Does the internet lead to better Ameican language?

[Obvious Leo]

(Please don't start on about epigenetics. There is a lot of misinformation about that at the moment. I have it a good authority ( I know a prof in Cardiff who is working on it) that all epigenetic phenomena is about genes switching. The genome is unaltered.)

You're missing nearly all of the point. Genes encode for proteins and the same genes can encode for literally millions of different proteins depending on a vast suite of different external factors. Our genes do not make us what we are, Hobbes, our genes in combination with our environment makes us what we are. By far and away the most significant feature of this environment is that only the tiniest fraction of the DNA in our bodies is human DNA. We are host to tens of thousands of different species, each of which has an evolutionary agenda of its own. This is not Lamarckism as Lamarck or Darwin saw it but the end result is something rather like it. Some of our host species can change 30% of their genome within 24 hours through lateral gene transfer and these changes are inherited and then translated into permanent changes in which "our" genes are expressed in cellular reproduction. In other words we are evolving throughout our lives and not just between generations. That's how come cancer exists.

[Hobbes' Choice]

(Please don't start on about epigenetics. There is a lot of misinformation about that at the moment. I have it a good authority ( I know a prof in Cardiff who is working on it) that all epigenetic phenomena is about genes switching. The genome is unaltered.)

You're missing nearly all of the point. Genes encode for proteins and the same genes can encode for literally millions of different proteins depending on a vast suite of different external factors. Our genes do not make us what we are, Hobbes, our genes in combination with our environment makes us what we are. By far and away the most significant feature of this environment is that only the tiniest fraction of the DNA in our bodies is human DNA. We are host to tens of thousands of different species, each of which has an evolutionary agenda of its own. This is not Lamarckism as Lamarck or Darwin saw it but the end result is something rather like it. Some of our host species can change 30% of their genome within 24 hours through lateral gene transfer and these changes are inherited and then translated into permanent changes in which "our" genes are expressed in cellular reproduction. In other words we are evolving throughout our lives and not just between generations. That's how come cancer exists.

You miss my objection. I always say that environment is king when it comes to determining who and what we are and what we become.
Nonetheless, as we are talking about evolution, inheritability is what is important, and when it comes to inheritability, the genome is KING. Nothing you do in your life, no experience you have, and no characteristic you can acquire during your life can change your genome. You can only pass the genes that you have. That is the same at 14 as it is at 84, if you can still manage it.

Sorry if you think otherwise. I can't help that. Where you get the information from may well be suspect.
Whatever relevance your thought on changing genomes have it has no relevance to inheritance. A girl is born with all her eggs, and sperm are made from the same template for all a male's life.
Epigenetics only concerns the turning on of genes in utero, not alternations to the genome.

[Obvious Leo]

I don't think I can really be bothered getting into an argument on biochemistry with you, Hobbes. We're talking about two different things. I'm not disagreeing with you but the truth is far more subtle than the way you portray it.

There has been a tenfold increase in some specific allergies within the past generation. This is NOT due to natural selection and these traits will be inherited.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't think I can really be bothered getting into an argument on biochemistry with you, Hobbes. We're talking about two different things. I'm not disagreeing with you but the truth is far more subtle than the way you portray it.

There has been a tenfold increase in some specific allergies within the past generation. This is NOT due to natural selection and these traits will be inherited.

The current thinking about allergies is that children do not get exposed to enough pathogens early in their life. The worst affected are premature babies, who fail to go through exposure and do not fully develop resistance. These are not inheritable.
There is a vital period early in a child's life that if missed will damage their potential immune system.
The problem is not inheritable.

