pH changes & Mutations

[Kumar]

By having an unfortunate mutation event. And usually the mutation is not dominant but recessive, so it needs to meet another recessive allele before the phenoype of the disease shows.

What causes this unfortunate mutation event in germline?

 

[Prester John]

Mutagenesis is the word you are looking for, heres a journal about it:

http://mutage.oupjournals.org/current.shtml

happy reading

 

[Kumar]

PJ,
Thanks for the link but I am more looking for the relations between various damages in body & in germline. I feel it bit doubtful that whole body less germline damages do/can not effect damages/mutation in germline or to their producing Epi.cells.

 

[Kumar]

Acidified media induced DNA damage in a pH- and time-dependent http://mutage.oupjournals.org/cgi/gca?gca=19/4/319&sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract(s)manner.Acid and bile salts induce DNA damage in human oesophageal cell lines. (From link provided by PJ).

One aspect can be clear from above, that pH can cause mutations in cells. We may also somewhat consider pH relations to mutations in germline producing Epi.cells>>germline AND effect of pH environment where these germline remains stored, traveled & fertilized.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

What causes this unfortunate mutation event in germline?

I do not think there is a single cause to mutations.

 

[Kumar]

I do not think there is a single cause to mutations.

But, can't all causes channel through pH canges--Cause of mutation>>pH changes>>mutations? Are you very very sure that whole body's damages/mutations do/can not effect germline or its epi.cells?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

But, can't all causes channel through pH canges--Cause of mutation>>pH changes>>mutations? Are you very very sure that whole body's damages/mutations do/can not effect germline or its epi.cells?

Yes. I am positively sure that no damage to the body (any somatic cell) will ever cause a mutation in the germ line.

The idea that changes in the somatic cells can cause changes in the germ line is basically the idea of lamarckian evolution. It has been proven wrong a long time ago.

 

[Kumar]

Lamarckism—named after the French naturalist Jean Lamarck, who first proposed his theory in the early 19th century—is a theory of how organic evolution has happened.The theory states that an organism can adapt to its environment by making structural changes to itself, which can then be inherited.

Historically, Lamarckism was replaced by Darwinism due to Darwinism’s better fit with the mathematics-only reality model. Also, Lamarckism had the problem that there is no apparent physical mechanism by which Lamarckism can happen. However, this objection is removed by the computing-element reality model, because intelligent particles provide the means by which Lamarckian changes can take place.

Bold: If this could had been related to pH environment, then would it had justified apparent physical mechanism?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Bold: If this could had been related to pH environment, then would it had justified apparent physical mechanism?

It is a bullshit theory. Forget about it as soon as you can.

 

[Kumar]

Ok, now pls tell me that whole body pH(including of epi.cells, germline or other reproductions organs or sites) is inter-related or not & whenther changes in pH of reproductions organs & sites can cause mutations in epi.cells & germline or not?

 

[Kumar]

Under the consideration of previous discussions, probably, it may be bit usefull to re-discuss/assess:-

Lamarckism
A discredited theory of evolution developed by French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck in the 19th century. Lamarckism holds that traits acquired (or diminished) during the lifetime of an organism can be passed to its offspring. Lamarck based his on two observations considered to be true in his day:


Use and disuse - Individuals lose characteristics they do not require and develop those which are useful.
Inheritance of acquired traits - Individuals inherit the acquired traits of their ancestors.

Examples include: the stretching by giraffes to reach leaves leads to offspring with longer necks; strengthening of muscles in a blacksmith's arm leads to sons with like muscular development.
With this in mind, Lamarck developed two laws:


In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.
All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young

Thus, a change in environment brings about change in "needs" (besoins), brings change in behavior, brings change in organ usage and development, brings change in form over time — and thus transmutation of the species.

Environment may means which can effect everything & we have here, outside(atmospheric) & internal(body's) environments under considerations.

If I am not wrong, I think Lamarckism may be related to germline types & Darwinism with natural selection(by the pH environments of reproductions sites & organs). Acc.Darwinism may follow or sec. to Lamarckism.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

no it isn't useful to rediscuss because it is a bullshit theory.

 

[Kumar]

spuriousmonkey, thanks, you teaches me a lot in best & most patient style. I & all should respect your knowledge & style. However, I am bit entitled to understand in logics bit quickly. As much as I studied 'evolution theories' by various persons, institutions & religions, I do not find any problem in most of their theories. There is a differance in their levels, forms, languages & our understanding/following its meanings, but the basic meanings of all or most are relevant. It justifies 'God is in everyone" so all words can be God's words so true in any/some sense.

It looks Lamarck was best to mention the causes of mutations & Darwin for the natural selection(just an addition or modification to Lamarch). Both can be complimentary or supplementry to each other. One fertilized egg, a cell or we as a whole can be same at basic level. If we go furthur down we can be same at sub-atomic-- in our energy & matter forms as properties of all electrons, protons & neutrons are same, but just levels, quantity or forms are differant.

Anyway, do you accept that environmental effects, causes mutations in our reproducting cells & germlines & environment of reproducting parts sites & material(as prostratic fluid, vagina pH etc. (may be choice of germlines also) can cause 'Natural Selection'?

 

[kazi]

It is a bullshit theory. Forget about it as soon as you can.

retrofection

Transfer of an RNA molecule from one cell to another, in particular to a germ-line cell, by means of a retroviral particle, into which the RNA is encapsulated.

The RNA is then reverse-transcribed and incorporated into the host genome.

?

 

[Iris]

It looks Lamarck was best to mention the causes of mutations & Darwin for the natural selection(just an addition or modification to Lamarch). Both can be complimentary or supplementry to each other.

No, Lamarck and Darwin cannot be complementary or supplementary to each other, because Lamarck's theory has been proven to be false. Two theories, one of which is false, cannot be complementary or supplementary to each other.

 

[Kumar]

No, Lamarck and Darwin cannot be complementary or supplementary to each other, because Lamarck's theory has been proven to be false. Two theories, one of which is false, cannot be complementary or supplementary to each other.

What are the causes of mutations/changes in germline or their producing epi.cells as per Darwin's theory? I want to know that what causes differanciations in differant germlines?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Under the above theory, it is no where mentioned that how changes in germline had been taken place or can furthur happen or what made/makes them weak or strong. Natural selection is a secondary aspect but changes in germline is the primary aspect.