Suicidesoldier#1
Shokushu
Suicidesoldier#1
Shokushu
Suicidesoldier#1
That may just be quick genetic changes (which are entirely possible) or maternal care so it's irrelevant.
Unless you can specifically provide exact evidence for the chemical composition of the said epigenetics and their change than linking it to it is nothing more than pure conjecture.
I can and already have.
Seeing as I have significant reason to expect that you didn't understand it I will now ask you to describe what DNA methylation is, when it happens, and the ramifications of it. If you can do this you will answer your own question but on a more mundane scale I'd like to see you do it so that I can point out any discrepancies and possibly elaborate on a few points that whatever source you find didn't go into quite so much detail on.
So there you go, get to learnin'
You haven't provided any evidence specifically linking changes to the supposed epigenetics which is basically a film on the outside of DNA that changes as a result of what your parents environment was.
All you've said is that with Tardigrades their shell will become harder if their parents are predated on and then said that is a result of epigenetics without providing evidence that it was a result of epigenetics.
Even worse you didn't even provide a link for that at all.
As far asking me what a word means on the internet it won't prove anything becuase I have google so it wouldn't really matter if I knew it off the top of my head or not.
But here you go.
It seems similar to what happens when you gain attributes as life goes on, such as gaining muscle strength.
Actually that's exactly what it seems like.
There has yet to be significant evidence that such traits will be passed on to children.
We've got more than enough experience with phenotypic impacts of that "thin film on the outside of DNA." Anyway this description tells me that you don't understand the chemistry of methylation at all. These are covalent chemical bonds, bucko.
I didn't bother digging up a link describing the actual epigenetic effect in waterbears for you since previous interactions indicate that you just don't care. When I gave you a link disrectly explaining how our white blood cells change their DNA before they become active components of the immune system you never even addressed it except to again state that you don't think DNA ever changes in an individual.
So why should I waste time to give you specific sources for every claim I make? I still source kind of a lot of it when I can find the links quickly and I even gave you the ISBN of an entire immunology text book.
Which leads to the conclusion that your fallacious behavior here is cherry picking. You by all means appear to be complaining about things which have no impact on your stance as you ineptly look for any excuse to deny claims that you have an emotional reaction against.
-
You're going to have to describe DNA methylation in your own words if you want to convince me or anyone else that you understand what it is. Google-ing a thing is only useful if you already have at least a general idea of how it works or if you're willing to read over the links for comprehension.
Both of those are victory conditions for me, though Xanatos as I get technically at this point the third option "none of the above" is also a victory for me because we've established that you're a mostly dense loon with next to zero willingness to comprehend biology above a jr high school level while I have again and again brought up little morsels of college knowledge, as well as being generally several orders of magnitude more cogent in my descriptions of how biology works (based off of an admittedly arbitrary scale- but the point stands.)
I'm becoming more and more of an a*****e as time goes by and you continue this poor behavior but you are genuinely deserving of ridicule for how you've handled this and there's still hope of redemption, though if you reject it as projected, well, no skin off my back.
So at least read the part about inherited diseases caused by gene imprinting and then maybe you can take another crack at what DNA methylation does without making false claims about a lack of evidence for inheritance.
A "victory" for you? ._.
So that's what you think all of this is? O_o
Mm-kay.
You must be new here.
Naw, just thought it might be an angle you'd comprehend. Win and lose is fairly straightforward and you seem dead set on "everyone that disagrees with me must lose."
Quote:
Well anyways, you have yet to provide sufficient evidence- as far as it goes with the immune system thing the genes do not change, as was already provided.
Ironic that you're telling me that I haven't provided sufficient evidence for changing genetics when the only evidence you provided against it contained detailed information about how the genes change.
Now if you'd like to convince me that you're not just treating this like you'r going for the big victory you should acknowledge this point. Looks a bit like "yes, my source showed that I was wrong in this particular case." I don't care if you carry on that sentence with a "but what I meant was _____" or such, but you've really got to show some awareness of that whole gene scrambling thing this started off of.
Quote:
In your opinion they may change but it's just the expression of the genes and not the genes themselves, which do not chemically change.
Your cells produce enzymes that go in and physically cut the deoxyribonucleic acid in a very specific region (orchestrated by proteins,) and then cellular mechanisms for DNA repair stick them back together. The repair mechanism doesn't have any ability to detect the old order, it just sticks loose ends together in any order.
This process produces about ten billion different antibodies as your B white blood cells do this.
An antibody is made up of four distinct chains of amino acids, two pairs of sequences. Going by wikipedia the larger is at least 450 amino acids long and the shorter is 211. To be maximally beneficial for you I'll say that for a unique antibody you only have to change the short chain (we really change both of them but the number would just be bigger at the end if I use the large chain.)
So we need 10 billion different instructions to make at least 211 long chains. 3 bases per amino acid and that means 6,330 billion- or 6.3 trillion base pairs. You DO NOT have that big of a genome. No, you have just over 3 billion base pairs (over half of which are parasitic viral remnants, but if you won't listen to me about variable regions on antibodies like hell if you're going to accept that.) So if you could magically get about 2000 different light chains per 633 base pair long gene then you could make this many antibodies if that was flat out what every single bit of your genome did. Though we do shove some sugars and such onto antibodies you're not going to get 2000 differently functioning antibodies like that, and not for millions of different amino acid polymers.
I can make the numbers easier for you though with a little trick of DNA- since you're reading it 3 base pairs at a time it's possible for 3 genes to overlap in the DNA. This kind of maximum compression doesn't happen because they don't just happen to match up like that, the pleiotropic effects of mutations would become massive, and you'd have to do it all without any of the reading frames containing early stop codons- but let's just put those issues aside to give you an optimal number to fight for. This brings you down to only needing to explain away slightly less than 700 different antibodies per gene. Now I suspect that with "regulation of genes" you're lumping in the splicing of introns and exons after the DNA is translated into RNA. While the DNA mechanism has a lot in common with that it's got some fundamental differences that set it quite apart.
I know you didn't accept it the first time I said any of this but I've gone over it with but I want to make you at least commit to rejecting a particular part of it.
So the axioms this relies on would be:
- 10 billion antibody varieties in a human
- proteins for antibodies are at minimum 211 amino acids long
- it takes 3 base pairs of DNA to encode for one amino acid (alternatively: the reading frame is 3 bases long.)
Do you disagree with any of these? If so you're going to have a hard time arguing against them because the first two came off the wikipedia page for antibody and the third is so established
Do you think I have left an important axiom unstated? (Important meaning something a sane person might reject- so you can't complain about basic mathematics not being stated.)
If you don't have any objections to those you're going to have to show that I put the numbers together wrong (and this is such simple math that you just won't succeed in that) or you've got to explain away 700 different antibodies per gene, and that's only to get down to us having twice as much DNA in our genome as we actually have.
In reality we know exactly how many genes it takes to make the antibodies but it would be cruel for me to try and make you explain away 10 billion antibodies from so few genes.
And hey, since you bitched about it last time here's a source for the DNA scramble our lymphatic system undergoes:
V.V. Kapitonov and J. Jurka (2005). "RAG1 core and V(D)J recombination signal sequences were derived from Transib transposons.". PLoS Biol. 3 (6): e181.
The journal is even open access so you won't have to make wild extrapolations based of an abstract of the paper.
Quote:
Look, you should really just stop.
That's my line.
Quote:
You aren't going to be capable of providing sufficient evidence becuase none of it exists right now. They haven't proved it yet as it's still a developing science and anything associated with it is purely conjecture at the moment. They have not proved that attributes gained are transmitted to children by some type of genome somewhere in the body. Not all effects that are inherited are genetic anyways.
Actually that's what epigenetic means.
Also from the 'pedia: "epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence."
Also hell, here's a paper on it:
Reik, Wolf (2007-05-23). "Stability and flexibility of epigenetic gene regulation in mammalian development". Nature 447 (May (online)): 425–432.
It's been nearly five years (this probably wasn't the original paper on the phenomenon but I'm again making the numbers much more favorable for you,) and the body of literature hasn't come out against epigenetics, rather the case has been made strongly enough that it's being taught in colleges across the nation. Probably across the world too but I'll admit I'm fairly ignorant of foreign educational bodies.
Quote:
Not all things can be transmitted anyways.
Hell of a fallacy you just pulled. You know- I should probably dumb this down a notch:
Who ever said all things can be transmitted? I'm not ******** advocating some assassin's creed genetic memory bullshit here. I'm talking about some very specific genes that have specific phenotypic impacts on subsequent generations via a non-traditional mode of inheritance (meaning not from changes to the base pairs of DNA- epigenetics.)
