Cheetahs have a small gene pool to conserve. Humans have a very conserved gene pool. There is a difference. Though I'm apparently not good at making that distinction plain.

If you took 2000 random humans for breeding purposes you would (and we are dealing with odds) be almost guaranteed to have greater than 99% of the genes that code for variation among humans. Because the overall history of humanity is a series of evolutionary bottlenecks, but humans are remarkably adept at surviving.

I didn't know that part about inbreeding in cheetahs. Good stuff. (edit) not good that cheetahs are inbred--good knowledge to know for knowledge sake.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-republicans-comments-slavery-muslims-stir-controversy-235129440.html[/url]

WIYF (Wikipedia is your friend) w.r.to background reading:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation[/url]

has lots of good stuff on founder effects, types/origins/frequencies of various kinds genetic variation, higher variability of genes coding for regionally strongly-selected traits (skin color being perhaps the most prominent of these), the Neandertal/Homo gene mixture hypothesis - note there is an analogous admixing which appears to have occurred in the Melanesians (of which the Papuan New Gunineans are the largest group), etc.

A related WikiPiece on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity]genetic diversity[/url] has some interesting notes on genetically threatened species such as cheetahs, indicating that evolution appears to endowed many or most species with ways of "forcibly increasing diversity" from a low-diversity founder state, likely as a result of population bottlenecks having been a quasi-regular phenomenon over the course of deep evolutionary time (hundreds of thousands / millions of years):
[quote]The natural world has several ways of preserving or increasing genetic diversity. Among oceanic plankton, viruses aid in the genetic shifting process. Ocean viruses, which infect the plankton, carry genes of other organisms in addition to their own. When a virus containing the genes of one cell infects another, the genetic makeup of the latter changes. This constant shift of genetic make-up helps to maintain a healthy population of plankton despite complex and unpredictable environmental changes.[8]

Cheetahs are a threatened species. Extremely low genetic diversity and resulting poor sperm quality has made breeding and survivorship difficult for cheetahs –- only about 5% of cheetahs survive to adulthood.[9] About 10,000 years ago, all but the jubatus species of cheetahs died out. The species encountered a population bottleneck and close family relatives were forced to mate with each other, or inbreed.[10] However, it has been recently discovered that female cheetahs can mate with more than one male per litter of cubs. They undergo induced ovulation, which means that a new egg is produced every time a female mates. By mating with multiple males, the mother increases the genetic diversity within a single litter of cubs.[11][/quote]

But we should perhaps consider splitting this subtheme off into a separate, less-political thread.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methemoglobinemia[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;313880]Cheetahs have a small gene pool to conserve. Humans have a very conserved gene pool. There is a difference. Though I'm apparently not good at making that distinction plain.

If you took 2000 random humans for breeding purposes you would (and we are dealing with odds) be almost guaranteed to have greater than 99% of the genes that code for variation among humans. Because the overall history of humanity is a series of evolutionary bottlenecks, but humans are remarkably adept at surviving.

I didn't know that part about inbreeding in cheetahs. Good stuff. (edit) not good that cheetahs are inbred--good knowledge to know for knowledge sake.[/QUOTE]Oak trees, [i]Quercus robur[/i]?

I believe that many species of trees have a very wide range of genes in their genome and that, strange as it may seem to a mammal, different parts of the same organism show quite different genetics, despite have grown from a single zygote.

Being a genetic mosaic can be rather useful if you can't easily run away from predators.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/ark-gop-calls-candidates-statements-offensive-212508499.html[/url]

[QUOTE]Hubbard wrote in his 2009 self-published book, "Letters To The Editor: Confessions Of A Frustrated Conservative," that "the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise." He also wrote that African-Americans were better off than they would have been had they not been captured and shipped to the United States.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Fuqua, who served in the Arkansas House from 1996 to 1998, wrote there is "no solution to the Muslim problem short of expelling all followers of the religion from the United States," in his 2012 book, titled "God's Law."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]"Had I known of these statements, I would not have contributed to their campaigns. I am requesting that they give my contributions to charity," said Griffin, who donated $100 to each candidate.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;313796]I googled "Obama voted against waiver" (or something like that) and the site that came up was [URL="http://twitchy.com/2012/10/03/wheres-your-dollar-sen-obama-voted-against-stafford-waiver-for-new-orleans-two-weeks-before-speech/"]this one at twitchy[/URL]. I have no idea if it is a partisan website or not. But the information they provided matched what I had been told about Obama voting against the Stafford waiver before his speech.[/QUOTE]

It [I]is[/I] much easier to make vague assertions when you only allude to your sources, and only reference your complaint in ways which assume your readers are all on top of Fox's latest manufactured issues.

[url]http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/03/bolling-falsely-accuses-obama-of-voting-against/190329[/url]

The "vote against" was on a different version of the bill.
[QUOTE]Fox's Eric Bolling suggested that President Obama was hypocritical in his criticism of the government's response to Katrina by claiming Obama voted against waiving a bill that restricted emergency funding while accusing former President Bush of refusing to waive those same funds. But Obama, who strongly supported the measure, voted for a previous version of the bill which would have provided the same relief funds, but also included a timetable for withdrawal from the Iraq war.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]In fact, Obama was a strong, consistent proponent of waiving the Stafford Act for Katrina recovery. According to the New Orleans [I]Times-Picayune [/I](accessed via Nexis)[I],[/I] Obama had called for unrestricted relief funding in January of 2007:[INDENT] Lieberman and Landrieu were joined by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a presidential hopeful who made the most of the opportunity offered by a swarming international media to say he was "embarrassed" by the White House's handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.
[...]
At the hearing Monday, Obama seemed unsatisfied with many of the answers Powell gave. Asked why the federal government had not waived the requirement of a 10 percent matching payment from local governments for cleanup and public buildings, as it had for Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York, Powell said it didn't need to because the state could pay the match using federal money.[/QUOTE]


[/INDENT]Following your suggested search phrase also yields a large number of blogs doing the echo chamber, many using the same quotes ad nauseum. The clear intent is to distort the actual legislative process which was involved. There are often competing versions of bills which are voted on in the work toward a final version. To cite one vote while leaving out the reasons for it, and ignoring Senator Obama's actual position is dishonest, to put it mildly.


Now, back to your "racist diatribe" accusation. It seems there are people on both sides of the political divide who found it perfectly reasonable that the then-Senator would point out the particular impact the storm had on the African-American residents of New Orleans.



As noted, G W Bush referenced racial discrimination in his photo op speech in Jackson Square. Is that a case of "It's OK if You're a Republican?" (or white male?), but not if you're black?

[QUOTE]It is much easier to make vague assertions when you only allude to your sources, and only reference your complaint in ways which assume your readers are all on top of Fox's latest manufactured issues.[/QUOTE]kladner, perhaps we need to review what has actually happened in this thread.

I made a specific assertion. I said: "Is he going to apologize for first voting against waiving the payback requirements, then (even though the waiver passed) trying to race-bait?" I thought that those who have watched the video of Obama's speech, which repeatedly mentions the Stafford act, would know what I was talking about. This assumption was apparently wrong, as you didn't know what I was talking about.

Not being informed is not a crime. I didn't fault you for not knowing what I was talking about. And in fact you responded in a quite reasonable way, by asking what I was talking about. I told you how to find information on the subject, and gave you one of many websites that can be found.

Your current response has returned to unreasonableness. You assert my claim was vague. It is not. I will repeat it. Obama voted against the waiver, and then race-baited an audience into thinking they wouldn't receive the waiver.

Now, the website your point to, though quite partisan, does give a little more relevant information. Obama was not [i]against[/i] the waiver, per se. He was against other aspects of the bill that passed that contained the waiver. He would have voted for the waiver otherwise. Fine.

Nevertheless, as you now know, Obama was aware (before his speech) that the waiver had been made and he still tried to convince his audience they were being treated unfairly [b]in that regard[/b].

[QUOTE]Following your suggested search phrase also yields a large number of blogs doing the echo chamber, many using the same quotes ad nauseum. The clear intent is to distort the actual legislative process which was involved. There are often competing versions of bills which are voted on in the work toward a final version. To cite one vote while leaving out the reasons for it, and ignoring Senator Obama's actual position is dishonest, to put it mildly.[/QUOTE]There are a lot of assumptions here. Let me try to unpack a few things.

