CNN just posted an article stating that geneticists, philosophers and chicken farmers finally solved this age-old riddle stating that it was the egg, based on what they say is the fact the the embryo has the same DNA as the chicken. What about phenotype variation affecting gene mutation? Mutations can occur due to elements in our environment, such as toxic chemicals and radiation. Also, there was just an article in Science showing that inheritance is apartly due to RNA transfer, and not solely DNA.

"Put simply, the reason comes down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life. Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg. Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham." http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html

I think they need to study emryology first, or coevolution, and how oviparous animals evolved. Fish and amphibians have soft eggs that evolved into reptilian dinosaurs then into aves with hard eggs. The amniotic egg is an adaptation that evolved to protect the zygote and the developing embryo from the environment.

"Stewart (1997) showed that the first amniotic eggs probably had a flexible outer membrane, and that a mineralized (but still flexible) outer membrane is a synapomorphy of reptiles. The heavily mineralized, hard shell is a synapomorphy of archosaurs (crocodiles and birds), and it also appeared at least three times in turtles, and a few times in squamates. This probably explains why the oldest known amniotic egg (Coyne, 1999) only dates from the Lower Triassic (220 My), whereas the oldest amniote dates from the Upper Carboniferous (310 My); the eggs of most (if not all) Paleozoic amniotes must have had a flexible, poorly mineralized or unmineralized outer membrane, and thus had a low fossilization potential (Laurin, Reisz & Girondot, 2000)." Source: http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Amniota&contgroup=Terrestrial_vertebrates

What came first; chicken or the egg?
The bacterium.

What about phenotype variation affecting gene mutation?
What about it? This is nonsense?

No it's not. The phenotype can affect the transmitted DNA through mutations caused by a number of environmental factors, including toxic chemicals and multi-source radiation. This is not nonsense.

You have things backwards, unless you are talking about proteins directly associated with DNA transcription and replication.

No it's not. The phenotype can affect the transmitted DNA through mutations caused by a number of environmental factors, including toxic chemicals and multi-source radiation. This is not nonsense.This is nonsense.

Point 1: The phenotype represents the physical characteristics of an organism determined by the interaction of its genetic heritage and environmental factors.

Point 2: The phenotype is a consequence of the genes and the environment, not a cause of either.

Point 3:The phenotype can be changed as consequence of mutations, some of which may arise from environmental factors.

Point 4: Therefore the phenotype cannot change the genotype.

Point 5:The phenotype can effect behaviour, it cannot effect its internal genetic constitution. This is another way of stating point 4, or Idle Mind's succinct and accurate 'You have it backwards'.

Genotype interactions with the environment always influence the resulting phenotype, as does epistasis. What about cancer cells? Mutator phenotypes cause mutations within the mitochondrial DNA resulting in gene mutations.

Further, the affects of phenotype mutations that occurred after we dropped atomic bombs on Japan are still being transmitted through the resultant mutated genotype. The radiation caused phenotype and genotype mutations.

Also, what about retroviruses? I'm not sure, but the rules for transcription get reversed: RNA to DNA.

In the Fly Embryo RNAi Project embryo field images show the phenotype mutations of various genes: http://flyembryo.nhlbi.nih.gov/heart-mutant.asp

"In a startling exception to classical genetics, mice in a lab experiment have inherited an effect of an aberrant gene without inheriting the gene itself...new study indicates RNA produced the odd-sounding result. In this case the result was mice with distinctive white tail tips: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12956292/
In last Thursday's issue of the journal Nature

Genotype interactions with the environment always influence the resulting phenotype

This is mostly correct. However in the post before you stated the contrary.

The phenotype can affect the transmitted DNA through mutations

This quote exemplifies quite aptly that you do not have the slightest idea what you copy/paste the whole time. If one does not know what a phenotype or a genotype is, one should at the very least read a little bit in a very very basic, maybe highschool text-book before trying to prevent posting such nonsense. Repeatedly, I might add.
Ophiolite has quite clearly given the definitions from which it is quite easily deducible why there are no phenotype mutations.
Read his post again. Slowly. Then go to the library and check the words that you did not understand.

The egg that contained the mutation that became the chicken

In other words, the egg.

the chicken came first...evolved from something else...

The chicken and egg argument isn't actually about a chicken and an egg its a metaphor for examining the origins of all life.

dude, the chicken came first. there is clear evidence that the first chicken was spewed out of a volcano in a plume of ash and lava. this chicken was covered in heat-resistant reptilian scales that allowed it to survive the high temperatures in the mouth of the volcano. after it landed on the ground yards away from the volcano, it laid the first chicken egg, from which hatched a similar looking chicken. this happened over and over again for 25 million years until the chicken eventually evolved to develop feathers and other recognizable modern chicken traits. it's all in the bible. it's actually mentioned in the koran too, so you know it's true. chicken came first. egg second. problem solved.

i should be president.