Quote:
Let's say you exercise and your muscle gets bigger- the cell memory changes and your muscle now stays bigger unless otherwise told not to.
Just an aside but you don't really gain much strength from increasing the size of your muscles. Definitely improved stability and endurance but for actually becoming physically stronger the essential component is sending a more focused nerve impulse. For the general flabby or even somewhat fit person your nerves give out way before your muscle cells/fibers are at their physical limit.
But don't get hung up on it. I'm really just being an a*****e to you again by showing that I have a massively larger body of knowledge about biology than you~
Quote:
This will never get into the DNA into a male or females gametes, simply becuase the cell memory would not ever change other parts of the body other than the one it is in (unless it's job to effect other body parts but!) and it wouldn't end up in your balls or uterus through some crazy mechanism. It just doesn't make sense.
You've been really impervious to people telling you that we're not talking about this kind of environmental effect on physiology but I'm going to (foolishly) try again.
I'm not talking about anything like muscles. Nothing about cells bulking up in response to getting used. With both epigenetics and antibodies I am talking about how the cells get made in the first place. With the various syndromes and models of the effect in other species the cells are inheriting DNA with this extra chemical method of encoding whether or not to express a gene before the fresh daughter cell ever goes on to perform tasks. With the white blood cells of your immune system this rearrangement of DNA is a part of making the cell in the first place, and no, your white blood cells don't somehow pass on these genetic changes to sperm or egg.
Now can you please stop pulling up this elementary explanation of how Lamarkian effects are not what we actually see as the primary mode of inheritance? Ok, that question is too open so instead I'll ask you to PLEASE stop acting like I don't know that. I DO know that bulking up your muscles isn't going to make some future child of yours come into the world with the physique of a body builder. I really do know that. I am acknowledging completely that having performed some exercise is not a heritable trait.
Quote:
The same method of production is responsible for turning cells in pancreatic cells or kidney cells or whatever and controlling how large they are etc. despite the DNA being present to indicate multiple things. It largely depends on the host cell how a cell will turn out and how it will change or stay in the future.
I don't find this sentence to be particularly cogent and while I can infer what you mean by it I would suggest that you study up on what you were trying to say for future events where you wish to explain it.
Quote:
So none of that is going to get into reproductive cells. The only thing that makes a lick of sense is smoking and famine becuase it might actually get into reproductive cells and effect them. Toxins, diet and age seem to be the only reasonable whole body effects that might get passed on to children.
You are acting as though epigenetic effects do not exist. Although you're not willing to accept the field entirely your previous tone of "it's new and not settled yet" suggests that you can at least accept that some professionals accept it as plausible and seeing as it proposes mechanisms that means you should accept that the mechanisms are at least plausible. If this is not the case you're a bit of a ******** for playing the "it's not settled" card but that's another issue.
But to make sure it's absolutely clear you could have some cellular communication that serves as the trigger for setting these epigenetic factors to a particular state in the sperm/eggs so that the young could be born with some developmental cues about their environment that they wouldn't have yet directly encountered on their own.
Quote:
Even so, damaged reproductive cells or damaged reproductive processes can cause problems and this is not unknown. Fetal Alcohol syndrome is well documented and things parents did during their lives effected the outcome of the fetus- of course, this was during the maternal care period. But what if it was before that- yes, fertility can be effected by various toxins and situations in life.
Do you think toxins account for the genetic syndromes I have been referencing?
Quote:
If this was the case, and the reproductive cells were damaged it's not unexpected to find changes or problems in children, and even your children's children. If a fetal alcohol syndrome baby gives birth would there not be problems? There can be more issues. There are still problems that carry on through time even though they have nothing to do with genetics.
I wholeheartedly agree but nobody here is talking about that, except you.
Quote:
And what of famine? The Grandparents were smaller when they had kids and possibly malnourished, which wouldn't be a good condition for children. Then those damaged children go on to have offspring which are mildly damaged themselves, which is not to be unexpected.
Actually that's both not how humans work and not what has been presented in the studies.
Delivering an underweight baby doesn't give it the most advantageous of beginnings but if they aren't malnourished in life (just like in the studies we're talking about,) after about 20 years they would easily have a body suitable for bearing children without any malnourished pregnancy sorts of effects. This makes too much sense though so you obviously won't accept it. Instead I present the bold fact that
these epigenetic traits can be passed through the male lineage. Surely you don't think that malnourished bodies would have such a strong effect on sperm that this echo of the famine could be seen in the grandchildren!? And just to be clear I'm saying that neither the grandmother nor mother experienced famine conditions. Men neither carry children in wombs nor really contribute more than the most negligable fraction of cytoplasm possible in order to hold tightly bound DNA and have the sperm's navigational and propulsion systems function to a passable degree.
Quote:
In any case, any of this can be explained by other factors and does not alone prove the existence of some kind new field in science. You would have to link the exact chemical compositions to the said epigenetic thingy and then predict the changes from there and be able to directly associate it with the changes. You have things such as down syndrome- legitimate genetic backing. Famine related to age- not so much.
I've linked you to epigenetic diseases in humans already. One of them being the very disease that clued us in to epigenetics via DNA methylation. I've shown you an animal and described the directly observable expression of this non-base-pair based heritable trait (though I mixed up waterbears with waterfleas- sorry about that but here's a shiny link to tide you over:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19961956 )
I can understand you not coming entirely over to my side of this dispute after this degree of evidence is plopped down on your lap but for you to continue to claim that there is zero evidence of this or that is downright appalling behavior that I would be ashamed to see in a colleague.
Quote:
And even within those studies the raw numbers remain mostly hidden. Just becuase the science world is in a hub-ub about potential things that might exist doesn't make them true. Neutrinos supposedly travel faster than light on super shoddy evidence. And somehow now this goes on to disprove Einstein or some crazy thing (even though we've already disproven a lot of his stuff but!)
Yes yes, science reporters go for sensationalist titles. What else is new?
I already addressed this issue though. Anyone with a solid memory or the willingness to scroll back a few posts can be certain that I've told you that "just one study" is never suitable "proof" about a thing (especially with medicine/health.) This is why I keep referring to the body of literature instead of treating single studies like the be all end all. I know you remember it because of how you dodged the entire question about what journals you read. I can tell that you don't read any but I'm still disappointed that you didn't have the guts to admit it.
Quote:
This doesn't look to be any different than any scientific claim ever. It lacks sufficient evidence. Any number of factors could be explained by a number of things. Unless specifically transplanted from cells you will not see gained effects and the irony is if you did you would grow that cell over and over again and not a new human being.
This isn't even compatible with Lamarkian inheritance. Where in the world did you get the notion that you'd have an endless stream of identical cells?
Quote:
The way genetics works is that humans start off as a single cell- we cannot simply take a bunch of kidney cells that changed over a person's life and somehow see them popping up in a child without those kidney cells having physically been there. Genetics has always been like this and that's why it's been conceived as impossible for gained traits to be passed on to children.
While eggs are still in the ovaries it should be possible to provide them with a signal and then have a thing like DNA methylation at key sites take place. Voila, epigenetic inheritance.
Quote:
Maybe various traits can be passed on to children other than through genetics- this is not disputed.
Seems to be what you've been disputing for the last two hours (w/ multitasking) of my reading through this shitty post.
Quote:
However there is yet evidence to prove that it is a result of "epigenetics" and even what things can be transmitted or even what the mechanism is.
As for what things can be transmitted you could learn a few from actually reading my posts.
Quote:
You can talk a big storm, throw ad hominems,
Have I ever used an ad hominem as a key reason that you are wrong about a claim? The answer is no.
Quote:
proclaim to be a scientist over the internet and for some reason expect me to care ( O_o ) whilst having no knowledge of my own profession ( O_O ) and proclaiming knowledge as such
You barely pass for a high school graduate. It is abundantly clear that you haven't studied this to a greater level of detail and your constant claims of this or that being unsettled when you clearly don't keep up with published research (peer review journals,) shoots your credibility full of holes.
Giving you the greatest possible benefit of the doubt you work as a technician at some lab in a position that does not require a college education.
Quote:
but the fact of the matter is, no sufficient evidence exists.
You'd see otherwise if you read peer review jounals on the topic.
Quote:
To prove this particular field of study more evidence will simply be required directly obviously linking it to the supposed mechanism. And it may take 10-20 years. That's just how these things work.
Describe for me what evidence you think is required for this claim and use an academic vocabulary for it. I want to see chemistry notation (though really only because it would be excruciatingly difficult for someone to fake knowledge of,) and at least the range of biology vocabulary I've been throwing around.
It will be easy if you aren't lying about/stretching the truth of your credentials.
