses, but this doesn't mean that the two lines that I cross don't have the same genetic defect.
Infomaniac (were you formally known as Anonymous?, Anon has F1 and 2's too) about the Araucanas. I read these birds were originally from South America, (Peru?) and were wild. I read they were dark (black) birds, not sure if bantam or standard. I understand where your coming from about the fatal problem. Looks like they would have just died out before people got ahold of them.
Hannah, My friend Dr. Elio Corti, Italy has written a 3 volumne treatis on the "Origin of the Domestic Fowl"--in Italian. Don't know how much is on line?? But while the Araucanas came to the U.S. from Peru, it is simply not known how they came to be in Peru, as there are no native chickens in the Western Hemisphere--all have been introduced from lands across both oceans. Turkeys and the Ratites and related birds are native to N,Central or S America (as far as known),but the chicken has no history nor has any evidence of early chickens been located in all the Inca ,Aztec, etc. civilizations, nor is there evidence that any migrants from Siberia brought chickens to N America. The Araucana was not a wild chicken, but doubtless arrived with seafarers to Peruvian shores from the Pacific?????? Search still goes on. . . Very Interesting! CJR
Thank you, Hannah...I had been posting as
Polynesian chickens got as far east as Easter Island. Crawford (1990) Poultry Breeding and Genetics, mentions the possibility that chickens were pre Colombian in South America. If we could find some really old Chicken mummies in the Andes we could probably come closer to an answer. We could isolate DNA and look to see if they were more closely related to European chickens or Asian breeds. There is a definite difference between the two.
Rokimoto, DNA testing is going on with SPacific chicken bones, as well as testing of chickens in many parts of the world, exactly for relationship. Other birds and their feathers show in records of earliest civilizations, stone carvings, mummy wraps, but none of chickens (they would not have stature for burial with important people--chickens, if for food, would have been belonged to servants, and as food, not ceremonial, and there have been none discovered to date--IF they existed with earliest civilisations in the Western Hemisphere (but you know there was just one continent on the face of the world at first, and ?????) How could anyone be bored with such profound subjects to explore???? CJR
This is a tough issue. No chicken bones in the
LOL, how DID they exist without the chicken, indeed? They must have had boring lives! Now your touching on another subject near and dear to my heart, archeology. I had wanted to be an anthropologist or archeologist when I was very young. Then I found out it took as long to go to school as it takes to be a medical doctor (just about)and about the only jobs available are in museums.
Thank you for your post, Hannah.... I really know
That sounds like a neat idea. Money is the factor that always drives these things though. I don't think the evolution of the chicken is very high on any researchers list.
We wouldn't want to live on a planet where they dug down 100 ft, everywhere. Homeowners and city officials would object, and the ecology of the planet would be disrupted. Why stop at 100 ft? If you go to the grand canyon there is a mile of sediments over the lowest levels, and it only goes back to the Cambrian (about 500 million years). Anyone that thinks that we have more than a very small sample of fossils from the past is fooling themselves. We have a good sample from certain places and times, and we have a pretty good picture of the past, but it is far from complete.
OK ... from a molecular genetics - history point of
The problem is that traits are being lost, and the genetic movement seems to be only in the direction of into the wild populations. Eclipse molt has been lost, and females now have combs like domestic birds. Who knows what else has been lost that we can't tell by outward appearance.
Hi Rokimoto, your right about what's going on with the hunt for the original chicken. Eclipse molt is a totally new term for me, can you define it?
I have a hard time accepting the notion that genetic
with all of the genetic altering of crops,such as introducing fish genes into corn, etc.,it would seem possible to extract the jungle gene from crossed fowl and create a true wild type junglefowl. [ do not understand nearly as much as the rest of you here,but with the technology available and on the way, it seems that even if the appearance of traits being lost, they only need to be harvested from donors and rejoined to create an original.
Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency in a population over time. For some time we will have wild genes in the wild populations, but extracting them is harder than you think. Think about genetic recombination. Every chromosome gets scambled every generation. Chromosomes come in pairs. In the original hybrid there will be one wild and one domestic chromosome. There is likely at least one recombination event between each chromosome. Large ones like chromosome 1 will have half a dozen recombination events where parts of each chromsome (wild and domestic) are exchanged. After a few generations it becomes nearly impossible to reconstruct the original chromsome by breeding.
I believe that Linus Pauling (only person to win two
The lament of myself and other scientist is not that we dislike the changes, they are apparently selected for in the new environment, but that we were unable to study the populations before they met their demise. There are questions that will not be answered because of the intervention of other humans. You can look at this as part of nature, but we can still dislike it for the loss of information. I wish that a few dinosaurs survived the mass extinction at the end of the cretaceous. If we had just one living dino species we could put an end to the bird-dino evolution debate. You don't have to think of something as good or bad to know that it has a negative impact on the questions that you can answer.
Thank you for your post. I won't claim to
Linus Pauling spoke at a lyceum at Oregon State University (he visited other times)when I was an undergraduate student.(long ago) I was so impressed with this man that his portrait hangs in my Guest Room, and he became and remains to this day: MY HERO. CJR
rokimoto i am trying to grasp all of this. are you saying above ,that all mutations come from the maternal line?
Robbpa:
Rokimoto, you and I are not on opposite sides, but
Have to get a "feather" in here, without wishing to generate any more dialog. I am a "learning by doing" person, and not needing "entertainment", but I do not need to "do" something that has already been done a hundred of useless times! But the masses thrive on entertainment--of all kinds, most of which is worthless to you and me. It keeps people out of the "last best places", so that some of God's creation still survives. And it does stimulate further interest in a small number of observers, and this alone can be of value, as it may bring some of those observers into legitimate research or genuine activity. Museums are indeed entertainment, but they also are repositories of profound enlightenment for a segment of the viewers. I have a rule of travel: No more than 1 Museum, 1 Cathedral, 1 Castle on a 3-4 weeks journey. And if I do not have a companion with me--and one of the three is not in front of me to stumble over, I would rather see what wildflowers have survived in a European woodland, the small arched stone bridges over the canals, or the drainage system of a field in Britain, developed 300 years ago, and still doing its duty, to ponder the gloveless hands that cleared the rock from fields and then piled the rock into walls that wind over hill and dale in the openlands of Britain, enjoy the garden flowers over the cottage fence, some growing there since Victorian times, others new introductions--maybe from Holland-- the wild seashore and shingle left on the coast, along with the shells of animals and the rugged plants that live there--and a peek in the barnyard to see who is crowing and who is clucking! And the "entertainment-tourist" is not there, I may have a whole coastline to myself--I like to think about that! And "ecology" is there for the mind to collect, sort and remember. Entertainment, yes, but adding to knowledge, which will surely be useful to me! Public Funds?--yes, it may seem a waste for many projects, but it may keep a lot of researchers from destroying what we still have, and golly, sometimes they stumble on something that DOES benefit everyone. CJR
Infomaniac:
Thank you all for your posts here.
