TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The Awesome Science Thread
Pages (17): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »

The Awesome Science Thread

I don't think a thread like this has been created before, so fuck it.... I made one.

I guess it could be a thread for some awesome science related stuff? I'm sure there's one in the forum somewhere, but search is broke.

Anyway...

I don't usually dive into biology, as it's not fundamental enough, but add math with biology and you have a winner..... so I figured out something rather interesting (I'm clearly not the first to realise the below statement by the way, but tonight was the first time I figured it out, so it was somewhat a personal revalation).

So....

I have 2 parents....and they both had 2 parents....and they in turn had 2 parents.... so if I go back 3 generations, there are 8 people who contributed to my genetic code, how awesome is that?! .......... Not so much, the problem is, if we take this mathematical logic back to ONLY 32 generations ago, my (and indeed everyone else's as this isn't a special case) genetic code must have logically come from circa 6 billion 'parents'.......... which is a number larger than the current population of the planet.........

........ Conclusion? - we're all members of a genetically non-diversified, INBRED species and we're all technically related

Science, fuck yeah!

Re: The Awesome Science Thread

quote:

Originally posted by Acton I don't think a thread like this has been created before, so fuck it.... I made one (actually I'm sure there is one, but I can't be arsed look for it). I guess it could be a thread for some awesome science related stuff? I'm sure there's one in the forum somewhere, but search is broke, so fuck it. Anyway... I don't usually dive into biology, as it's not fundamental enough, but add math with biology and you have a winner..... so I figured out something rather interesting (I'm clearly not the first to realise the below statement by the way, but tonight was the first time I figured it out, so it was somewhat a personal revalation). So.... I have 2 parents....and they both had 2 parents....and they in turn had 2 parents.... so if I go back 3 generations, there are 8 people who contributed to my genetic code, how awesome is that?! .......... Not so much, the problem is, if we take this mathematical logic back to ONLY 32 generations ago, my (and indeed everyone else's as this isn't a special case) genetic code must have logically come from circa 6 billion 'parents'.......... which is a number larger than the current population of the planet......... ........ Conclusion? - we're all members of a genetically non-diversified, INBRED species and we're all technically related Science, fuck yeah!

you are pretty much wrong on all counts except I suppose your counting of parents for a single person. This is sort of along that entropy argument that creationists like to use.

Re: Re: The Awesome Science Thread

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney you are pretty much wrong on all counts except I suppose your counting of parents for a single person. This is sort of along that entropy argument that creationists like to use.

Wrong on all counts, bar my counting of parents from a single person?...... What? lol

That's what my entire statement is based on. Do the math yourself and see what number and what number of generations you come up with.

Also, I'm absolutely open to people disagreeing with me...... but you need to form some kind of logical argument, instead of a statement.

I meant that your calculation that one person has 2 sources for their genetic makeup.

I was talking about your conclusions except I guess that we are all related but if you were to draw out the spectrum of species from each mutation, well you would find we are related to house flies.

Re: The Awesome Science Thread

quote:

Originally posted by Acton we're all members of a genetically non-diversified, INBRED species and we're all technically related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

quote:

The LUA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

This idea has been unable to be rejected. We all share a common ancestor.

I'm fascinated by the idea of Panspermia... I feel like this is just so simple it should be obvious. As above so below...

What about gene mutation?
Or genetic diversity between siblings?

Very basic knowledge of biology you have there.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter I'm fascinated by the idea of Panspermia... I feel like this is just so simple it should be obvious. As above so below...

Well i think what Acton is saying is interesting

If you draw a continous pedigree, he is infact correct, if we take out the option of inbreeding, 32 generations ago we shoudl techinically have 4.3 billion parents who would have contributed genes towards us. Obviously this isn't the case, so its interesting to note where intermingling would occur? So without any inbreeding whatsoever, assuming a 30 year generation gap, 32 generations would take us to about 1000 years back with 4.3 billion parents.


Another interesting note is that the entire aboriginese population was most probably derived from about 50 to 100 people who took rafts from southasia or africa to get to australia.

We all originated from a common ancestor, but interesting to note that our cells contain mitochondria which also has it's own dna.

Mitochondrial DNA doesn't go through recombination (correct me if im wrong here) and is carried over from the mother so it's interesting to note how much it has changed over time.

The haplogroups for Mtdna can identify different groups of people and map out human migration

see the list of haplo groups here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...DNA_haplogroups



Also interesting is the Y chromosome, which can also attempt to map out human migration:

quote from wikipedia:

The human Y chromosome has lost 1,393 of its 1,438 original genes over the course of its existence. With a rate of genetic loss of 4.6 genes per million years, the Y chromosome may potentially lose complete function within the next 10 million years.[11] Comparative genomic analysis, however, reveals that many mammalian species are experiencing a similar loss of function in their heterozygous sex chromosome. Degeneration may simply be the fate of all nonrecombining sex chromosomes due to three common evolutionary forces: high mutation rate, inefficient selection and genetic drift.[7] On the other hand, recent comparisons of the human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes show that the human Y chromosome has not lost any genes since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees between 6�7 million years ago,[12] and only one gene since humans diverged from the rhesus macaque 25 million years ago,[13] providing direct evidence that the linear extrapolation model is flawed.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Well i think what Acton is saying is interesting If you draw a continous pedigree, he is infact correct, if we take out the option of inbreeding, 32 generations ago we shoudl techinically have 4.3 billion parents who would have contributed genes towards us. Obviously this isn't the case, so its interesting to note where intermingling would occur? So without any inbreeding whatsoever, assuming a 30 year generation gap, 32 generations would take us to about 1000 years back with 4.3 billion parents.

it isn't just "inbreeding" . It doesn't account for mating habits ie polygamy. I guess i see what he was trying to do. His original count did not really register as pertinent as i took it for granted some of the more obvious reasons why that sort of calculation isn't accurate.

Inbreeding is only a problem in the short run. Those that don't survive don't pass their genes so the fact we are still around is sort of proof that inbreeding can produce diversity. For every retard that dies , you have others that are healthy. But it probably is something you would have to watch unfold over a really long time and not what uncle bob and 12 year old Chrissy spawn. Messy but it worked.

Of course they pass on their genes. They may not pass them directly, but their siblings do. So no, technically not everyone needs to reproduce.

The degrees to which this happens varies a lot.

http://io9.com/5863666/why-inbreedi...you-think-it-is

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Of course they pass on their genes. They may not pass them directly, but their siblings do. So no, technically not everyone needs to reproduce. The degrees to which this happens varies a lot.

Your ancestry is not your genes. It's only the answer to how your genes came to be. Seeing siblings spawning offspring is not the same as spreading your unique mutation, and is also pretty much a fail from a biological standpoint.

Of course not everyone needs to reproduce, due to overpopulation, and some people can truly understand that fact, the irony is that that positive trait, ie intelligence, won't be passed back into to human genome, so to speak.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney it isn't just "inbreeding" . It doesn't account for mating habits ie polygamy. I guess i see what he was trying to do. His original count did not really register as pertinent as i took it for granted some of the more obvious reasons why that sort of calculation isn't accurate. Inbreeding is only a problem in the short run. Those that don't survive don't pass their genes so the fact we are still around is sort of proof that inbreeding can produce diversity. For every retard that dies , you have others that are healthy. But it probably is something you would have to watch unfold over a really long time and not what uncle bob and 12 year old Chrissy spawn. Messy but it worked.

I don't really see it that way. I believe inbreeding can also create diversity as recessive alleled can pair up to create phenotypes. Their offspring can then mate with distantly related species and create diversity and so forth.

Natural selection selects those genes that are best suited for the environment. When the environment changes, it's more likely that we see a change of phenotype in those who are more closely inbred as they are more likely to produce homozygous traits which may in fact prove to be useful in the new environment.


see here

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/cours.../InbrDrift.html

quote:

Originally posted by itsamemario Your ancestry is not your genes. It's only the answer to how your genes came to be. Seeing siblings spawning offspring is not the same as spreading your unique mutation, and is also pretty much a fail from a biological standpoint.

It's not the same but it can be extremely similar. If your sibling is an identical twin, they can theoretically pass on the exact same genes as you, with additional differentiation coming from the other partner. The offspring takes on half and half from each parent. While the chances are extremely small for two identical twins to pass on the same genes, there still is a chance. Now if they were to pass it onto two other identical twins (male or female), well.... you can see how stupid this gets

These are all wild predictions though. In general, the more offspring with a distant partner, the greater the genetic diversity.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I don't really see it that way. I believe inbreeding can also create diversity as recessive alleled can pair up to create phenotypes.

Yes, the undersirable types. Why do you think so many problems arise from inbreeding?

This doesn't result in genetic diversity, it practically kills it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Yes, the undersirable types. Why do you think so many problems arise from inbreeding? This doesn't result in genetic diversity, it practically kills it.

Sure, but think of it this way, Once all undesirable traits are pronounced and the parents die, doesn't the recessive undesirable gene disappear from the genome?

I believe this is how selfing plants continue to exist today and have limited issues with homozygous recessive lethals (evidence is they are still around!)

http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/rs...n%20et%20al.pdf

Also with regards to some insects, such as cockroaches, they have become susceptible to inbreeding but resiliant to its deletrious effects. For probably over 350 million years now.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/...the-inbreeding/


Think about a majority of animal species where there is 1 dominant male who mates for a few generations with other females and his offspring which contain his genes.

So right there you have a greater chance of homozygous recessive genes to be pronounced. This could prove to be a good thing as one of those homozygous recessive genes could translate into a phenotype which is beneficial to the environment. Had inbreeding not been a part of the equation, the trait may not show up for a longer time or ever if the species becomes extinct due to not adapting to the environment.

On the other hand, if there is a homozygous lethal, this is a great opportunity for it to be purged from the system as the continuous inbreeding with that lethal from both sides should purge 25% of the offspring.


So in regular breeding recessive traits homozygous lethals are carried on through generation upon generation.

Mutations (beneficial or detrimental) should be more gradual as recessives are less pronounced. There is also alot more genetic variability as the gene pool is very diverse.


Whereas with inbreeding you have the opposite. recessive lethals are more likely to be purged from the system with continuous inbreeding.

Dominant desirable traits become more pronounced in the system.

You get a quicker basket of phenotype variation as recessive alleles are more likely to pair up.

However It is important to know that with continued inbreeding you begin to lack genetic variation as some traits will be completely eliminated. This is where a single mutation can wipe out the entire species and why gene flow is important.

Nope, it isn't like that at all. In particular because genetics isn't as simple as you think it is. It's not just a straight pair with another pair. Well, at least not in all cases. The alleles can differ.

Then there's also gene mutation as I've already said.

You need to brush up on your biology.

If you remain quiet enough, you can almost hear the furious wanking in this thread.

Some interesting responses that are certainly schooling me in genetics. I obviously overstated the inbreeding part, but we are still not very diversified as a species. I did some reading over the weekend and a leading theory is that due to a catastrophic event (likely a volcanic eruption from the likes of Yellowstone), the current stage of humanity arose from a population of circa 10,000.

Anyway, I saw this today...



... a picture of two colliding galaxies, something that will eventually happen to us and the Andromeda galaxy in roughly 4 billion years.

If we are going to be talking about modern humans, cladistically speaking, the last clasification would be around 200 thousand years ago with the sub species homo sapiens sapiens.

So when you are talking about "stage" i'm not really sure what kind of measure you are using.

Technically speaking a species should be able to produce fertile offspring with any subgroups within it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit So when you are talking about "stage" i'm not really sure what kind of measure you are using.

I used 'stage' as an all encompassing term to describe the current state of the human race, population size, diversity etc.

just wanted to apologize for earlier. I realize you were just highlighting an interesting question about genetic diversity. That your conclusions where not really conclusions but more rhetorical conclusions. So ya. my bad.

In other cool science news...we have tractors beams now.


Link


Yeah, science is awesome!

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose In other cool science news...we have tractors beams now. Link Yeah, science is awesome!

That's rather cool! Shame we're a few years away from dragging enemy spacecraft away from Federation territory.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney just wanted to apologize for earlier. I realize you were just highlighting an interesting question about genetic diversity. That your conclusions where not really conclusions but more rhetorical conclusions. So ya. my bad.

Don't worry about it, I probably would of said something similar.


I've found a video that demonstrates something I posted a while ago, regarding what happens when you pour liquid nitrogen into a coke bottle....




The first one blew up in my face and the second one was thrown out of a 5th floor window, at a group of people having lunch outside.

This thread caused me to read more than I ever cared to read about incest.

Also, holy shit @ the coke bottle.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.