Evolution and Genes

I don't know what external trauma you're talking about. So, I'll skip your first and fifth questions.

Genes turn on due to things like environmental stressors (fetus in the womb). I'm sure there are other stimuli. The nature of species favors diversity because it's through this diversity that we have the option to select for better traits. If all genes were equal, we wouldn't evolve.

0 Replies

My next question would be...

Is the human race becoming radically more diverse? If so, what is the cause of this diversity. Is it external or is it internal?

One matrix (DNA) deserves another matrix.

0 Replies

Define diverse. Are you asking about distinct genetic groups, ethnically? Or are you asking about genes more biologically?

0 Replies

Your underlying thesis is flawed. Any individual which survives is by definition fit--that is how "fitness" is determined. Survival of the fittest is a term coined not by Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer--and Spencer was talking about economic systems and society. Both Darwin, and modern biologists, use the term natural selection. Survival of the fittest can only apply as an abstraction, and can only apply to all that group of individuals which are made "more fit" by a survival trait, in reference to their ecological location. A woolly mammoth, for example, is only "more fit" in the periglacial environment of the ice ages--otherwise, it would not only have no more likely breeding opportunity than any other type of mammoth, it might even be at a distinct disadvantage.

So, in the first place, a term such as survival of the fittest can only be applied to entire species, and not to individuals, and only in the context of the success of a species within certain ecological conditions.

In the second place, there is no good reason to assume that a genome changes in response to a survival adaptation. To return to the example of the woolly mammoth, it is likely that among mammoths (there aren't any around any longer, and although we have fossil remains, and a few which the survived as frozen corpses, so we can't be certain about their genome--somebody make sure i get a copy of the memo if they do the mammoth genome)--it is likely that among mammoths there was always a low genetic probability that some would come out with heavy undercoats and long exterior guard hairs, and be "woolly." As this would not necessarily confer any enhanced breeding opportunity (which is the key to speciation--that and sexual isolation--"survival of the fittest" is a sucker phrase that draws in the rubes), there was no reason for the woolly mammoth to proliferate. But when periglacial conditions obtained, during ice ages, those mammoths who were born "woolly" and who moved to periglacial regions had an enhance breeding opportunity, given that they were more likely to survive conditions. So, in one part of the world, your average garden variety of mammoth would have continued to do business as usual, and near the great ice sheets of the high latitudes, the woolly mammoth would be partying on down. When the favorable conditions of the ice ages ended, and with human predation on the rise, the woolly mammoth no longer had the enhanced breeding opportunity, and in fact their particular morphology was a handicapped--hence, we ain't got no more woolly mammoths.

Human beings are the only creatures above the level of virii and bacteria which are, apparently, able to survive in all terrestrial environments. This is due to our ability to manipulate our environments. We long ago removed the mechanism of our evolutionary development from our bodies, and deposited it in libraries, schools, universities and research institutions.

Unfortunately, RR, you confuse the ability to play word games with a meaningful investigation of profound questions of human existence. "One matrix deserves another matrix"--is a prime example. The thesis is not demonstrated, and it is essentially meaningless, it just sounds clever to you.

0 Replies

How could you even decipher the thesis?!?

0 Replies

Rex has certain obsessive themes he tends to repeat . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

it just sounds clever to you.

Just like-

Quote:

No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

0 Replies

I'd like to point out that the only thing that Setanta got wrong was the plural form of virus.

The plural of virus is viruses. In Latin, the plural form of words ending in -us is -i. Hence virus would become viri.

However, viri is already used to mean men (it is the plural form of vir). Hence why some people insist that the plural of virus is virii.

This is, however, wrong.

Virus is a neuter of the second declension, which are so rare, they do not have any recorded plural forms.

http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html

0 Replies

Ok I will expound a bit more.

The problem I am seeing is the Y chromosome.

Most all animals have a derivative of the Y chromosome and it is gradually mutating at a much faster rate than the X chromosome.

So it is only plausible that even more diversity will become present particularly in our species before a new "kind" of human evolves.

Will it take millions of years for the Y chromosome to mutate/evolve again?

My theory is that the Y chromosome is the cause of diversity both within a kind of species and eventually the evolution away from a kind of species.

This is why most all things evolve/mutate... because they all share in common this same derivative of the Y chromosome.

The Y chromosome is the mutant inflicting diversity on the X chromosome.

Just some thoughts...

0 Replies

Asexual organisms generally don't have a Y chromosome, do they?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

My next question would be...

