Digital Genetics and Evolution Theory
- Thread starter sciborg
- Start date
The way your asking the question positions you at a point to strike down another person argument, no one wants to answer it, because no one wants to be your b!tch. If instead you would like to state how gene activity and the evolution of aging are connected and apply your self to this thread by staying on topic and presenting your self on a equal level with us that would be recommended.
Hey, all I did was ask a simple question.
If the person it was aimed at, the same who posted something that led to my asking it the first time, gets to go this far without any view of an answer of any kind in sight, what the hell am I meant to do about it?
Just for the record here: what's "gene activity", since I can clearly see this phrase in your last post (presumably along with anyone else who can read English)?
And if you're expecting a statement about it from me, here it is: genes don't do anything.
If you put some DNA in a test-tube, pretty much nothing interesting will happen.
DNA is a mostly inert structure, a polymer that is maintained and transcribed by enzymes in a cell. If you put some enzymes and some water in with the DNA in the tt, something will happen - it might even be interesting (although it won't look like much). It depends on the enzymes.
If the person it was aimed at, the same who posted something that led to my asking it the first time, gets to go this far without any view of an answer of any kind in sight, what the hell am I meant to do about it?
Just for the record here: what's "gene activity", since I can clearly see this phrase in your last post (presumably along with anyone else who can read English)?
And if you're expecting a statement about it from me, here it is: genes don't do anything.
If you put some DNA in a test-tube, pretty much nothing interesting will happen.
DNA is a mostly inert structure, a polymer that is maintained and transcribed by enzymes in a cell. If you put some enzymes and some water in with the DNA in the tt, something will happen - it might even be interesting (although it won't look like much). It depends on the enzymes.
Last edited:
Vkothii,
I think the problem here is the rest of us have agreed upon definitions for words and phrase, you on the other hand either have very different definitions or have a desired to argue about those definitions no matter how off-topic it leads us.
A gene is a region of an organism's genome that is transcribed into RNA and Proteins that have functional uses for that organism, how a gene functions (or doesn't) in vitro is irrelevant, this is thread about evolution not biochemistry.
I think the problem here is the rest of us have agreed upon definitions for words and phrase, you on the other hand either have very different definitions or have a desired to argue about those definitions no matter how off-topic it leads us.
A gene is a region of an organism's genome that is transcribed into RNA and Proteins that have functional uses for that organism, how a gene functions (or doesn't) in vitro is irrelevant, this is thread about evolution not biochemistry.
Yes If you assume that an animal has a fixed limited reproductive life, then there is no evolutionary point in living beyond that reproductive period. However, there is no obvious reason why there would be any fundamental limitation on reproduction and if the animal is designed to have a limited reproductive life then that is against Darwin's theory. If it could, why wouldn't the animal evolve a longer reproductive life in order to produce more descendents? A design limit on reproductive life has the same problems with Darwin as a design limit on total life span. Most biologists consider reductions of reproductive capability to be a symptom of aging.
I think it is clear that genes dictate the design of an organism including its behaviors. It's clear that genes can vary causing the organism to vary in its design. But if a particular variation of a gene caused an organism to have a shorter life, shorter reproductive life, or other individually adverse design (altruism) then how would that variation spread? The animals that have the variation would appear to have to live longer and breed more to spread the variation. I don't see where Dawkins and selfish gene have actually answered this fundamental question, which has been bothering people for 150 years. To me evolvability provides a better explanation.
True, but predators and disease usually get you at a certain point, also it is noted that populations of animals without predators tend to have evolved longer lifespans to take advantage of unlimited reproductive cycling. There was a scientific American article on it a couple of years back that showed mathematically that if you produce a certain number of offspring it does not matter how many more you produce afterwards, evolution no longer effects you, it was a matter of the offspring reproducing and spring their gene at a rate near equal to those that lived longer.
You had better not have aimed that at me you pompous jerk. If all you did is ask simple questions then that would be okay. But you (and everyone else here) know perfectly well that’s not what you do.
And that’s just your condescending tripe from this thread alone. You’ve done the same in other threads as well.
