Environment plays a role, too. And when I say "environment" I mean the full spectrum.
Ok, I see. Hey, maybe they get sickle-cell anemia out of free-will.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I was just reading the discussion you guys were having about adaptations vs evolutionary changes. Its really just semantics, but maybe I can help.
The term adaptation refers to a trait that has been developed over time due to selective pressure. It allows the organism to perform some function specific to its environment or lifestyle. In other words adaptations (in the biological sense of the word) come about through evolutionary change.
The sickle-cell anaemia mutation is an example of a genetic trait that can be selected for by an external selective pressure (malaria). In low-altitude regions of the tropics, the mutation is advantageous, because it confers a resistance to malaria. It could therefore be considered an adaptation to a tropical climate where malaria is present, but its really just a single mutation, which has negative side effects. There isn't a cumulative effect of multiple rounds of selection over many generations on the change, the trait is either expressed or not expressed, so rather than 'adapting' over time the trait has just become more common amongst the general population, so the term adaptation isn't really appropriate.
BTW, Unless I'm mistaken (it has been known to happen once or twice before) sickle-cell anaemia occurs in all races. The mutation is just more common amongst people of African decent because it has been selected for in that region.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
BTW, Unless I'm mistaken (it has been known to happen once or twice before) sickle-cell anaemia occurs in all races. The mutation is just more common amongst people of African decent because it has been selected for in that region.
I guess, eh. I didn't mean it that exclusively. I mean, if a black dude with the gene impregnates a caucasian woman, then it's bound to happen eventually.
I may have taken that sound byte too literally.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I guess, eh. I didn't mean it that exclusively. I mean, if a black dude with the gene impregnates a caucasian woman, then it's bound to happen eventually.
I may have taken that sound byte too literally.
The mutation can occur spontaneously in any race. It doesn't necessarily have to orignate from an african person.
And I should correct my earlier post. I just checked and it seems that its not simply a case of the trait being either expressed or not expressed. The sickle-cell allele is co-dominant. This means that if you have two copies of the mutation (one on each chromosome) you will get the anaemia, and probably die. But, if you have just one copy, the anaemia only develops at low oxygen concentrations (high altitudes), and you get the benefit of malaria resistance.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
The mutation can occur spontaneously in any race. It doesn't necessarily have to orignate from an african person.
And I should correct my earlier post. I just checked and it seems that its not simply a case of the trait being either expressed or not expressed. The sickle-cell allele is co-dominant. This means that if you have two copies of the mutation (one on each chromosome) you will get the anaemia, and probably die. But, if you have just one copy, the anaemia only develops at low oxygen concentrations (high altitudes), and you get the benefit of malaria resistance.
The mutation can occur spontaneously in any race. It doesn't necessarily have to orignate from an african person.
And I should correct my earlier post. I just checked and it seems that its not simply a case of the trait being either expressed or not expressed. The sickle-cell allele is co-dominant. This means that if you have two copies of the mutation (one on each chromosome) you will get the anaemia, and probably die. But, if you have just one copy, the anaemia only develops at low oxygen concentrations (high altitudes), and you get the benefit of malaria resistance.
Are there still disadvantages to having single-allele anemia?
Or would that be considered a positive change?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I was just reading the discussion you guys were having about adaptations vs evolutionary changes. Its really just semantics, but maybe I can help.
The term adaptation refers to a trait that has been developed over time due to selective pressure. It allows the organism to perform some function specific to its environment or lifestyle. In other words adaptations (in the biological sense of the word) come about through evolutionary change.
The sickle-cell anaemia mutation is an example of a genetic trait that can be selected for by an external selective pressure (malaria). In low-altitude regions of the tropics, the mutation is advantageous, because it confers a resistance to malaria. It could therefore be considered an adaptation to a tropical climate where malaria is present, but its really just a single mutation, which has negative side effects. There isn't a cumulative effect of multiple rounds of selection over many generations on the change, the trait is either expressed or not expressed, so rather than 'adapting' over time the trait has just become more common amongst the general population, so the term adaptation isn't really appropriate.
