Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Cells, Microbes & Viruses => Topic started by: dkv on 14/09/2007 16:28:12
-
There are X and Y chromosomes .
X and Y both carry male and female genes .
But there are also X specific genes and Y specific genes.
When we cross XX and XY we get
XY or XX as offspring... but from the point of view of chromosomes
There are 3 X chrmosomes and only one Y chromosome.
Which means if a X chromosome gene carries a disease then it spreads the disease at a rate 3 times greater than Y .
A small lethal error in X chromosome specific gene gets spreads very fast in the entire species.
And in some cases it has led to extinction.
How is it possible that in a random game (in which selection was limited to fitness of Group) we find a unstable strategy?
-
The Y chromosome carries very very little information. The X chromosome carries a substantial amount of information, but the main role of the Y chromosome is not so much to carry information itself, but to have a cascade effect where it triggers the expression of other genes that may be dormant in the absence of that small Y chromosome.
A small lethal error will not spread anywhere - because it is lethal. The errors that get spread are those that are not so lethal, so the carrier is capable of reproducing. OK, this is partly true, in that lethal errors that are recessive may still allow the carrier to reproduce, and there are a fair number of such errors that exist (non lethal errors on the X chromosome include colour blindness, but lethal error on the X chromosome include haemophilia). The problem with recessive faults on the X chromosome is that in males there is only one X chromosome (whereas every other chromosome has a pair, so a fault in one chromosome can be compensated for by a working copy on the pair of that chromosome; with the X chromosome, the same is true for females, but is not true for males, so faults on the X chromosome cannot be compensated for in males - and so most male specific inherited diseases are on the X chromosome).
-
And males are required to make the group fit.
for XY and XX the saying goes that it is always the responsibility of X to make an extinct species. Strange cooperation I suppose.
-
And males are required to make the group fit.
for XY and XX the saying goes that it is always the responsibility of X to make an extinct species. Strange cooperation I suppose.
Now explain ZW (which is common in birds)?
-
the point is making is simple . No matter how carefully the genes are selected (randomly or non-randomly) the extinction can not ruled out due to non-random distribution of responsibilities between fundamental pools of genes(X and Y or Z or W) with respect to a species.
The native americans went extinct for the same reason.
The population got infected with X specific genetic disease and that spread so fast that the population could recover and lost to spaniards.
Today they are in small minority.
What kind of Natural selection could have allowed such a disaster? Is there any kind of meaning attached to natural selection for greater fitness?
-
the point is making is simple . No matter how carefully the genes are selected (randomly or non-randomly) the extinction can not ruled out due to non-random distribution of responsibilities between fundamental pools of genes(X and Y or Z or W) with respect to a species.
Extinction cannot be ruled out, but extinction does not come about by because of genetic mutation, except insofar as a genetic mutation may create a new species that will out compete its parent species.
The native americans went extinct for the same reason.
The population got infected with X specific genetic disease and that spread so fast that the population could recover and lost to spaniards.
Where on earth have you got this notion from?
Native Americans were either shot, or succumbed to infections they were unused to, or starved to death.
It is very unlikely that large any inherited genetic disease could have spread rapidly through the native American population, since that would imply massive cross breading from one side of the continent to the other, and this clearly did not happen. In any case, any damaged X chromosome would have reduced the reproductive success of the carrier, and so this would always limit the rate at which the gene could spread through the population (this is a defence mechanism that we all have that is why serious life threatening genetic disorders cannot easily spread through a population even over long periods of time - excepting where that disorder also provides some genetic advantage - e.g. sickle cell anaemia also providing some protection against malaria).
-
There are cancerious genes infertility genes , gene of haemophilia etc .. do you think these genetic disease are manufactured?
They are results of mutation.
The native american genetic theory is a well known theory given by a scientist recently.
The game is not towards any kind of fitness .. the game according to current theory is locally opportunistic and carries no meaning.
The game does not guarantee anything(survival , fortune or questions which are raising today).
The world is a large casino in which the owners are alos the players.
-
There are cancerious genes infertility genes , gene of haemophilia etc .. do you think these genetic disease are manufactured?
They are results of mutation.
You are totally missing what I had said.
If you have a gene for infertility, then how would these people pass the gene on to their children - if they are infertile, then they cannot.
OK, this is a simplistic and extreme example, but it does demonstrate the principle that any gene that makes it more difficult to have children will be self limiting, because people who have the gene would have fewer children, so fewer children will have the gene, hence the next generation will have less of the gene in the population.
The case of genes for making people more susceptible to cancer (very few genes will guarantee the carrier will get cancer), since most people only contract cancer after they have reproduced, it will not normally affect reproduction rates.
