Welcome, Guest. Please Login
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
  Latest info can be found on the YaBB Chat and Support Community.
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Natural selection vs Genetic drift (Read 17948 times)
glowingape
Full Member
***
Offline


wut?

Posts: 135
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #15 - Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:21pm
 
oh_noes wrote on Dec 25th, 2009 at 4:12pm:
I doubt it, it's so little understood yet that your information could still be considered up to date. We look at the frequency of the allele in the population and note that there is an anomaly in Europe, the only explanations are increased mutation rates or a positive selection pressure (or lack of a negative one).

We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery.


oh_noes wrote on Dec 25th, 2009 at 4:12pm:
We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery.


There are quite a few "outbreaks" concerning beneficial mutations in europe. For instance a kid was born in Germany with a double copy of anti-myostatin gene and  there are also some people in some village in Italy, which has a mutation, that allows them to have a high tolerance for HDL serum cholesterol.

But mostly I'm interested in the gene called FOXP2, which is related to speech (and perhaps in some way even to the intelligence... I could be wrong in this part, tho.)
Back to top
 

Quote:
Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.  Moron! ~ GSFY

Quote:
Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process. ~ GSFY
 
IP Logged
 
oh_noes
Full Member
***
Offline


Seek Truth! Doubt those
who find it.

Posts: 175
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #16 - Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:27pm
 
Oooh some interesting reading there, but thats not quite what I meant. I was referring particularly to the high incidence of carriers of the gene that codes for cystic fibrosis. There must be some heterozygote advantage to enable it to spread so we are looking for what the advantage conferred might be.

However, I'm now intrigued about the kid with the instance of double anti-myostatin genes. Do you have a reference I can go and take a peak at, I'm envisaging some kind of Arnie Kid.

Actually, is this the kid who was all over the news as the worlds strongest child?
Back to top
 

Proof: Not a scientific concept.
Nephilmfree: For those occasions when evidence and reason just aren't enough.
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #17 - Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:56pm
 
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/08/diet-heart-hypothesis-oxidized-ldl...

It is the hydrogenated oils that cause clogged arteries.


Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
oh_noes
Full Member
***
Offline


Seek Truth! Doubt those
who find it.

Posts: 175
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #18 - Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:59pm
 
glowingape wrote on Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:21pm:
oh_noes wrote on Dec 25th, 2009 at 4:12pm:
I doubt it, it's so little understood yet that your information could still be considered up to date. We look at the frequency of the allele in the population and note that there is an anomaly in Europe, the only explanations are increased mutation rates or a positive selection pressure (or lack of a negative one).

We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery.


oh_noes wrote on Dec 25th, 2009 at 4:12pm:
We can say for certain that something in Europe has led to increased fitness (and therefore fertility one could argue, depending on definition), the cause is still somewhat of a mystery.


There are quite a few "outbreaks" concerning beneficial mutations in europe. For instance a kid was born in Germany with a double copy of anti-myostatin gene and  there are also some people in some village in Italy, which has a mutation, that allows them to have a high tolerance for HDL serum cholesterol.

But mostly I'm interested in the gene called FOXP2, which is related to speech (and perhaps in some way even to the intelligence... I could be wrong in this part, tho.)



Ok first of all a bit of a caveat. I haven't done my research on this one yet. However, I wanted to ask a quick question on FOXP2. Is that the gene that appears to be essential for communication in all mammals, and possibly much wider ranging still? I'm sure I remember reading something about FOXP2 in bats and whales, for example.  I even seem to recall reading that it could have played a role in the evolution of consciousness, but I might be making that up and will have to go check.
Back to top
 

Proof: Not a scientific concept.
Nephilmfree: For those occasions when evidence and reason just aren't enough.
 
IP Logged
 
glowingape
Full Member
***
Offline


wut?

Posts: 135
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #19 - Dec 26th, 2009 at 6:38pm
 
oh_noes wrote on Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:27pm:
Oooh some interesting reading there, but thats not quite what I meant. I was referring particularly to the high incidence of carriers of the gene that codes for cystic fibrosis. There must be some heterozygote advantage to enable it to spread so we are looking for what the advantage conferred might be.


Yeah. My apology. I've managed to missed, that the topic was about the cystic fibrosis. But let me make it up for it, since I've found something quote interesting from the genetic and evolutionary perspective;
How this happens:
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=cysticfibrosis and the description of the gene, that causes CF, called appropriately CFTR located here: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=cftr

And I've also found a possible evolutionary treat for this, quoting:
Quote:
Cystic Fibrosis
Balanced polymorphism may explain why cystic fibrosis is so common- the anatomical defect that underlies CF protects against diarrheal illnesses, such as cholera.

Cholera epidemics have left their mark on human populations, causing widespread death in just days. In the summer of 1831, an epidemic killed 10 percent of the population of St. Louis, and in 1991, an epidemic swept Peru. Cholera bacteria causes diarrhea, which rapidly dehydrates the body and can lead to shock and kidney and heart failure. The bacterium produces a toxin that opens chloride channels in the small intestine. As salt (NaCl) leaves the cells, water follows, in a natural chemical tendency to dilute the salt. Water rushing out of intestinal cells leaves the body as diarrhea.

In 1989, when geneticists identified the CF gene and described its protein product as a regulator of a chloride channel in certain secretory cells, a possible explanation for the prevalence of the inherited disorder emerged. Cholera opens chloride channels, letting chloride and water leave cells. The CFTR protein does just the opposite, closing chloride channels and trapping salt and water in cells, which dries out mucus and other secretions. A person with CF cannot contract cholera, because the toxin cannot open the chloride channels in the small intestine.

Carriers of CF enjoy the mixed blessing of a balanced polymorphism. They do not have enough abnormal chloride channels to cause the labored breathing and clogged pancreas of cystic fibrosis, but they do have enough of a defect to prevent the cholera from taking hold. During the devastating cholera epidemics that have peppered history, individuals carrying mutant CF alleles had a selective advantage, and they disproportionately transmitted those alleles to future generations. However, because CF arose in Western Europe and cholera in Africa, perhaps an initial increase in CF herterozygosity was a response to a different diarrheal infection.
(quoted from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session7/explain_b_pop1.html ), which references Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications (Second edition, 1997) pp. 247-248 by Ricki Lewis

Quote:
However, I'm now intrigued about the kid with the instance of double anti-myostatin genes. Do you have a reference I can go and take a peak at, I'm envisaging some kind of Arnie Kid.
Sure do. The best is found here: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392292&cat=1_2 and the reference about the myostatin (the protein, that breaks the development of muscle) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin

Quote:
Actually, is this the kid who was all over the news as the worlds strongest child?
Yep. That was him. But it's not human-only mutation. Also, the cow called "The Belgian Blue" has this exact mutation. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Blue )
Back to top
 

Quote:
Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.  Moron! ~ GSFY

Quote:
Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process. ~ GSFY
 
IP Logged
 
glowingape
Full Member
***
Offline


wut?

Posts: 135
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #20 - Dec 26th, 2009 at 7:08pm
 
oh_noes wrote on Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:59pm:
Ok first of all a bit of a caveat. I haven't done my research on this one yet. However, I wanted to ask a quick question on FOXP2. Is that the gene that appears to be essential for communication in all mammals, and possibly much wider ranging still?

Not just mammals. Geneticists also did a test on the birds as well; They've knocked out the FOXP2 gene, which caused serious dysfunctions of the one's singing... (reference here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050321)

Quote:
I'm sure I remember reading something about FOXP2 in bats and whales, for example.  I even seem to recall reading that it could have played a role in the evolution of consciousness, but I might be making that up and will have to go check.
There is a layman information about FOXP2 available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2 (and non-layman information about it here: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=foxp2 ), which interacts with protein called CDBP1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTBP1  or http://server5.xennexinc.com/v3//index.php?path=/GeneCard/card/CTBP1/5686e72e01c091f3175713cf05b7aded )
Back to top
 

Quote:
Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.  Moron! ~ GSFY

Quote:
Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process. ~ GSFY
 
IP Logged
 
prolescum
Junior Member
**
Offline


LoLtering for the sake
of it

Posts: 93
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #21 - Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am
 
Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum.
Back to top
 

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Volcano Girl
Junior Member
**
Offline


Geologist

Posts: 66
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #22 - Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:03am
 
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am:
Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum.


What, like the PMing system Wink
Back to top
 

I'm sorry if i start to sneeze and cough, however i'm allergic to nonsense pseudoscience.
 
IP Logged
 
prolescum
Junior Member
**
Offline


LoLtering for the sake
of it

Posts: 93
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #23 - Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:26am
 
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:03am:
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am:
Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum.


What, like the PMing system Wink


And the once upon a time active post editing facility...
Back to top
 

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Volcano Girl
Junior Member
**
Offline


Geologist

Posts: 66
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #24 - Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:28am
 
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:26am:
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:03am:
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am:
Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum.


What, like the PMing system Wink


And the once upon a time active post editing facility...


Really????

Censorship much?

Lips Sealed
Back to top
 

I'm sorry if i start to sneeze and cough, however i'm allergic to nonsense pseudoscience.
 
IP Logged
 
prolescum
Junior Member
**
Offline


LoLtering for the sake
of it

Posts: 93
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #25 - Dec 27th, 2009 at 10:32am
 
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:28am:
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:26am:
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:03am:
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am:
Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum.


What, like the PMing system Wink


And the once upon a time active post editing facility...


Really????

Censorship much?

Lips Sealed

Oh yes, here's an image from waaay back in November.
Back to top
 

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Volcano Girl
Junior Member
**
Offline


Geologist

Posts: 66
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #26 - Dec 27th, 2009 at 10:38am
 
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 10:32am:
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:28am:
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:26am:
Volcano Girl wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 7:03am:
prolescum wrote on Dec 27th, 2009 at 6:16am:
Fascinating stuff, glowingape. Shame there's no rating system on this forum.


What, like the PMing system Wink


And the once upon a time active post editing facility...


Really????

Censorship much?

Lips Sealed

Oh yes, here's an image from waaay back in November.


Ack!!

But anyway, we've got to let this thread get back to the topic.
Back to top
 

I'm sorry if i start to sneeze and cough, however i'm allergic to nonsense pseudoscience.
 
IP Logged
 
prolescum
Junior Member
**
Offline


LoLtering for the sake
of it

Posts: 93
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #27 - Dec 27th, 2009 at 10:46am
 
Of course, where were we?
Ah...
glowingape wrote on Dec 26th, 2009 at 7:08pm:
oh_noes wrote on Dec 26th, 2009 at 5:59pm:
Ok first of all a bit of a caveat. I haven't done my research on this one yet. However, I wanted to ask a quick question on FOXP2. Is that the gene that appears to be essential for communication in all mammals, and possibly much wider ranging still?

Not just mammals. Geneticists also did a test on the birds as well; They've knocked out the FOXP2 gene, which caused serious dysfunctions of the one's singing... (reference here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050321)

Quote:
I'm sure I remember reading something about FOXP2 in bats and whales, for example.  I even seem to recall reading that it could have played a role in the evolution of consciousness, but I might be making that up and will have to go check.
There is a layman information about FOXP2 available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2 (and non-layman information about it here: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene=foxp2 ), which interacts with protein called CDBP1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTBP1  or http://server5.xennexinc.com/v3//index.php?path=/GeneCard/card/CTBP1/5686e72e01c091f3175713cf05b7aded )

Back to top
 

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Simianus
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 26
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #28 - Dec 29th, 2009 at 7:43pm
 
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 10:27pm:
glowingape wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 7:03pm:
oh_noes wrote on Dec 24th, 2009 at 6:04pm:
Thought I'd start up a new thread for some informed discussion. One aspect of evolution that I think gets overlooked by many is the role that genetic drift has to play.

I say understated because it's not that easy to see it in action. Genetic drift by definition isn't really noticable since it is survival neutral, the introduction of allele varients that are not really functionally different to to the other varients in the population.

However, the steady accumulation of new varients can give rise to interesting possibilities. It could be that, say, three new gene varients for three different genes, functionally the same as there other alleles, might combine to produce a hitherto unseen function. Should some new selection pressure arise this new function, one that has arisen entirely through drift and without apparent use could now become vital to survival.

Anyway, thats the basics, just figured I'd put genetic drift out there as an intersting topic for discussion. Is genetic drift as ignored as I believe it to be, or am I overestimating it's importance?

Actually -- both are quite vital components for population survival... As genetic drift as natural selection. Trough time genetic... Um... "information" changes, which change our structure, make us more resilient to one form of disease, and natural selection to weed out the ones, that didn't get the mutations.

One of the most perfect (and most graphic) examples for those would most likely be the black plague...



This is one of those "slogans" of evodelusionism that has no evidence and absolutely no use of the scientific method.
People survive the plague, because of genetics and for no other reason.   

We can conjecture all day about things like this but you don't have a f**king clue what you are talking about.

It has nothing to do with evolution, not a even a little.

This is not evidence it is f**king opinions based on belief that you would project your f**king beliefs on genetics. Genetics only shows the need for survival. That is even in the 30,000 code changes cause by smoking. The "doctor" said that the persons DNA shows it wants to survive. It doesn't want to evolve.  That is what is shown in the DNA.

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and no human emotional mental garbage opinions in it?


Do you really not believe in the dangers of a limited gene pool and interbreeding? How could we have overpopulated the earth without some chaotically random differenciation in our genes? Or perhaps we haven't, and we're all victims of our own propensity to copy ourselves. Either way, you must admit we're either genetically challenged, clones, or genetically drifting.

I don't claim to be a scientist, but this seems silly. Doesn't it?

I vaguely remember learning about an early scientific theorist who believed that evolution was caused by immediate need. So if I were a fish and decided that I'd die from lack of nourishment in the lake, I could grow legs and go eat grass. I can't remember names, I'm sure someone here knows. Obviously, this theory is funny, and I'm curious if this is what you see of Darwin.

Darwin is more about the extinction of species and their naturally mutating genepool, not about magically growing random limbs.

Out of curiosity, how exactly do you explain the extinction of dinosaurs? They might never have existed had we not started growing larger heads to look around for fossils, subsequently making childbearing more painful and medically dangerous for human females than virtually all other species on this planet.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
glowingape
Full Member
***
Offline


wut?

Posts: 135
Re: Natural selection vs Genetic drift
Reply #29 - Dec 29th, 2009 at 11:34pm
 
Simianus wrote on Dec 29th, 2009 at 7:43pm:
I vaguely remember learning about an early scientific theorist who believed that evolution was caused by immediate need. So if I were a fish and decided that I'd die from lack of nourishment in the lake, I could grow legs and go eat grass. I can't remember names, I'm sure someone here knows.
I can give a helping hand with this one. The person you're looking for, (if interested) is Jean Baptiste Lamarck, and the Lamarckian "evolution" is the term you're searching for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
Back to top
 

Quote:
Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.  Moron! ~ GSFY

Quote:
Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process. ~ GSFY
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print