Everyone has their opinion, but it is probably a good thing that your opinion doesn't count for very much in terms of what gets decided as to what is best for society. This is true for any single persons opinion. A lot of people have to agree to spend the money for research. Since you are a mathmatician explain the reasoning behind the research program at the Bell labs. Why do they waste their time and money funding research with no immediate benefit to the company? They've probably funded a lot of mathmaticians in their time and sometimes they get something back and most of the time they probably don't. I guess that they want to entertain a lot of scientists.
wow.......actually, that was interesting and educational. i breed horses, dairy doats, and poultry. i do this for recreation,exercise,and a learning experience.it has never been to scientifc, altho with the info gleaned from this site, my interests in applying more science to my recreation is growing. the problem is,only my time is subsidized by the taxpayer.not my financial needs. (i am on disability for low vision) now.......back to chickens.. has anyone checked out the "gold pencilled hamburg breeding article @ the chook shed site> i found it interesting and would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.
Boy, I love to see such educated minds at work, even if the work is maybe not on the same side of the chicken wire.
I repeat, "We get too soon OLD and to late SMART. .". the important thing is to keep learning, and not just trivia, but having a "passion" and try to "make a difference" with what is learned. If you can't communicate what you learn, at least record and save it. There are cliches for all of it! It is stimulating to "rub shoulders" with the Poultry people on the COOP!!Keeps one from feeling quite so OLD! I love it! Thank you all and Merry Christmas. CJR
When I went to Disney World in Florida in 1980 they were trying to breed the last Dusky Seaside sparrow to a related species to try and get even a hybrid, but they failed. Duskys are extinct. I bet they froze some tissue. Any tissue that they are likely to have from passenger pigeons would likely be no good for this purpose.
You are correct, Rokimoto, that I don't count for
rokimoto, you suggest that horses and donkeys are less closely related than chimps and humans. they can produce offspring in either cross. a jack and mare produce a mule which more resembles a donkey. a stallion and a jenny produce a hinney which more resembles a horse. there are rare cases (2 i have read about) where 2 mules have produced a live foal. also there a several zebra pony crosses.does this mean (i hope not) humans and chimps could reproduce.
P.S.
Unless you live in another country, Congress allocates research funds. There are a lot of people involved in this process. You can write to your congressman. A relatively small group of people determine what projects are potentially worthy of funding, because they are volunteers and are recruited to those positions, but there are many of these small groups for each field of expertise. You can't have a lot of people involved because everyone is too busy to do it. If you have a problem with allocation write to your congressman.
We are largely in agreement, Rokimoto. I am on
Hi Rokimoto, thanks for explaining how the fertilized and unfertilized egg works when it comes to trying to "clone" an extinct bird.
Info, I didn't read all of your last post. You are right when you say there will never be peace when people are hungry and miserable. But it's usually the hungry and miserable's own people (the select powerful wealthy few) that are keeping them hungry and miserable. And don't forget ignorant. An ignorant people are much easier to control and terrorize than an educated people.
Hannah, You read it right! Will send a good picture directly to you, of Anny and I in Belgium, (that is if you do not object, Anny), as soon as it comes on line For some reason the last roll arrived with just one print--no disk and not on line, so sent it right back for redo! Short visit, but what nice memories! That goes for Richmond, too, Hannah! Yes, you should visit me in Montana before I get too old!! It's a long walk, so you should indeed fly! CJR
hanna, as you entered the subject,i must have my say.by us having enough weapons to blow up the world 50 timesover, it is precisely why we in this nation are allowed to have such unlimited resources such as the internet, to have this kind of discussion, and the luxury of breeding chickens for their good looks, not just a food item.there had to be a more powerful force than the supreme court that allowed our current leaders to assume leadership. after 8 years of a lack of leadership by an administration that had little to no respect for our constitution our guiding principles, or apparantly anything else,we now have leadership to be proud of. and we have regained worldwide respect.thank god for what is right.
We probably had better stick to poultry issues. Maybe someone can restart this discussion on a new string. This one's beginning to take quite a while to load.
Sorry we went off on such a tangent. Poultry issues do tend to lead in other directions.
This is the last thing that I will say on this topic. It is not something that I come to this forum to do.
Robbpa:
Well said, Dr. Okimoto! I wish there were more people like you on this world! (08:59 pm post)
Ditto
animal are never dominant because that gene
puts the animal at a competetive disadvantage and
natural selection selects agains such traits ... a
lethal and dominant gene doesn't survive because
every animal that has it, dies ... one might argue
that ear tufts, Et, and rumplessness, Rp, are
detrimental as they are associated with decreased
hatchability and post-natal mortality (and Et is
lethal in the homozygous state) but yet they are
dominant ... but, my argument still applies in my
opinion because Et and Rp would not be nearly so
successful without human intervention so the
mechanisms of natural selection are
short-circuited. (Araucana fowl probably wouldn't
do a good job of surviving as wild birds).
We are seeing new and detrimental traits in our
blue egg project that I believe are coming through
the Leghorn line that we are maintaining. We have
now a little chick, about two weeks old, with
severely crossed beak. This little pullet is part of
the F2 generation in this project. This severely
crossed beak phenotype is a recessive trait and
one that we have never had in our flocks until we
started breeding with our Leghorns. We have now
more than 100 F2 generation chicks ranging in
age from 8 weeks to day-old (an incubator full is
coming out now - I really don't know anymore how
many we have, but, my hatch records have that
information). Her bottom beak curves to her
right and the top beak curves to her left. Amazingly,
she is doing pretty well and is otherwise a
vigorous, enthusiastic chick. She holds her head a
little bit crooked but she is very active and seems
happy. She drinks and eats by pushing her mouth
much farther into the feed or water than do the
other chicks. I've never seen this before and I am
inclined to keep her until she can't feed herself. At
that point, if it should come, I will have someone
cull her. Surely some readers of this board have
experienced this and I would be grateful to know
what to expect ... if it is possible for a chick to
survive to adulthood with this condition. We will
certainly not allow her to breed if she lives that
long.
We have a Leghorn hen (barely a year old) that has
a strange condition. Periodically, she bleeds from
her front. It seems that she loses a significant
amount of blood. Her front gets very wet with
blood. She is a good layer and doesn't seem to
mind this periodic bleeding but she gets her eggs,
and those in the nest with her, covered with blood.
Close examination shows a 'pouch' in her skin that
fills with blood, slowly, then ruptures when it gets
too full. It closes again and the cycle repeats. She
bleeds about every three weeks.
This bleeding thing is NOT the same as traditional
'breast blisters' that one associates with heavy
birds which is due to roosting.... this is a different
condition. Have any readers here ever had a bird
with this condition?
By Cjeanr on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 11:57 am:
By Rokimoto on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 12:58 pm:
I also had what we think was a bad batch of feed for one hatch and at the 8 week cull we had a couple of birds with cross beaks, and then at 18 weeks when we were placing the hens we found over half the males with cross beaks. We had raised the lines for a couple of years and had never had that problem, and we haven't had it since. The pullets did not develop the cross beak only the males. I think that the feed was short on vitamins and the D deficiency made their bones more plastic. The faster growing males seemed to be the most affected. Reproduction was pathetic for that generation too. In one line 3 out of 4 males that we mated (our Ameraucana line) didn't produce a single chick.