We’re not your pupils, you are not our teacher and we’re not here to answer your condescending questions. It’s so pathetic when a wannabe science guru like you tries to exert their illusionary authority and assumed superior knowledge over the rest of the forum.
We can plainly see that you are just a sophist troll who is desperate to appear as the new all-knowledgeable Biology & Genetics guru. We can also plainly see what we are really dealing with. All the signs are there that we are dealing with nothing more than a know-it-all undergraduate – confusing endoplasmic reticulum with the cytoskeleton, referring to RNA-->protein as transcription rather than translation, being unaware of the existence of RNA viruses, trying to apply scientific rigour to non-specific non-scientific terms, and more. These are all the simple mistakes that undergraduates make. I know, I’ve taught many university undergraduates over the years. If you think I am going to participate in your attempts to prop up your own ego then you are mistaken.
Hercules Rockefeller,
Burn!
Burn!
Then what are you here for? Are you "here" to answer any questions, or just be a jerk?Hurc said:
And I don't give much attention to other people's character assessments, based on whatever they might think they know or understand about what some dickhead has had to say.
The action of genetic material is restricted to what genetic material, all by itself, can do.
Like I think you're some kind of teacher. What a load. Get over your own narrow little judgement-call workup, my man. Get with it, OK?
You're a shining example of someone who thinks they know enough about other people to pronounce a summary judgement, but ends up looking like the sort of prick they think they need to pillory or traduce.
What an idiot.
Not to geneticists, it isn't. Not to anyone who wants to study DNA or RNA it certainly isn't.Electric said:
This is due largely to the impossibility of tracking enzyme reactions in vivo.
That's why there are thousands of labs with all that equipment, and assay methods (even labs on a chip). That's biochemistry, and why it's used in genetic studies.
Last edited:
sciborg said:
The code itself has evolved.
The DNA code has variants, or different codon "meanings".
Mitochondrial codons have other assignments than the host cell, for example
The DNA triplet code is redundant, and the redundancy is symmetrical, indicating it has evolved from an earlier duplet encoding. The "evolution of evolvability" is actually part of the modern synthesis.
I think it's come a ways since the idea of an accidental, or chance configuration of the DNA or RNA polymer, into a stable and fundamental form.
If we know it evolves, then presumably it has evolved.
This thread is not about genetics, or the study of DNA or RNA, this thread is about evolutionary theory, where a gene is spoken of in the definition I provided.
Sure it is.ElectricFet said:
And evolutionary theory isn't about genetics or any labs.
And your definition is the standard description: genes "doing things".
I rest my case. Now you can talk about evolutionary theory (just don't mention genes again, ok? This thread isn't about genes or genetics, it's about something else).
Oh so I can't say selfish gene theory either then? Evolution does not need DNA, it operates on the same basic principles be it emulated digitally on a computer or the strength of neuronal connections. A gene is a element of value to any one of those cases (organism, computer, neural networks), something to mutate, something to replicate, be it physical, virtual or informatic. When speaking of genes in evolution they speak of the philosophical nature of genes ("what do gene what?") of course genes don't actually want anything, they are not conscious, in life they are just hunks of DNA, but you for some reason have to state the obvious like that while completely missing the actually meaning of what we are talking about.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Pardon to intrude, but I think you're wasting your time with him.
I rather like to keep debating with him and make him feel like he is not the complete loser that well know he his.
Oh my, the irony.
Hang on, did you just call yourself a dickhead?
Whatever. I’m not going to be drawn into meaningless sophist arguments that centre on your individual interpretations of non-scientific terms like “action”.
I didn’t say I was a teacher. I’m just a research scientist. I won’t say any more as appeals to authority is not good argument. I’ll just say that I actually perform many of experiments you vaguely waffle about. That’s why I can spot your partial understanding and textbook/classroom generated over-extrapolations. And I’m not alone….
Yes, I’m sure you think your case needs no further argument.
Seeing as you’ve rested your case this seems like a good time to put you on ignore and circumvent further exasperation at your arrogance.
Bye bye.
