Garden of Eden lays in the Persian Gulf? Not a religious thread.

[lestatdark]

padib said:

lestatdark said:

padib said:

lestatdark said:

I must say, for all the time wasted posting my replies in this thread, it's been worth it as it has been quite a fun day today in the laboratory with all that's going on in the thread. Haven't seen my observer (pHD on molecualr genetics and a deeply devout christian as well) quite amused over an "article" for a long while.

I'd really like you to know that you really pissed me off.

Anyway, here is the fundamental question. Was the following phrase in the article accurate, despite all your explanations, or not?

"Since it now appears that much of aging is under genetic control"

Next question, because I think we're both running out of patience here. Do you think that the description below corresponds to autosomal inheritance or sex-linked dominance (I'm unclear on the definitions):

"In the example shown above diagrammatically, the ‘G’ form of the gene is present in father and not in mother. "

As for a gene that dictates age, the article doesn't mention that. It mentions a series of genes in:

"it is entirely feasible that some forms of the genes present in Noah were not passed on."

and

"Since it now appears that much of aging is under genetic control" note the vast statement here.

It pissed you off why? I was referring to the article, not your replies. The fact that the writter uses an unethical way to present his theory is what's laughable.

The phrase is not entirely correct, that's what I've been trying to say all along, even before you posted your link. Genetics could be a factor in the aging process, but only to a certain extent. I've also said it's possible to further the life span via alternative means such as the regeneration of the DNA itself to some earlier states (stem regeneration). The scenario that we could live further and further beyond 150-200 years is not entirely impossible, but it cannot be achieved if we only focus the issue on trying to manipulate our genome to do it itself, since there's a natural limit to it. 

What the author described was sex-linked inheritance just like the inheritance of characteristics such as skin pigmentation, hair colour and even iris pigmentation. Those cases all are sex-linked inheritance which is not autossomical per se. In sex-linked inheritance both parents could have a gene that has been repressed for a large number of generation and via recombination it can gain expression again. In the case of autossomical inheritance, if the capital G gene was part of an allele that was methylated to avoid expression in any generation and if that trait has been passed down by either father or mother, then that characteristic has a very limited probability of it beign expressed again, unless some external input (metabolism, hormonal signalling, cancerous malformation, etc.) presses the DNA for it's expression.

A gene or genes is moot. Again, DNA is conservative, whatever genes our ancestors had, we still have them. They might not be expressed, they might be methylated, there might have been an acylation of the histones surrounding those genes to prevent binding of the DNA polymerase and a plethora of other reasons as to why a particular gene or set of genes aren't expressed.

Genetics program cell death and determine the aging of the cell, but it's a very big leap in judgment to say that it also controls the entire life span of an individual, whatever species it is. We simply have no data to determine it and every recent study in vertebrates (the studies of enhancing life-spans on nematods and fruit flies have no relevance in vertebrates, since the metabolical and genetical pathways are too different to elate any relationship between them without accounting for external factors) show that it's a conjunction of metabolical, genetical and external factors that play a role in our lifespan. 

And with that I rest my case

Mmm.

@Metabolical factor. I'm sure, can be traced back to genetics. Our metabolism is dicatated by our genetic makeup. If I'm wrong you need to be clear, as I understood everything in our bodies (the immune system, the cardiovascular system, the metabolism) are all runs of a pre-defined or make it as your go (epigenetics) genetic coding. Yes the result plays out differently, but at the core it is rooted in genetic makeup. Everything about us is.

@was sex-linked inheritance. The author described a 1 in 8 chance of the disparition of a hypothetical capital G gene. What do you think of that possibility? Given the array of genes in the human genome, what do you think about this concept. Is it possible? Nevermind the dominant or recessive cases. I'm talking about the complete disparition of a gene. Is it possible? If Noah had 3 sons, what are the odds, for that specific gene, that it could be lost in all 3 sons?

@Regeneration of the DNA. Is that process not dictated by genetics as well? I hate to sound like a broken record, but in my eyes genetics (and epigenetics) dictates absolutely everything about the processes in our organism.

EDIT: For the record, what mostly pissed me off is your saying you wasted your time in this thread. I'm putting in just as much effort as you are in trying to debate, you simply make me, as a challenger to your position, feel worthless. I appreciate that really. Then you laugh at the links I provide. Granted they aren't as detailed as you would like, but as I said they are meant to be kept simple, and they take a bigger picture approach rather than getting encroached in details. Oftentimes the bigger picture is just as valid, if not moreso as it keeps the distractive details out of the equation (so long as they are ineffectual).

Our current metabolic needs are dictated by what's defined in our DNA, that's the common rule. Metabolical pathways on the other hand are the ones that influentiate the DNA expression. Say for example that you're in lack of glucose in your blood. Usually you would ingest sugar or anything containing suger and your body would break down the components to make glucose, but what if you cannot access sugar? Your body then begins a metabolical process called glycogenolysis, in which it breaks down excess glycogen in your adipose tissue to make the necessary glucose. This metabolical process is triggered by a rising level of the hormones glucagon and epinephrine, which via signal transduction it promotes the expression of the proteins necessary for that metabolical process. 
If our metabolical needs change throughout the generations, then the DNA adapts to the new pathways that those metabolical needs produce, "saving" the required protein codes in our DNA. This is a very morose and long process, usually taking dozen of thousands of years and many hundred generations to produce such an effect in our DNA (which has been proved via bacterial studies since metabolism is one of the most primal mechanisms in any cell/tissue/organ/living being).

In the case of sex-linked inheritance, the probability between offspring of a gene dissapearing or re-apperaring is counted as factor in the same generation. So if the probability is 1/8, the chance for genotype doesn't code for that gene is 1/572. If it's the case of complete dissapearence (which would be an extreme case, as that would require nothing short of the deletion of the entire gene sequence, it's promoters and every mechanism to replicate that gene - remember, DNA is conservative and the DNA polymerase has the ability to proof-read and repair the gap in DNA) then the chance is about 1/2x10^8 (the value of meiosis recombination rate via crossover from both the parental and maternal strands which can repair the missing gene).

When I talk about regeneration of the DNA, I mean a complete restoration to the initial point of the strands, as if your cells were in their early division forms (as if you had still the body of a child). That's something that the DNA machinery can't accomplish, given the pile up of mutations and loss of function from the repair systems over each division. 

I'm sorry if I explained myself wrong. I didn't mean wasted time as in it was pointless, I mean that it takes me quite a lot to reply since I'm also working and this thread has taken up all of my scarce free time. That's how much attention i'm putting to it, since usually I wouldn't even bother. The problem with the link is not the detail, lacking or not, is the approach to the scientific method. Once again, as a scientist you're ethically bound to principles that you should never break. One of those principles is to never manipulate your data to fit any theory that suits your need. Data and results are empiric. If that data doesn't prove you're right or doesn't fit the model you were theorizing then you correct that model and admit that you were wrong. You do not go looking for small tidbits that could probably support your model if you changed this and that data, that's wrong, unscientific, unethical, it hinders scientific debate and progress. 

That's why articles such as that one would never be allowed in any scientific debate, not because it's linked to creationism, but because it's tampered and takes huge leaps in judgment to fit some of the data into a very theorized model which has no scientific basis other than what's written in the bible. If the same article was made by Wiccan advocates (I'm a Wiccan) and used the same leaps of judgment, incorrect scientific procedures and was based on models written in a Book of Shadows or in ancient Celtic scripts then I would still call out on it and it would still cause the same reaction within me.