First, whether or not the original source of the information was Bolling, and whether or not others echo him, is irrelevant.

Second, I agree with you that the legislative process is more complicated than simple yes or no votes. I agree with you that the reasons why people do or do not vote for legislation is important. But so is working across the aisle. Almost all legislation calls for compromise. Obama, whether rightly or wrongly, decided to vote against the legislation that a majority of the Senate (then, currently consisting of a majority of Democrats) eventually decided to pass.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, you claim that it is "dishonest, to put it mildly" to ignore/leave out Senator Obama's actual position. My response is twofold. Firstly, I apologize for not making that clear. I should have said that Obama was for the waiver. I thought it was clear he was for the waiver, even though he voted against it. So, once again, I apologize for not making that clear. This ties into my second point, which is that Obama's intent in his vote was irrelevant to my point (which is why I didn't bring it up). My point was that Obama knew full well (because, in fact, he voted against the waiver which did eventually get passed) that what he was saying to the people was wrong.

I hope this helps.

[QUOTE]As noted, G W Bush referenced racial discrimination in his photo op speech in Jackson Square. Is that a case of "It's OK if You're a Republican?" (or white male?), but not if you're black? [/QUOTE]Of course not. If Bush did it too, he was wrong to do so.

And again, look at my previous post to chalsall and chappy. My point wasn't even about race, per se. It was about holding both sides of the aisle accountable. What Romney said about 47% was wrong, and he has apologized. But look at how you've been trying to protect Obama. You haven't addressed what he said. You haven't admitted it was even a little bit wrong. And you have tried to accuse the other side of the aisle of excusing such behavior. (But, as you've seen, I don't excuse the other side of the aisle.)

WRT Mister Romney, we wonder:
[LIST][*]What thought process even gets you to consider, let alone even say, the "47%" remark? That was not an offhand remark. A lot of thought went into it.[*]Is his response that he was wrong only because he got "caught"?[/LIST]What alarms us also is that some regular people have latched onto this thought process and defended him and continue to believe it.

So just say something blatantly wrong, make a point, apologize for it, only if caught, and derive the benefits from a sheeple audience?

:ick:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;313962]WRT Mister Romney, we wonder:
[LIST][*]What thought process even gets you to consider, let alone even say, the "47%" remark? That was not an offhand remark. A lot of thought went into it.[*]Is his response that he was wrong only because he got "caught"?[/LIST][/quote]Regarding point #1. I don't see how a lot of thought went into it. He was asked a quick question and gave a quick response. Do we have any evidence he has repeated similar thoughts? etc... (Have we even gotten the entire video yet?) While I cannot even begin to guess what his thought process was, I could have seen myself saying something similarly stupid (because I have said many stupid things, even while teaching a class in mathematics where I am in deep thought), especially after running a campaign for months and months.

My own thought process may have been something like: I'm speaking to a friendly crowd, trying to explain to them how I'm going to run my campaign. There are 47% of Americans who will support Obama no matter what. I need to express how I'm not going to try to appeal to that group. Why not? Well, speaking in broad sweeping generalizations, it is because of .... Or something like that.

As for the second point, I suppose we will never know. All I can say is that I appreciate he has admitted he was wrong. It is not like it would make sense for Romney (or Obama) to look back through all of the millions of things he has said, and make them an issue by saying "You know, here is a complete list of all the stupid off-the-cuff things I've said. I apologize before I get caught." It does make sense for us to recognize people say stupid things at times, and forgive them when they admit it.

[quote]What alarms us also is that some regular people have latched onto this thought process and defended him and continue to believe it.[/quote]That alarms me too. But it also similarly alarms me, to see people defending Obama's race-baiting.

[quote]So just say something blatantly wrong, make a point, apologize for it, only if caught, and derive the benefits from a sheeple audience?

:ick:[/QUOTE]I agree. But do we apply this standard fairly? Or does Obama also get a free pass?

Have [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJ6yyG_Fps"]these[/URL] been posted yet?

part of a series with new updates coming soon!