At first the riddle appears confusing, it all depends on how you look at it. Alright, the first known chicken came in the form of an egg so some say the egg came first, at this point the host of the certain egg must resemble a chicken so much that you can’t even tell the difference. So how do you know the exact point the first known "chicken" arrived? As far as I know evolution is an on going process and in fact the chicken may be evolving as we speak. Therefore claiming the egg came first, while is right by all observation, is mere approximation. The other side of the coin of "the egg came first" solidifies my first paragraph; surely a chicken's egg cannot lay itself and needs some sort of host regardless of its nature. Therefore by all means we say the chicken or chicken-like organism came first, as an egg and embryo needs warmth and food, which can only be supplied by a compatible host. Therefore claiming the chicken or chicken-like organism came first is right by approach not observation. As we know observations can fail you, but not when you derive a reasonable method or approach. Therefore the riddle is solved; the chicken came first by all approach. The egg is just a way for a chicken to replicate itself, and anything has to exist in the first place in order to replicate itself. To the artist the egg came first but to the engineer the chicken came first, to some it’s the representation that matters while to others it’s the idea beneath the representation.

Chatha

As you say, there must have been an animal resembling a chicken that laid and nurtured the agg, but if we accept that evolution occurs by mutation then we must assume that the first chicken proper and which was different to its host must have been born of the first egg that happened to contain it.

True and correct, I agree with that. I am also glad you mentioned "assumed". What exactly is the chicken "proper" ? We know a chicken has a beak, feathers, and a waddle, but what about an animal that has all that except a waddle? Or what about an animal that has all that but has both eyes in front and not the sides? See why the observation aspect alone is flawed and for the artist? I am not saying you are wrong, you are in fact right, but you have to also take in consideration that you are also approximating

How did the duck billed platepus evolve?

Which came first, the Homo sapien or the baby homo sapien? Obviously the baby homo sapien came first by mutation but my problem is at what point on the evolution chart did we know we had a "proper" homo sapien? Can anyone help me? By definition puposes the baby came first but what about the idea behind the definition? I guess such is life and science

"Phenotype" affects the genotype??

Eh??

As for whether or not the organism laying the first "chicken" was itself...chicken-like...or whatever...given that maternal environmental donations to the offspring could be limited after hatch (let's face it; chicks do get care but might get by with a lot less), evolutionary differentiation could proceed a lot faster. A freakish looking mammal might get dumped by its maternal parent and not survive (being reliant on the maternal parent) but an organism demanding less from the parent post-hatch or post-partum might well get by even if it was a fairly large leap from the parent's pheno. It might have to run, though.

Still, sharks and lots of other r-selected types don't provide maternal care, and yet they look pretty much the same now as they used to. But there are a lot of different species. Hmm. Am I sounding Goldschmidtian? I don't mean to.

Geoff

This is mostly correct. However in the post before you stated the contrary.

This quote exemplifies quite aptly that you do not have the slightest idea what you copy/paste the whole time. If one does not know what a phenotype or a genotype is, one should at the very least read a little bit in a very very basic, maybe highschool text-book before trying to prevent posting such nonsense. Repeatedly, I might add.
Ophiolite has quite clearly given the definitions from which it is quite easily deducible why there are no phenotype mutations.
Read his post again. Slowly. Then go to the library and check the words that you did not understand.

CharonZ: What you posted is a condescending post and quite apparently you do not have the slightest idea of what I do and do not know. I am trying - as I always have been - to explore the limits of our understanding without being constrained or restrained by orthodox beliefs. You should respect this cavalier attempt to explore that which we do not yet know as certain and the unlimited bounds of knowledge yet to be known and explored.

I repeat, what about Retroviruses? RNA to DNA.

Of course I know the difference between a genotype and phenotype and the genetic code. What is it that YOU do not know? Need help? What do you keep searching for by trolling these forums? Do we not have an equal unbiased desire to learn the unknown?

The MBL Woods Hole is currently researching RNA-directed centrosome replication in clams. This is now a hot subject. Care to comment?

We have recent discovery of Eukaryote activity dating back to 2.2 bya from fossil escavations in the Doushantuo Formation in Southern China. Therefore we have Eukaryote activity existing well over 100 mya before the Cambrian explosion. Care to comment?

"The clam centrosome study, led by MBL summer investigator Mark Alliegro of Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC), in collaboration with Mary Anne Alliegro of LSUHSC and Robert Palazzo, of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, detected five RNA sequences in clam eggs that appear to be unique to the centrosome. “The implications are broad and I expect there will be lively discussion on their meaning for topics from cell division to eukaryotic evolution...The findings are likely to spark debate among biologists who have contemplated how these organelles self replicate. Although the consensus is that centrosomes lack DNA, the question of whether they contain RNA has never been adequately answered. “The RNA question has always been controversial, but we couldn't close the door on it,” says Dr. Palazzo. “This is the first really good evidence that nucleic acid co-purifies with the centrosome, which means it is physically present.” ....Using a technique Dr. Palazzo developed at the MBL, the scientists were able to isolate relatively large quantities of clam centrosomes. Skills developed in Dr. Alliegro's laboratory were then used to extract a unique set of RNAs and demonstrate their association with centrosomes biochemically and in situ . “The next step will be to determine what role these RNAs might play in centrosome replication, the cell cycle, or the development of organisms.”"
http://www.mbl.edu/inside/what/news/press_releases/2006_pr_06_06.html

I am trying - as I always have been - to explore the limits of our understanding without being constrained or restrained by orthodox beliefs.
http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/roflol.gif

Ooooh, I know! It’s such a drag to be constrained by existing knowledge. Having to adhere to established facts makes it so much harder to launch on flights of fancy. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/cwm.gif

CharonZ: Further, your comment is also appreciated on the adjacent post: "What do you guys make of this":

"Louis isolated strange, thick-walled, red-tinted cell-like structures about 10 microns in size....Dozens of experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit . (The known upper limit for life in water is about 250 degrees Fahrenheit.)" http://us.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html

I repeat, what about Retroviruses? RNA to DNA.
What about them? Can you clearly and succinctly tell us what relevance they have to anything you are trying to say?

The MBL Woods Hole is currently researching RNA-directed centrosome replication in clams. This is now a hot subject. Care to comment
Once again, what relevance does this have to what you are trying to say? Centrosomes have RNA – so what? Other organelles and complexes have RNA – ribosomes and spliceosomes spring to mind.


Instead of trying to cobble together as much incoherently grouped information as you are capable of partially digesting, try putting together a simple logical argument that focuses on a single feature.

CharonZ: Do you even know what a retrovirus is???

Further, your comment(s) are also appreciated on the adjacent post "What do you guys make of this?"

See: http://us.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html
No findings of DNA present in replication?

"Louis isolated strange, thick-walled, red-tinted cell-like structures about 10 microns in size....experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit . (The known upper limit for life in water is about 250 degrees Fahrenheit .) http://us.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html

I think everything I have to say are have clearly put forth by Hercules.
Yes I know what retroviruses are. Do you want a lecture?
But you do know that it does not have any impact on your postings before, do you (rhetorical question btw).

As stated about, ionized radiation and toxic chemicals can damage the chromosomes in the phenotype and this then causes DNA damage, sometimes so severe that it can chop the double helix in two. If the break goes unfixed, the consequences to the cell can be disastrous, ranging from wholesale gene rearrangements to massive chromosomal breakdown. Chromosomal deletions and translocations from ionized radiation causes birth defects, mental handicaps, Down's Syndrome, Cri-Du-Chat Syndrome, and Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome. http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/RICIP.html

"Soldiers who served in wars in which depleted uranium ammunition was used have suffered substantial genetic damage....Veterans of the conflicts in the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo have high levels of deformed chromosomes, increasing the risks of cancers and abnormalities in their children [10X greater than normal." http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-link-cancer.html

The fact that genome alterations can occur in the phenotype, and then be transmitted by the resulting damaged genotype can not be disputed.

Cancer is another alteration of the phenotype. Viruses alter expression of the cell's copy of genes.

Retroviruses use their RNA genome to alter the host DNA through reverse transcriptase. A DNA copy of the RNA genome virus integrates into the host DNA during transcription. Reverse transcription alters the original phenotype. This occurs in the cytoplasm of the host's phenotype cells. When retroviruses have integrated their genome into the germ line, their genome is passed on to a following generation. This is how HIV/AIDS is transmitted.