If you are suggesting that the native Americans had a gene that would cause death later in life, this would not have caused a population implosion amongst native Americans. If they had a gene that prevented them having children, then the first few to have this gene would have great deal of difficulty passing it on to anybody else, since they would not have had many children to pass the gene on with.
Haemophilia is an X linked genetic mutation that is potentially fatal, and despite it having been documented since at least the 12th century, and very probably existed in biblical times, yet it has not caused the demise of Middle Eastern or European populations, because its spread is naturally self limiting.
The native american genetic theory is a well known theory given by a scientist recently.
I know of no reputable theory of such a nature, but of you wish to be more specific and provide links to any reference of this theory that gives greater detail, I may be able to answer more specifically.
The game is not towards any kind of fitness .. the game according to current theory is locally opportunistic and carries no meaning.
The game does not guarantee anything(survival , fortune or questions which are raising today).
The world is a large casino in which the owners are alos the players.
The 'game' as you call it is not about fitness in any macho sense, it is about fitness for purpose, which is something else altogether.
-
Infertile gene is limiting and this against the behaviour of gene...
Is there anything more left to say?
I did not say fitness in macho sense ... I said it in the precise scientific sense ... the Group plays the game to increase the chances of replication.
But this argument is superficial ...
Mindless replication as can lead to extinction of the Group as well..
It is said that there are many species of insects which went extinct due to this cell division.
Native Americans are not extinct they are still in America but the population is very small although they are the native inhabitants.
I dont have any link ... I found mention of this theory in a political forum.
-
Mindless replication as can lead to extinction of the Group as well..
It is said that there are many species of insects which went extinct due to this cell division.
Again, I would ask for examples.
Native Americans are not extinct they are still in America but the population is very small although they are the native inhabitants.
You might want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples for discussion about most of the contemporary theories about the decline of the native American population after the arrival of Europeans.
I dont have any link ... I found mention of this theory in a political forum.
I would suggest that one treat the theory with an amount of caustion.
-
The devils have written a book called The God
Delusion. The direct attack on religion can corrupted the minds of scientists.Now they cant live with both of them.
Why no one is raising any hue and cry over this.
I think these scientist and the publishers should be punished.. they are increasing the attacks without providing any solution.
The gene theory fails to explain human evolution(in the context of knowledge) and human behaviour.
Whoever is propagating this hatred between scientists and religion should not go unpunished?
Enough is enough.
-
I knew you were one of those people. The 'attack' on religion is defensive. If the science isn't defended, it would be lost to faith heads like yourself. Did you read The God Delusion at all? Have you read any literature about Darwinian Evolution? A good place to start would be to read the other books by Dr. Dawkins. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection does a splendid job of explaining human evolution. You might also be interested in memetics.
I'm not sure if I should pity you. You've come to believe that anyone who questions the belief in the supernatural is the Devil. Sad.
-
Devil or Satan . Whatever you may call them .. but they have really spoiled the reputation of Science.
Today a rational person can not call himself religious and scientific at the same time.
Why ? Has the gene theory explained everything?
Why this offensive in the Media ?
Was there any peer review before replication of devilishness?
What are Universities doing ? They are encouraging such direct attacks... In all seriousness the attack is on the fabric of life.
-
Because to believe in the supernatural is to be irrational . There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the supernatural. Therefore no rational, scientific mind should believe in the existence of the supernatural.
'They' have not spoiled the reputation of science. They are upholding it. The reputation of scientists is spoiled when they start believing in the supernatural.
What do you mean by gene theory? Theories about genetics, or gene-centred Darwinian evolution?
-
With such a sharp division and belligerence towards each other can Science and Religion expect to live peacefully ...
No.
They prove each other wrong...
The greatest damage is done to those people who wish to keep the both.
-
There are plenty of other threads already on the site about religion vs. science. One thing I will say is that there are plenty of scientists who have no problem coping with both, but ofcourse there are scientists and non-scientists alike who are not comfortable with religion.
Religion has no place in science, but many scientists are more than happy with religion having a place alongside science (after all, there is no mention of X and Y, or Z and W, chromosomes in the Bible).
But this thread was left in this section of the forum because it was a question about inheritance and chromosomes. If it becomes part of a wider philosophical discussion about religion and science then it will have to be moved elsewhere.
-
Ok. That is not an issue.
One of book declares Religion a VIRUS scientifically.
IT GOES ON PROVE THAT RELIGION IS PROPAGANDA MACHINE.
It is a viral "meme" in the evolution.
The theory is highly inconsistent with the everything.