On Jan 26, 10:08 am, David Bernier <david...@videotron.ca> wrote: > On 01/25/2013 05:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 25, 2:37 am, David Bernier<david...@videotron.ca> wrote: > >> On 01/25/2013 01:39 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > >>> Basically I am just simply asking for what mathematical advantage for > >>> mutations arises for inbreeding. I do not know if any biologist has > >>> researched this question. The question of how much faster or how much > >>> more mutations accrue when a population of a species has inbreeding. > >>> Such as when 1 male and 1 female are stranded on a island and up to > >>> those 2 individuals to keep their kind growing. So there is much > >>> inbreeding. And not outside mating. So that all generations on the > >>> island trace their ancestors back to those starting 2. > > >>> Compare that population with an equal sized population that has no > >>> inbreeding. > > >>> I would hazard to guess that the mutations of the inbreeding > >>> population would be far ahead of the non inbreeding population. > > >>> And I think this is how so many islands that are isolated from their > >>> mainland have so many different species that the mainland does not > >>> have, is because of what I call the species accelerant of inbreeding. > > >>> So that Neanderthal was two Africans that migrated north out of Africa > >>> some 400,000 years ago and because of inbreeding ended up as different > >>> species of the Africans who migrated enmasse some 60,000 years ago. > > >>> So that the Clovis man who migrated to the Americas, either out of > >>> Asia or Europe some 15,000 years ago, if Clovis man had been a single > >>> 1 male and 1 female and populated the Americas, that by the time of > >>> Columbus would have found, not the same species of Homo sapiens, but > >>> perhaps a different species. So here we have a sort of scientific > >>> prediction or question, of how many Clovis people migrated to the > >>> Americas some 15,000 years ago so that their genetic stock was > >>> sufficient to not mutate too much so that by the time Columbus > >>> arrived, they would still be the same Homo sapiens species. > > >>> So we need some biology research into what sort of mutation rate is > >>> increased in populations with inbreeding versus populations of > >>> noninbreeding. > > >>> And in sociology we can recognize the problem of the American Indians > >>> in that they needed tribal interactions with other diverse tribes > >>> because of inbreeding. > > >>> Usually inbreeding brings out deleterious mutations, and rarely does > >>> it bring out advantageous mutations. > > >>> Now I would be deeply surprised if no biologist has done research on > >>> this before, of extracting a number for mutation rate in a > >>> noninbreeding population and a mutation rate in a inbreeding > >>> population. > > >>> So if we had such a numbers figure for this mutation accelerant and > >>> applied that numbers to Clovis Man, we may be able to roughly estimate > >>> how many individuals, male and female crossed over into the Americas. > > >> [...] > > >> Some common genetic diorders are single-gene recessive, > >> meaning that one good allele and one bad allele > >> makes for an Ok baby (a carrier), but two bad > >> alleles makes for a "bad" baby who exhibits or manifests > >> the disease linked to the "bad allele". > > >> And two good alleles makes an Ok baby also. > > >> That's for the genes carried on the non-sexual chromosomes. > >> For diseases single gene recessive on the X sexual > >> chromosome, one allele bad of the gene on the X-chromosome > >> makes for a "bad baby" if it's male, cause the male has > >> one X and one Y sex-chromosome. But a female baby with > >> two X-chomosomes and 1 good and 1 bad allele would be > >> an Ok baby, but still a carrier. This happens with > >> hemophilia, if memory serves me well. > > >> The genes that make for a strong baby who will reproduce > >> with optimal number of off-spring is highly non-trivial. > > >> Some game theory could be involved and there could be several > >> optimal fitness genomes; also, variation of gene pool could be > >> an asset for a loosely-bound tribe. > > >> Maybe some models can say something about the optimal strategy > >> for an individual, like say considering marrying a second-cousin > >> by age 37 if all else fails. It's just speculation on my part > >> that such studies/simulations/models exist. > > >> dave > >> -- > > > Hi David, now because you are holding a discussion with me in the sci. > > newsgroups, I must warn you that there is a pitiful gaggle of persons > > (jerks and freaks) > > who will attack your email box to get you to stop talking with me. > > This has been going on since 1993, where they attack everyone who > > holds a conversation with Archimedes Plutonium. So be forewarned. Some > > of those freaks will pretend to be me, but it is not me. So if you > > see pollution in your email box, it is not me, but the hate-gaggle > > crowd trying to get you to stop talking with me. > > > Now I need a number and a equation of biology to where inbreeding > > accelerates mutation rate. In a diverse population of a gene pool, the > > mutation rate is say hypothetically, 1 in a 10^6 per year. In a gene > > pool of say 1 male to 1 female reproduction and reproduction only > > among those parents and their offspring, the mutation rate should > > increase drastically to what I am guessing is 1 in 1000 per year. > > > Maybe biology has already done the research and I am just not finding > > the numbers. Perhaps biology was blind about inbreeding and never did > > the research, because they never linked inbreeding with speeding up > > mutation rate. > > > Now a natural first experiment would be to do it with fruit flies > > since they breed rapidly. So taking a Adam and Eve pair of fruit flies > > and watching them mate with inbreeding since no "new genes" were > > introduced, we can get a number figure for how much more rapid is the > > mutations