"It has been speculated that the RNA to DNA transcription processes used by retroviruses may have first caused DNA to be used as genetic material. In this model, cellular organisms adopted the more chemically stable DNA when retroviruses evolved to create DNA from the RNA templates."
http://www.folkartmuseum.com/encyclopedia/Retrovirus/

"Genome alterations can occur in the phenotype"? Are you saying that germline mutations can occur? All right; I very much doubt anyone here would deny that, but what are you saying this has to do with the chicken-and-egg question? Are you saying that you think germ-cell mutation and/or somatic in utero mutation would/could have produced a chicken? If so, say so.

Geoff

As stated about, ionized radiation and toxic chemicals can damage the chromosomes in the phenotype and this then causes DNA damage
The fact that genome alterations can occur in the phenotype, and then be transmitted by the resulting damaged genotype can not be disputed.
Cancer is another alteration of the phenotype
LOL. Enough said.

Valich, you either need to bone up on your terminology, or you have some clarifying to do.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

None.

They are the same thing. You can't have an egg without a chicken and you can't have a chicken without an egg.

Both are the products of sexual reproduction.

What came first?

Asexual reproduction.

Then came sexual reproduction which evolved into complex systems like the 'chicken-egg' system. They co-evolved. The egg didn't evolve before the chicken and the chicken didn't evolve before the egg. They are the same thing.

And what kind of egg are we in fact talking about? An unfertilized egg? A fertilized egg?

In case we are talking about an unfertilized egg we first need a chicken to make one. And the egg is only half of the problem. The riddle should be: what was there first? The chicken, the egg, or the spermcell?

In case of the fertilized egg and the chicken we are talking about exactly the same thing but at different time points in development.

In all, it's just a silly question resulting in silly answers.

Cancer is another alteration of the phenotype. Viruses alter expression of the cell's copy of genes.

You actually say: a virus alters the genotype of a cell resulting in an alteration of the phenotype.

Conform the dogma.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

None.

They are the same thing. You can't have an egg without a chicken and you can't have a chicken without an egg.

Not to interrupt valich's illucidity, but: you don't suppose a hopeful mutant type might be more likely to go to fixation in an oviparous species, then?

Geoff

'oviparous' must be how it all started. A primitive multicellullar colony shedding gametes, or fertilized cells.

Not sure what you mean.

The fact that genome alterations can occur in the phenotype, and then be transmitted by the resulting damaged genotype can not be disputed.And here I was, all these months, thinking you were intelligent, but confused and confrontational. Ah well, two out of three isn't bad.

We had this chicken-egg discussion in Free Thoughts about a year ago. Valich pretty much showed what a clueless cunt he was then, and here he goes again.

And here I was, all these months, thinking you were intelligent

:eek: :bugeye:

'oviparous' must be how it all started. A primitive multicellullar colony shedding gametes, or fertilized cells.

Not sure what you mean.

Just this: would alterations from fixed type be more or less likely in an extant oviparous sp. than in a vivparous, which presumably has more maternal instinct and certainly has more maternal investment than an oviparid. Some of that maternal investment might or should be contingent on the offspring resembling it, or at least the type norm for the species. A radically different offspring could be rejected. But in an r-selected oviparous species with little or no maternal post-partum input, it wouldn't matter that a few of the offspring were freaks; they wouldn't be disfavoured from the standpoint of post-partum/hatch maternal fitness contributions. So...there's be fewer disadvantages to being a 'hopeful monster' initially, or at least of being substantially different.

There are exceptions to the oviparious/viviparous thing: sharks, some snakes birds (witness the cuckoo, which is freakish compared to its nestmates, but gets fed anyway) but overall oviparous types tend to be r-selected with minimal care, so would hopeful monsters be more hopeful if they were from r-selecteds?

By support, I note that egg-layers have on average far, far more morphs than non-egg layers.

Geoff

You actually say: a virus alters the genotype of a cell resulting in an alteration of the phenotype.

Conform the dogma.No, I said that a retrovirus alters the expression of a copy of the cells gene, and so does cancer - not the inherited genotype. There's a difference.

Anyway, I agree totally with your post above that.

What came first the chicken or the egg? Neither. Both evolved together into what they are today.

CharonZ: Bite the dust. If you don't have anything constructive to say, or educational, or motivational, then your deconstructive dismotivational criticism is not welcome on any of these forums. "And to think I thought that you were intellectual?"

Clearly they both appeared at the exact same time. The precursor to the chicken and the egg was the "chegg" and is actually much younger (from a species point of view) than suspected. In fact, early humans began breeding cheggs that exhibited a tendency to differentiate into small "eggs" and slightly larger "chicks", mainly because the taste of the chegg itself was rather disgusting while it was discovered that the seperate components were rather delicious. Eventually, over thousands of years of breeding, the barely ambulatory chegg was transformed into the highly mobile "chicken" form, with the "egg" portion imbedded in it. This combination of a self-sufficient "chicken" host with a convienient "egg" delivery system ranks as one of humankinds most successful domestic breeding efforts.

