epigenetics

[bhndblueyes88]

Yes, you need a PhD to tell people to read from the source on a topic they're confused about.

Merely reading about a subject doesn't mean you have any sort of superior knowledge or qualifications on it. Furthermore, if you did have some sort of qualifications, or politely told me "Well, I've spent a lot of my spare time researching this subject through X and X methods", you'd sound like more of an intelligent individual who merely was not formally educated on a subject, and less of a petulant child.

Reading the relevant journal articles is not enough. A music major probably doesn't have the background to fully understand all the details in an article about epigenetics. Hell, I'm in veterinary school with a biology and animal science background and sometimes veterinary journals go over my head!

When you're arguing with someone who is a professional in a field, it is expected that you show some sort of validation for your opinion. Otherwise you're just the corn farmer arguing with the meterologist about the weather's impact on tree growth. However if that corn farmer can show that he has reason to know what a meterologist does, his opinion suddenly becomes much more valid.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Yeah Tek, evolutionary biologists hold the secrets of the universe.Exclusively.

yes, because that's totally what I said We're discussing evolutionary biology. He's arguing with someone who is educated and works in the field, and gives no indication as to HIS education on the subject. It was an honest question and one that should be expected in scientific discourse.

 

[teknight]

Merely reading about a subject doesn't mean you have any sort of superior knowledge or qualifications on it. Furthermore, if you did have some sort of qualifications, or politely told me "Well, I've spent a lot of my spare time researching this subject through X and X methods", you'd sound like more of an intelligent individual who merely was not formally educated on a subject, and less of a petulant child.

Reading the relevant journal articles is not enough. A music major probably doesn't have the background to fully understand all the details in an article about epigenetics. Hell, I'm in veterinary school with a biology and animal science background and sometimes veterinary journals go over my head!

When you're arguing with someone who is a professional in a field, it is expected that you show some sort of validation for your opinion. Otherwise you're just the corn farmer arguing with the meterologist about the weather's impact on tree growth. However if that corn farmer can show that he has reason to know what a meterologist does, his opinion suddenly becomes much more valid.

You didn't read my PM, did you?
And what about me telling him to go to the source, to actual literature is so off base? What qualifications do I need to suggest that?

 

[teknight]

GO. READ. ABOUT. IT.

What about that says that I've read about it? Where in that statement does it say that I'm qualified or, more qualified than YC? I'm saying there are solutions out there, on many levels, but, good job on misconstruing what I was saying.
Or are you honestly going to say that the solutions for his questions do not exist in the form of textbooks, research articles, and even field specific online forums/ mailing lists, etc.

you'd sound like more of an intelligent individual who merely was not formally educated on a subject, and less of a petulant child.

Reading the relevant journal articles is not enough. Hell, I'm in veterinary school with a biology and animal science background and sometimes veterinary journals go over my head!

But, since it's his field of study, he can get more out of it than you, me or the music major. i'm still not sure how my petulance or arrogance play a factor here.
Let me repeat myself, for clarification, since you seem to have misread what I've posted:
I don't have to claim knowledge to tell him that the solution to his confusion may exist in the relevant literature. My qualifications are fully irrelevant for that bit of advice.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had a PM from you, for one. For another, I did not realize it was you telling him to go read relevant journal articles. I only saw the one comment and read it as you claiming superior knowledge merely because you had read relevant journal articles.

that, obviously, is a very practical piece of advice. And my comment wasn't in regard to such a statement anyways, more as to the general headbutting argument between the two of you

In general, though, you might want to at least consider the advice that others have been giving you to consider your tone. When you come off as intentionally inflammatory and confrontational, no one WANTS to listen to you. It's not a very good way to get a point across. It is a good way to have your remarks skimmed over so people miss things

 

[Stella_Omega]

I figure YC was saying that the complexity of the human organism is positively befuddling, and daunting to face. He did NOT say he didn't "believe in evolution" he said that, in the light of his specific field of study it's hard to "believe" that something so complex as brain chemestry could have evolved by Darwinian pathways.