[Obvious Leo]

You're missing my point by ignoring it but what you say about exposure to pathogens is spot on and relevant to my point. The behaviour of our "human genes" is of minuscule significance in our cellular chemistry because we share most of these with other species anyway. It is the behaviour of the genes of tens of thousands of other species in symbiosis with us which overwhelmingly determines which proteins will be encoded for. It is THESE genes which are heritable in a non-linear process of spectacular complexity. Some of the biggest mainframe computers in the world are busy 24/7 trying to untangle this causal network and they'll still be at it a century from now. Cellular biologists no longer think of humans as "an organism" but as "an ecosystem". This has substantially changed the way evolutionary biologists conduct their business. Darwinism and its bastard off-spring neo-Darwinism are dead and gone and their passing will go unmourned. The selfish gene is Newtonian bullshit.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You're missing my point by ignoring it but what you say about exposure to pathogens is spot on and relevant to my point. The behaviour of our "human genes" is of minuscule significance in our cellular chemistry because we share most of these with other species anyway. It is the behaviour of the genes of tens of thousands of other species in symbiosis with us which overwhelmingly determines which proteins will be encoded for. It is THESE genes which are heritable in a non-linear process of spectacular complexity. Some of the biggest mainframe computers in the world are busy 24/7 trying to untangle this causal network and they'll still be at it a century from now. Cellular biologists no longer think of humans as "an organism" but as "an ecosystem". This has substantially changed the way evolutionary biologists conduct their business. Darwinism and its bastard off-spring neo-Darwinism are dead and gone and their passing will go unmourned. The selfish gene is Newtonian bullshit.

How are "these genes" inherited?
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

[Obvious Leo]

How are "these genes" inherited?

They are inherited by the species they belong to either through selection or lateral gene transfer. Note that lateral gene transfer can also take place just as easily between microbial species as within them. These heritable traits then become a function of gene expression in the host organism which is quickly spread throughout the population. Not only are YOU evolving through the mechanisms of cell division but your microbiome is also evolving, which means that your cells are always guaranteed to replicate imperfectly. If it were otherwise you would be immortal. You can imagine this as taking a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy etc where each new iteration is less precise than the last because of changes in the living environment. The changes in your microbiome can affect change in this living environment and thus in the microbiome of every other individual complex organism on the planet. The entire living world is evolving as one. Lynn Margulis is probably the leading theorist in this form of non-Darwinian evolution but her modelling is pretty well universally accepted as mainstream biology nowadays.

You should be able to see how all this ties in with the various aspects of non-linear dynamic systems theory which I've been discussing elsewhere. The model is called AUTOPOIESIS ( self-creating) and it is a mature science with a rigorous methodology. I'd be happy to recommend some of the current literature to you if you're interested because there's tons of it about. The world of evolutionary biology is changing rapidly in the computer age because high-speed computation is finally allowing biologists to model life as what it is, an integrated information system.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How are "these genes" inherited?

They are inherited by the species they belong to either through selection or lateral gene transfer. Note that lateral gene transfer can also take place just as easily between microbial species as within them. These heritable traits then become a function of gene expression in the host organism which is quickly spread throughout the population. Not only are YOU evolving through the mechanisms of cell division but your microbiome is also evolving, which means that your cells are always guaranteed to replicate imperfectly. If it were otherwise you would be immortal. You can imagine this as taking a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy etc where each new iteration is less precise than the last because of changes in the living environment. The changes in your microbiome can affect change in this living environment and thus in the microbiome of every other individual complex organism on the planet. The entire living world is evolving as one. Lynn Margulis is probably the leading theorist in this form of non-Darwinian evolution but her modelling is pretty well universally accepted as mainstream biology nowadays.

You should be able to see how all this ties in with the various aspects of non-linear dynamic systems theory which I've been discussing elsewhere. The model is called AUTOPOIESIS ( self-creating) and it is a mature science with a rigorous methodology. I'd be happy to recommend some of the current literature to you if you're interested because there's tons of it about. The world of evolutionary biology is changing rapidly in the computer age because high-speed computation is finally allowing biologists to model life as what it is, an integrated information system.

Genetic promiscuity is only relevant to the soil and other micro-ecosystems. And it is know that genes are swapped and borrowed with extreme regularity and lead to very complex changes in microbiology of single celled organisms, bacteria, and viruses.
But all macro-organisms repel rogue genes, and consider them invaders.
Such conditions may well exist in the gut of macro-organisms, but that is technically OUTSIDE the body.
Foreign bodies entering the human body are treated as hostile and are removed by the immune system. The only way such attackers could contribute to inheritability is to infect the gems cells of humans: sperm or ova. As all ova preexist puberty, that leaves the only chance for such genetic material is invade during sperm creation.
I really think you need to think this shit through.

So, no human inheritability is not relevant to genetic promiscuity.
You are starting to sound like Scott.

[Obvious Leo]

I have no intention of discussing the finer points of biochemistry any further in this forum. However if you're interested I can recommend a wealth of literature on the subject which reflects the modern thinking of both theorists and experimentalists in the field. Margulis would possibly be the most accessible to a layperson. Your comments are rather reminiscent of the way the subject was taught over forty years ago when I first began studying it.

[Arising_uk]

... You can only pass the genes that you have. ...

I thought you only passed a selection of genes that your parents had?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I have no intention of discussing the finer points of biochemistry any further in this forum. However if you're interested I can recommend a wealth of literature on the subject which reflects the modern thinking of both theorists and experimentalists in the field. Margulis would possibly be the most accessible to a layperson. Your comments are rather reminiscent of the way the subject was taught over forty years ago when I first began studying it.

Run along then.
You are confusing the microscopic world with the human body.

[Hobbes' Choice]

... You can only pass the genes that you have. ...

I thought you only passed a selection of genes that your parents had?

The genes you are born with are the genes you die with.
The sperm and eggs contain a stripped down thread of RNA which is unlaced from the double helix.

[Obvious Leo]

The genes you are born with are the genes you die with.

This is almost but not quite true and the distinction is not a trivial one. Structurally the genes will be essentially the same, however how those genes act in determining the electro-chemical processes of your body changes throughout your life. This even changes from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute, etc. Your genes DO NOT determine who you are or how you function in a way which is independent of the rest of the biosphere. There are an almost infinite suite of potential causal factors which determine both the chemistry and the physical topology of the proteins which genes encode for. The STRUCTURE of the genes remains very constant but the FUNCTION of the genes is a movable feast. It is the proteins which drive our cell chemistry, not the DNA.

It is also utterly untrue that human haploid germ cells remain unchanged throughout the life of the individual. This has been known for almost a century.

Hobbes. You have a very unattractive habit of abusing people who disagree with you and you embarrass yourself by doing so on this occasion. I am a highly regarded and influential contributor to the theoretical foundations of biochemistry and have been scrupulous in keeping abreast of the literature all my life. I will not be spoken to in this manner by you or anybody else.

I trust this will not affect the useful communication we are able to enjoy on other subjects.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The genes you are born with are the genes you die with.

This is almost but not quite true and the distinction is not a trivial one. Structurally the genes will be essentially the same, however how those genes act in determining the electro-chemical processes of your body changes throughout your life. This even changes from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute, etc. Your genes DO NOT determine who you are or how you function in a way which is independent of the rest of the biosphere. There are an almost infinite suite of potential causal factors which determine both the chemistry and the physical topology of the proteins which genes encode for. The STRUCTURE of the genes remains very constant but the FUNCTION of the genes is a movable feast. It is the proteins which drive our cell chemistry, not the DNA.

It is also utterly untrue that human haploid germ cells remain unchanged throughout the life of the individual. This has been known for almost a century.

Hobbes. You have a very unattractive habit of abusing people who disagree with you and you embarrass yourself by doing so on this occasion. I am a highly regarded and influential contributor to the theoretical foundations of biochemistry and have been scrupulous in keeping abreast of the literature all my life. I will not be spoken to in this manner by you or anybody else.

I trust this will not affect the useful communication we are able to enjoy on other subjects.

I hope you never stop posting. As for Hobbes, I suspect he has ginger hair and dour Scot ancestry. The poor sod can't help himself.

[Obvious Leo]

I suspect he has ginger hair and dour Scot ancestry.

My little brother had ginger hair as a kid and he was an ill-tempered little bugger as well but he grew out of it. However I have nothing but admiration for the Scots and regard Billy Connolly as a cultural icon for the world. Folks who can walk bare-arsed through the highlands in a short skirt are not to be trifled with.