BTW, Unless I'm mistaken (it has been known to happen once or twice before) sickle-cell anaemia occurs in all races. The mutation is just more common amongst people of African decent because it has been selected for in that region.
Thanks for the info. I can't use it, but thanks anyway.
Are there still disadvantages to having single-allele anemia?
Or would that be considered a positive change?
Yes. . . .That's what I'm saying.
You can have two copies of any particular gene. Sometimes there are different versions of the same gene. These are called alleles. In the context of sickle-cell anaemia, there are two possible alleles, the normal one, and the mutation.
If you have two copies of the normal allele, you have normal haemoglobin and normal blood cells. If you have one normal copy, and one mutated copy, you produce both normal haemoglobin, and the mutated form. You can still survive, because you enough of the normal haemoglobin to carry oxygen in your blood, but at high altitude, the effect of the abnormal haemoglobin is manifested as anaemia, and you die (or get pretty sick at least). If you have two copies of the mutant allele, and no normal copy, you're pretty well fucked. You don't have any normal haemoglobin to carry oxygen, so you die.
The advantage of having one copy of each allele (the normal one and the mutant one) is that you get more resistance to malaria (not sure about the mechanism of this). The disadvantage is that you can't go to high altitudes. So its only a positive change if you live near sea level, in the tropics. Otherwise it kinda sucks.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Thanks for the info. I can't use it, but thanks anyway.
No worries. You never know when it might come in handy. . .
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
You can have two copies of any particular gene. Sometimes there are different versions of the same gene. These are called alleles. In the context of sickle-cell anaemia, there are two possible alleles, the normal one, and the mutation.
If you have two copies of the normal allele, you have normal haemoglobin and normal blood cells. If you have one normal copy, and one mutated copy, you produce both normal haemoglobin, and the mutated form. You can still survive, because you enough of the normal haemoglobin to carry oxygen in your blood, but at high altitude, the effect of the abnormal haemoglobin is manifested as anaemia, and you die (or get pretty sick at least). If you have two copies of the mutant allele, and no normal copy, you're pretty well fucked. You don't have any normal haemoglobin to carry oxygen, so you die.
The advantage of having one copy of each allele (the normal one and the mutant one) is that you get more resistance to malaria (not sure about the mechanism of this). The disadvantage is that you can't go to high altitudes. So its only a positive change if you live near sea level, in the tropics. Otherwise it kinda sucks.
Dude, I know what an allele is.
I just wasn't sure if there were other side-effects of only having one.
Thanks for the info
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I just wasn't sure if there were other side-effects of only having one.
Thanks for the info
Sorry. I just realised that my first post was pretty confusing. Just trying to make it clearer.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Sorry. I just realised that my first post was pretty confusing. Just trying to make it clearer.
No it's cool, I didn't mean to come across as a jerk.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I find it kind of ironic that if I make a false statement the board jumps all over me. But since you've repeated this false statement countless times, only one or two people have challenged you. It may be some kind of indication then that no one besides you has challenged me on this.
Keep in mind that it was you who was saying my understanding of empiricism was false. I've personally known that BOTH my interpretation and yours fall under the umbrella of "emprical" all along. Therefore you are the one challenging me. The only one, might I add. Well, and you're also challenging your own dictionary source and the meaning it gave, and dictionary.com and wikipedia, too. And since no one has proven wikipedia, your dictionary source, dictionary.com or myself to be incorrect in this case, it looks like your challenge has fallen through. I'm merely pointing out how your direct points in the challenge are logically and factually inaccurate, and that they represent a lack in your understanding.
I find it kind of ironic that I was criticized for not making my own statements, but rather quoting facts. In the end, I have to quote facts to get my point across.
Just to be clear. The criticsm towards you regarding facts was about you believing your opinions to be facts when opinions are not fact. Also, my criticisms towards you are about when you present a lack of facts as a response, instead using low-blows and degradation. If you were able to disprove something with facts people would support that 100%. However if I bring up a fact, you disagree and bring up a new line of thought in order to make your case, and while you might make a case, the only way you can disprove the original statement you disagree with is by disproving it, not just by creating an alternate case. An alternate case leaves us with two standing cases. So when you do this as an effort to "refute" what you disagree with, it does not effectively refute or disprove anything, it only creates an alternate view.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I may be too tired to understand what you just said Angelica.
Determinism is fact though. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. I just think it takes an open-mind.
There are thousands of ways to deceive a person, through change-blindness, sleight of hand, suggestion, etc..
Our perceptions, behaviors and concepts of "self" are dependent on determinants. So, when you exercise volition, it's based on your concept of "self", moral values and percepts. Those are dependent on various determinants.
It's so cut and dry. I can't see how that eludes some people. But to each is own I guess.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Therefore you are the one challenging me. The only one, might I add.
Could that possibly be because its a silly argument about semantics, and nobody else cares?
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I may be too tired to understand what you just said Angelica.
Determinism is fact though. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. I just think it takes an open-mind.
There are thousands of ways to deceive a person, through change-blindness, sleight of hand, suggestion, etc..
Our perceptions, behaviors and concepts of "self" are dependent on determinants. So, when you exercise volition, it's based on your concept of "self", moral values and percepts. Those are dependent on various determinants.
It's so cut and dry. I can't see how that eludes some people. But to each is own I guess.
I understand that cause and effect is very real within a linear context. I understand how we can prove causality. I understand how people arrive at ideas such as determinism. For me that does not disprove free will. Particularly when we cannot prove/disprove an opinion or a belief. Opinions and beliefs are not scientific or factual--they merely are what they are. One way or the other.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I understand that cause and effect is very real within a linear context. I understand how we can prove causality. I understand how people arrive at ideas such as determinism. For me that does not disprove free will. Particularly when we cannot prove/disprove an opinion or a belief. Opinions and beliefs are not scientific or factual--they merely are what they are. One way or the other.
We can dig out a big chunk of their brain and that limits their "free-will" quite drastically.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I said a wayyy while back that the typical idea of free will--of being able to make any choice in any moment--is an illusion. I'm well aware that we can only make free choice given the circumstances, which include very far-reaching variables beneath the surface that most people can't begin to comprehend. I am well aware that I am one with my life. I am not outside of my life.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I just wasn't sure if there were other side-effects of only having one.
Thanks for the info
Another major drawback for having one mutated allele is that you are many times more likely to pass that allele on to your offspring. Even in malaria prone areas of the world, this can be a problem. If an environment is "selecting" (i know its not conscious selection - but you get me) for the allele due to a high rate of malaria, then the likelyhood of most people having it is high. And, if most people have it, when two mate they are far more likely to have a child where the allele is paired with another mutated allele - giving the child sickle-cell anemia.
Malaria was (is) essentially keeping the mutation "alive" - where normally such a mutation would be bred out of a population. In fact, it's not a particularly good mutation to have at all. The anti-malaria effect (simply put - mosquitoes don't like this kind of blood) is really the only benefit - and in a modern society, you really don't want it at all.
Comments
Ok, I see. Hey, maybe they get sickle-cell anemia out of free-will.
Those damn hippies.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I was just reading the discussion you guys were having about adaptations vs evolutionary changes. Its really just semantics, but maybe I can help.
The term adaptation refers to a trait that has been developed over time due to selective pressure. It allows the organism to perform some function specific to its environment or lifestyle. In other words adaptations (in the biological sense of the word) come about through evolutionary change.
The sickle-cell anaemia mutation is an example of a genetic trait that can be selected for by an external selective pressure (malaria). In low-altitude regions of the tropics, the mutation is advantageous, because it confers a resistance to malaria. It could therefore be considered an adaptation to a tropical climate where malaria is present, but its really just a single mutation, which has negative side effects. There isn't a cumulative effect of multiple rounds of selection over many generations on the change, the trait is either expressed or not expressed, so rather than 'adapting' over time the trait has just become more common amongst the general population, so the term adaptation isn't really appropriate.
