Pseudogenes

[juvenissun]

Do you realise that plenty of people are born naturally without that gene?

It sounds like you are just full of fear of the unkown. In itself not an unnatural reaction.

However, lucky for you, ignorance is a condition that is easily cured. All you need to do is educate yourself a bit on genetics and the advances in biology.

Off course, that would also require you to open your mind a little inch so that this knowledge can break through that mega-thick concrete wall of your religious dogmatic beliefs.

Do you know? Which gene?

If you have the data, you are possibly on something. Those people could have something in common, which is caused by the lack of that gene.

Nevertheless, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In other words, "Believe the lie."

No...

Rather: "learn, study and get your head transported out of the bronze-age area into the 21st century".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you know? Which gene?

If you have the data, you are possibly on something. Those people could have something in common, which is caused by the lack of that gene.

Nevertheless, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

It's just something I read some time ago.

But you sure are correct, I'm not formally educated in genetics or biology so I will never pretend to understand it all. That's why I rely on the experts in the field. I'm not so arrogant to think that with my extremely limited knowledge on the subject, I am in a position to pretend to know better then the professionals active in the field. Unlike some other people here.

 

[Split Rock]

Would it be a good idea to classify personality according to the missing of specific genes? I think it is not that hard to do.

This sounds a little like eugenics. Geneticists who supported eugenics often associated non-genetic conditions or behaviors with Mendelian genetics even when they had no evidence they were associated with any genes.

 

[juvenissun]

This sounds a little like eugenics. Geneticists who supported eugenics often associated non-genetic conditions or behaviors with Mendelian genetics even when they had no evidence they were associated with any genes.

People who worked on eugenics are top geneticists. Scientifically, I don't see anything wrong in trying to find evidence to support that idea. I think it should be a common goal to all geneticists (so that nobody will ever say that some genes are useless).

 

[juvenissun]

It's just something I read some time ago.

But you sure are correct, I'm not formally educated in genetics or biology so I will never pretend to understand it all. That's why I rely on the experts in the field. I'm not so arrogant to think that with my extremely limited knowledge on the subject, I am in a position to pretend to know better then the professionals active in the field. Unlike some other people here.

Sometimes, you looked yourself too high. But some other times, you looked yourself too low.

I am not a geneticist. However I believe I do can ask many many questions that geneticist can not answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sometimes, you looked yourself too high. But some other times, you looked yourself too low.

I am not a geneticist. However I believe I do can ask many many questions that geneticist can not answer.

There are unanswered questions in every scientific field, it is pretty much the point of scientific study.

 

[Linuxgal]

There are unanswered questions in every scientific field, it is pretty much the point of scientific study.

Except climate science, which, according to the man who invented in the Internet, has no more unanswered questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sometimes, you looked yourself too high. But some other times, you looked yourself too low.

I am not a geneticist. However I believe I do can ask many many questions that geneticist can not answer.

And all you will have exposed by asking such questions is that geneticists (or anyone else) can't answer every question you can come up with.

The problem occurs when you then appeal to that ignorance as an argument for why one should take a bronze age story seriously. Or by pretending that "not knowing everything" is like knowing nothing at all, as if we can therefor safely ignore what they have to say on certain subjects.

Argument from ignorance... a fallacy that will surely be used in a discussion with any creationist...

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

Those people could have something in common, which is caused by the lack of that gene.

First, that "gene" is an "allele" - a variation of a given gene. This means that many people lack that "gene" (allele) in any given population.

For instance, there is a lack of the brown eye allele among many people in Scandinavia. It does cause a noticeable problem - the population is afflicted with widespread "eye bleaching", causing their eyes to be bleached to a sickly blue color instead of the normal healthy brown eye color. ; ) This also causes skin bleaching, which can contribute to skin cancer.

Many genes have more than two possible alleles, so for those, every single person has to be "deficient" in that they lack one or more alleles - because a person only has two slots for each gene.

At least hundreds of thousands of people are looking at the effects of these "deficiencies" we all have, especially through big companies like 23andme.com, who can test your DNA.

For instance, for Alzheimer's resistance, there are three alleles: ep2, ep3, and ep4. I have a friend who is deficient in ep4 (he has two copies of ep3, and no ep4). So he will be more likely to fail to get Alzheimer's before age 85, whereas a person with at least one ep4 will be more likely to successfully get Alzheimer's before age 85. There are many studies of how lacking a given allele affects people. For instance, it is well known that 80% of the US population is lacking even one copy of the ep4 allele.

The point is that variation is not automatically a "problem" or "deficiency". It depends on how you look at it. And that we all have widespread, often well understood, variation. In clear cases where we know that an allele has a harmful effect, it's moral to try to fix that, just like curing any other disease.

Papias

 

[PsychoSarah]

Except climate science, which, according to the man who invented in the Internet, has no more unanswered questions.

Maybe for the climate on earth to a degree, but Saturn had (or, maybe even still has) this crazy storm that is shaped like a hexagon or some similar such polygon. Look it up, and tell me there aren't any questions you want answered about that.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi wrote:




First, that "gene" is an "allele" - a variation of a given gene. This means that many people lack that "gene" (allele) in any given population.

For instance, there is a lack of the brown eye allele among many people in Scandinavia. It does cause a noticeable problem - the population is afflicted with widespread "eye bleaching", causing their eyes to be bleached to a sickly blue color instead of the normal healthy brown eye color. ; ) This also causes skin bleaching, which can contribute to skin cancer.

Many genes have more than two possible alleles, so for those, every single person has to be "deficient" in that they lack one or more alleles - because a person only has two slots for each gene.

At least hundreds of thousands of people are looking at the effects of these "deficiencies" we all have, especially through big companies like 23andme.com, who can test your DNA.

For instance, for Alzheimer's resistance, there are three alleles: ep2, ep3, and ep4. I have a friend who is deficient in ep4 (he has two copies of ep3, and no ep4). So he will be more likely to fail to get Alzheimer's before age 85, whereas a person with at least one ep4 will be more likely to successfully get Alzheimer's before age 85. There are many studies of how lacking a given allele affects people. For instance, it is well known that 80% of the US population is lacking even one copy of the ep4 allele.

The point is that variation is not automatically a "problem" or "deficiency". It depends on how you look at it. And that we all have widespread, often well understood, variation. In clear cases where we know that an allele has a harmful effect, it's moral to try to fix that, just like curing any other disease.

Papias

Have they looked at any of those "useless" genes yet?
If they did, could they take some of them out and see what would happen?

 

[juvenissun]

And all you will have exposed by asking such questions is that geneticists (or anyone else) can't answer every question you can come up with.

The problem occurs when you then appeal to that ignorance as an argument for why one should take a bronze age story seriously. Or by pretending that "not knowing everything" is like knowing nothing at all, as if we can therefor safely ignore what they have to say on certain subjects.

Argument from ignorance... a fallacy that will surely be used in a discussion with any creationist...

Tell you one of my experience:

When I was only an undergraduate, I did have chance to ask one or two questions to top notch professors. I did not get direct answer from them. I was shamed and thought I must have asked some stupid or wrong questions.

I vividly remembered those questions I asked. Now I realized that my question was not stupid, but was too hard. nearly 4 decades later. there is still nobody who can answer the question with confidence.

Ignorant question is a question. Often it can become a pretty hard question if followed up in a right way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Tell you one of my experience:

When I was only an undergraduate, I did have chance to ask one or two questions to top notch professors. I did not get direct answer from them. I was shamed and thought I must have asked some stupid or wrong questions.

I vividly remembered those questions I asked. Now I realized that my question was not stupid, but was too hard. nearly 4 decades later. there is still nobody who can answer the question with confidence.

So?

What is your point?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Tell you one of my experience:

When I was only an undergraduate, I did have chance to ask one or two questions to top notch professors. I did not get direct answer from them. I was shamed and thought I must have asked some stupid or wrong questions.

I vividly remembered those questions I asked. Now I realized that my question was not stupid, but was too hard. nearly 4 decades later. there is still nobody who can answer the question with confidence.

Ignorant question is a question. Often it can become a pretty hard question if followed up in a right way.

And what were those questions?

 

[juvenissun]

And what were those questions?

Show me your best understanding about very low grade metamorphic rocks. If qualified, I will share with you the question.

 

[juvenissun]

So?

What is your point?

Ask question, ignorant or not.
Like what I did in this thread.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Show me your best understanding about very low grade metamorphic rocks. If qualified, I will share with you the question.

Dude, when I asked you the three basic rock types, you couldn't even name metamorphic as one of them. Low grade meaning they have various contaminants or compose of a relatively lower percentage of each rock mass gathered than whatever arbitrary standard is considered to be "high grade". Low grade diamonds are often used in drills, for example, because they are strong enough despite their impurities to be useful in that regard, but far too low grade to put into jewelry. I am uncertain about this, but I have always assumed that this sort of grading was relative to each material in question rather than a standard applied to all rocks.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

Have they looked at any of those "useless" genes yet?
If they did, could they take some of them out and see what would happen?

yes, there is continuous research on pseudogenes going on all the time.

Yes, they have taken some out - examples have already been given to you by loudmouth on this same thread.


Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi wrote:

yes, there is continuous research on pseudogenes going on all the time.

Yes, they have taken some out - examples have already been given to you by loudmouth on this same thread.


Papias

Experiments done on animals are basically meaningless. Not immediately lying dead does not mean the removed gene is useless. If I removed a useless gene from you, you might simply become a different person. Was there a case that someone volunteered for such a test?