accruing than the control group of a diverse gene pool. > > > Now likely the Neanderthals were a historical application of > > inbreeding, in that a breeding pair wandered north from Africa into > > Europe and with that pair some 400,000 years ago eventually gave the > > Neanderthal species due to accelerated mutation because of inbreeding. > > And when the diverse gene pool of Africans some 60,000 years ago > > migrated into Europe, because they were diverse gene pool they had > > superior genetics, especially HACNS1 with rock throwing superiority. > > Neanderthal was a different species and so the African Homo sapiens > > extincted them by rockthrowing encounters. > > > David, have you ever played dodge-ball in High School? It is best when > > the two sides are about equal in throwing abilities. If one side is > > all girls and the other all boys, the boys win in quick order. It was > > the same situation some 60,000 years ago when African Homo sapiens > > encountered Homo Neanderthal. > > > Now in human genetics with inbreeding we do glimpse the acceleration > > of mutation by the European royal families and hemophilia. But that > > was inbreeding with cousins. Imagine the mutations with inbreeding of > > mother and son or brothers and sisters, or father and daughter. > > > That is what faced Neanderthal when they trekked north some 400,000 > > years ago. It is remarkable alone that they survived and populated > > Europe, but no surprise at all that they became a distinct new species > > with all that inbreeding and that they would be inferior to the Homo > > sapiens that would invade 60,000 years ago. > > > So I need a mathematical rate of mutation with inbreeding compared to > > the rate of mutation where no inbreeding occurs. > > > And I am rather sure that there is a huge rate increase in mutations > > because one only needs to look at insect and bird species of a > > mainland and the surrounding distant islands from that mainland. Those > > islands usually contain different species from the mainland and > > numerous different species all because inbreeding increases mutations > > which then give rise to new species. > > [...] > > I'm sorry I sent e-mail bombs to you when I was in Thailand. > > You present the idea that higher mutation rates could be linked > to inbreeding. I think recessive gene characters show > what could be a drawback to inbreeding. > > I'll defer to people in biology and paleontology on the fate > of Neanderthal man. > > David Bernier > --
Let me give a "baseline genetics" to the Iceland study where inbreeding has a advantage.
--- quoting from Wikipedia on inbreeding ---
Some inbreeding may enhance fertility rate A recent study in Iceland by the deCODE genetics company, published by the journal Science, found that third cousins produced more children and grandchildren, suggesting that "in spite of the fact that bringing together two alleles of a recessive trait may be bad, there is clearly some biological wisdom in the union of relatively closely related people". For hundreds of years, inbreeding was historically unavoidable in Iceland due to its then tiny and isolated population.  --- end quoting ---
In animals, there are two mechanisms involved in genetics --- mitosis and meiosis.
The theory I am proffering says that the mutation rate is highest in a species when inbreeding occurs.
So how can we check to see if that theory is true or false.
Well, we need a baseline, and the Iceland study that 3rd cousins are the most fertile reproduction is that baseline.
Now I need something in physics to be a analog of reproduction for biology. So as to step through the concepts and theory more easily. I need a model of physics to bypass much of the complexity of biology to get at the heart of the theory, to see the mechanism in play.
In Physics, atoms are everything of physics and the last description of atoms of quantum numbers N, L, m_L and m_ s is the m_ s, the quantum spin. The last concept of physics and the most simple concept of those four is m_s, the spin, whether up or down. And in biology, we can replace spin with the concept of right handed glove or left handed glove. Mind you, I am doing this as to get to the heart of biology reproduction in that inbreeding increases mutation rates.
Now in Genetic Recombination, of putting together the DNA to form a offspring, the recombination is the fitting together of a pair, one right handed and one left handed.
The Iceland study indicates that meiosis is controlled by the very genes that meiosis assembles and it is found that the highest or best fitting together of father genes with mother genes is 3rd cousin for the highest rate of reproduction. A zone of reproduction that we would clearly frown upon since it is inbreeding.
Now I will continue this, but I see my conclusions already, although the path to those conclusions are somewhat vague at this moment.
The idea is that there is a baseline to where mitosis and meiosis are at their peak-- 3rd cousins, and any more inbreeding spells a higher mutation rate. And in the opposite direction of going away from 3rd cousin reproduction, the diversity is larger and the mutation rate decreases until it reaches a leveling out.
Now the reason I bring in gloves, right and left, is that during mitosis and meiosis, to form a bond we can consider a right and left form that bond. But there are gloves in which the glove fits either right or left, and we can take a glove that is meant for right but wear it on the left hand (not as well, but it will do) and take that example of an analogy to what a mutation is. So that when I wear a right hand glove on my left hand-- it is a mutation.
So this glove analogy is what I am going to use to breeze by, or breeze past all the complexity of biology and show that there must be a Baseline for reproduction and beyond that baseline is higher mutations and below the baseline is less mutations.
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine- bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: