|
The Awesome Science Thread
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Acton |
I don't think a thread like this has been created before, so 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, yeah! |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
I don't think a thread like this has been created before, so 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 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, 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. |
|
|
| Acton |
| 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. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
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. |
|
|
| 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... |
|
|
| Fledz |
What about gene mutation?
Or genetic diversity between siblings?
Very basic knowledge of biology you have there. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| 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... |
 |
|
|
| 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.
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 |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