I think that microbiology is a slightly different matter than macro-evolution-- in the way that nuclear physics can't run on *quite* the same rules that we understand for macro physical processes.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Yes, but what really gets me is the stuff that requires multiple useless things to come together in order to be useful.

Lets say en enzyme for example.

First you would need something that produces 1 or more substrates that the enzyme act on, which by them self really have no purpose at all. They just are, floating around.

Then you need the enzyme that just so happens to fit those substrates like a glove and can turn them into something useful. What are the odds of something useful coming out of 2 random, useless things. Evolution must constantly be trying this thing cause the failure rate must be spectacular.

However lets say that enzyme can't function unless it has an activator. So the whole system is useless until that activator arises by random chance, and has just the right shape to fit the enzyme.

Then you have to ask yourself, what are the odds that all these thing fit together perfectly, because they can't be molded, they just have to randomly happen to be the right shape so that they can all fit together.

Once you have that you get a result, with any one component missing, or shaped slightly wrong, the whole system is useless. It only takes up space and energy, and because of that evolutionary factors would actually work against the organism that has these thing within it, hence thwarting the opportunity for something good to arise even though it's so very close.

That’s like trying to find your way out of a maze by throwing down a bunch of sticks till and arrow arises pointing in a direction. Then doing it over and over again till you get arrows that create a path that leads out of the maze.

And that’s 1 successful trait, you need, say 50 to form a new species, and you can only throw down the sticks once per lifetime.

It’s gonna take a long ass time.

Perhaps if it all relies on chance it does seem like it'd take a notably long time for this all to randomly occurr. But it doesn't rely just on chance, there are biochemical forces at work as well. Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact article I read, but it spoke about how lipids will form vesicles on their own. So you don't need, by CHANCE, to have a lipid-membrane vesicle formed.

So perhaps the enzyme arises by chance...and perhaps the enzyme and activator arise together due to biochemical forces. I don't know enough about either processes to give more than such a base conjecture, but I hope you get my meaning. I just mean that there's more than "Chance" affecting all of these developments.

Personally, I'm of the mind that evolutionary biology is damned interesting, but as to whether I really NEED TO KNOW? I don't NEED to know the "why" of everything. I LOVE to know, but I don't need to. I can wrap my mind around something happening "because."

But, I'm more of a clinician than a scientist, so my mindset is probably different than yours, and rightly so

 

[teknight]

Alas, the "why" is YC's problem, it seems like to me....Well, more like the very, very specific how, but...meh, semantics.

I'll ask again, since I, as someone who's studying statistics, find it relevant: how are people defining "random", or "chance"? I'd argue it's a lack of information problem: since you've not observed/ understood all the mechanisms at play, you can't predict outcomes, hence everything seems random. I'm parroting what Stella said, without using the oddly specific example of macrame.

From a strictly evolutionary viewpoint, DNA and any cell in general is a hyper complex mechanism, where anything can stand to fail, for any reason (again, lack of specific knowledge is making me say that that way). However, not all failures (or changes) need be (immediately) fatal...and given the inherent complexity in the system, failure/mutation seems far more likely to occur. What's more, organisms don't live on some crazy knife's edge, where the tiniest change will make the environment suddenly become hostile to them(well, the "good" or "fit" ones), so there is room for a bunch of changes to occur within any organism or group of related organisms (assuming the influence of a common (external?) factor) and for those changes to get passed on to a next generation.

 

[YourCaptor]

I love Gould. Evolution is like highly unintelligent design, the design world I relate to. "Shit well that didn't work, so we'll stick this on its head, yeah!" "Why?" "Dunno, cool huh?"

Except it's even dumber, it has not concept of "that didn't work", or "stick", or "head". For all we know it could have been trying the same damn mutation for the last 300 years. And I never heard of Gould.

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that personality, disease markers, who knows what else could soon be switched on and off like some kind of genetic "clapper"

Nice news for those of us with autoimmune diseases, kind of daunting when you think about other genetic propensities of controversy and wrong hands and all that.

Maybe we simply are just a stop in the evolution of DNA manipulation mechanisms. In the future this will be seen as the time when DNA finally got to the point where it can intelligently manipulate itself. That is if we are intelligent and don't create that "everyones identical, and all died with the first pandemic."

Perhaps if it all relies on chance it does seem like it'd take a notably long time for this all to randomly occurr. But it doesn't rely just on chance, there are biochemical forces at work as well. Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact article I read, but it spoke about how lipids will form vesicles on their own. So you don't need, by CHANCE, to have a lipid-membrane vesicle formed.

So perhaps the enzyme arises by chance...and perhaps the enzyme and activator arise together due to biochemical forces. I don't know enough about either processes to give more than such a base conjecture, but I hope you get my meaning. I just mean that there's more than "Chance" affecting all of these developments.

Personally, I'm of the mind that evolutionary biology is damned interesting, but as to whether I really NEED TO KNOW? I don't NEED to know the "why" of everything. I LOVE to know, but I don't need to. I can wrap my mind around something happening "because."

But, I'm more of a clinician than a scientist, so my mindset is probably different than yours, and rightly so

the problem with that is, that the cell cant just take an existing gene, copy it to save the old one, paste and change it a little. That gene has to spontaneously evolve on its own a second time for those additional changes.

Alas, the "why" is YC's problem, it seems like to me....Well, more like the very, very specific how, but...meh, semantics.

I'll ask again, since I, as someone who's studying statistics, find it relevant: how are people defining "random", or "chance"? I'd argue it's a lack of information problem: since you've not observed/ understood all the mechanisms at play, you can't predict outcomes, hence everything seems random. I'm parroting what Stella said, without using the oddly specific example of macrame.

From a strictly evolutionary viewpoint, DNA and any cell in general is a hyper complex mechanism, where anything can stand to fail, for any reason (again, lack of specific knowledge is making me say that that way). However, not all failures (or changes) need be (immediately) fatal...and given the inherent complexity in the system, failure/mutation seems far more likely to occur. What's more, organisms don't live on some crazy knife's edge, where the tiniest change will make the environment suddenly become hostile to them(well, the "good" or "fit" ones), so there is room for a bunch of changes to occur within any organism or group of related organisms (assuming the influence of a common (external?) factor) and for those changes to get passed on to a next generation.

If you want to play with the stats be my guest. Heres some numbers.

You have 4 characters on DNA

The code consists of permutations of 3.

Their are 20 amino acids, so multiple permutations can code for the same amino acid.

The average human protein consists of 450 amino acids

Humans are estimated to produce over 100,000 unique proteins

(This is my guess for a lack of finding an easy answer.) On average 5 proteins interact to make up 1 trait.

These proteins must interact through functional sites, which (wild guess) lets assume consist of 50 amino acids.

(for the sake of defining a successful step in evolution) lets say it takes 3 changed traits to make a noticeable difference. In order to change, a trait must change 2 continues amino acids, per functions site, to one type of amino acid per trait. The continues amino acids must be of the same type across all functional sites in that trait.

The average mutation rate on the germ line for a eukaryote is 10^−8 per nucleotide, per generation.

The average age at which mothers have their first child is 27.

I think that's enough for now.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

the problem with that is, that the cell cant just take an existing gene, copy it to save the old one, paste and change it a little. That gene has to spontaneously evolve on its own a second time for those additional changes.

The cell can't do so on its own, no, but it doesn't have to be spontaneous mutation either. There are a wide range of environmental factors and biochemical influences that could induce a change in a DNA line. I don't see why these couldn't affect a germ line. Obviously this wouldn't magically explain everything, but it does bump up your "chances".

 

[teknight]

no, it's a human rights one.

hang on... tuition vote coming up!

The human right to decide you want your kids to suffer...or not be as "good" as they otherwise might be?

It's not like we're not already playing God with medicine... Where do we draw the arbitrary line?

 

[teknight]

PBS Clip on Epigenetics
13 minutes...

 

[where]

The human right to decide you want your kids to suffer...or not be as "good" as they otherwise might be?

It's not like we're not already playing God with medicine... Where do we draw the arbitrary line?

I'm going to get back to you on this, promise.

 

[teknight]

I'm going to get back to you on this, promise.

Pwomises, pwomises.
Look, I get what you're saying about communities and I get that the definition of a disability can become disabilitating if society applies it (it used to be that a lot larger group of people suffered from disabilities: all non whites, and all women were automatically inferior), but doesn't one have an obligation towards one's kids?

 

[where]

Pwomises, pwomises.
Look, I get what you're saying about communities and I get that the definition of a disability can become disabilitating if society applies it (it used to be that a lot larger group of people suffered from disabilities: all non whites, and all women were automatically inferior), but doesn't one have an obligation towards one's kids?

I'm going to get back to you on this, promise.

*kicks tek in the shins*

The human right to decide you want your kids to suffer...or not be as "good" as they otherwise might be?

It's not like we're not already playing God with medicine... Where do we draw the arbitrary line?

OK, within the disability movement there is an argument that the 'suffering' of disabled people is largely caused by societal barriers and forms of exclusion. that is not to say that many disabled people don't have physical pain, but, as the argument goes, so do many able bodied people. This is one faction. There is another faction that argues that to ignore how disability is embodied is, in itself exclusionary to many disabled people.

Into the mix many disabled people see screening as genocide because they rationalise that they might not have been borne and that screening is killing off potential disabled humans because disability is seen as not normal and therefore undesirable so therefore they, as individuals are consequently undesired and seen as having no value. I personally follow Shakespeare's line which is that thousands of disabled babies are spontaneously aborted anyway and it's just a matter of chance that a baby is born disabled or not disabled added to which, the vast majority of disabled people in the world acquire their impairments.

That said I also do sympathise with the other view and I know for sure that many friends of mine would not be here today if we had a comprehensive genetic screening system. This would deny the world of many many great human beings and many great intellects. Now where this epigenetics thing comes in, maybe, is if changes can be made postnatal and then many of those people would be with us still but minus the impairments. However, our social situation also makes us to some extent and having someone who is excluded and discriminated against and most importantly not only recognises that fact but is also articulate enough to challenge it... well I think they are doing humanity a great service which might not have happened if they weren't disabled.

The other thing is that if we try to wipe out 'abnormal', where do we stop? get rid of people who are bisexual? Gay? transgender? how normal is it for a man or woman to get sexual kicks from hitting or being hit? How normal is it for people to stick electrodes up their arse for fun? shove sticks in urethras? see where this is going? It's easy if it's just a few cripples, retards and spastics we see as useless feeders and wastes of space, but there is a danger of falling for the illusion of normalcy.

 

[teknight]

Into the mix many disabled people see screening as genocide because they rationalise that they might not have been borne and that screening is killing off potential disabled humans because disability is seen as not normal and therefore undesirable so therefore they, as individuals are consequently undesired and seen as having no value.

Had their parents had sex 5 minutes earlier, they might not have been born. And people are already choosing for some things, with in vitro. Are you saying they don't have the right to want a ...non-disabled kid?

However, our social situation also makes us to some extent and having someone who is excluded and discriminated against and most importantly not only recognises that fact but is also articulate enough to challenge it... well I think they are doing humanity a great service which might not have happened if they weren't disabled.

You're not saying, but: only the disabled can serve as good...examples/paragons in the fight against discrimination!?

The other thing is that if we try to wipe out 'abnormal', where do we stop? get rid of people who are bisexual? Gay? transgender? how normal is it for a man or woman to get sexual kicks from hitting or being hit? How normal is it for people to stick electrodes up their arse for fun? shove sticks in urethras? see where this is going? It's easy if it's just a few cripples, retards and spastics we see as useless feeders and wastes of space, but there is a danger of falling for the illusion of normalcy.

I see where this is going, cherie....
A couple of minor points:
for one, not all behavior is genetically coded
two. what about those traits that are deleterious? Say, sociopathy, or dementia, or ...? Should we correct none, 'cause the individual might be a genius? Granted, we shouldn't punish before the crime....

Why are you saying the definition of normalcy will necessarily shrink? "Normal" varies and shifts and ebbs, so, normal might turn out to be more inclusive than exclusive...

 

[teknight]

OK.
I'll admit my bias: I see disability as a "lacking", as a "lessening". I can work on that attitude. But answer me this: if they're not less, they shouldn't be more? It doesn't apply to them alone, it applies to all of us. We've been trying to be "better" in some way, shape or form since prehistory.

 

[where]

Had their parents had sex 5 minutes earlier, they might not have been born. And people are already choosing for some things, with in vitro. Are you saying they don't have the right to want a ...non-disabled kid?
this is shakespear's argument in support of screening and also about the morality of actively choosing (as some Deaf parents do) to have a child with an impairment. Me personally I think it's ethically wrong to try to engineer impairment, but I am completely in favour of parents choosing to carry a child to term who is impaired. With my second child I didn't have the screening because I knew that I wouldn't want an abortion if it showed up as impaired, but if you have screening then it's almost expected that you will abort and parents who don't want to, face really harsh treatment from the medical establishment.

You're not saying, but: only the disabled can serve as good...examples/paragons in the fight against discrimination!?
that's right, I'm not saying that, but who is a more authentic advocate to end discrimination, the person who has the difference or the one who doesn't?

I see where this is going, cherie....
A couple of minor points:
for one, not all behavior is genetically coded
two. what about those traits that are deleterious? Say, sociopathy, or dementia, or ...? Should we correct none, 'cause the individual might be a genius? Granted, we shouldn't punish before the crime....

no, I'd argue that most behaviour is actually social in origin with the obvious exclusion of serious mental problems. I also think that (and I think the science is kind of supporting this?) most forms of sexual preference with regard to straight/gay orientation have a genetic component. but yeah, if you took the madness out of Van Gough, would we still have Van Gough? If we make everybody the same where is the true diversity that fosters the creative spark? not just in the arts, but also in sciences? How many scientists are on the autistic spectrum because the 'personality defect' makes them obsessive and tenacious? something that could have been turned off?

Why are you saying the definition of normalcy will necessarily shrink? "Normal" varies and shifts and ebbs, so, normal might turn out to be more inclusive than exclusive...

Well Davis argued that diversity has become the new normalcy because everyone (or nearly everyone) is now 'diverse' but that because diversity is about choosing our identities, then disabled people who don't choose their own identities are still excluded.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

To give a real-life example of where epigenetics has the potential to lead us:

There's a little girl I baby sat a great deal when she was younger. Small little Russian adoptee, beautiful, whip smart, and amazing in gymnastics. Her mom wants her to ride horses more, but she just loved gymnastics.

the doctors decided she was only going to grow to about 4'11". this would have been when she was around 10 or 11 I believe.

Her mother decided that was far too short and they put the girl on growth hormones to make her taller. A gangly stretched-out taller.

Morally, did her mother have this right? 4'11" is not a disabling height and many people that height or shorter get by fine! Furthermore it is an ideal height for gymnastic work! Although I can't help but think to myself, "yes, but Judges like the picture that a tall rider poses on a sporthorse!!"

A beautiful sprite of a child was turned into a scarecrow.

And now they want me to come visit... I'm already viscerally angry at the woman for some of her animal care decisions. I want to go visit the girl, but I'm deathly afraid I'll snap and go ballistic on her mother XD

 

[where]

OK.
I'll admit my bias: I see disability as a "lacking", as a "lessening". I can work on that attitude. But answer me this: if they're not less, they shouldn't be more? It doesn't apply to them alone, it applies to all of us. We've been trying to be "better" in some way, shape or form since prehistory.

s'ok, most people see disability as 'less than'. I don't think most disabled people are anti medicine, although many wished that chris reeve had put more energy into making life better by campaigning on a civil rights platform than pushing for a 'cure'. Most disabled people are less concerned with getting to walk again than with actually being able to get into an office so they can work. My friend who has a degenerative disease would love a magic bullet, but what he really wants is sloped curves because that would make an immediate difference to him right here and now, not 10 or 20 years down the road by which time he's going to be dead.