By HannahH on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 11:59 pm:
I guess there's no way of knowing how long they had already survived in the wild before man came along. Do you have any info on that? I'm very curious about this breed.
Oh, thanks for the info about the crossed beaks and what to do about it, CJR!
By Cjeanr on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 01:46 am:
By Infomaniac on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 11:07 am:
'anonymous' and a couple of readers asked me to
take on a different (anonymous) name, but
something what would be unique to me. I see
their point and so I tried to pick something that was
gender-neutral (I hate that word 'gender' because
using it to mean 'sex' is a mis-use.... personal
pronouns (he, she, his, her) have gender ... male
and female are sexes not genders).
By Rokimoto on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 03:08 pm:
By Cjeanr on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 03:33 pm:
By Infomaniac on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 06:38 pm:
caves in France????? Hmmmm.... what did they
eat? No KFC??? Shoot.... what a drag!
By HannahH on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 12:02 am:
Being from a middle class background, (I was raised by my grandparents) they couldn't afford it. Then my grandfather (Daddy is who he was and still is to me) died when I was 14. So that dashed any hopes I really had of trying to pursue that career. Guess I still could have tried to get a grant, but I basically took over taking care of my Grandmother, (who was SO smart) so things just got off track.
But diggin' up bones was what I wanted to do, not work in a dusty ol' museum. Now that I'm older however, I would LOVE to. Oh well. "Live and learn then die and forget it all," as my wise grandma (Mama) used to tell me.
Since God (in his infinite wisdom) decided I wasn't to have kids in this life, (maybe next time!) critters are my substitute. I had always wanted birds, but I never thought I'd get into chickens. Look what I've been missing! I'm so glad I found "The Coop" and all you wonderful folks!
Info, there weren't any cave paintings of chickens in France either, was there? Too bad the Egyptians only mummified Ibis and hawks. Like CJR said, if the world started out as one continent (isn't it refered to as Pangaea?) it looks like we would have had chickens in this hemisphere too. Maybe the folks making the Clovis Points ate 'em all!
By Infomaniac on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 11:34 am:
what you mean.... I don't have kids either but I have
nephews and nieces that I am close to. And, the
chickens are like my babies....certain ones more
than others, but, I can get really attached to some
of them. I used to just fall completely apart if one of
my favorite hens died.... I hope I don't do that so
much anymore, but I certainly have in the past. We
started out with a very small number of birds. We
still have half of those original ones (the other half
died of old age, I guess), but when my favorite hen
from that generation died last winter, I was a
wreck. I felt like I had lost my best friend.
The thing I wonder about in Archeology /
Anthropology is: we only know about the things
that have shown up on the surface or near the
surface of the ground. There must be hundreds or
thousands as much still buried in unknown
places. I'll bet that most archeologists /
anthopologists would love to underake a huge
effort to dig up the top 100 feet of dirt all over the
planet and sift it through a tiny screen to see all the
little bones and artifacts that are there.
I am not a geology person, but I believe that the
continents separated before the birds evolved!
But, I don't know for sure.
By HannahH on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 08:03 pm:
By Rokimoto on Saturday, December 15, 2001 - 11:05 am:
When I talked about mummies, I meant the South American mummies that were preserved by the dry climate. Many of these seemed to be ritual sacrifices and if they happened to put a chicken in one of the burial sites we could analyze the tissue.
The history of chickens can't really be trusted. We are just now getting a better handle on how chickens are related to other similar species like pheasants, quail and partridges. To try and sort out the domestic history we can now use molecular DNA evidence, but our efforts are hindered by the fact that American breeds have literally taken over the world. You can't go to a single country without seeing something like a Leghorn or that was crossed to a Leghorn. Rocks and Reds were widely distributed too. Museum skins may be the only means to sort out the problem. You also have to consider that the American heavy breeds are the result of crossing Asian and European stock, this only compounds the problems.
There may be no "wild" Red Junglefowl left. From what I gather all populations now show signs of domestic introgression. Because of this, sampling wild populations is not a good indicator of the history of that population.
By Infomaniac on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 02:18 pm:
view, I agree that contamination with modern fowl
intereferes with science. But, at the same time, it
tends to save the genes of the fowl involved.
Those wild jungle fowl about which you wrote
probably have genes that are spreading (or have
spread) throughout the poultry world because of
the same cross-breeding you mentioned. A good
aspect of this is that those genes from the wild
jungle fowl will survive in the larger poultry gene
pools. One might lament the loss of a pure strain,
but others of us will celebrate the fact that the
genes are still here, albeit dispersed into different
communities, strains, lines and breeds... perhaps
not in a single line or breed of birds, but we still
have the genes in the global gene pool and we
have access to them.
By Rokimoto on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 08:59 pm:
We have an effective extinction of the wild populations, brought on by the introduction of feral domesitic stocks.
By HannahH on Tuesday, December 18, 2001 - 08:43 pm:
Also, I understand with humans the mothers mitocondrial DNA (don't think I spelled that right but I know you know what I'm talking about) doesn't change from generation to generation. That's how they've found out we all come from a single woman 100 and some thousand years ago. Does it also work that way with chickens?
Also, with all the cloning and such going on, and I know there's quite a few stuffed passenger pigeons around, looks like someone would try to clone one. Instead of using tiny little microscopic animal eggs, why couldn't they use a racing homers unfertilized egg (of course get rid of the mothers DNA) and try to clone a passenger pigeon?
That would probably be easier than trying to clone a wolly mammoth, which is in the beginning stages now. It will take approximately 150 to 200 years to get back to an "almost" pure mammoth. A passenger pigeon could probably be done very much quicker, especially since you wouldn't have to wait almost 2 years for the "baby" to be born/hatch.
Roki and Info, what are your thoughts on this??
By Infomaniac on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 09:56 am:
information is being lost because populations are
mixing (it would be a different story if one
population were replacing another). It might be
true that some polygenic traits don't appear in the
phenotype of the mixed populations, but the
genetic information is still there and the traits could
be reconstituted in a managed breeding program.
I have long suspected that neanderthal DNA is
plentiful in the NFL and the World Wide Wrestling
Federation, and some neanderthals have become
governor of Minnesota.
The mitochondrial DNA in the egg cell is outside
the nucleus of the egg cell (because that's where
the mitochondria are) and the father (sperm)
contributes DNA essentially only to nucleus of the
egg. The egg cell , with its maternal mitochondrial
DNA, divides and develops into the new individual.
So the mitochondrial DNA in the progeny is the
same as the mother's. This is the case for all
critters that reproduce by the 'egg and sperm'
system. So it's true for chickens, dogs, cats,
humans, et cetera.
I understand that there are actually two mammoth
projects. In one, an Asian scientist is trying to find
a mammoth male frozen in Siberia in such good
condition as to harvest living sperm from the
carcass. This sperm would then be used to
artificially inseminate an elephant. The baby would
be 1/2 mammoth. That hybrid will grow up and be
artificially inseminated with the more of the same
mammoth sperm and a new baby will be born that
is 3/4 mammoth. The process is repeated and the
next baby is 7/8 mammoth (genetically), the next
mammoth in the series is 15/16 mammoth,
genetically and so on. The other mammoth project
I am aware of is a direct cloning of a mammoth like
Dolly the sheep was cloned. If the kinks are ever
worked out of direct cloning process, that would be
less time, but it has problems. I understand that
there is a company that has cloned a human
embryo ... the company scientists let the embryo
grow to 8 (undifferentiated) cells before stopping it.
I don't know much about the passenger pigeons,
but are there any samples of passenger pigeon
DNA still intact? That would be needed in order to
do the cloning. It would also be fun to have do-do
birds again and they might even have significance
commercial value. I'm not too crazy about the idea
of having dinosaurs back again ... I believe it would
be very hard to control them and Godzilla stomping
Tokyo flat could become a reality.
I believe the efforts to clone a mammoth rather
than an extinct rodent or other small animal are
driven to a significant extend by the glamour of it ...
mammoths are big and if a team of scientists is
successful, that will make news all over the world
whereas if they cloned an extint rodent or small
bird, that wouldn't make them famous like cloning
a mammoth would. I believe the mammoth work
is about 50% glory seeking.
By Robbpa on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 11:01 am:
By Rokimoto on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 11:54 am:
Domestic alleles are replacing wild alleles in the Junglefowl populations. The wild genes are still there, but at a much lower frequency. Some so low that we don't observe them anymore. It would still be possible to recover any one allele, but to recover all of them would be a major undertaking. It is a valid way to look at it as if the Wild Red Junglefowl is effectively extinct in the wild. You have to find some small isolated population that has not been tainted by domesitic birds.
Eclipse molt is one trait that seems to be disappearing. Wild males are only fertile during the breeding season and loose their bright hackle feathers around May or June after the breeding season is over. This had advantages when the Junglefowl were best kept to specific breeding seasons (just think the Junglefowl had to survive the last ice age that just ended around 10,000 years ago when agriculture was just starting), but hybrids can produce chicks year round. Loss of seasonal mating and the resulting disparity of offspring produced by the wild and hybrids has probably contributed to the rapid loss of certain characteristics in wild populations. When I was a kid you could go to the San Diego Zoo in October and see the "Junglefowl" with chicks running after them. I've tested the mitochondria of these "Junglefowl" and they have the same mitochondrial DNA as a Leghorn. Eclipse molt is still segregating in this stock because I saw males in eclipse at one farm, but the females have combs and lay like champs.
The same thing is happening with the wild populations. These are not the same birds that exited just a few centuries ago.
I've tested a half dozen accessions of Red Junglefowl that I've been able to obtain in the US and all but one had domestic mitochondrial type. This one was also the only one where all females retained the combless type. The ancestors of these birds were collected in India in the 1960s and I've been told that you can no longer find this type in the wild where they were collected. We may have missed our chance to preserve wild populations by just a few decades. It seems sad, but it seems that the rate of displacement grew slowly over the last few centuries and hit like a tidal wave in the last few decades.
Infomaniac is correct about mitochondrial DNA. We use it for genetic analysis of different species because it is usually maternally inherited and does not seem to recombine to any great extent. For this reason we can track maternal lineages back into time. You inherited your mitochondria from your great to the Nth maternal grandmother in an unbroken chain. Mutations accumulate in the mitochondrial DNA and are passed on to the daughters. These daughters start their own maternal lineages. Some maternal lineages become extinct if no daughters are born in them that generation. Just like surnames are lost if no sons are produced. Each maternal lineage has its own history. Humans can trace their maternal lineage to a female that lived between 100,000 and 250,000 years ago. This is only the last common maternal lineage that we share. There were others, but they have become extinct over time. Neandertal mitochondrial DNA tells us that our common maternal ancestor with Neandertals existed twice as long ago. We can do the same thing with chickens. Basically we look at the mutations that have occurred and it turns out that mutations that are neutral (aren't bad enough to be selected against) accumulate at a given rate over time. By counting the mutations in any lineage we can estimate how long ago the two lineages shared a common maternal ancestor.
By Infomaniac on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 02:53 pm:
unshared Nobel prizes) was the originator of the
"Molecular Clock" idea which is basically that
genetic mutations occur at a constant rate if viewed
over a large time scale. So, the number of
mutations is a measure of time, since the rate of
mutations is constant.
I have an unconventional view of a situation like
what you describe is happening or has happened
to the jungle fowl. It is not politically correct to think
of humans as being 'natural' or part of nature. Of
course, we are ... it is just politically correct to bash
ourselves for everything....
Humans are part of Nature too ... the ways other
species interact with us and the ways we interact
with them are part of the natural way of things ....
humans are natural too ... we are as natural as
elephants in Africa or tree frogs in the rain forests.
I see the cross-breeding of jungle fowl that you
discuss as a natural part of evolution. It is going to
happen. It is unstoppable. It is natural. It is part of
the way the fowl evolve. It is part of the way the
fowl will evolve in the future. It is not scientific, but
rather it is emotional, to try to stop this process.
No one would be thinking twice about it if chickens
from population A rode on the backs of elephants
or dolphins or whales to an area where population
B is living and then inter-bred ... all the biologists
would be heralding this as a co-operation between
the species.... helping each other survive and thrive
and evolve to be more successful ... but because
humans are involved... suddenly it is a bad thing ...
WE are causing yet another extinction!!!! It's
rubbish. It's a double standard. Another double
standard.
After all, 90% of the species that ever lived on this
planet became extinct long before humans ever
took a breath.
I attended a seminar about two years ago in which
a forester lamented the loss of native plants in the
Black Hills of South Dakota. They are being
displaced by plants that are encroaching from the
east and north (mostly) .... I proposed to him that
this is a natural thing and we should not even try to
stop it. if some zealots want to preserve the
natural flora, they are welcome to do so in a
garden, but they shouldn't try to keep out the
naturally occuring encroachment... after all, that's
exactly how the native plants got there.... by
encroaching themselves...they themselves were
encroachers not that long ago. They just want to
stop the encroachment ... to freeze it in time. they
are wrong to try to stop that NATURAL process that
has beein happening in South Dakota since the
glacier melted 10,000 years ago.
The mixing of the chicken populations is not a bad
thing. It is natural and unstoppable and is how
evolution occurs (along with spontaneous
mutations). If phenotypes are lost ... jeee, that's
evolution, isn't it?
By Rokimoto on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 06:07 pm:
Humans seem to be at the center of a mass extinction event. If you understand genetics you will understand that loss of diversity is a very bad thing, but humans are the result of the last mass extinction. Mammals were limited to rat sized animals for over a hundred million years before the dinos bit the dust in the last big extinction event. Mammals and dinos evolved at the same time, but dinos took the best living space first and didn't give them up until a big rock hit us and took care of that problem. In the last 65 million years we've seen a dramatic diversification of mammals, but it is a stretch to claim that mass extinctions are a good thing, and we shouldn't do anything to stem the tide of human induced extinction events. Who wants to wait millions of years for the earths biosphere to regain it's current diversity, and we'd have to change our ways for even that to happen.
Ron Okimoto
By Infomaniac on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 07:03 pm:
understand genetics ... to me, understanding is a
multi-level thing and I am a mathematician and not
a geneticist. (Most people have the 'feeling' that
they understand something when it doesn't bother
them any more.)
One can argue if mathematicians are scientists ... I
think not only because mathematics is ubiquitous
and independent of the Natural Laws (laws of
physics, chemistry and biology). Mathematics is
more fundamental than physics and chemistry, for
example, so 'natural scientists' we are not.
I certainly sympathize with the loss of an academic
source of information. This is what you lament
when you are regretful that you can't study the
populations before their demise. I propose that
much of academic ' natural science' is merely
entertainment for the scientists involved in those
projects .... like high energy particle physics (the
search for the TOE (Theory Of Everything) and
most of cosmology because those fields are so far
removed from the world of experience of humans
as to be totally irrelevant to our lives (and taxpayers
should not be asked to support that
entertainment). Often I hear the 'justification' that
"you don't know what knowledge will be important
in 500 years" ... well... let those people 500 years
from now pay for it....)
I agree with you that many things have a negative
impact on the questions you can answer and
those things may prove to be good or bad in the
long run. My point is that some questions should
be left unpersued if the impact of that persuit is
negative in global terms.
I understand that the mass extinction (comet or
asteriod impact) allowed the rise of mammals.
So, as you point out, we are indeed at the center of
a mass extinction event.... but, we didn't cause it ...
we only benefitted from it.
I don't claim that mass extinctions are a good
thing, necessarily. That depends on your point of
view. If another mass extinction occurred
tomorrow, the creatures that will exist 50 million
years from now will be grateful that we were killed.
They might even be more technologically
advanced....
Nature has a way of recovering and Nature would
recover and be as robust as ever... and those
creatures might be scouring the sediments for our
DNA to clone us !
By Cjeanr on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 07:08 pm:
By Robbpa on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 07:26 pm:
By Rokimoto on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 10:13 pm:
The W sex-chromosome in chickens and the mitochondrial genome (the DNA in the mitochondria) are maternally inherited. Mutations in these DNAs must have occurred in the females, but other chromosomes are found in both sexes and mutations in these DNAs could have occurred in either sex.
Chromosomes contain DNA that is the genetic material. Mutations are alteration in the sequence of DNA. We can use the W sex-chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA to trace maternal lineages back into time because we can sequence the DNA and observe the differences that have accumulated in the different molecules.
Infomaniac:
Humans are causing a mass extinction event at this moment. You can call this part of nature, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the human population causing this world wide extinction event.
If the search for knowledge was just for the entertainment of scientists we wouldn't have libraries or museums. PBS wouldn't have nature shows and we wouldn't have magazines like National Geographic, Discover, Natural History, or Scientific American. Humans are a curious species. The hard work of a few feed most of that curiosity. I do not believe that any scientific endeavor is worthless as long as you are making progress. It is very difficult to get funding for research. If a project is funded you can bet that a group of well informed people have decided that it deserves funding.
The philosophy of funding basic science projects with no immediate benefit, with the expectation that it may lead to unexpected useful information may be wrong, but it seems to have worked fairly well in the last century. This doesn't mean that funding only projects with short term benefit may have worked better, but all we have are the results that we have for the way that we have been doing things. We've done a pretty good job. You wouldn't be reading this on your computer if the basic research had not been done by guys like Maxwell entertaining themselves with electricity.
By Infomaniac on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 12:05 pm:
I have an unconventional view of research and
taxpayer support of that research.
Regarding James Clerk Maxwell and the laws of
electromagetism (I know something about this
because it was the FIRST mathematical
reconciliation of physical laws with special
relativity ... the Maxwell electromagetism was the
first theory that was invariant to Lorentz
transformation), it was widely believed during
those times that electricty would have immense
practical benefit. And it did and does. This is
VERY different from searching for super-massive
black holes at the center of every galaxy which is
completely irrelevant to everything except the
entertainment of the people doing that work.
My point about the funding of research is that you
shouldn't ask taxpayers to fund research with no
apparent benefit to the taxpayers. Without that any
aparent benefit to the people who fund the work, it
is a welfare system for academicians at worst and
a funding of the entertainment of the academics at
best. Most so-called "fundamental" research is
worthless in the sense that it will never contribute
to anything worthwile.
I disagree with your tenet that "if research were just
for the entertainment of scientists there would be
no museums or pbs or discovery channel...."
these things are exactly entertainment.... that's
what they are.... entertainment. Museuems
entertain the masses as does the discovery
channel. National Geographic entertains the
armchair safari-ists, but don't kid yourself... it is
entertaiment.
By Cjeanr on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 12:43 pm:
By Rokimoto on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 01:38 pm:
Entertainment, what makes science useless if all it is for would be entertainment? What is worthwhile? Should we extend your life and not give you anything to fill it with? You know that what you are saying is that we know enough to satisfy you, so we don't need to do this stuff anymore. A lot of people aren't satisfied with what we know at this time, because they know that there is a lot that we just don't understand. How do you know that an understanding of black holes will not lead to improvements in your daily life? What if it makes quantum computers possible or leads to engineering improvements that will make minaturized repair robots possible that will run through your body and cure cancer or repair degenerating organs? These are tired and worn arguments, but the fact is that you really do not know what will develop from a better understanding of nature.
There is an intrinsic value to science that we can't put a monetary value on, but it affects the entire human race. Why was it useful to do the original feather color research, and provide the information that you'd like to have for your breeding programs? We didn't have to verify Mendelian genetics. When a lot of this work was finally being done in the 1960's and later you could have argued that the money would be better spent on mammals (and much more of it was), but you benefit from this research even though it had less practical value than something closer to humans.
By Infomaniac on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 04:01 pm:
Rokimoto, I am the first to admit that we are
entertaining ourselves here with our poultry
breeding projects. No doubt. But, we are not
funded by taxpayers. We fund ourselves!
I disagree with your tenet that super-massive black
holes or sub-atomic particles like "winos" (do you
doubt that the phycists involved were entertaining
themselves when they named the "wino"?)
contributes anything that we wouldn't have gotten
from other avenues when the need arose.
This is a fundamental mis-thinking that supporters
of basic research put forward constantly. They say
that we benefit in fuzzy, undefined ways ... but the
facts are that when the need arises, research is
done and solutions are found... regardless of what
"basic" research has been funded in the past....
I recall articles from the American Physical Society
(most professional physicists belong to this
organization) in which they debunk the notion that
NASA space research has resulted in spiinoffs that
benfit humans... At one point, NASA claimed
everything from MRI technology to cancer
cures....the truth is otherwise .... all the so-called
"benefits" that Goldin put forward for space
research had been "invented" or "discovered"
independently of space research.... Magnetic
Resonance Imaging was invented by a chemist at
the University of Illinois and had nothing to do with
the space program. This is all smoke and mirrors.
and it is the usual dog-and-pony show that is
trotted out to justify more spending of taxpayer
monies on research that is, for all practical
purposes, worthless.
In my (not humble) opinion, scientists have a duty
to work on problems that promote the well being of
society ... particularly if they are funded by taxpayer
monies.