Is the human race becoming radically more diverse? If so, what is the cause of this diversity. Is it external or is it internal?

From a UW-M news article.source

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Ok I will expound a bit more.

The problem I am seeing is the Y chromosome.

Most all animals have a derivative of the Y chromosome and it is gradually mutating at a much faster rate than the X chromosome.

Incorrect. The Y chromsome only appears in mammals. The Y chromosome in Drosophila does not share ancestory with our Y chromsomes, and only determines fertility. Other similar Y chromsomes also do not share common ancestory and are hence not derivatives.

Only birds, some insects and some fish have the equivalent ZW system. Those are not derivatives of the Y chromosome either.

XY and ZW are both derivatives of an ancestral chromsome. Yes, this is being pedantic, but you're making it sound as if the Y is the precursor to variants within other animals. That is not true.

Quote:

So it is only plausible that even more diversity will become present particularly in our species before a new "kind" of human evolves.

You Creationists and your insistence on using the word, "kind", a meaningless unscientific word that you can twist to your own liking whenever a scientist provides an answer you don't like. Honestly! Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Will it take millions of years for the Y chromosome to mutate/evolve again?

What makes you think it hasn't mutated? I do believe in the book, Y: The Descent of Man, it is stated that the Y chromosome is getting shorter and shorter. This is to be expected, as it has no allele to pair with and therefore nothing to provide a template to help it repair itself.

Quote:

My theory is that the Y chromosome is the cause of diversity both within a kind of species and eventually the evolution away from a kind of species.

Yeah, except the majority of coding genes are on the other 22 chromosomes and the Y chromosome mostly determines sex. In fact, any gene on the Y chromosome that doesn't determine sex normally has a functioning copy elsewhere in the genome. The fact that this is true can be seen by looking at a woman.

A woman can do just fine without a Y chromosome. In fact, they live longer.

Think about what you're saying RexRed.

What is coded for on the Y chromosome that would actually have any decent effect on evolution?

Testis-specific protein? Azoospermia factor 1? Azoospermia factor 2? Sex-determining region Y?

Quote:

This is why most all things evolve/mutate... because they all share in common this same derivative of the Y chromosome.

Yes, because females have Y chromsomes.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Ok I will expound a bit more.

The problem I am seeing is the Y chromosome.

Most all animals have a derivative of the Y chromosome and it is gradually mutating at a much faster rate than the X chromosome.

Incorrect. The Y chromsome only appears in mammals. The Y chromosome in Drosophila does not share ancestory with our Y chromsomes, and only determines fertility. Other similar Y chromsomes also do not share common ancestory and are hence not derivatives.

Only birds, some insects and some fish have the equivalent ZW system. Those are not derivatives of the Y chromosome either.

XY and ZW are both derivatives of an ancestral chromsome. Yes, this is being pedantic, but you're making it sound as if the Y is the precursor to variants within other animals. That is not true.

Quote:
So it is only plausible that even more diversity will become present particularly in our species before a new "kind" of human evolves.

You Creationists and your insistence on using the word, "kind", a meaningless unscientific word that you can twist to your own liking whenever a scientist provides an answer you don't like. Honestly!

Quote:
Will it take millions of years for the Y chromosome to mutate/evolve again?

What makes you think it hasn't mutated? I do believe in the book, Y: The Descent of Man, it is stated that the Y chromosome is getting shorter and shorter. This is to be expected, as it has no allele to pair with and therefore nothing to provide a template to help it repair itself.

Quote:
My theory is that the Y chromosome is the cause of diversity both within a kind of species and eventually the evolution away from a kind of species.

Yeah, except the majority of coding genes are on the other 22 chromosomes and the Y chromosome mostly determines sex. In fact, any gene on the Y chromosome that doesn't determine sex normally has a functioning copy elsewhere in the genome. The fact that this is true can be seen by looking at a woman.

A woman can do just fine without a Y chromosome. In fact, they live longer.

Think about what you're saying RexRed.

What is coded for on the Y chromosome that would actually have any decent effect on evolution?

Testis-specific protein? Azoospermia factor 1? Azoospermia factor 2? Sex-determining region Y?

Quote:
This is why most all things evolve/mutate... because they all share in common this same derivative of the Y chromosome.

Yes, because females have Y chromsomes.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Sometimes I wonder if I just pretend to know, because I don't have anything to compare my ideas with. (just like the Y chromosome)

Smile

Does the Y chromosome itself become the new creature (sex) at the point of conception and early development of a fetus or does it mutate the X into the new creature (sex)?

Is it the Y that theoretically becomes the new creature or is it a mutated X or in some cases a series of X's that the new creature becomes as impacted by Y? Could Y be considered an external force that dictates cellular survival dictated upon a set of basic rules contained in the Y chromosome and imposed upon X?

Yes, a woman does quite fine with two X's but we may consider that her own DNA has already been mutated by the Y chromosome of her father.

She carries the mutations of her father's Y even though she is not generally active with her own Y chromosome.

Also, will cloning enable humans to slow down or even freeze evolution? Could clones become the next new humans species?

Why clone men when they cannot gestate a fetus clone? Will mutants suddenly become obsolete?

0 Replies

Rex wrote-

Quote:

Also, will cloning enable humans to slow down or even freeze evolution? Could clones become the next new humans species?

You might as well ask could we use nukes to shift the earth further away from the sun to combat global warming. Or accelerate it if you have a beach front property in Greenland.

The answer is --yes--possibly.

How's your nerves?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Rex wrote-

Quote:
Also, will cloning enable humans to slow down or even freeze evolution? Could clones become the next new humans species?

You might as well ask could we use nukes to shift the earth further away from the sun to combat global warming. Or accelerate it if you have a beach front property in Greenland.

The answer is --yes--possibly.

How's your nerves?

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, ohhh, and sometimes billiards... Smile

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Admittedly, it could have been less sarky.

Quote:

Does the Y chromosome itself become the new creature (sex) at the point of conception and early development of a fetus or does it mutate the X into the new creature (sex)?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, partially because you're using terms that have no meaning to me. Creature is not synonymous with sex i.e. gender, so I don't know why you say "creature (sex)".

The Y chromsome doesn't become anything. It just is.

Genes code for mRNA. mRNA codes for polypeptides, which are then folded to form proteins. It is the interaction of proteins that form the human being. Not the genes. It's the proteins that form the human being, because inevitably, proteins are the things that unwind the DNA, that give the transcription machinery (which are made out of proteins) access to transcribe the DNA into mRNA. It is the proteins that translate the mRNA into polypeptides and with a little help from chaperone proteins, these polypeptides are then folded into proteins.

Y chromsome codes for azoospermia factor 1 and 2 (AZF1 and AZF2), which are involved in the creation of sperm. It also codes for TSPY (Testis specific protein) and to be frank, I'm not entirely sure what that does, but I think it has something to do with the testes. And it also codes for SRY (sex determining region Y) which itself contains the testis-determining factor (TDF).

The Y chromsome codes for proteins, which determine the sex of an organism by helping generate the sperm and the testes that will produce testosterone in levels that will confer male characteristics to the organism.

There's also some other protein folding factors coded on Y, but there's copies of those elsewhere that can make up for any mutations on the Y chromsome's versions of those genes.

Quote:

Is it the Y that theoretically becomes the new creature or is it a mutated X or in some cases a series of X's that the new creature becomes as impacted by Y?

Your question makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

Quote:

Could Y be considered an external force that dictates cellular survival dictated upon a set of basic rules contained in the Y chromosome and imposed upon X?

No. How can it be an external force if it is inside the cell? A cell can survive without a Y chromsome. In fact, in females, it is essential that a cell survives without a Y chromsome.

In some people even, the Y chromsome is defective, yet they survive. Sure, they end up with female genitalia when they should have male genitalia and may be the subject of mocking and even psychological problems, but they survive nonetheless.

Quote:

Yes, a woman does quite fine with two X's but we may consider that her own DNA has already been mutated by the Y chromosome of her father.

Wrong. If her father's DNA was mutated, she inherited the mutated DNA. But her father's DNA couldn't have mutated hers. Furthermore, you're giving far too much credit to the Y chromsome. Why the obsession with the Y chromsome?

I've told you this once before. All genes on the Y chromsome either code for gender or have an alternate version elsewhere in the genome. Mutations in the Y chromsome will not mutate other genes, because the Y chromsome does not code for anything that is involved in DNA replication or DNA repair.

Quote:

She carries the mutations of her father's Y even though she is not generally active with her own Y chromosome.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you're paying attention to what you're writing. Either that or you're deliberately being silly. How can a woman have her own Y chromosome, if by definition, anything with a Y chromsome is male? You said it yourself further up that a woman has two X chromosomes. If she had a Y chromosome in addition to the two Xs, she'd be a male with Klinefelter's syndrome.

If the father has mutations in his genes, they can be passed on, only if the mutations are present in his sperm and only if the sperm carrying those mutations fertilises the egg. Likewise, if a mother has mutations in her genes, they can only be passed on if they are present in the egg-making cells and only if the egg carrying that mutations is fertilised.

Mutations can occur in either gender. There is nothing to say that only organisms with a Y chromosome can mutate and therefore evolve if naturally selected.

Think about what you're saying RexRed. The Y chromosome is tiny. It's the smallest of all the chromosomes. The majority of genes that code for things that might actually be selected for are on the other chromosomes.

The first thing I suggest you do is pick up a decent biology textbook. And none of this Creationist stuff.

0 Replies

Quote: rexred
Yes, a woman does quite fine with two X's but we may consider that her own DNA has already been mutated by the Y chromosome of her father.

Quote: wolf
Wrong. If her father's DNA was mutated, she inherited the mutated DNA. But her father's DNA couldn't have mutated hers. Furthermore, you're giving far too much credit to the Y chromosome. Why the obsession with the Y chromosome?

Comment:
The father's Y chromosome contributes a part to a female even though she does not have a Y chromosome of her own.

The Y chromosome contributes a nearly invisible part, the life that is within the daughter female.

X being a body (shell/egg) type thing and Y being a living (sperm) type thing.

This saying, a female would not be "alive" if it were not for the Y influence in reproduction.

Body X and Soul Y
This has been known for thousands of years...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

The father's Y chromosome contributes a part to a female even though she does not have a Y chromosome of her own.

The Y chromosome contributes nothing to the daughter. It only codes for things that are involved in the determination of sex and the creation of sperm. The sperm nothing from the Y chromsome.

Quote:

The Y chromosome contributes a nearly invisible part, the life that is within the daughter female.

I'm sorry, but now you're talking complete rubbish. How can it contribute something to the daughter if it isn't there?

Quote:

X being a body (shell/egg) type thing and Y being a living (sperm) type thing.

You're redefining terms now. X is a chromosme i.e. a stretch of DNA. Y is a chromosome i.e a stretch of admittedly shorter DNA. These are basic biological definitions. If you start redefining them, then we might as well not have definitions at all and the conversation ends here.

Quote:

This saying, a female would not be "alive" if it were not for the Y influence in reproduction.

Rubbish. Not all organisms have Y chromsomes. Are you now going to say they're not alive? That only mammals are truly alive?

Quote:

Body X and Soul Y
This has been known for thousands of years...

This hasn't been known for thousands of years because you're making stuff up, and displaying a huge amount of ignorance in basic high school biology. Not only that, you're not willing to even change your tone when somebody tells you something that pretty much every scientist and every person who paid attention in high school biology would know, which shows that you're not even willing to learn.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
The father's Y chromosome contributes a part to a female even though she does not have a Y chromosome of her own.

The Y chromosome contributes nothing to the daughter. It only codes for things that are involved in the determination of sex and the creation of sperm. The sperm nothing from the Y chromsome.

Quote:
The Y chromosome contributes a nearly invisible part, the life that is within the daughter female.

I'm sorry, but now you're talking complete rubbish. How can it contribute something to the daughter if it isn't there?

Quote:
X being a body (shell/egg) type thing and Y being a living (sperm) type thing.

You're redefining terms now. X is a chromosme i.e. a stretch of DNA. Y is a chromosome i.e a stretch of admittedly shorter DNA. These are basic biological definitions. If you start redefining them, then we might as well not have definitions at all and the conversation ends here.

Quote:
This saying, a female would not be "alive" if it were not for the Y influence in reproduction.

Rubbish. Not all organisms have Y chromsomes. Are you now going to say they're not alive? That only mammals are truly alive?

Quote:
Body X and Soul Y
This has been known for thousands of years...

This hasn't been known for thousands of years because you're making stuff up, and displaying a huge amount of ignorance in basic high school biology. Not only that, you're not willing to even change your tone when somebody tells you something that pretty much every scientist and every person who paid attention in high school biology would know, which shows that you're not even willing to learn.

You are not giving any scientific evidence to dispute me.

Have you ever heard of a hen's egg magically coming to life without being fertilized by a rooster?

That has been known for thousands of years, only lost in the last hundred or so.

Science cannot even define life... Life is just as elusive to science as God is. Science can manipulate, clone, reproduce life but they cannot create life.

They cannot even define the materials that make life.

Just as gravity is a unique property of matter, life is a unique property of the Y chromosome.

0 Replies

Evolution and Genes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know