 

[teknight]

this is shakespear's argument in support of screening and also about the morality of actively choosing (as some Deaf parents do) to have a child with an impairment. Me personally I think it's ethically wrong to try to engineer impairment, but I am completely in favour of parents choosing to carry a child to term who is impaired. With my second child I didn't have the screening because I knew that I wouldn't want an abortion if it showed up as impaired, but if you have screening then it's almost expected that you will abort and parents who don't want to, face really harsh treatment from the medical establishment.

But, you've just turned the argument into: are the parents willing to accept abortion? I'm not saying they should, we've just deviated. At the same time, how disabled would a potential individual have to be before abortion started looking like an option? How much pain/suffering should a kid go through for a parent's decision?

that's right, I'm not saying that, but who is a more authentic advocate to end discrimination, the person who has the difference or the one who doesn't?

Do they come with authenticity stickers? Is it a popularity contest? Fine, they'd make a better face for the movement, but it's not a beauty pageant, is it?

Jeez, I'm all over the place here.

no, I'd argue that most behavior is actually social in origin with the obvious exclusion of serious mental problems.

Do you know this for a fact? Oh, and, btw, I've fixed your spelling above.
Mind you, there are non-biological explanations for serious mental illness, so...

I also think that (and I think the science is kind of supporting this?) most forms of sexual preference with regard to straight/gay orientation have a genetic component.

Unless I'm missing something, I believe this is the argument currently being made.

but yeah, if you took the madness out of Van Gough, would we still have Van Gough? If we make everybody the same where is the true diversity that fosters the creative spark? not just in the arts, but also in sciences? How many scientists are on the autistic spectrum because the 'personality defect' makes them obsessive and tenacious? something that could have been turned off?

touche, touche. Although I will point out that not all ...ehh..."abnormality" leads to creative or artistic genius, nor is "normality" deathly boring and non intellectual.

Well Davis argued that diversity has become the new normalcy because everyone (or nearly everyone) is now 'diverse' but that because diversity is about choosing our identities, then disabled people who don't choose their own identities are still excluded..

a) Who is Davis? What has he published? (not questioning your expertise nor..uhh..theirs, but, may I read some of this stuff?)
b) I don't follow what you're saying in green.

 

[where]

But, you've just turned the argument into: are the parents willing to accept abortion? I'm not saying they should, we've just deviated. At the same time, how disabled would a potential individual have to be before abortion started looking like an option? How much pain/suffering should a kid go through for a parent's decision?


Do they come with authenticity stickers? Is it a popularity contest? Fine, they'd make a better face for the movement, but it's not a beauty pageant, is it?

Jeez, I'm all over the place here.


Do you know this for a fact? Oh, and, btw, I've fixed your spelling above.
Mind you, there are non-biological explanations for serious mental illness, so...


Unless I'm missing something, I believe this is the argument currently being made.

touche, touche. Although I will point out that not all ...ehh..."abnormality" leads to creative or artistic genius, nor is "normality" deathly boring and non intellectual.


a) Who is Davis? What has he published? (not questioning your expertise nor..uhh..theirs, but, may I read some of this stuff?)
b) I don't follow what you're saying in green.

gotta fix dinner. later x

 

[teknight]

gotta fix dinner. later x

You're not gonna win this argument by claiming RL!
What's for dinner?

 

[bhndblueyes88]

a) Who is Davis? What has he published? (not questioning your expertise nor..uhh..theirs, but, may I read some of this stuff?)
b) I don't follow what you're saying in green.

I believe that Davis is the fellow that was being referred to earlier as the "normalcy expert". If so, his credentials are noted previously.

 

[where]

You're not gonna win this argument by claiming RL!
What's for dinner?

am so!

beef stew.

I believe that Davis is the fellow that was being referred to earlier as the "normalcy expert". If so, his credentials are noted previously.

exactamundo.