By Rokimoto on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 06:38 pm:
You keep bringing up examples that really aren't science. The space program was and is a government propaganda show piece. There is a dedicated band of scientists that are trying to make the best out of the situation, and I will be the first person to thank the Russians for every scrap of funding that we have put into the program. Even then you miss some simple facts like do you use the telephone or cellphone, GPS trackers and cable television? Where would the communications industry be if someone didn't figure out how to launch a payload into orbit? Certain uses of space seem to pay for themselves. This is far from being "worthless."
The fact is that without state funding I wouldn't be here to diseminate information. If someone hadn't done the research the information would not be available to help you entertain yourself. You may fund your entertainment, but you rely on the information that others would consider worthless. You indirectly benefit from the taxpayers to aid you in your self funded pursuits.
By Robbpa on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 10:01 pm:
By HannahH on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 12:55 am:
I must agree with you Rokimoto, I really hate what man is doing to the other creatures we were put here to have dominion (stewardship is a better word) over. I feel we were given this earth and all in it to cherish and take care of, but like a teenager given a car, we just wreck it and take it for granted.
Info, I'm surprised you being so down on physics. I was trained by the gov't (another waste of taxpayer money? please no offense) to be a shipfitter. I spent 3 years as a helper-trainee, then the shop decided they wanted me to be an apprentice(another 4 yrs, I did it in 3.) There were rumors of a RIF (reduction in force, something only congress can do) and apprentices weren't supposed to lose their jobs. One of my jobs was to work on nuclear submarines. Cutting holes in them in fact, among other things. Talk about your mathematics. Oh, and I did lose my job, btw.
Needless to say I was enrolled in the apprentice program where I had my first real "math" and physics. Math always went over my head, and so did physics class. Everyday I went out of there totally lost, but with lots of extra time bugging the math and physics teachers, I got my first A's ever.
I discovered that physics may be the keys to everything. History teaches us about ourselves and our past, but physics explains the basics of how the universe works and where we really fit in it. To me anyway.
Devouring Discover magazines (and yes I enjoy them immensely) I discovered how physics explains space and time and matter and, when you get right down to it, us. To me, you could compare physics to DOS. All computers boil down to DOS, it runs (and rules) the show in other words. Physics to me puts the Universe Operating System (UOS) in a place where we can comprehend it (only a little though.) (I just made up UOS for this.)
If there was ever a "science" that will help us to understand the "nature" of "God" or whatever it is out there that has the knowledge to not only think up the universe, but to create it and set it all in motion, it will be physics.
I know you guys probably think I'm some sort of religious nut, but I haven't set foot in a church (except for a wedding or funeral) in over 15 years. I am not into organized religion, or unorganized for that matter, I just "know" that we are here in this "school" on earth to learn. That's the whole purpose. We are here to learn to take care of everything we've been given, our bodies, our minds, and everything else here.
Man is so good at being greedy and looking out only for himself, he forgets the wants and needs of others. Scientists looking at black holes may someday save mankind from being sucked into one, I mean, if light can't escape, then our tiny planet won't either. If all galaxys have a black hole in the center, then eventually everything ends up in one, shrunk down to the size of a speck, and when that happens to all of space, well, seems we might have another "big bang".
Maybe that's when it all starts over again.
I wrote in another thread that my dear grandmother used to tell me "Live and learn then die and forget it all." After she passed away I thought about that saying. If that were true, then the only desire man would have would be to procreate, eat, sleep, get fat and then roll over and die. But that's not the way it works. Man has this insatiable desire to learn (well, not certain Neadertal groups anyway ;^} ) and I think that is the whole purpose of our existance. To learn and grow and "evolve", not just die and forget it all.
Funny how some people love chickens and all to do with them, some people medicine (thank goodness), others science, and so on and so on. That seems to me to be a form of diversity when you get right down to it also. If it weren't for the taxpayer dollars funding the research that's gone on and is going on, where would we be? Still striking flint for spearheads I guess. Ok, maybe not that bad, but I think you know what I mean.
Back to the mammoth cloning. I think a wolly mammoth today would be incredible. But since it takes two years to make a baby elephant, then another 15 to 20 years for the baby to mature enough to have a baby of it's own, it would be well beyond our lifetimes before even a 7/8th one became a reality, much less a 15/16th.
Because we are into birds on this site, I mentioned the passenger pigeon. From what I understand when they migrated in the middle 19th century, they flew in flocks that actually blotted out the sun for days. At least that's what was reported from those days. I think that would be pretty incredible too. Since we do have many stuffed passenger pigeons in museums (you know, the places only good for entertainment) I was thinking it would be alot quicker to "clone" one of them (hatch in 14 days instead of 2 years, having babies on their own in less than a year instead of 20)and see if it would really work than wait so long for a mammoth.
Wish I knew someone to suggest that too. Oh, well.
Hope I didn't bore you too much with another long post. Mammoths would be great, but with the possibility of global warming, and where would they migrate (?), seems pigeons would be alot cheaper, and faster, to try to revive than mammoths. The last one to die in captivity was in 1912 or 14 if I remember correctly.
Imagine if we had the library and museums lost at Alexandria. We may be further along in our search for truth than we are now.
Info, I mean no disrepect, but in my very humble opinion, we need all the research in all fields that we can afford. But like you, when I see poor folks in the street, black holes "shrink" in importance.
I have to agree with you and Ron (if I can call you that?) about many points in your fantastic posts, and I feel priviliged to be able to participate.
Thank you both...
By Cjeanr on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 11:34 am:
By Rokimoto on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 11:58 am:
It is harder to clone birds than to clone mammals. By the time the egg is laid the bird embryo has been incubating for quite some time in a hot body. As soon as the egg cools development slows down, but the embryo is about 10,000 cells when it comes out of the hen. The egg cell of unfertilzed eggs has degenerated by the time the egg is laid and is not a good recipient for sperm. In mammals we can collect a lot of eggs and do invitro fertilization and then reimplant the new embryos, but in birds we have to get the egg as it erupts from the ovary and treat it and put it back in the hen so that it can go trough the normal egg development and get its layers of albumin and various membranes and finally a shell. This requires surgery every time we do it and we don't always get a good egg out at the end.
The Mammoth example wasn't really cloning. They proposed that they could find a frozen sperm with the DNA intact and that they could use this to invitro fertilize an egg to get a half mammoth. If they find a well preserved specimen it might be possible. Elephants are more closely related to Mammoths than we are to chimps, and humans and chimps may be more closely related genetically than horses and donkeys, so the mammoth hybird could be viable.
Real somatic cloning is when you take the DNA from a mature cell like a cell from your intestine, treat the cells in cell culture to certain growth conditions and put the cell nuclear DNA into an egg cell from which you have removed the egg cell DNA. In this way you have the right amount of DNA and the machinery in the egg to start to form a viable embryo. A clone is nearly identical genetically to the donor of the DNA. Identical twins and triplets are clones. They aren't somatic clones, but they are embryo clones. They occur when the embryo makes its first few divisons. If the wrapper around the embryo breaks the first cells can leak out. When the embryo splits for the first cell division you get twins. If one of the two cells splits again you get triplets and if both split a second time you get quads. If the split is incomplete you get siamese twins that are joined. Non identical multiple births are due to the mother ovulating more than one egg at a time, or due to implantation of multiple invitro embryos.
