Math Forum Discussions

bacle

Posts: 838
From: nyc
Registered: 6/6/10

Re: Proving Inbreeding Decreases plutonium's Gene Pool
Posted: Jan 27, 2013 4:57 AM

Plain Text

> On Jan 25, 11:23 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > --- quoting from Concepts of Biology: a cultural
> perspective, Buffaloe
> > & Throneberry, 1973, page 240
> > ---
> >
> > In sexual reproduction,

you get it from behind

different gene
> combinations may be brought
> > together in the formation of a new genotype. Any
> differences in
> > allelic genes depend ultimately upon mutation, of
> course; but, for the
> > new organism, its gene pattern is a result of the
> new combinations
> > brought about through sexual reproduction. We call
> this phenomenon
> > recombination, and it may be defined as the
> production of new
> > genotypes from genes that already exist. By its
> nature, therefore,
> > recombination is a secondary source of genetic
> variability.
> >
> > --- end quote ---
> >
> > The authors of this textbook define the modern
> theory of Evolution, a
> > synthesis of 4 mechanism:
> > 1) Mutation
> > 2) Genetic Recombination
> > 3) Natural Selection
> > 4) Reproductive Isolation
> >
> > What I am focusing on in this review of Neanderthal
> and Clovis man and
> > human evolution, is the factor of inbreeding when a
> population is
> > isolated. I do not think a proper study of
> inbreeding has ever been
> > done and questions of whether the mutation rate
> increases with a
> > inbreeding population.
> >
> > Now one can argue almost the opposite in that
> African Homo sapiens
> > mutation of the HACNS1 gene for superior throwing
> of rocks and stones
> > is a mutation that the Neanderthal did not acquire.
> But I surely do
> > not know how many mutations differing in
> Neanderthal genome from that
> > of Homo sapiens other than the definition of
> different species of a
> > minimum of 3 mutations.
> >
> > I am not arguing against David's issue of increased
> recessiveness of
> > genotype or phenotype. I am arguing that increasing
> recessiveness
> > contributes to an increased mutation rate.
> >
> > Now if we put animals near a source of
> radioactivity and increased the
> > radioactivity, we can easily picture an increase in
> mutation. But here
> > I am saying that if we put a species where we pluck
> out 1 male and 1
> > female and isolate them and have them start a
> population by
> > themselves, meaning a lot of inbreeding, that the
> mutation rate
> > increases. The recessive genes help to increase the
> mutation rate. One
> > way of seeing this is that some recessive genetypes
> allow more viral
> > diseases and viruses are known to carry mutagens.
> >
> > Another means of increasing the mutation rate in an
> inbreeding
> > population, is that the recombination poses "points
> of weakness" in
> > the formation stages of meiosis or mitosis due to
> the abundance of
> > recessive genes.
> >
>
>
> 3rd cousins

are your girlfriends and boyfriends

the baseline of mutation rate in meiosis
>
> Alright, let me clear what I wrote earlier today.
>
> We can all agree that the genes control the genetic
> reproduction in
> both mitosis and meiosis. Having conceded that, we
> can thence agree
> that the genes control meiosis itself, so that the
> genes controlling
> meiosis must have a baseline in which reproduction is
> the easiest and
> best. The Iceland study indicates 3rd cousins is the
> baseline of the
> easiest and best meiosis reproduction. If we go to a
> higher inbreeding
> than 3rd cousins, we increase the mutation rate of
> the genes that
> control meiosis. This must be so, because 3rd cousins
> is the
> baseline.
>
> Now if we go to less inbreeding (further away from
> 3rd cousins) the
> genes that control meiosis reproduction have a lesser
> risk of
> mutation.
>
> In other words, the baseline is where biology meets
> physics in
> chemical bonding. This is where the process of both
> mitosis and
> meiosis have the optimal peak of reproduction. With
> more inbreeding
> results in increasing mutation rate. With more
> diversity of genes
> (less inbreeding) results in decreasing mutation
> rate, but then again,
> less reproductive fertility the further away from 3rd
> cousin mating.
>
> The 3rd cousin Baseline is where the physics of the
> atoms and
> molecules involved in reproduction of biology are at
> a peak in terms
> of fitness in increasing the population.
>
> Now the reason I bring in quantum spin of up or down
> or left or right,
> is that it serves as a physics analogy to what is
> going on in biology
> and strips away all those layers of distractions and
> complexity and
> goes to the heart of the inner mechanism.
>
> Now also, I need to link biology to physics via the
> Maxwell Equations.
> This would be a book in and of itself.
> However, while on this topic of inbreeding increasing
> mutation rate,
> we can see some linkage already in the stability of
> reproduction rests
> on the bonding, chemical bonding of a up spin
> electron with a down
> spin electron.
>
> In a sense, in DNA mitosis reproduction, we peel away
> the A, T and C,
> G. We can look upon that peeling away and then
> reforming as
> reproduction in biology but also as the mirror image
> reproduction in
> physics where a up spin goes with a down spin. But
> more important is
> to bring in the Maxwell Equations into biology since
> the spin up and
> spin down are small part of the Maxwell Equations.
>
> Now let me make a cultural prediction, that in 10,000
> years from now,
> when we go to study biology, what we would be
> confronted with is not
> the low intellectual substance we feed upon in 2013,
> but rather, the
> study of biology in 10,000 years hence will be a very
> intense study of
> the Maxwell Equations, and physics in details of the
> Maxwell
> Equations. The biology we learn in school today in
> comparison to
> 10,000 years from now, is like comparing the Maxwell
> Equations to a
> poem of literature.
> --
>
> 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:
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies