"And, does it reflect reality? Do new populations really preserve the prexisting culture in practice?"
I'm not totally sure what you're presuming integrating with a community should involve, but there's a large gap between preserving and - as in here - actively interfering with the preexisting culture of a community.
Could you explain how the need for two mutations refutes the idea of an adaptive walk? The elife article just seems to suggest that walk may have been a more complex process.
Not two, but three mutations. The first & second induced mutations gives the fruit fly immunity to the poison but the mutations are also lethal, which means the fly could not survive long enough for the third needed mutation to occur in an adaptive walk. The third mutation is like a stabilizer of the first & second mutation, it does not give immunity. In the test all three mutations are needed simultaneously for the fly to have the immunity and survive, that is not an adaptive walk, that is incredible engineering.
So essentially you can engineer a monarch butterfly, but an adaptive walk is impossible in this case. (Writing on the go, may edit later)
I'm not sure where you're getting that info. The linked source indicates the third mutation in question precedes the first two.
> In multiple lineages, the substitutions A119S and A119N preceded substitutions to 111 and 122 (Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera). In Drosophila, where we have the greatest phylogenetic resolution, A119S was established before substitutions to sites 111 and 122 in the evolutionary lineage leading to D. subobscura, which appears to be polymorphic with respect to CG-insensitivity.
While the worm in question, C.Elegens, is vastly simpler than the human brain, the numbers don't paint the complete picture. When you look at the product of evolution in such a system, every single neuron has a very precise role. Moreover, the balance/interaction between those 302 neurons are also very difficult to disentangle. There are also some pretty big biological differences, for instance, C.elegens neurons don't typically transmit information through spikes! Instead they show gradual polarization and depolarization. Now you look at the human brain, and the immense complexity means that there's no way that every neuron can have a precise genetically encoded role - there simply wouldn't be enough information. Instead, we assume that there have to be more generalizable patterns of how neurons are organized and communicate. For example, we know that the way the visual cortex organizes information between the two eyes is dependent on correlated input from the eyes themselves ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance_column) and that without sensory information provided by the eyes this organization will never develop.
All this to say that there are important differences between being able to fully model a small, tightly optimized bundle of specialized neurons (and non-neuronal cells, we've only recently begun understanding how important glial cells are to brain function), and searching for general abstractions of information processing in the human brain.
> To test these predictions, we conducted a double blind, sham-controlled, within-subjects experiment using EEG and high-definition tACS (HD-tACS; a form of tACS that provides more precise targeting of cortical structures)
So they're applying stimulation with electrodes placed on the head. tMS and stuff like this are the main ways available right now for non-invasively inducing oscillatory activity.
From the article: "They looked for a link between a child’s behavioral problems at age 7 and his or her mother’s post-natal acetaminophen use, and found none. They looked for a link between a child’s behavioral problems at age 7 and acetaminophen use by the mother’s partner during pregnancy. Again, they found no association."
Also isn't clear at all if they're accounting for multiple comparisons. Given they're looking at (glancing through they paper) at least seven or eight cell phone related factors, it'd be pretty crucial here.
What's wrong with regression? Adults that speak like children might find it easier to also think like children, accept institutional father figures more easily, do what they're told without talking back, etc.
Language is what we use to think so it is very important to what and how we think.
I used to cuss like a sailor until I started gaming with a group of Mormons. Very nice guys and very intelligent. Instead of saying 'fuck' they say 'frick', instead of 'shit' they so 'shoot', instead of 'damn' they say 'dang'. Next thing I knew I started noticing other people swearing, and just how juvenile it sounded. One could argue that truly speaking like a child is to have no restraint over what comes out of your mouth, not the other way around.
It's not a very intelligent thing to change the form of the curse words but not their content. It's the kind of solution that a child's intellect might come up with - I can't call my sister "fat"? It's OK, I'll just call her "taf" instead.
I think a better comparison would be instead of calling your sister fat, you tell her you are upset with her. The point I was making was practicing restraint. If you go around calling people 'fat' to insult them, you are obviously very child like and I don't think the analogy helps your point.
Lol, 'my panties in a bunch'. While it feels good to express oneself, it shows maturity to not shout out 'SHIT!', if even to substitute it with 'SHOOT!', and therein lies the logic. It demonstrates a certain level of restraint, while not absolute restraint, but at least a base level of it. You may not agree. You might also be a self-righteous prick, but since you advocate lack of restraint, there you have it.
Edit: and to clarify,
"It's not a very intelligent thing to change the form of the curse words but not their content." - I never said it was intelligent, I said it made me realize how juvenile people sound when they curse non stop.
"And focus on the logic, not the implied naughtiness of my fictional example" - You are missing the point here, which I stated plainly in my first post: One could argue that speaking like a child is to have no restraint over what comes out of your mouth, not the other way around.
"You want to practice restraint? Then don't say anything instead of swearing. It's as simple as that." - Oversimplifying, a sign of immaturity, i'm concerned about you...
To get a structural MRI scan, you need the subject to both be willing to lie inside a a scanner and capable of holding still for a few minutes.
This can be challenging in populations such as autism, and unfortunately often biases studies towards higher-functioning individuals, who tend to have an easier time with this.
This sounds great. I'm genuinely interested, how is the potential vaccine going to be presented to volunteers in Phase I? And do you also deliver a placebo vaccine for blinding?
It seems like believing you are vaccinated would increase risky behaviour. This is bad in itself. It is also bad if the vaccine is only partially effective, since the risk effect might balance the vaccine effect.
With a placebo, knowing you only have a 50/50 chance of getting the actual trial vaccine might also help mitigate the risk effect.
Anyway, just wondering how all this works. Finding an effective vaccine would be fantastic; keep up the good work!
Thank you for your support! Yes it will be presented as a double blind, placebo controlled study. Regarding the risky behavior point, this is a well known challenge with all vaccine studies. And yes telling people that they don't know whether or not they have the actual vaccine helps in mitigating the risk effect.
> It seems like believing you are vaccinated would increase risky behaviour. This is bad in itself. It is also bad if the vaccine is only partially effective, since the risk effect might balance the vaccine effect.
But this will also be true of the vaccine as employed in reality, and thus a useful piece of information to capture.
I'm not totally sure what you're presuming integrating with a community should involve, but there's a large gap between preserving and - as in here - actively interfering with the preexisting culture of a community.