By Infomaniac on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 04:18 pm:
much when deciding what is best for society....but
make no mistake.... most of the American public
feel the way I do. Just read the letters to the
editors of the journals at the American Physical
Society and the American Chemical Society...
You said "A lot of people have to agree to spend
the money for research" This is a completely false
statement. This is NOT the way research is
funded. Most research funding decisions are
made by a VERY small number at NSF and other
gov't funding agencies.
I hope you really don't believe that the funding that
comes to academic researchers is somehow the
will of the people, because it isn't.
By Robbpa on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 05:17 pm:
By Infomaniac on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 05:25 pm:
I sincerely don't want to be perceived by the
readership as being intentionally offensive. That is
not my goal. It seems like Rokimoto has attributed
his existance to public funding (by his statement:"
The fact is that without state funding I wouldn't be
here to diseminate information.") and to that I say
that he isn't worth the money. It is well known that
academic "scientists" are not cost effective.... If they
were cost effective, they wouldn't need public
assistance ... if they were cost effective (which they
aren't) they could get their funding from private
sources. I know for a fact that Tyson Foods funds
a lot of poultry science research (particularly at the
University of Arkansas) and Rokimoto most
probably has funding from such sources... so, limit
such funding to these private sources. In
Rokimoto's defense, he is under pressure from
the University of Arkansas and his department to
generate grant funding because the University
takes a minimum of 40% off the top of the grant for
"overhead" (this is their "motivation") and a
maximumum of 60% depending on the rules of the
funding agency. Tenure and promotion and salary
raises he will get in the future all depend on his
ability to generate these funds.
My primary objections to this system are that it is 1)
an old boy network... the people reviewing the
grants fund each other by giving favorable reviews
to their friends and 2) there are too many people
on Earth that are dying of starvation, lack of
medical attention, AIDS is at epidemic proportions
in Africa and nothing is being done for those
people...yet we waste millions on academic
research that has no aparent benefit to anyone.
By Rokimoto on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 06:21 pm:
There was some real controversy about funding the human genome project to sequence the human genome. The billions that were spent on this project was going to put a big dent in the funding for other research. The fear was that the genome project would be a show piece and other research that would be needed to make sense of the information once we had it would be short changed.
The project is just about complete and was done for the cost of less than two B2 stealth bombers (we built 9 of them). Your descendents a hundred or thousands of years from now will be benefitting from this research, but if we are lucky parts of the stealth bombers will be in a museum someplace. If we are unlucky the parts will be strewn around some desert mountain range somewhere. Stealth bombers are useful pieces of equipment, but they don't seem to be much more useful than the old B52s that are 40 years old, and the human genome sequence can't get shot down by some lucky Afgany with a loaded 20 mm, or crash because some unlucky bird got sucked into one of its engines.
All of this is beside the point. You can have opinions, but to change someone elses opinion you need evidence, not just other peoples opinions. You have to demonstrate that the research that you think is worthless is really worthless. If you have sometype of crystal ball that will tell you what research will be useful in the future, you can make a useful contribution to both science and society. The problem is that no one has that crystal ball. The fact is that we do not have a very good track record in predicting what research will be useful. There is a very simple reason for this; basic research is looking into the unknown. Since we don't know what we will find out we don't know its value until we do find it out.
By Infomaniac on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 10:00 pm:
the opposite side only when you say things like
"You have to demonstrate that the research that
you think is worthless is really worthless" To me,
this statement of yours reflects the arrogance of
academia... In fact, the burden belongs on the
other side.... the people who claim that the
research is worhwhile need to show that it is or
demonstrate that it is... it is not up to the
"opponents" to show that it isn't worthwhile...quite
the opposite ... the people seeking the funding
bear the burden of showing that what they are
doing is worthwhile.
I believe that most people can see the value of the
human genome project....although there was quite
a bit of problems and politics in the beginning
which, thankfully, Watson (of Watson and Crick
fame) sorted out and ran through his bull**** filter,
because there were a lot of academics wanting to
get on that gravy train.
I want humanity's money to go where it will benefit
humanity the most.... and I would slash a lot of
"grand challenge" research in favor of improving
the heath and living standards in 3rd and 4th world
countries.... I would feed those starving kids in
Africa... and provide medicines for the AIDS
stricken parents.... I would even cancel the space
station to pay for it.... or sell the Hubble
Telescope... all of which doesn't make a gnat's
difference in human terms to those of us stuck on
this planet. You may well try to define the space
station and Hubble out of the realm of "science"
like you did for my comments about NASA, but the
fact remains that the PUBLIC believes that these
things are SCIENCE regardless of what you thing
they are. I would trade all these worthless
contraptions for a bowl of rice for every child in
Africa and medicines to stave off the effects of the
AIDS epidemic there.... Afganistan.... shoot, we
haven't even begun to see the light yet.... we have a
lot to do still.... and peace will not happen when
people are hungry and miserable.
By HannahH on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 10:04 pm:
I thought I had read that any cell in an adults body can theoretically be used for cloning. From what I've read all cells have the same DNA strand in them.
I had thought since we had stuffed pigeons in museums, maybe a cell from the toenails (possible blood in the quick?) or the beak could be used to fertilize an egg.
I had assumed (wrongly of course) that it would be much easier to try to "fertilize" a birds egg (outside the birds body) than it is to fertilize a microscopic mammal egg. Birds eggs are so much bigger, and I was thinking an unfertilized hen egg would be perfect. I knew the egg would have half the hens genetic code, but I also know with cloning they remove the code, so the (mammal egg) has no code at all.
I figured it worked the same way with bird eggs. I guess they are much more complicated than I thought. Thanks for clearing that up for me. But my hopes are dashed of ever having a passenger pigeon back, or a dusky sparrow. Bummer...
Info, I sympathize with you about the horrors in Africa. If any country is in need of the worlds compassion and assitance, it is that one. I understand where your coming from about these issues, but we Americans can't be everything to everyone in the whole world. I just wish we could do for the people here in the USA.
But, some people won't be helped. You can give and give, and they're still wanting more instead of helping themselves. You have to teach the man to fish before he can feed himself. Keep giving him the fish and he never will learn. You know that cliche, but it is so true!
I understand you are not trying to intentionally be offensive to anyone, and yet two sentences later you say someone isn't worth the money they're getting paid. Anyone who has taken the time to go to school and get an education and spend their lives in the pursuit of true facts, is worth every penny. I know you aren't trying to be offensive, but sometimes it happens with the best of motives and intentions.
CJR, You sound tickled with all this, and I'm tickled your tickled! We'll be tickled together!
I wish Info and Rokimoto and CJR a very wonderful and Merry Christmas (if that's what your into, don't want to offend anyone!) and hopes for a much better New Year!! Oh, that goes for all of the wonderful people here on The COOP!!!
God bless us, everyone! (and our chickens too!!) ;^)
By HannahH on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 10:41 pm:
Look at Russia. Look at China. The average joe over there is getting the news the gov't lets them have, and no more. Hopefully tools such as the Internet will help with that ignorance. But, a poor farmer in Siberia or the interior of China would have no access, so there goes that idea.