BTW, Unless I'm mistaken (it has been known to happen once or twice before) sickle-cell anaemia occurs in all races. The mutation is just more common amongst people of African decent because it has been selected for in that region.
-C Addison
I guess, eh. I didn't mean it that exclusively. I mean, if a black dude with the gene impregnates a caucasian woman, then it's bound to happen eventually.
I may have taken that sound byte too literally.
The mutation can occur spontaneously in any race. It doesn't necessarily have to orignate from an african person.
And I should correct my earlier post. I just checked and it seems that its not simply a case of the trait being either expressed or not expressed. The sickle-cell allele is co-dominant. This means that if you have two copies of the mutation (one on each chromosome) you will get the anaemia, and probably die. But, if you have just one copy, the anaemia only develops at low oxygen concentrations (high altitudes), and you get the benefit of malaria resistance.
-C Addison
That kicked my ass. LMFAO
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Are there still disadvantages to having single-allele anemia?
Or would that be considered a positive change?
Not sure why.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Thanks for the info. I can't use it, but thanks anyway.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes. . . .That's what I'm saying.
You can have two copies of any particular gene. Sometimes there are different versions of the same gene. These are called alleles. In the context of sickle-cell anaemia, there are two possible alleles, the normal one, and the mutation.
If you have two copies of the normal allele, you have normal haemoglobin and normal blood cells. If you have one normal copy, and one mutated copy, you produce both normal haemoglobin, and the mutated form. You can still survive, because you enough of the normal haemoglobin to carry oxygen in your blood, but at high altitude, the effect of the abnormal haemoglobin is manifested as anaemia, and you die (or get pretty sick at least). If you have two copies of the mutant allele, and no normal copy, you're pretty well fucked. You don't have any normal haemoglobin to carry oxygen, so you die.
The advantage of having one copy of each allele (the normal one and the mutant one) is that you get more resistance to malaria (not sure about the mechanism of this). The disadvantage is that you can't go to high altitudes. So its only a positive change if you live near sea level, in the tropics. Otherwise it kinda sucks.
-C Addison
No worries.
-C Addison
Dude, I know what an allele is.
I just wasn't sure if there were other side-effects of only having one.
Thanks for the info
Sorry. I just realised that my first post was pretty confusing. Just trying to make it clearer.
-C Addison
No it's cool, I didn't mean to come across as a jerk.
Just to be clear. The criticsm towards you regarding facts was about you believing your opinions to be facts when opinions are not fact. Also, my criticisms towards you are about when you present a lack of facts as a response, instead using low-blows and degradation. If you were able to disprove something with facts people would support that 100%. However if I bring up a fact, you disagree and bring up a new line of thought in order to make your case, and while you might make a case, the only way you can disprove the original statement you disagree with is by disproving it, not just by creating an alternate case. An alternate case leaves us with two standing cases. So when you do this as an effort to "refute" what you disagree with, it does not effectively refute or disprove anything, it only creates an alternate view.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Determinism is fact though. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. I just think it takes an open-mind.
There are thousands of ways to deceive a person, through change-blindness, sleight of hand, suggestion, etc..
Our perceptions, behaviors and concepts of "self" are dependent on determinants. So, when you exercise volition, it's based on your concept of "self", moral values and percepts. Those are dependent on various determinants.
It's so cut and dry. I can't see how that eludes some people. But to each is own I guess.
Could that possibly be because its a silly argument about semantics, and nobody else cares?
-C Addison
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We can dig out a big chunk of their brain and that limits their "free-will" quite drastically.
No, it is not.
It is your opinion, that it is fact.
In fact, there's nothing cut and dry about it.
No proof, whatsoever to support your opinions based on other's opinions and theories. None whatsoever.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Malaria was (is) essentially keeping the mutation "alive" - where normally such a mutation would be bred out of a population. In fact, it's not a particularly good mutation to have at all. The anti-malaria effect (simply put - mosquitoes don't like this kind of blood) is really the only benefit - and in a modern society, you really don't want it at all.