Just this: would alterations from fixed type be more or less likely in an extant oviparous sp. than in a vivparous, which presumably has more maternal instinct and certainly has more maternal investment than an oviparid. Some of that maternal investment might or should be contingent on the offspring resembling it, or at least the type norm for the species. A radically different offspring could be rejected. But in an r-selected oviparous species with little or no maternal post-partum input, it wouldn't matter that a few of the offspring were freaks; they wouldn't be disfavoured from the standpoint of post-partum/hatch maternal fitness contributions. So...there's be fewer disadvantages to being a 'hopeful monster' initially, or at least of being substantially different.

There are exceptions to the oviparious/viviparous thing: sharks, some snakes birds (witness the cuckoo, which is freakish compared to its nestmates, but gets fed anyway) but overall oviparous types tend to be r-selected with minimal care, so would hopeful monsters be more hopeful if they were from r-selecteds?

By support, I note that egg-layers have on average far, far more morphs than non-egg layers.

Geoff


I don't know. Have there ever been studies indicating that 'hopeful monsters' can increase speciation rate or just the evolutionary rate. Have their been studies on the reproductive success of 'monsters'? I'm not really an expert in this field. I wouldn't know. Maybe it is a succesful strategy in times of environmental pressure?

I think if they were sufficiently different that they would be avoided by the source species at mating that they might drive speciation. I'm more quantitative myself, so I don't deal with that area, but it seems reasonable. I'm probably just reinventing the wheel here.

The environmental pressure might be an apt explanation from the other side too: West-Eberhard opined a couple of years back that phenotypic shift from environmental modification led the process and that genes for this kind of developmental shift were 'followers' in establishing fixed genetic systems for the different types. Not sure how much I believe that one - no evidence for it - but it's possible. Not as valich appears to be proposing it though.

No, I like your allusion to a "phenotypic shift from environmental modification" and I wish you would elaborate on this concept more. If you read my thread I posted above, you know how much I agree on this point, albeit a differing emphasis. But your clarifications would probably help me refine my own hypothesis, and I openly admit that that's all it is - a speculative hypothesis. Nevertheless, I do think coevolution has a play in this. We all evolved from fish then amphibians then reptiles then mammals. Fish eggs lack sufficient calcium to make them hard like chicken eggs. Again, just a speculative hypothesis.

Just this: would alterations from fixed type be more or less likely in an extant oviparous sp. than in a vivparous, which presumably has more maternal instinct and certainly has more maternal investment than an oviparid. Some of that maternal investment might or should be contingent on the offspring resembling it, or at least the type norm for the species. A radically different offspring could be rejected. But in an r-selected oviparous species with little or no maternal post-partum input, it wouldn't matter that a few of the offspring were freaks; they wouldn't be disfavoured from the standpoint of post-partum/hatch maternal fitness contributions. So...there's be fewer disadvantages to being a 'hopeful monster' initially, or at least of being substantially different.

There are exceptions to the oviparious/viviparous thing: sharks, some snakes birds (witness the cuckoo, which is freakish compared to its nestmates, but gets fed anyway) but overall oviparous types tend to be r-selected with minimal care, so would hopeful monsters be more hopeful if they were from r-selecteds?

By support, I note that egg-layers have on average far, far more morphs than non-egg layers.

GeoffExcellent post and excellent observations.

I don't see how maternal instincts would have any sway, but an oviparous species would be more protected from environmental fluctuations and intuitively I would assume that should give it less morphs? What are your observations to the contrary?

There is no correlation in rejecting offspring if they don't resemble the adult form and this is obvious in virtually all eukaryotes - the basic embryo structure that radically changes its phenotype as it grows. Heck, even the ugliest human child is always loved by its mother.

West-Eberhard's hypothesis refers to phenotypic change resulting from environmental change or from mutation as a result of environmental variance. It proposes "genes as followers" in the design and resembles a local stage of Wrightian epistatic modification and spread - and of course, has little or no empirical evidence behind it.

My source is her 2003 book "Developmental plasticity and evolution" but I do not recommend it as I fall into the camp of quantitative genetic variance for plasticity espoused by de Jong, de Witt and Scheiner. I think it a little narrow minded to see such variance as mere skipping between alternate fixed (and potentially wildly unadaptive) states, especially since global physiological induction is probably variable rather than all-or-nothing.