I do understand where your coming from though.
But, (another one of those) do you really think the Hubble and the "International" space station are worthless contraptions? I thought they were using the space station to do experiments on medicines and foods.
I thought that research was being done for the benefit of all mankind. If their up there just playing house in a jillion dollar plaything, I'll sign a letter to congress myself.
Oh, and those ships and subs I worked on. Talk about billion dollar contraptions. I dare say the cost of one 688 class attack sub would probably feed all the starving children in Africa more than once a day for a good long time. And yet, we're still building them. The only thing they are are kajillion dollar murder machines. That's what their good for.
But then again, if we didn't have them, Osama might be the president (or supreme ruler) instead of Bush (whose father appointed some of those surpreme court justices who stopped the recounts, talk about your "good ol' boy" politics.) And a missile sheild would have done nothing to stop 9-11. Talk about billion dollar projects that are doing nothing to "help" anybody. I would much rather see my taxpayer dollars go to a telescope to broaden our horizons. Or to a lowly research scientist trying to cure Mereks disease, than all the missle shields and weapons of destruction the administration can dream up.
We have enough weapons to blow up the planet 50 times over. I with you, lets help the people who need it most.
By Cjeanr on Friday, December 21, 2001 - 10:45 pm:
By Robbpa on Saturday, December 22, 2001 - 10:26 am:
By Anonymous on Saturday, December 22, 2001 - 04:08 pm:
By HannahH on Sunday, December 23, 2001 - 11:22 am:
CJR, please send the pics, I would appreciate them!
Robbpa, don't really want to get into a discussion here about politics, as we all know now that unless you have enough money, you ain't ever gonna be president of this country anyway.
When the Republicans left office, I lost my gov't job (they'd spent aprox. 150,000 dollars training me) and now that their back in office, looks like I'm going back to work. Had my interview the 14th.
I sure won't say the Democrats are perfect, far from it. But, the best economic times of my lifetime was when they had the presidency. But it didn't really matter anyway cuz the Republicans still controlled the other branches of Gov't. We all know that Clinton didn't do anything the others didn't do, they just didn't get caught. Boys will always be boys, even when they're all grown up. Luckily a few do finally mature into very fine men, too bad more of them aren't running the show!
Ya'll have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
By Rokimoto on Sunday, December 23, 2001 - 08:59 pm:
I do get most of my funding from private industry grants. I am currently on two federal grants involved in mitochondrial research. I don't seek funds to do research for tenure or promotion, but I do it because I want to do the research. Land Grant institutions have a mission. The main goal is to insure that agriculture has a place in the United States for the forseeable future, and they must also educate the citizens of this country. To perform this function I teach classes and help the poultry industry with any problems that they bring to my attention and that I can help them with. There is even a program where participating in forums like this and disseminating information would be encouraged. There are the research oriented professors like myself, and the extension professors who's primary job is to disseminate the research information that we generate. The goal is to help agriculture. Gentlemen farmers raising a few head of cattle or a flock of chickens are still part of agriculture in this country. Even people like infomaniac have benefitted from the largess of the federal government. We spend less for food than any developed country and less of a percent or your income than any undeveloped country. The Land grant universities of the US have literally fed the world.
Land Grant universities were created for a purpose, they have spent the last century and a half making that mission a success. They get public funding because they work. You can argue that it isn't cost effective, but how are you going to measure the worth of an education, or creation of a new method of tilling the soil, or the ability to feed the world if the politicians could get their act together. The institutions that infomaniac claims aren't cost effective have given the US the ability to feed the world. The problem is that we haven't been able to get everyone to act like decent human beings, but I guess that that is sciences fault. The real problem is that feeding them is not the problem, but doing something about helping them lead productive lives is much harder.
Our problem is that better, faster, cheaper has done in the family farm. You spend so little on food that farmers can't make a living. This sounds strange, but the US can produce more food than it can use and sell to other countries.
Infomaniac will have to demonstrate that she knows how the granting business is run by the "old boy" network. Making claims like this is sort of pointless if you don't have the data to back you up. How did I get funding if I don't know anyone on the grant panel? The overhead taken out of my federal grants is only 25% other granting agencies allow more, 60% sounds about right for some of them, and these are the medical research organizations that Infomaniac would probably claim should be funded.
You can't make a point by misdirection, not with the people that count. Trying to justify your complaints about NASA by saying that a lot of people have the misconception that the propaganda show stuff is real science because you can fool that group of people doesn't change the fact that it is government propaganda and not related to the science that gets done. Equating the two sounds pretty dishonest because it would be a dishonest argument. If you want to say that the government propaganda is worthless argue that propaganda is worthless, if you want to argue that the science is worthless argue the science. Everyone is very lucky that a dedicated band of scientists devote their lives to make sure that it just isn't propaganda, but that some science gets done as well. It would have been a waste if all they wanted to do was plant the flag and paint a smilely face on the moon when they got there. We actually collected samples and set up experiments, and learned something. This is better than the nothing it could have been.
If you want to argue that the federal government shouldn't fund a showcase space agency, argue that, but don't blame Hubble on science. If the US didn't want to be perceived as number one in space the Hubble would not have been funded.
Each research proposal has to compete against dozens or even hundreds of others for funding. The ones that get selected have passed the muster. If you want to say that they are worthless, the job is yours to produce the evidence that it is worthless.
By Rokimoto on Sunday, December 23, 2001 - 09:23 pm:
DNA is the genetic material. The sequence of the DNA has a lot to do with what you look like and how everything works in your body. If we look at the DNA sequence of horses and donkeys we see that they are 97-98% the same (2-3% different). If we look at the DNA sequence of humans and chimps we see that their DNA is 98-99% the same (1-2% different). DNA is stored in the chromosomes. Chromosomes have a structure that you can often see under the microscope. Human and chimp chromosomes are nearly identical in structure. We have one less chromsome because two chimp chromosomes have fused together to make one. The structure of these two chromosomes is still the same so we can tell that they are just stuck together in humans. Horses and donkeys also are different by one chromosome, but the structure of these chromosomes is so different that we can't tell which two have fused together.
It looks like humans and chimps are more closely related than horses and donkeys. This does not mean that we could produce a viable hybrid between humans and chimps, but it does look like a possibility. The problem is in the development of the fetus. Our development is more different than the development of a foal. Chimps are born smaller but more developed, and humans are born larger but less developed. The two developmental programs may not work when combined. Horse and donkey foals are born at the same stage of development.
There is also the moral problems. Purposely creating a defective human being is immoral, by just about any standards. Even though we have the ability to create such a hybrid, no reputable person would do such a thing. Knowing how screwed up some humans are, it will probably be attempted at some time in the future. When it happens don't blame science, blame the warped sod that did it, because the vast majority of humans would not have done it.
By anny on Monday, December 24, 2001 - 08:55 am:
Thanks again for your never failing patience and your assiduity (both senses)! (09:23 pm post)
Merry Christmas!
By HannahH on Monday, December 24, 2001 - 10:46 am: