Date: Jan 26, 2013 6:21 PM
Subject: proving inbreeding increases mutation and linking physics to biology;<br> NOVA "Decoding Neanderthal" #202 Rockthrowing theory book
On Jan 25, 11:23 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> --- quoting from Concepts of Biology: a cultural perspective, Buffaloe
> & Throneberry, 1973, page 240
> In sexual reproduction, 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 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
Now if we go to less inbreeding (further away from 3rd cousins) the
genes that control meiosis reproduction have a lesser risk of
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
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:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies