Do Biological organisms have extra chromosomal source of info?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

this has really gone off the original idea behind the thread and should probably be put into a separate thread.

If any of this discussion is really meaningful (in the sense that others might get something out of it) then having its own thread will give them a path into it.

Also, see if you can't move or have moved the posts that would apply. Thanks. Then let me know the name of it and I'll share some more stuff.

IrishEyes is partial to the child raising issues too. (she'll probably help)

 

steve

[hallenrm]

Thanks steve! That's indeed a very valid observation and a good suggestion too. I'll try to follow it.:phones:

[Michaelangelica]

What about the 96% of our genome which is "Junk"-it doesen't seem to do much?

 

Recently I read a book on genetics where the author postulated that organisms appropriated bits of genetic material from other living things.

He felt this was the only way to account for the speed of evolution.

Apparently we have a bit of human DNA that could have only come from a bateria!

 

Michael

[hallenrm]

Welcome to the discussion Michael:) :confused:

 

Valid point, that could be another hypothesis regarding the observations with which i started the thread.

 

Without any experimental evidence, on the face of it, this hypothesis would be as good (or as bad) as the hypothesis I am advancing.

 

Keep posting!:naughty:

[hallenrm]

What about the 96% of our genome which is "Junk"-it doesen't seem to do much?

Michael

I have thinking about your comment, It appears very interesting to me!

 

I have been wondering, isn't it possible that there are some genes that are part of this 96% , that biologists now consider to be junk, that may be responsible for some useful traits amongst human beings, say scientific temperament/genius. It is quite possible that only rarely these genes get proper exposure. That may be the reason why so many are dumb and so few brilliant.

 

I have been prompted along these lines while reading a report from a very reputed medical journal, claiming that people born in very hot weather have more chances for hypertension.

 

How can this be possible? Only if the genes of an individual are affected by external conditions at the time of conception. These conditions can as well include thoughts surroundings:) :cup:

[Michaelangelica]

I have thinking about your comment, It appears very interesting to me!

 

I have been wondering, isn't it possible that there are some genes that are part of this 96% , that biologists now consider to be junk,

Some enterprising USA company has patented the so called "Junk" DNA (I don't understand how that is possible. It seems immoral!). They feel they can make lots and lots of $$$s from it! (we always knew there was money in junk :cup:

 

I have been prompted along these lines while reading a report from a very reputed medical journal, claiming that people born in very hot weather have more chances for hypertension.

 

Is it alligators or crocodiles that determine the SEX (Fair bit of DNA here) of the animal by the HEAT of the eggs incubation?!

We probably share 70-80% of our DNA with crocodiles - so what you say starts to sound reasonable.

then again "The greater the intensity of a fire the greater the number of firemen. Therefore more firemen cause greater fires?"

 

The more I study science the more I think I am trapped in a B grade Science Fiction novel. It all gets too spooky. . .

 

Thanks for your comments,

Michael

[InfiniteNow]

I have been wondering, isn't it possible that there are some genes that are part of this 96% , that biologists now consider to be junk, that may be responsible for some useful traits amongst human beings

Absolutely. Just because we do not fully understand something does not mean that it is unimportant.

[hallenrm]

Absolutely. Just because we do not fully understand something does not mean that it is unimportant.

 

While doing so the so called scientists forget the basic tenet of science. That is, to persue the unknown till you start understanding it.:D :)

[Michaelangelica]

Re my post about junk DNA

This seems to connect somehow

"

Leaner and stronger E. coli made in lab

Tormod

Today

By stripping the E. coli genome of vast tracts of its genetic material - hundreds of apparently inconsequential genes - a team of Wisconsin researchers has created a leaner and meaner version of the bacterium that is a workhorse of modern biology and industry."

http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science-news/6379-leaner-stronger-e-coli-made-lab.html

 

I wonder what the consequences of that will be?

m

[Michaelangelica]

A little more on junk DNA

Just heard this on the radio

You can listen to it on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/science_in_action.shtml

 

audioListen to Science in Action

Updated weekly at 11:32 GMT on Friday

 

 

Junk DNA?

Researchers at IBM have carried out a huge number crunching exercise on all genetic material on the human genome that has previously been dismissed as rubbish.

