Foundational principles of the aetiology of genes

20 Jul

An outline of the genetics governing the foundational principles of the aetiology of genes will assist the study of the various models of how humans beings arrived and separated into the different groups in particular regions of the world. The science underlying the mechanism of gene development will be elucidated in this post in order to assess how favourably the hypothesis presented in this blog compares with other serious competing hypotheses that are currently under consideration.

Please note that there will be no new posts by me in this blogsite until a consensus view on this topic has been reached. All future comments on all posts submitted to this blogsite will be edited by me to ensure that this objective is maintained.


10 Responses to “Foundational principles of the aetiology of genes”

  1. shantanup July 21, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    For the record, I gave Jokodo his full allotted 48 hours to complete his deliberations and respond to my latest post with pertinent comments on how he thinks mutations produce gene-based phenotypical traits like hair, melanin, docility, etc., to enable one to estimate the length of time taken for such differences between human races to emerge; give his comments on each of the alternative hypotheses that he has examined seriously and thoroughly on the modelling of these biological details (on the basis of which he turned my one to the trash bin at a glance, to use his word); and to reproduce these models here in the comparable level of detail that I have provided for my hypothesis so that we may then be able judge which model deserves greater attention as being true.

    No further comments were received from Jokodo by me. Thus, the question of editing out his fatuous and superfluos disregard of my hypothesis as is apparent from the comments that are clearly discernible in his copy-pasted submissions, has not arisen (yet, since he has the option to use the ‘preferably’ clause of my 20th July post to delay further submissions).

    The floor is therefore open for progressive comments accordingly from the wider scientific community.

  2. Jokodo July 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    You know what’s the problem? Replying to your ramblings is a waste of time until you demonstrate that you’ve done some research yourself. Ask questions and postulate hypotheses in a way that show you have a rough understanding of what we already know and what is open for debate, and among the latter, what is and what isn’t subjectable to empirical study with methods we already have. You’ll have to read up on a few things for yourself, and no-one can do that for you.

    • shantanup July 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

      As anyone can see, these are fatuous comments that do not address the issue that is required. By now Jokodo should have been well-advised to keep himself to the Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board forum where this style of posting is appropriate, not insert it into someone’s blogsite.

      Please do not send any further comments here Jokodo.

      • Jokodo July 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

        Claims that are presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Asking you to present some evidence before addressing your “hypothesis” is not “fatuous disregard”. It’s not my fault you didn’t do it in the first place. I even tried to advise you as to what kind of evidence might be pertinent – from an earlier comment of mine: “The basic issue still is that in order to claim that effect X (the difference between extant human populations) is to large to be explained by cause Y (relative seperation lasting 50,000 years), you have to give us an expected effect size for Y and compare it to the measured size of X.”

        I still haven’t seen any attempt on your side to quantify either the actual measured differences between populations, or the amount of difference you think can be reasonably expected to accrue within ~50,000 years. Claiming that the two figures so far off as to require an alternative explanation for the extant differences requires giving at least a rough estimate of both and comparing them with each other.

  3. shantanup July 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    And how did you work out what amount of phenotypic differences ”can reasonably be expected to accrue within ~50,000 years” from your alternative DNA-sequence modelling exercises?

    • Jokodo July 22, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

      I didn’t. Other people have done so. If you can point to any specific flaws in the model used that force us to radically reconsider their estimates for convergence times, then say so.

      • shantanup July 22, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

        Convergence of what?

      • Jokodo July 23, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

        Coalescence. I was typing in a hurry.

  4. shantanup July 24, 2012 at 6:04 am #

    Is this coalescence theory related to your ideas on Genetic drift that we discussed at length at FRDB?

    • Jokodo July 24, 2012 at 10:58 am #

      Just google it and come back when you know enough to criticise specific assumptions. Science is up to criticism, but unless you understand enough of what people are doing to point specifically to which assumptions or logical steps they are making you think flawed, and can present a coherent argument for why you think so, you’re not criticising them, just wasting everybody’s time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: