Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Many people miss the point of inbreeding. It is so frowned upon in our society that the benefits are simply not known.

Inbreeding is a VERY good way to purify a genome... if you can stand the penalty rates, the recessives get bred out within a couple of generations. There is a reason many of the old royal lines only married and bred with each other - once the line is pure the death rate drops to absolute minimum - they would get more defects by marrying outside the line than inside it.

Royals in Europe today show recessive traits not because of inbreeding but because so many outsiders have bred into the line and they brought recessives with them.

The traits get set quickly not because inbreeding is so destructive but because it strips the randoms and recessives and a new 'pure' line emerges from the carnage. And if the environment has radically altered, the new line will show a heightened level of 'fitness' to that new ecosphere.

But in humans, it is almost impossible to have the strength to watch children die so horribly so we prohibit anything even approaching the level of detachment needed to clean up our genome. Hitler wasn't wrong in trying for a better race, he was wrong because he thought he could dictate what it should be. If he'd have stuck to removing the errors and deadly mistakes he'd have been well on his way to a better race. (and by errors and deadly mistakes I mean cancers and crippling genetic diseases, NOT Jews and Gypsys, OK?)

It's similar to the populations found on the various Galapagos Islands - but it show adaptation, not Evolution. Many people mistake one for the other. Adaptation can go so far as to make it difficult or impossible for members of the divergent groups to breed, (think of a Chihuahua and a St Bernard) but they will still be genetically compatible, not different species.

I guess if it goes on it might be possible we come to see them as different species but we haven't seen it happen yet. Adaptation is a clear example of the operation of Epigenetics, not Evolution. The same genes are there, they just get expressed differently or different choices are made.

Journeyman, I'll openly confess that I wasn't aware of Venter and his work....

But reading one of his papers about his Sargasso Sea exploration suggests... he was looking at protein diversity in marine micro-organisms... specifically protein markers and indications of genetic marking...

And he says...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1821046/



Which seems to be a complete vindication of everything you are suggesting isn't the case...



Likewise... there is proven large proportional similarities of genetic sequences between primates and humans....

As there is within other kingdoms/families... of most animals/insects....

Indeed.... there are genetic markers with the human race... all of them.... that have a common ancestry....

And a study done many years ago... that found genetic marker similarities between Japanese and Maori... and other Polynesian genetics....

I'm sorry... but everything that I'm aware of... indicates that exact opposite to that which you seem to be suggesting....

But... whether you might believe it or not.... I have found the discussion and questions you raise stimulating... enough to provoke me into further research....

A couple of things have me curious though....

Firstly.... if you aren't approaching this from a "creationist" perspective... then what are you suggesting as an alternate evolutionary theory... the old "nature vs nuture" theory???....

Or are you merely suggesting that there are some gaps in evolutionary science, or questions that need to be further researched...

I have no problem with the latter.. as the purpose, and method of science.. is to continually test "theory"... and revaluate and redefine... our knowledge...

Secondly... with regard to Venter... and particularly in connection to your (shared) view regarding Monsanto...

Are you aware that Venter's primary research interest and goal.... is the creation of synthetic genes/genomes....

Frankly... from what I've quickly researched... he scares the shit out of me... and I'd put him right along side of Monsanto... if he's not already on the board....

No Hitler's attempted genetic purification of the supposed (supreme) Aryan race... was completely unfounded in any genetics, logic, or altruistic intent.... completely unscientifically genetically unfactual....

His intentions were purely motivated by an evil attempt at racial cleansing... not some higher purpose racial genetic purity....

And inbreeding is good????? WTF.... yeah perhaps strictly (as you say) controlled for specific beneficial traits.... which requires the culling of recessive/bad traits... (again as you say)....as is the case in selective breeding enhancements in plants.... or farm animals....

But look at the result of misdirected genetic manipulation.... like show/pedigree dogs/cats.... or Monsanto..... (or even, I would argue... the Royals )...

It's an ethical minefield... at best....

I'm sure epigenetics has a lot more to it than causing disease. There is just so much we don't know. Why do the effects skip a generation? I wonder how it benefits us. I think its fantastic that we only know a tiny bit, I'd be lost if I wasn't learning something new every day.



And I love sifting between the believable stuff and the BS

I'm not completely sold on epigenetics....

I was a dedicated surfie... in the water everyday... and despite swallowing large amounts of seawater... usually involuntarily... never developed the ability to breath underwater....

And it's funny how things skip a generation... neither of my kids really liked the beach or surfing that much...

Perhaps my grandchildren will be salt crusted grommies... and born with gills...

P.S. ... I did expose myself to the possibility of considerable risk of genetic mutation... but to no apparent avail...

What proof any one of you have that the butterfly evolved from the initial form?

First one has to prove that it was changes from initial form. And what was the initial form? Can you prove it.

And yes, here we do not talk about adaptation.

I can't believe I missed an argument over DNA damage, repair, and mutation. That was my one chance to put my dissertation to work.

You think incorrectly sir.
You are correct that all the large thing we see now evolved from bacteria in the past, blah blah, etc.
However it did not "happen back then", it STARTED back then, it is still happening to this day!
Bacteria are still evolving past bacteria, they are still creating new multy cell lifeforms, these lifeforms will further evovle under our now polluted planet and will become something very different to what lives now, long after we are gone.

Evolution is not a linear line, it is something that is beginning and ending all at the the same time at every moment of every day. It does not "start or stop", it is continuous while any life exists.

edit: double post

Venter's interest in proteins comes from his interest in genetics generally. I'm guessing but it is probably quicker to identify new genomic constituents by looking at the proteins than by running genome mapping on every microbe they find.

The sharing across kingdoms is precisely WHY I find the sheer numbers of new genes so meaningful - even WITH such sharing, whether phage or virus sharing etc, we still have a fantastic number of new genes being found. You should expect the number to be LESS if genes are being shared across otherwise unrelated species, which is the scenario postulated by the standard Evolution idea - small number of genes alter gradually over time and spread throughout the biosphere, so theoretically you should be able to trace the gene that gave (was it) anemone basic light/dark vision through to the changes that bring an eagle the ability to spot a mouse on the other side of the planet.

Instead we have multiple and unrelated development lines - the tundra of scrubby bushes rather than the giant single-trunk tree. Just because the scrubs have some intertwined branches doesn't mean we can claim they all come from a common ancestor.

To take your 'secondly' first - Venter scares the crap out of me too; it's why I like to keep an eye on him. But it isn't so much him as the fact he and his team, with the purest of motives, are showing how EASY it is to do this stuff once you have the basic tools. Not sure if you watched any of his videos but in the most recent, where they have MADE synthetic life and assembled mega-base pair genomes, one of the hardest steps was solved by using yeast - hardly an esoteric compound.

He also prefaces his comment on biowarfare possibilities by saying something like, "the two main investors in biowarfare research were USA and USSR. IF they have stopped then there seems little chance this technology would be used in such fashion."

There's is a lot of wriggle room in that statement and some things left unsaid such as (say) North Korea or perhaps Rwanda getting their hands on the techniques.

But the possibilities are equally impressive - microbes to scrub the air of methane. (and CO2 but personally I don't believe the 'consensus view on that subject - methane however constitutes a real danger) Others that can produce fuel from CO2, or break down wastes into raw materials - so many possibilities all coming due right about the time the human world is either going to blow up in our faces or get locked down into a control system tighter than anything ever seen before.

Can we really imagine the oil companies letting Venter release microbes that would let you produce petrol for your car in a box in your back yard?

On the Monsanto PoV, there is a possibility, IF they can stay clear of the greedy hands of the power brokers running Monsanto and the US Govt (highly doubtful) that the benefits claimed by Monsanto might be implemented far more safely - if you are building a genome from scratch it is MUCH easier to avoid the dangers currently faced with Monsanto seeds. Preventing cross breeding, building in genuine faculties instead of implanting fish or insect or animal genes into plants. Designing in resistance instead of adding in antibiotics and so creating immune pests that prey on animals and humans.

Scary times indeed.

There are gaping holes in the Evolution 'consensus' view and like several other subjects, if you do not toe the Evolution line with all the others, you cannot get funding nor tenure. TPTB are using money to control Science and the Science is suffering for it.

