Comments on: Much Debated, Edited and Hardly Understood http://www.argee.org/old-blog/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/ Personal Blog, Design, Development and Programming Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:49:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: RG http://www.argee.org/old-blog/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/comment-page-1/#comment-530 RG Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:29:00 +0000 http://www.argee.org/general/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/#comment-530 And about the Y-chromosome - you are saying, in essence, that the male populace is a weed?<br/><br/>We are not separating anything, we are only tracing the mutations. How? By looking at samples from all over the world and comparing structural differences. If there is a mutation, say, shared by all asians, then this strain is traced to the root of one branch (from the given analogy), and similarly finding all "branches", we see that it is all connected to the same trunk (or, if there is no trunk, the same place where the roots meet). And about the Y-chromosome – you are saying, in essence, that the male populace is a weed?

We are not separating anything, we are only tracing the mutations. How? By looking at samples from all over the world and comparing structural differences. If there is a mutation, say, shared by all asians, then this strain is traced to the root of one branch (from the given analogy), and similarly finding all “branches”, we see that it is all connected to the same trunk (or, if there is no trunk, the same place where the roots meet).

]]> By: RG http://www.argee.org/old-blog/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/comment-page-1/#comment-529 RG Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:19:00 +0000 http://www.argee.org/general/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/#comment-529 It seems you did not read my post closely.<br/><br/>"The flaw was in your assumption of genes being mutated to suit requirements of the present situation." - I did not say that. I am reviving the post so you can see what I did say.<br/><br/>"Your analogy of tracing a tree to it's root becomes flawed as genetic mutations due to the phenomenon of recession do not necessarily evolve linearly." - I said we are ignoring the trunk.<br/><br/>Apology accepted. And now, my friends, I am the eye of the storm on this blog, and my ultimate aim is to trap you in the vortex - regardless of how strongly you hold ground. It seems you did not read my post closely.

“The flaw was in your assumption of genes being mutated to suit requirements of the present situation.” – I did not say that. I am reviving the post so you can see what I did say.

“Your analogy of tracing a tree to it’s root becomes flawed as genetic mutations due to the phenomenon of recession do not necessarily evolve linearly.” – I said we are ignoring the trunk.

Apology accepted. And now, my friends, I am the eye of the storm on this blog, and my ultimate aim is to trap you in the vortex – regardless of how strongly you hold ground.

]]> By: sum1 sheepish and sorry http://www.argee.org/old-blog/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/comment-page-1/#comment-528 sum1 sheepish and sorry Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:25:00 +0000 http://www.argee.org/general/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/#comment-528 The flaw was in your assumption of genes being mutated to suit requirements of the present situation. Genes which are inherently mutable, unstable so to say, mutate or change in myriad ways. Its like the game of life, nature's dice.The person with the already favourable gene or mutation, is able to 'propogate' himself more widely, leading to a greater chance of that mutation being passed on.<br/>Survival of the offspring passes on that particular mutable trait. but not generation to ganeration. A gene not very useful at one point and recessive at the moment, may be essential later on. The gene may come to force, may dominate later, by that time having been passed onto some generations. so different sub-species, to grossly exaggerate it, may die out and come to power.<br/>Your analogy of tracing a tree to it's root becomes flawed as genetic mutations due to the phenomenon of recession do not necessarily evolve linearly.<br/>To modify your words the evolution of life is more akin to a growing weed rather than a tree.<br/><br/>Your theory of an adam Y fails because there is no single Y chromose at the end of it. it is more like a side-running weed, you cannot trace the original and separate it from the offshoot.<br/><br/>I am sorry if the contents of my admittedly high-handed and hasty post has offended you. If anything i was glad about your topic as i hold a keen interest in the fields of bio-ethics and eugenistic studies. Henceforth you shall not find me on your page. Please do not stop discussing things in the comments.<br/><br/>ps: The 'we are evolving' was to whoever said that the tables have been turned on nature and we need not worry about physiological changes because, actually i think we do. The flaw was in your assumption of genes being mutated to suit requirements of the present situation. Genes which are inherently mutable, unstable so to say, mutate or change in myriad ways. Its like the game of life, nature’s dice.The person with the already favourable gene or mutation, is able to ‘propogate’ himself more widely, leading to a greater chance of that mutation being passed on.
Survival of the offspring passes on that particular mutable trait. but not generation to ganeration. A gene not very useful at one point and recessive at the moment, may be essential later on. The gene may come to force, may dominate later, by that time having been passed onto some generations. so different sub-species, to grossly exaggerate it, may die out and come to power.
Your analogy of tracing a tree to it’s root becomes flawed as genetic mutations due to the phenomenon of recession do not necessarily evolve linearly.
To modify your words the evolution of life is more akin to a growing weed rather than a tree.

Your theory of an adam Y fails because there is no single Y chromose at the end of it. it is more like a side-running weed, you cannot trace the original and separate it from the offshoot.

I am sorry if the contents of my admittedly high-handed and hasty post has offended you. If anything i was glad about your topic as i hold a keen interest in the fields of bio-ethics and eugenistic studies. Henceforth you shall not find me on your page. Please do not stop discussing things in the comments.

ps: The ‘we are evolving’ was to whoever said that the tables have been turned on nature and we need not worry about physiological changes because, actually i think we do.

]]> By: RG http://www.argee.org/old-blog/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/comment-page-1/#comment-527 RG Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:59:00 +0000 http://www.argee.org/general/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/#comment-527 I'm not good at explaining things I’m not good at explaining things

]]> By: manpreet http://www.argee.org/old-blog/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/comment-page-1/#comment-526 manpreet Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:27:00 +0000 http://www.argee.org/general/much-debated-edited-and-hardly-understood/#comment-526 i agree with Anwita.....to stand in the face of adversity is an apreciable quality. <br/><br/>Your theory did not have any flaws, on the contrary, it was more accurate than most i have heard. (atleast i think so)<br/><br/>But as it happens in bio....the same peices of jigsaw can form a different picture for different people.<br/><br/>So, my friend, welcome to the world of life sciences!!!! i agree with Anwita…..to stand in the face of adversity is an apreciable quality.

Your theory did not have any flaws, on the contrary, it was more accurate than most i have heard. (atleast i think so)

But as it happens in bio….the same peices of jigsaw can form a different picture for different people.

So, my friend, welcome to the world of life sciences!!!!

]]>