h a l f b a k e r yApply directly to forehead.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Stop Evolution
Stopping mutation of the sex chromosomes may be enough to stop evolution | |
The most experimental genes an organism has it
exposes on the Y chromosome where there is no backup
from a "good" copy on another chromosome. Thus the Y
chromosome is the crucible of testing and where the
fastest evolution takes place.
If a gene has tentatively proved it's value it is duplicated
and moved to the X chromosome and fine tuned with
more mutations to one of the copies. Again the crucible
occurs in the male where half the time the experimental
copy of the gene shows up in the male whereas in the
female only a quarter of the time does it get two copies
of the mutated experiment.
So women's genes are less experimental and less about
moving forward with innovation for the species and
more about conservation of previous innovation.
So the invention is, in the case you wanted to, somehow
selectively stop the mutations of both the X and Y
chromosome in order to stop microevolution.
Chimpanzee Y Chromosome is Much Different than Man's
http://www.answersi...g/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
[socrtwo, Aug 25 2010]
[link]
|
| |
Hi [socrtwo], welcome to the HalfBakery. |
|
| |
It's a reasonable statement but it isn't really a new idea as such. The Bakery is mostly about innovation; well, yes, there's a lot of bad puns, custard, personal insults and pedantry, but it's supposed to be about new and original ideas. |
|
| |
There's a help metafile you may find useful. Read it quick, before the rest of the inmates scent fresh blood, and come after you ... |
|
| |
This fails the thought experiment. It makes sense to have males be the evolutionary laboratory for the species, as they are expendable; not a new idea. It does not make sense for the experiment to be carried out strictly on the Y chromosome. There is no normal mechanism to generalize an adaptive mutation (eg disease resistance) that occurs on the Y to females who lack the Y. |
|
| |
I didn't say that selection only works on males. A
gene that is found to be sturdy is proposed to be
moved to the X chromosome where perhaps
mutations occur but not so rapidly as on the Y chromosome. |
|
| |
Eventually one of the copies of the gene on the X
chromosome will mutate again, but now only in
1/4 of the females will they get both copies of the
mutated gene. In the males only 1/2 of the time
will they get the new X chromosome experimental
version gene. |
|
| |
8th of 7 you say this is not a new idea, but whose
idea is it then? Smell of blood... |
|
| |
How do you (or for that matter, how does 'the
organism') define an "experimental gene"? |
|
| |
How does it know what is 'tried and true' and what
isn't? If you follow this to it's logical conclusion, you
are suggesting that the womb (and any other
female-only phenotypes) must have literally popped
out of nowhere! |
|
| |
Sorry, but the theory doesn't work for me. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] theory - and it's bad manners
to delete these [marked-for-deletion] notices -
they're there for a reason. |
|
| |
Do speculative theories get marked for deletions as
not being inventions or innovation? How is some wild
speculation different from a n insane invention? |
|
| |
As for an experimental gene, let's say that it
doesn't have to define that, the organism just has
to insure there are higher rates of mutation on Y chromosome then all the other chromosomes. And
again the X chromosome would also mutate at a
higher level although less than the Y. |
|
| |
An organism would know something is tried and
true because say with each generation a gene
moves along the Y chromosome, that is toward
one end and away from another. Upon reaching
the end of the chromosome, which is really a
finish line of sorts, then the cell would know the
gene had passed it's survival tests and could be
moved to the X chromosome. |
|
| |
What is the site's ethos, I read the help section. Do
you mean it is supposed to be a site for crazy and/or
inventions ideas and not crazy/clever scientific
speculation? |
|
| |
hang on, hang on ... this is rather beautiful |
|
| |
zen_tom, I appreciate you poignant criticism of
female selection. As mentioned female mutations
would occur too and could change the parts sent to
it by the male, although not as fast as the male
changes the phenotype. |
|
| |
replace experimental with new |
|
| |
gawd I wish i had read this before imbibing a 1/2 pint of nice wine. |
|
| |
//The most experimental genes an organism has it exposes on the Y chromosome where there is no backup from a "good" copy on another chromosome// |
|
| |
I'm confused. You made it sound like chromosome pairs are identical. They're not. You get one of the two from your father, and one from your mother, for each pair. Almost every pair of chromosomes share a similar set of genes - (including the 23rd: x and y, or x and x) - but even similar genes are not necessarily identical in a chromosome pair. No "good" copies. |
|
| |
I might be misunderstanding, but, in the meantime: watch out for sharks. [=] |
|
| |
bungston - mutations can occur on both male and
female sex chromosomes, it is my suggestions that
both occur, it's just that new genes start on the Y chromosome and mutations occur at a faster rate
on Y chromosomes versus X ones (an even less for
genes moved off the sex chromosomes). |
|
| |
An already existing gene could mutate on X