I think we have, in the record, clear examples of a changing ecosphere and many adaptations to accommodate those changes. What I doubt is that the orthodox Evolution ideas are actually the best explanation for the process that has so altered the biosphere. I think there is currently a much better possibility, but it is on the fringes and very few people are working on any of the ideas encompassed in it.

I'm not prepared to go a lot further simply because I am writing a book and I'd like to put the complete scenario into there before it gets spread around. (hubris, I know, but I've been collecting the info for most of a decade now)

It's like looking at a building and someone says, "Magic" (Creation) and the next guy says "Nails" (Evolution) but the 3rd guy says "Carpenter."

It's like the Big Bang versus Creation ideas (the REAL debate rather than Creation/Evolution) - there is another possibility WITH plenty of evidence AND prediction AND explanations for things that mess up both of the other ideas. But while the world continues to think in Aristotelian terms, almost all the people will not listen to any possibility there may be alternatives to black and white, good and bad etc.

In a world where GDubya, a decade or so back, can openly state "With us or against us" and not have half the world protest "it is no such thing" it will be very difficult to change the unsane world we live in.

I didn't suggest 'strictly controlled' at all - I'm well aware of the hand grenades that will be lobbed my way and I do appreciate you trying to soften the message so maybe I stay a little safer. I'll repeat it - inbreeding is a very good way to purify the genome, provided you can stand the losses in the first couple of generations.

Nothing wrong with Hitler's approach - we do exactly the same thing in dogs, cows etc. We select the attributes and breed for them. The US Eugenics program that Hitler copied was flawed in their conviction they knew what would make a better race. (actually it was more flawed than that because of the racist foundations on which the US worked - copied by Hitler)

But if our goal is creation of a superior race we can start right now - we can identify those carrying genes which predispose towards the killers on the race and even those which debilitate or cripple. We can simply sterilise those with such traits and in a couple of generations the negatives will be gone from the genome.

Of course there are one or two hiccups to overcome...

1. Who decides?
2. How do you compensate those sterilised for the loss of a future family?
3. How do we ensure the process is limited to only genetic problems and prevent the current crop of US Engenicists from hijacking the system to remove all those they deem unworthy?

Bill Gates and others have made it quite clear their goal is a massive depopulation program - go back to TED and listen to BG - he makes a clear statement about how if we can get vaccines, food production, health care and other systems working properly we could reduce the world population by more than half within a couple of decades.

Few people seem to find it strange he proposes using supposed life-promoting systems to reduce the population.

These people, the Eugenics crowd, hidden behind philanthropic charities and financial organisation of billionaires, are planning a massive disruption of Evolution by removing all who do not fit their standards or worthy. The clues are there, quite plain to see if we look. One might almost think there is some kind of rule they have to follow where we have to have been told what they plan and if we don't say 'NO' then it is OK for them to do it to us.

Oh no... How has a an evolution/creation debate turned into another conspiracy thread?

Only one disagreement - the statement you quote is not how I think. I begin it with "The Standard view of Evolution..."

And I am not convinced that all things began with bacteria. Panspermia is a fascinating idea and there is some evidence it is not only possible, it has happened. We have some very strange organisms on the planet that Venter is using for some of his work. These are microbes that can have a million rads of radiation blast their genome to tiny pieces and 24 hours later they have reassembled that genome. And there are MANY different versions of that microbe.

The possibilities behind such a life form are stupendous.

It was a logical progression. But it isn't a Conspiracy Theory. (as implied by the 'another' you used...

Eugenics began in the US. That is well documented and it was actually implemented across many US states. Eugenics is the man-made version of Evolution and it follows the exact same logic - reduce the breeding capability of certain genomes and they vanish from the race.

Hitler copied the program initially run in the US including the racist underpinnings.

The Billionaires openly state the world needs depopulation and Bill Gates has several times suggested better vaccination would reduce the population - the exact opposite of what one might think better vaccination might achieve.

Is it a Conspiracy Theory when the facts are all easily verifiable? Or is it simply a conspiracy?