 

They've found that so called junk DNA might not be so useless after all.

 

By detecting 128 0000 repeated sequences or motifs of DNA they suggest this junk DNA might have an important role in gene regulation and even evolution.

[hallenrm]

By stripping the E. coli genome of vast tracts of its genetic material - hundreds of apparently inconsequential genes - a team of Wisconsin researchers has created a leaner and meaner version of the bacterium that is a workhorse of modern biology and industry."

http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science-news/6379-leaner-stronger-e-coli-made-lab.html

 

I wonder what the consequences of that will be?

 

I have some ideas!:( :(

 

Let's assume that a certain kind of microorganisms (not pathogs), are in fact carrier/inducers of thought in human beings. What would be the consequences?

 

Well, newborns and infants would be infected by such microorganisms from the people they come in close contact. If the microorganism is strong, its DNA may get incorporated in the genes of the zygote/newborn/ infant.

 

That may explain/validate my hypothesis!!!:hihi:

 

By the way, has the genome of the cells in different parts of the body been analyzed over a period? Has it been proved that the genome of an individual remains the same regardless of age and regardless of the tissues? :Question

[Michaelangelica]

OK Lets get serious.

It seems what we are talking about here is Evolutionary Psychology" VERY trendy according to a book I am battling through

(I battle through most science books, having been thrown out of science when I was 15-long story- had to do Pych and stop blowing up the backyard)

The book is called"The Impact of the Gene" By Colin tudge 2000, Hill and Wang pub.

-

He has some premises (he is also very long-winded so I will try and summarise -read the book if you get confused)

 

Premise 1 (p182)

"genes do, to some extent, underpin the way we behave

genes make brains that can think and initiate actions

The question is to what extent do they do so? and

what are the mechanisms?

 

Premise 2

"The Selfish Gene"

 

Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, but at what level does it operate?

does "natural selection operate not at the individual but the whole population?-no

If natural selection operated primarily at the level of the individual (Darwin) how do you explain self-sacrificing behaviour? and altruism which is common

Richard dawkins in The Selfish Gene" says because natural selection operates at the level; of the gene. Individuals merely vehicles for genes

"Reciprocal altruism" the favour is returned ( behaviour not common)

"Favour Trading"- quid pro quo

"conviviality ability to get on with others in society. huge bit of brain concerned with social behaviour

 

Premise 3

"Behaviour has indeed evolved by natural selection, and many aspects of behavior were adaptive once, even if that no longer seems to be the case"

 

Assume that we have genes that shape our behaviour because at some time in our evolutionary past, natural selection favoured such genes

Genes that shaped our behaviour may have been adaptive once but now no longer confer any advantage, or indeed may now be maladaptive

EG.,

natural selection favoured individuals who had a particular liking for high- energy food and salt

High energy food in wild are such as honey and fat (livestock)

Modern society now has too much of both--

sickle-cell gene -protects against malaria in a single dose but leads to damaging anemia in double dose

Stepparents are at least 100 times more likely to kill their stepchildren than "natural" parents are to kill their own children

Lots more studies need to be done

 

Premise 4

"quantification"

mathematics has devices to assess the values of different behaviours

"Optimization models"

Game Theory - prisoner's dilemma (long and 'm a two finger typist without optical scanning software! so lets move on)

 

next

Strategies for living, Mating, and Reproducing (p199)

"The essence of life is to survive and reproduce,. .three components of life survival, reproduction, and speciality"

Most 2 sexes

would expect:-

males , more sperm = focus on quantity, impregnate as many females as possible.

females one egg lots of energy=focus on quality, choosy

 

Why are women so often attracted to 'rotters'"

rotters = love em and leave em types

"The answer is that the son of a rotter inherits the rotter's genes, and is comparably promiscuous. so a gene that encourages promiscuity in a man is (by and large) spread more widely; if a woman hitches her genes to the genes of such a man, then her genes will be widely spread as well.

Genes are indeed selfish, and do not care about happiness, or other such indulgences, of their possessors". (p201)

 

Surprising thing is how few offspring men have in their lifetime

The record is one Middle eastern potentate is 800"

(Tudge thinks this is "few"!!?? he says men should be producing thousands. Is this guy for real pre-Viagra!)

Monogamy more common than you would expect it to be as a reproductive strategy

 

"women bring different values to the workplace than men. They do not set store, as men do, by status and income. In some sectors, the high-income jobs are also the most risky, which is why they are highly paid" (CEO of Microsoft?? -I am just writing what HE says)

"and evolutionary psychology predicts (and observation confirms) that women take fewer risks than men and so are less likely to compete for the highest-risk highest-income tasks' if we want more women in top jobs "need to change the rules so influence is not linked simply to competitiveness, as is the case at present."(P204)

 

Choosing and being Chosen

"cheating plays a large part in the affairs of all animals. DNA studies among birds are . . increasingly showing that chicks in one nest have more than one father."

"ideal strategy for women is to become pregnant by a rogue. . .but ensure that the child is brought up by somebody nice."

When men enter monogamous relationships they are adopting female strategy and must be as choosy as the females (in monogamous societies)

 

Darwin "Natural selection" in Origin of the Species1859, notion " that lineages of creatures are shaped by their environment over time as they adapt to its vicissitudes"

peacocks with brightest tails attract more a mates.(Why does the hen like pretty, big tails?) -

he then gives long winded and silly example

idea of handicap like big tail enhances mating potential precisely because it is a handicap

 

 

That enough.I bored now.

Heaps to argue about here

Will start on page 208-end of chapter if you really want.

Just let me know, otherwise I'll read the silly book and take it back to the library

 

The quote I really like from the book is "All genetics is a footnote to Mendal"

That might end up in my signature one day

Michael

"

PS

How does natural selection work if we kill 8.5 million of our fittest and best in WW1 (15 - 30 year olds mostly?) and then follow up with a flu that kills 25 million of the healthiest 20-40 year olds.???????????

What in God's name is being "selected " here?????

[Michaelangelica]

 

By the way, has the genome of the cells in different parts of the body been analyzed over a period? Has it been proved that the genome of an individual remains the same regardless of age and regardless of the tissues? :Question

From what I understand each cell contains the complete set of DNA some of it is switched off to form liver cells, other bits of DNA are switched off in heart cells and so on. Any one cell however has the whole geonome which I guess? has to stay constant.

It that what you were asking?

[Michaelangelica]

I have some ideas!:) :(

 

Let's assume that a certain kind of microorganisms (not pathogs), are in fact carrier/inducers of thought in human beings. What would be the consequences?

 

Well, newborns and infants would be infected by such microorganisms from the people they come in close contact. If the microorganism is strong, its DNA may get incorporated in the genes of the zygote/newborn/ infant.

:Question

Incorporation of bacterial DNA into the human geonome has already happened!

I think it is in the so-called "Junk" department.

No one knows why it is there or what it is for! WOW SPOOKY HEY!;)

[ronthepon]

Incorporation of bacterial DNA into the human geonome has already happened!

I think it is in the so-called "Junk" department.

No one knows why it is there or what it is for! WOW SPOOKY HEY!;)

 

You got more info. on this? PM me, please...

 

(I'm beggining to grow a glyocalyx and dividing by fission myself...)

[hallenrm]

From what I understand each cell contains the complete set of DNA some of it is switched off to form liver cells, other bits of DNA are switched off in heart cells and so on. Any one cell however has the whole geonome which I guess? has to stay constant.

It that what you were asking?

 

Yes indeed!

 

Here's some more questions to tickle your brains a bit! Does the current theory in vouge explain all the phenomena of the living world satisfactorily? Are any alternate theories tenable? Do we leave any room for any doubts?;)

[Michaelangelica]

You got more info. on this? PM me, please...

 

(I'm beggining to grow a glyocalyx and dividing by fission myself...)

Sorry I can't help.

It was in a biology/sciency book I recently read.

The author was very positive. He said it was quite obviously a bit of bacterial DNA no question about it.

Sorry I never remember any names of authors only silly lttle bits of info like that.

 

The premise of the book (I think) was that natural selection is too slow (!!) to account for genetic change and we must have appropriated bits of DNA from all over to get where we are.