Loch Ness monster-creationism-ACE curriculum

[thoughtful]

Barney proves that Creationists are right, too. Perhaps he will be added to the curriculum as additional evidence. The Flintstones offer additional support to this theory as well, as does Land of the Lost.

[emmiedahl]

Inbreeding does not have to lead to deformity.

Historically, it HAS lead to deformity after many generations, and it certainly doesn't bode well for long-term survivability if there's a lack of genetic diversity, but theoretically those two people could have NO dangerous genes and lots of wonderful genes for good teeth and longevity and such.

I'm more inclined to believe in unicorns, but it IS possible. Sorta.

A lot of inborn disease is caused by the combination of two recessive genes. Most of the recessive diseases come from mutations. It is easy to believe that the first man and woman had no mutation-based recessive genes and thus had no risk from inbreeding. However, I have to wonder how in this scenario we could have collected all these mutations that we now bear in our DNA in such a small time.

[mirele]

A lot of inborn disease is caused by the combination of two recessive genes. Most of the recessive diseases come from mutations. It is easy to believe that the first man and woman had no mutation-based recessive genes and thus had no risk from inbreeding. However, I have to wonder how in this scenario we could have collected all these mutations that we now bear in our DNA in such a small time.

And it really is a short time, if you consider that a lot of these guys believe all but eight people were wiped out at the Flood. But I have an answer to that--it's because we're ebil, turrible, wretched sinners.

[CanadianHippie]

A lot of inborn disease is caused by the combination of two recessive genes. Most of the recessive diseases come from mutations. It is easy to believe that the first man and woman had no mutation-based recessive genes and thus had no risk from inbreeding. However, I have to wonder how in this scenario we could have collected all these mutations that we now bear in our DNA in such a small time.

First, I'll say thing. Anytime, and I mean any time, including the cellular divisions going on in your body right now, a cell divides there is a chance for a mutation. A mutation can be caused by outside sources affecting the DNA (which Adam and Eve would both be exposed to) or by the DNA simply being mis-reproduced during cell division. The latter is particularly likely first time a fertilized egg divides, one pair of chromosomes cross over a switch out a small portion of an arm with each other. If this didn't cause mutations in Adam and Eve's children, it most definitely caused mutations when the children starting having babies. It takes a couple of generations for the noticeable signs of inbreeding to show up, but the long term result is either 1) evolution, which is evil and doesn't happen because of Adam and Eve, because the mutations cause positive characteristics and are more likely to be passed on or 2) an incredibly delicate genome that give little to no room for adaptation to environmental changes, which is most likely and we are all ready seeing it in species that were once very close to extinction but are doing better now (think Cheetah, the smallest environmental change in their area and very likely there will be no more cheetah).

[Conuly]

A lot of inborn disease is caused by the combination of two recessive genes. Most of the recessive diseases come from mutations. It is easy to believe that the first man and woman had no mutation-based recessive genes and thus had no risk from inbreeding. However, I have to wonder how in this scenario we could have collected all these mutations that we now bear in our DNA in such a small time.

A holy miracle. You're not supposed to question it.

But as far as recessive genes go, diseases are caused by recessive genes* only because lethal dominant genes would wipe you out in one generation. That a trait is carried recessively doesn't make it per se bad. Theoretically, a small population of humans or plants could have lots of really good recessive traits as well.

I'm not saying this is likely. I think it's incredibly unlikely, in fact, and at *best* you'd get a group that is, like the cheetahs mentioned above, one environmental change away from extinction. But it's *possible*. The way some people talk, it's like they think marrying your cousin guarantees that your babies will all be born mutated freaks as some sort of punishment from nature. It doesn't work like that.

* Or co-dominant or incompletely dominant - many "recessive" genes that people think of, like the one for sickle cell anemia, are in fact not. One copy of the gene makes SOME of your blood cells weirdly shaped, thus giving you an increased immunity to, I think, sleeping sickness. If it were really recessive, if I'm recalling my high school bio book correctly, none of them would be weirdly shaped, it'd be an all-or-nothing deal. Being a carrier of sickle cell anemia confers a selective advantage in some areas, even if having two copies of the gene doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_ ... c_concepts

[emmiedahl]

First, I'll say thing. Anytime, and I mean any time, including the cellular divisions going on in your body right now, a cell divides there is a chance for a mutation. A mutation can be caused by outside sources affecting the DNA (which Adam and Eve would both be exposed to) or by the DNA simply being mis-reproduced during cell division. The latter is particularly likely first time a fertilized egg divides, one pair of chromosomes cross over a switch out a small portion of an arm with each other. If this didn't cause mutations in Adam and Eve's children, it most definitely caused mutations when the children starting having babies. It takes a couple of generations for the noticeable signs of inbreeding to show up, but the long term result is either 1) evolution, which is evil and doesn't happen because of Adam and Eve, because the mutations cause positive characteristics and are more likely to be passed on or 2) an incredibly delicate genome that give little to no room for adaptation to environmental changes, which is most likely and we are all ready seeing it in species that were once very close to extinction but are doing better now (think Cheetah, the smallest environmental change in their area and very likely there will be no more cheetah).

There absolutely are constant mutations, although DNA replication has a very low rate compared to RNA transcription. Incredibly low. It is a very efficient process. The chances that Adam and Eve had the same mutation in their somatic cells (needed for them to both have a recessive gene for the same trait) is just very, very low.

But, again, this begs the question: with the highly conserved process of DNA replication, why do we have all these autosomal recessive diseases? And why are some of them more common in areas where they are environmentally favored? Cause that's, you know, evolution.

[CanadianHippie]

There absolutely are constant mutations, although DNA replication has a very low rate compared to RNA transcription. Incredibly low. It is a very efficient process. The chances that Adam and Eve had the same mutation in their somatic cells (needed for them to both have a recessive gene for the same trait) is just very, very low.

But, again, this begs the question: with the highly conserved process of DNA replication, why do we have all these autosomal recessive diseases? And why are some of them more common in areas where they are environmentally favored? Cause that's, you know, evolution.

Even if only Adam, or only Eve has a recessive trait, they will still pass it on to at least some of their children, and since those children interbred it's perfectly acceptable to assume that at some point in the first two or three generations recessive genes came together. If Adam had brown eyes and Eve had blue eyes, and none of their children have blue eyes, at least some of their grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren will.

[emmiedahl]

Even if only Adam, or only Eve has a recessive trait, they will still pass it on to at least some of their children, and since those children interbred it's perfectly acceptable to assume that at some point in the first two or three generations recessive genes came together. If Adam had brown eyes and Eve had blue eyes, and none of their children have blue eyes, at least some of their grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren will.

Blue eyes are a mutation, so neither Eve nor her eggs would have carried the trait. Adam might have, so it would start coming up in the third generation at best.

It's an interesting scenario for the science geeks, eh? :lol: I don't believe it really happened, but it is certainly a fun mental exercise.

[CanadianHippie]

Blue eyes are a mutation, so neither Eve nor her eggs would have carried the trait. Adam might have, so it would start coming up in the third generation at best.

It's an interesting scenario for the science geeks, eh? :lol: I don't believe it really happened, but it is certainly a fun mental exercise.

Blue eyes was merely an example of how quickly a recessive gene, even a mutated one, can start to show in the population. :D

[kunoichi66]

I would just like to register an extreme complaint* that this thread has gotten me sucked into the world of cryptozoology....

*not really, I love reading about these things!

:D

[Katie Scarlett]

Jindal has also expanded the voucher program so more parents can send their kids to religious schools. He wants to turn LA into a state of stupid bible thumpers.

I don't think he cares one way or another about Louisiana. He's not planning on being here very long anyway. He's building his Republican cred so he can make it to the White House. I live in Louisiana and worked for many years for the state or for government contractors in health care. I attended a convention in the early '80's at which he was a guest speaker, and he held up the conference because the TV reporters weren't there on time. His eyes have been on Washington DC since he was in high school and converted to Catholicism because he calculated the likelihood that we'd ever have a Hindu president.