chromosome in either a male or female and
contribute to say antibiotic resistance in bacteria
or disease resistance in higher organisms. |
|
| |
— Wily Peyote - Thanks for the heads up. The
genes are inherited from Dad and Mom, one each
but didn't Mendel work with genes say that only
have two manifestations or phenotypes, wrinkled
skin and smooth per say? Aren't there usually just
a few variations for any one gene? |
|
| |
I hated genetics in graduate school, so this is not
a "field I know" this just occurred to me to be a
simple explanation of why there sexes. I have
never heard a straight answer before. |
|
| |
I read the help section better. I see this post is
really theory, and Should be deleted unless there are
anybody wants this to be a special case. |
|
| |
Thanks for the quick response, [socrtwo]. Yeah, this is not a "field I know" either, but you gave me some food-for-thought for further reading :) |
|
| |
Speaking of the 23rd chromosome, I've always wondered why x-y's have superfluous parts like nipples, but x-x's don't seem to. Hmmnnn... |
|
| |
I should know (the goal posts have moved in 9 years) but is theory really a reason for a MFD? shirley not. |
|
| |
a theory is an idea - no? |
|
| |
mfd - theory //theory - the post explains why the world is the way it is// this one is a novel idea of what might be ... |
|
| |
So the invention might be to somehow selectively
stop the mutations of both the X and Y chromosome
and see if microevolution still takes place |
|
| |
Also if you want to stop an organism from
microevolving, somehow move the X and Y
chromosomes to other chromosomes and get rid of
the sex chromosomes, or again disable the genes
that deliberately mutate the Y and X chromosome
selectively over the others. |
|
| |
If one were going to intelligently desgin an organism to evolve, this process as proposed might work. As it is |
|
| |
1: stuff cannot hop off the Y chromosome without a complex and accidental recombination event, and then there is no telling where it might wind up. There are many chromosomes. |
|
| |
2: if this were how evolution worked, one would expect the Y to harbor some genes partway thru this process - these genes would not have anything specific to do with maleness but other unrleated things. Yet all the genes on the Y have to do specifically with maleness except for 1. It is a sort of funny one. I do not carry it but would not be too put out if I did. I will leave it to socrtwo to do some reading on the web and learn what this gene is, then return to post for us the answer. I am hopeful in the process he or she will learn some more background on this issue. |
|
| |
I agree with the MFD theory, but even as a theory,
it's bad science. It's attributing intent and method
to what is a random process. |
|
| |
Hang on. //The most experimental genes an organism has
it exposes on the Y chromosome// |
|
| |
Ah, where do you get that from? At least in humans, the Y
is fairly bereft of genes, and I've not come across that
theory before. Also, how does the organism put these
"experimental" genes on the Y? |
|
| |
In general, new genes arise by duplication of existing
genes, followed by mutational drift of the new copies.
Other things can happen too, but that's the most common
route. Genes don't pop up from nowhere. |
|
| |
Most often, gene duplication is intra-chromosomal. (The
other mechanisms for shuffling genomes are also most
often intra-chromosomal). There's no obvious process by
which new (or duplicate) genes are "exposed" by moving
them to X or Y, as far as I know. |
|
| |
There's then the question of what happens to "new" (ie, in
most cases, mutated duplicate) genes. If the "new" gene
produces a protein with an adverse effect, it doesn't
matter (much) whether there are one or two copies, so it
shouldn't matter (in very crude terms) whether it's
autosomal or on a sex chromosome. If the "new" gene
produces a beneficial protein, it will stand a better chance
of being positively selected if it's on an autosome or on X,
but not on Y (in general), since only half of people have a
Y anyway. |
|
| |
I suppose the point I'm making is that your pretext, as
outlined in the first paragraph, doesn't really make much
sense to me. |
|
| |
On the question of whether this idea fits here or not, I
tend to agree with the mfd:theory. There's no reason why
a site shouldn't cater for interesting theories, but as far as
I know the HB isn't such a site. And if you want to make it
an invention, you probably need to improve on the
"somehow" in your last paragraph. |
|
| |
— MechE. You say it's attributing intent to a
random process. That it is a random process is an
assumption of genetics but part of my point is to
disagree with this. If this is bad science but good
religion, science should listen more to religion. |
|
| |
Don't scientist at least agree that in some sense
organisms intend to survive and gene are a tool
toward that end? Also aren't organisms assumed to
be interested in expanding their numbers, not
just maintaining them? In the same way that
knowledge and engineering and even evolution
seems to generally move in the direction of more
complex development and innovation, why do we
assume that organisms don't have a drive in that
direction and intend to innovate? |
|
| |
— bungston. Thanks for the heads up, I will read
up on the Y chromosome. |
|
| |
OK let's put this one to sleep folks, i'll post again with
an invention along these lines if I come up with. For
now this is MFD: Theory. |
|
| |