Jairo Entrecosto disse...
Há por aqui Ingaysidores e Gaylibans da Al-Gayeda, mas o Barbas é adepto do Gaymunismo. Viram o que ele disse do homossexual que criticou o movimento político gayzista? Chamou-o homofóbico.
O proletário que não se alista nas fileiras do partido, obedecendo ao comité vermelho, é um reaccionário infectado pela cultura burguesa. Acaba por ser uma vítima, mas também um inimigo. Não consegue ver quem lhe quer bem, e isso é perigoso.
O Barbas, olha para o homossexual que não alinha com a cartilha Gay, e considera-o um traidor de todos os gaylotários, cúmplice e idiota útil do inimigo: o heterocionário.
Xangrylah disse...
Algo que sempre achei curioso na homofobia é o seu discurso revelar uma ignorância atroz sobre hábitos de higiene pessoal.
Tal quadro permite inferir que a suposta heterossexualidade destes comentadores é, na prática, uma séria ameaça à saúde pública.
Por favor, não fodam, Portugal agradece
Mats disse...
Wyrm,
Sabes que um dos pontos de encontro gay são ginásios não sabes?
Não sabia, mas graças aos teus conhecimentos, agora já sei. Obrigado
Krippmeister disse...
Jairo Entrefolhos,
Jairo Entrecosto disse...
Bem, vou andando...
Ainda não matei nenhum homossexual hoje, e os meu índices de glicémia homofóbica já estão a dar-me tonturas.
A ver se passo ali pelo parque onde eles costumam andar. Mas antes tenho de ir buscar a motosserra e a fita adesiva ( costumo selar-lhes a boca, não gosto dos guinchos). A ver se não tropeço naquelas cabeças de ateus que tenho espalhadas na cave, como no outro dia. Ia-me aleijando. Aquilo está uma desarrumação, nem vos conto. Desgraçados dos ateus, nem depois de mor...Bem, como dizia, vou então andando.
Foi um dia de grandes emoções. Descobri que não posso sentir nojo, porque isso é intolerância. Logo, mereci que tivessem nojo de mim.
Cuidado com o frio, tapem-se bem, e se a Gaystapo perguntar por mim, digam-lhes que não me viram hoje. Obrigado.
Bem, vou andando...
A ver se passo ali pelo pelo parque
Paio com ervilhas tem parques e lá tamém costumam andar homes de batina
Ora é a homofobia que reduziu o nº de padres
Gastaram as juntas tanto dinheiro em parques para a padralhada passear e é isto?
Jairo Entrecosto disse...
Tens razão. Mas como podia eu adivinhar que era a fotografia do teu namorado? De qualquer forma, vai dar ao mesmo:
Lá por seres homossexual e ficares excitado ao veres homens em tronco nu, não significa que todos os homens vejam uma demonstração de ginástica como um momento erótico.
Jairo Entrecosto disse...
Quem é que passa manhãs ajoelhado à frente de quem?!
Lá estás tu a sonhar e a projectar nos outros a tua....bem, a tua...enfim...como é que eu hei-de dizer isto de forma politicu mente correcta.... deixa cá ver...ah, a tua paneleirice. É isso!
Barba Rija disse...
DESPACHO de paneleiros aos outros.
correspondente a uma crescente autonomia e
responsabilidade dos seus órgãos
Parece-me mais é falta de coiso
na gestão dos recursos que lhes estão afectos
tem tido como consequência a das regras e princípios que norteiam a
onanização do ânus.
Assim acontece na preparação, em que se procedem às
alterações de ginástica acrobática:sexo ,que se mostram indispensáveis, quer em virtude da entrada do... , ambos Homens de tronco nu a executarem, quer ainda as resultantes das colhidas na directa facultativa realizada nos ...
Samstag, Dezember 18, 2010
Dienstag, Dezember 07, 2010
DER NEUTRALISMUS IN KRIPPAHL
DA INEXISTÊNCIA DE UM KRIPPAHLISMO NEUTRALISTA
KIMURA KAPPUT
Unimportant sites evolve as predicted by the neutral theory, whereas
important sites are more influenced by natural selection, and the difference
in the patterns provides an opportunity to detect selection. Many scientists
have now recognized that the strictly neutral theory is not satisfactory, and
the issue has entered into a new phase
The selectionist position seems to be logical in a Darwinian sort of way.
The neutralist position, however, needs a bit more explanation.
How does an adaptively neutral or equivalent change (one that isn't 'seen' by natural selection) become fixed in the population?
The answer is genetic drift.
IN THE JÃO VAS CUS Approach
Here, the idea is that the ratio of one gene over another, say a mutated version versus the original, fluctuates over generations but eventually settles to 1 or 0. A thought experiment can be used to illustrate this, or, if you have an excessive amount of free time, you can actually try it. Take 10 coins, 5 heads and 5 tails, choose 5 of them at random and remove them, this step represents the coins
that came to an untimely death
We chose randomly because of the assumption that natural selection has no effect on whether heads are better than tails. Now make the
remaining 5 coins have children and boost the population back up to 10, but keep the
ratio of heads to tails the same. For example, if you had 2 heads and 3 tails then after
reproduction you should have 4 heads and 6 tails. Repeat this process a few times and
before you know it all your coins will be heads or tails. The mutation has become fixed in the population and natural selection contributed nothing.
Our job now is to determine what is really going on and so we turn our attention to the predictive aspects of each theory. It turns out that the predicted rate at which mutations accumulate is different for each hypothesis. If the selectionists are correct then mutations cannot accumulate as fast because Natural Selection keeps on removing deleterious mutations. The rate at which mutations accumulate for the neutral theory will be much higher since they aren't constantly being removed. One example of supposed evidence in favour of the neutral theory came with the analysis of mutations at different positions on a codon. A codon is a sequence of 3 nucleotides that encodes for a specific amino acid. In general, if either of the first 2 nucleotides of a codon changes, the resultant amino acid
is different. The 3rd site, however, is usually silent; a change here does not change the amino acid. A mutation at this site is called a synonymous substitution. It was found, by comparing two species of sea urchin, that there were 5 mutations at such sites in the gene that coded for the protein histone IV. These 5 mutations were located within a stretch of only 11 codons, apparent confirmation of the neutral theory. Other data, such as an analysis of RNA viruses, also seems to confirm the neutral hypothesis.
RNA has an intrinsically higher rate of mutation.
The neutralists argue that since the rate of accumulation of mutations is high as well, that it is in keeping with the Neutral hypothesis. But wouldn't a higher intrinsic rate of mutation also lead to a higher number of favourable mutations that would be kept under the selectionist scheme also? According to Roger Lewin "The question is, therefore, whether the observed maximum rate of change better fits the predicted effects of selection or the random accumulation of neutral alleles. The answer, unequivocally, has been the latter, and represents strong support for the neutral theory
Always beware of words like "unequivocally". Remember the synonymous substitution example? Well, it doesn't seem too amazing that it obeys the predicted results of the neutral theory because the sites where mutations were looked at were silent, they were already known not to make any difference in the protein! It seems a little obvious that such a change would be invisible to the selective pressures of the environment. In a paper by Tomoko Ohta the situation is described more accurately.
DNA sequence data have rapidly increased in the nineties, enabling
comparison of the patterns of substitution at selectively important (such as
nonsynonymous) and unimportant (such as synonymous) sites.
KIMURA KAPPUT
Unimportant sites evolve as predicted by the neutral theory, whereas
important sites are more influenced by natural selection, and the difference
in the patterns provides an opportunity to detect selection. Many scientists
have now recognized that the strictly neutral theory is not satisfactory, and
the issue has entered into a new phase
The selectionist position seems to be logical in a Darwinian sort of way.
The neutralist position, however, needs a bit more explanation.
How does an adaptively neutral or equivalent change (one that isn't 'seen' by natural selection) become fixed in the population?
The answer is genetic drift.
IN THE JÃO VAS CUS Approach
Here, the idea is that the ratio of one gene over another, say a mutated version versus the original, fluctuates over generations but eventually settles to 1 or 0. A thought experiment can be used to illustrate this, or, if you have an excessive amount of free time, you can actually try it. Take 10 coins, 5 heads and 5 tails, choose 5 of them at random and remove them, this step represents the coins
that came to an untimely death
We chose randomly because of the assumption that natural selection has no effect on whether heads are better than tails. Now make the
remaining 5 coins have children and boost the population back up to 10, but keep the
ratio of heads to tails the same. For example, if you had 2 heads and 3 tails then after
reproduction you should have 4 heads and 6 tails. Repeat this process a few times and
before you know it all your coins will be heads or tails. The mutation has become fixed in the population and natural selection contributed nothing.
Our job now is to determine what is really going on and so we turn our attention to the predictive aspects of each theory. It turns out that the predicted rate at which mutations accumulate is different for each hypothesis. If the selectionists are correct then mutations cannot accumulate as fast because Natural Selection keeps on removing deleterious mutations. The rate at which mutations accumulate for the neutral theory will be much higher since they aren't constantly being removed. One example of supposed evidence in favour of the neutral theory came with the analysis of mutations at different positions on a codon. A codon is a sequence of 3 nucleotides that encodes for a specific amino acid. In general, if either of the first 2 nucleotides of a codon changes, the resultant amino acid
is different. The 3rd site, however, is usually silent; a change here does not change the amino acid. A mutation at this site is called a synonymous substitution. It was found, by comparing two species of sea urchin, that there were 5 mutations at such sites in the gene that coded for the protein histone IV. These 5 mutations were located within a stretch of only 11 codons, apparent confirmation of the neutral theory. Other data, such as an analysis of RNA viruses, also seems to confirm the neutral hypothesis.
RNA has an intrinsically higher rate of mutation.
The neutralists argue that since the rate of accumulation of mutations is high as well, that it is in keeping with the Neutral hypothesis. But wouldn't a higher intrinsic rate of mutation also lead to a higher number of favourable mutations that would be kept under the selectionist scheme also? According to Roger Lewin "The question is, therefore, whether the observed maximum rate of change better fits the predicted effects of selection or the random accumulation of neutral alleles. The answer, unequivocally, has been the latter, and represents strong support for the neutral theory
Always beware of words like "unequivocally". Remember the synonymous substitution example? Well, it doesn't seem too amazing that it obeys the predicted results of the neutral theory because the sites where mutations were looked at were silent, they were already known not to make any difference in the protein! It seems a little obvious that such a change would be invisible to the selective pressures of the environment. In a paper by Tomoko Ohta the situation is described more accurately.
DNA sequence data have rapidly increased in the nineties, enabling
comparison of the patterns of substitution at selectively important (such as
nonsynonymous) and unimportant (such as synonymous) sites.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)