Needlessly, I add that I refute Lamarckianism utterly. 'Permanent environmental' effects on genetic architecture are fine, so long as we refer to mutation at the level of the "nutsack" (i.e. progeny), as Spurious so eloquently implied.

There is no correlation in rejecting offspring if they don't resemble the adult form and this is obvious in virtually all eukaryotes - the basic embryo structure that radically changes its phenotype as it grows. Heck, even the ugliest human child is always loved by its mother.

Normally human children do not reproduce with their mothers. Although I suspect that in your lineage it may have happened.

What came first: the chicken or the egg?

During evolution, things can progress from simpler to complex. Natural selection by cross breeding between different species may also evolve new species, one might had been a chicken. :D

The omelette came first.

No, mostly the chicken soup.

Natural Sequence is, Parents first children afterwords.:D

That's another possibility.

Personally, I believe one of the primordial omelettes spontaneously unscrambled itself into an egg, defying the laws of thermodynamics. The newly formed egg then gave rise to the first chicken, the beginning of a race that has survived for billions of years to date, and which, due to its inherited resistance to the second law, will undoubtedly continue to populate the universe for all eternity.

Can't it be converted into chicken instead of egg?

If we take a cell out of egg or chicken and grow/clone, will it become egg or chicken?

Normally human children do not reproduce with their mothers. Although I suspect that in your lineage it may have happened.Spurious, I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course I came from my mother. Just what is it that you are trying to say? Please explain your hypothesis in respectable scientific terms as we are trying to have an intellectual discussion here on Sciforum: the "scientific community."

The insight that Geoffp provided was most admirable and it will require me to research his sources and contemplate the position before I can understand it completely and address it. Does this meet your expectations for a participant in this intellectual endeavor? Or what is your purpose?

Have I been subverted? I can't tell.

Spurious, I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course I came from my mother. Just what is it that you are trying to say? Please explain your hypothesis in respectable scientific terms as we are trying to have an intellectual discussion here on Sciforum: the "scientific community."

The insight that Geoffp provided was most admirable and it will require me to research his sources and contemplate the position before I can understand it completely and address it. Does this meet your expectations for a participant in this intellectual endeavor? Or what is your purpose?

You say that mothers even love their ugliest offspring. I say that mothers do not reproduce with their offspring. How much of a dumb fuck can you be not to understand simple english. Such as the word 'with'.

So my theory was right I suppose. In your lineage it was probably common that mothers reproduced WITH their ugly offspring.

I don't see how maternal instincts would have any sway, but an oviparous species would be more protected from environmental fluctuations and intuitively I would assume that should give it less morphs? What are your observations to the contrary?

On the contrary, an ovipar (being usually a heterotherm) would be less protected from environmental fluctuation, since core body temperature and metabolism are externally regulated. Note ESD sex ratio in turtles and crocodilians. Anyway, this would present two variance components for modification of post-hatch phenotype prior to oviposition: E and GxE. Morph production could be invoked under the West-Eberhard (2003) model, with genetic fixation after the assumption of the novel morphotype (they call this GxE but it's clearly a staggered meta-populational process and not GxE at all; the 'developmental' issue should be subsumed under E), or one could GxE changes might be described as being quantitative, however: and this is my association at present (although some of my results could be interpreted in either direction, actually...ah well).

There is no correlation in rejecting offspring if they don't resemble the adult form and this is obvious in virtually all eukaryotes - the basic embryo structure that radically changes its phenotype as it grows. Heck, even the ugliest human child is always loved by its mother.

Hmm. Well, I don't know. Paternal support might be minimized; a sire would be unwise to contribute to offspring that don't resemble it. However, I'm sure that there are exceptions to that also. But maternal interest might also decline for disfamilial offspring - don't human mothers prefer offspring that have interests and personalities similar to their own? An oviparous r-selected would not have any such preferences, having in fact no preferences or interest in any of their offspring. Many r-selected ovipars might be more expected to exhibit widely ranging morphs for the express reason that they have little control of environmental effects on their offspring phenotype (again, i.e. sex). Less control, no post-partum investment, numerous offspring (the 'shotgun strategy'): morphs.

You say that mothers even love their ugliest offspring. I say that mothers do not reproduce with their offspring. How much of a dumb fuck can you be not to understand simple english. Such as the word 'with'.

So my theory was right I suppose. In your lineage it was probably common that mothers reproduced WITH their ugly offspring.Reexamine the logic behind your reasoning. Further, what is the reason for the sudden use of vulgarity? There is no way that anyone can ever convince me that you have a Ph.D. with a reply like that.

It's not a secret that I have a PhD. Just as it isn't a secret that you are a moron.

I think it is about time you stop raping science with your lack of knowledge and your arrogant psychological make-up which prevents you from seeing the obvious. You know shit about science. There isn't a single real scientist that gives you an ounce of credit. They all despise your methods and your vulgarities regarding the essence of science: the fact that you rape science in every single post you make but you project the aura you are the defender of science.

You are in fact the worst kind of person to defend science imaginable. You cannot connect two dots. You cannot see simple logic. You cannot see the value of simple sets of data. You are not capable of any scientific reasoning without falling into a pit of stupidity with every other thought you have.

But still you are covinced you know science. The fact that actual scientists (all of them) think you are wrong in almost everything you say will not deter you. You are worse that a religious nut. At least they don't hide behind the facade of science.

You are just fucking sad.

And what do you do when someone corrects again a stupidity. You question their scienfic merits. While the actual identity of this person is not a secret and his actual PhD has been linked in the past on this forum, as have some of his papers. You question a fact again.

You are a religious nut. You are a new breed of scientologist except that you are all alone and nobody has invented your church yet. A lonley git who thinks he knows the truth. You can't get anymore sad than that. If you weren't so annoying you would have my sympathies. But as it is I will just say with my PhD: have a lobotomy. You can't get much worse than this.

On the contrary, an ovipar (being usually a heterotherm) would be less protected from environmental fluctuation, since core body temperature and metabolism are externally regulated. Note ESD sex ratio in turtles and crocodilians. Anyway, this would present two variance components for modification of post-hatch phenotype prior to oviposition: E and GxE. Morph production could be invoked under the West-Eberhard (2003) model, with genetic fixation after the assumption of the novel morphotype (they call this GxE but it's clearly a staggered meta-populational process and not GxE at all; the 'developmental' issue should be subsumed under E), or one could GxE changes might be described as being quantitative, however: and this is my association at present (although some of my results could be interpreted in either direction, actually...ah well).



Hmm. Well, I don't know. Paternal support might be minimized; a sire would be unwise to contribute to offspring that don't resemble it. However, I'm sure that there are exceptions to that also. But maternal interest might also decline for disfamilial offspring - don't human mothers prefer offspring that have interests and personalities similar to their own? An oviparous r-selected would not have any such preferences, having in fact no preferences or interest in any of their offspring. Many r-selected ovipars might be more expected to exhibit widely ranging morphs for the express reason that they have little control of environmental effects on their offspring phenotype (again, i.e. sex). Less control, no post-partum investment, numerous offspring (the 'shotgun strategy'): morphs.
No you are definitely not being subverted.

I think accumulationed diverse external environmental fluctuations far outway a singular temperature fluctuation factor: instant readaptations to all the new environmental factors previously unknown, i.e., learning how to live in the real world. I'm very sorry that I'm not familiar with the West-Eberhard model but I'll try to research it and get back to you on it.

If you talk about maternal instincts and embryo acceptance than you would have to limit the argument to only higher level mammals (Metatheria and Eutheria - primates, carnivora, etc.) and not aves. Although it is hypothesized that aves evolved from Diapsida (bird-like dinosaurs) but this is debateable (see the thread I just posted above). Normally a human mother would love their offspring - after nurturing it for nine months inside her womb - no matter what it came out like. How could you even refer to "interests and personalities similar to its own"? That would be 10-20 years down the road and still it wouldn't matter.

Less maternal control, no developmental influence on the phenotype, stable development in the controlled environment of the shell until it matures enough to be on its own.

Spurious, I have no interest in religion or scientology or whatever else you are talking about. And I really have no idea what you are talking about? I get up in the morning, go to work, go to school, and study science and research science as diligently as I can. That is my passion and my life. I have no time for ANYTHING else except to walk my dog. This is all I do with my life. Nothing else. Given that as a fact, can you offer any "constructive" suggestions as to how I can be more efficient at learning science?

You are NOT a Ph.D. Tell me what university dared confer a doctorate to you and I will contact them immediately. No Ph.D. from any respectable institution would behave as obnoxious and as anti-intellectual as you are doing right now.

Spurious, I have no interest in religion or scientology or whatever else you are talking about. And I really have no idea what you are talking about? I get up in the morning, go to work, go to school, and study science and research science as diligently as I can. That is my passion and my life. I have no time for ANYTHING else except to walk my dog. This is all I do with my life. Nothing else. Given that as a fact, can you offer any "constructive" suggestions as to how I can be more efficient at learning science?

You are NOT a Ph.D. Tell me what university dared confer a doctorate to you and I will contact them immediately. No Ph.D. from any respectable institution would behave as obnoxious and as anti-intellectual as you are doing right now.

reported to the moderators for unethical behaviour.

Think I'm done with this thread: questionable scientific ethics.

Given that as a fact, can you offer any "constructive" suggestions as to how I can be more efficient at learning science?
.I have offered you objective advice on a number of occassions. You chose not to accept it, preferring, it seems, to take the subjective view that since I had called you a snivelling little weasel in adjacent posts this must somehow devalue the objectivity of the advice.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to, as Spurious so elegantly put it, connect two dots. The depth of contempt I feel for you in no manner effects the objectivity of the advice I offer. I am genetically and environmentally presdisposed to offer the soundest advice I can, even when I think the recipient is despicable. I would find it practically impossible to do otherwise.

You can, however, simply choose to ignore me and the advice, and continue on your merry way with less understanding of what science is than does a squahed, fermenting guava fruit.

It's not a secret that I have a PhD. Just as it isn't a secret that you are a moron.

I think it is about time you stop raping science with your lack of knowledge and your arrogant psychological make-up which prevents you from seeing the obvious. You know shit about science. There isn't a single real scientist that gives you an ounce of credit. They all despise your methods and your vulgarities regarding the essence of science: the fact that you rape science in every single post you make but you project the aura you are the defender of science.

You are in fact the worst kind of person to defend science imaginable. You cannot connect two dots. You cannot see simple logic. You cannot see the value of simple sets of data. You are not capable of any scientific reasoning without falling into a pit of stupidity with every other thought you have.

But still you are covinced you know science. The fact that actual scientists (all of them) think you are wrong in almost everything you say will not deter you. You are worse that a religious nut. At least they don't hide behind the facade of science.

You are just fucking sad.

And what do you do when someone corrects again a stupidity. You question their scienfic merits. While the actual identity of this person is not a secret and his actual PhD has been linked in the past on this forum, as have some of his papers. You question a fact again.

You are a religious nut. You are a new breed of scientologist except that you are all alone and nobody has invented your church yet. A lonley git who thinks he knows the truth. You can't get anymore sad than that. If you weren't so annoying you would have my sympathies. But as it is I will just say with my PhD: have a lobotomy. You can't get much worse than this.Your brain’s fixation with and reliance on the use of vulgarity and condescending belittlement towards others is indicative of immaturity and a lack of any educational background. We just don’t talk that way in the scientific community or in higher education. In psychological terms, the use of vulgarity shows a spontaneous outburst of emotional hostility and a drifting away from rational intellectual thought.

That you have a Ph.D. is just a blatant lie: you are a fake and a phony and your filthy manner of speaking is a disgrace to the scientific community.

There is not one instance that I can recall where you have ever admitted your mistakes. When I know that I am wrong, I admit it, but I don’t rush to an incorrect conclusion without further research or without gaining a full understanding. A perfect example of your biased stubbornness and refusal to admit error is with your recent thread “New genus of monkeys discovered.” When I posted an important related break-through reference to a newly found transitional species that resembled an ape more than a chimp, your immediately reply was to call it “dirty” (“Jesus fuck. Apes! It’s not a monkey! It’s a filthy ape!”). Later, you then accused me of posting “spam” (“stop polluting threads. What's the point of quoting random articles in a science thread. It's fucking impolite and pointless), even though the source was a direct quotation from the author’s of the journal Nature (Toumai, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 6-7 mya, possibly the “oldest known hominid” http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050406_chad_bones.html). Perhaps you have some type of neurotic bias towards monkeys because that is what you call yourself? Just a suggestion.

Almost all sciforum users do not have costly membership to access these journals directly. Posting a link to a scientist’s direct quotation that can be accessed for free is doing a service to the public and to the users on these forums. Direct quotes from author’s of peer reviewed articles who are out there in the field at the forefront of science and technology are not spam. If you cannot understand this through my use of rational scientific terminology and unbiased objective logical thought, then perhaps you can understand it through the use of your own manner of wording: you are now being a “dumbfuck,” and to be consistent with your own analyses and methodology, in this example you need to admit this. Inconsistency is also a sign of immaturity and unintelligence - lack of logical thought, not to mention lack of etiquette, lack of scientific protocol, and the exposure of your blatant obscene rudeness and profanity to the general public on a public forum.

spurious:

reported to the moderators for unethical behaviour.

Don't dish it out if you're not willing to get it back.
---------

The tone of this thread has descended to a level where there's no reason to keep it open.