vampares

Many species have a dominance/territorial means of self selection. Those who are health occupy a "territory" in which the individual, mate(s) and their offsping may live. This should create gradients of gene pools and even niches for each. Along the lines of loss of "advantageous" genes, diabetes is an example, perhaps similar to Vitamin C. Of course diabetics would have died prior to Humalin. But scurvy was not uncommon just a century ago. This mode of "loss" is by genetic disease -- even if simply by definition. People who are genetically or otherwise physiologically impaired are sometimes referred to as "parasites". Not exactly politically correct. Still, intercities are strife with mentally ill, physically disabled, etc. A good example is war veterans. Throughout history it is recorded that sick people congregate near hubs of commerce (even making their way upstream if need be). It was more of a "problem" a few years ago. Interestingly these "herds" have a quivering anxiety to them. There is no "peace". The same thing occurs with animals who are genetically or physically compromised. Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Prior genetic pressure, ie black in Africa may have a mutation in melanin that makes him "blacker". This mutation is only going to be noticed in the depths of the Sahara. In a European it would make him or her look unwell. As would albinism in Africa. Neither of these things are going to rock anyones world as we can see by the proliferation of whites, blacks and mulatto's -- the two most genetically distinct populations (there is a chart, if I can find it). This pressure sensitive selection is key. It all depends on the pressure. Many genetic diseases that are found in humans mock the traits healthy individuals. Each disease has a corresponding trait. This may allow for pseudo-selection, or it may mask the underlying condition. "Asian" eyes, nordic dolichocephally, youth types (either retarded or psuedo-puerile), etc., even stupidity or passive disposition can be an advantage. This the "genetic drift" that is anchored down. It is a loss of good genetic material. The advantage is not really there but the "evolution" is, at any rate.

OK if I search "retroviral" I get more hits, like the first half of the long end of chromosome 18. At least they separate p from q. The viruses appear to be confined on the given chromosomes. (?) HERVies are different from L1 and ALU repeats. But they are very similar. Another DiGeorge's protein, this one a copy of the another one with minor changes. This "duplication" is done pre-human (everyone has this change). "A full-length HERV-K provirus integrated into the low-copy repeat region containing DGCR6, but not to the region containing DGCR6L, after the divergence of chimpanzees and humans. Edelmann et al. (2001) concluded that there has been selective evolutionary pressure toward the functional maintenance of both paralogs." Provirus. Everything about 610524 is a love song. Back in those days everything was simpler and more confused. . . ---- My HIV/AIDS thread has moved to the outskirts of Limoges. I think it's making for the coast. It is a relevant tie in though, as I think it should be. Relevant that is. The thing is real. The name "retrovirus" however was probably a misnomer. I don't know exactly when HTLV was designated or theorized a "retrovirus". Yet it behaves much like an endogenous retrovirus. Here we have merely tacked the word "endogenous" onto retrovirus. "Endogenous retrovirus" isn't even hyphenated. It calls into question the notion of "pathogen". We have a "polio receptor", a polio virus and a polio vaccine. Not to mention a disease that looks an awful lot like rickets. Who hasn't gotten the flu before? Is the flu endogenous? Viruses are not likely a fantastic bacteria that is so elusive we can only study the nuances from one to the next. So what is viral? We have a virus model. Can we apply this to retroviruses? RNA/transcripterase is probably all you need. What part of this model is then the function of "endogenous retrovirus"? Where is the paradigm shift?

NY Times article (I will cut it down some for you): Dr. Robert Gallo, the American co-discoverer of the virus that causes AIDS and the subject of a Federal inquiry in connection with that discovery, is being investigated once again, Federal officials say, this time on charges of perjury and PATENT FRAUD. At issue is the patent covering the test for detecting the human immunodeficiency virus, ... They are asking whether statements by Dr. Gallo in the patent application for the virus test were knowingly false, especially the assertion that his work in developing the test owed very little to the French team. ... Dr. Gallo vehemently denies any wrongdoing. He states he did not know about certain actions of Dr. Popovic, who is accused of falsifying data, ... The new inquiries have begun at a time when a longstanding Federal investigation of Dr. Gallo's original discovery is nearing its end. The investigation, which bears directly on events cited in the patent application, was prompted by an article by John Crewdson that appeared in The Chicago Tribune in 1989. The report of the Federal investigation, which was conducted by the Office of Scientific Integrity of the National Institutes of Health, has been through various drafts. Although Dr. Gallo is not accused of misconduct in the latest draft, Dr. Popovic is, and the conclusions are far from flattering to either scientist. The draft report says that in several instances Dr. Gallo failed to assure that facts in a May 1984 research paper were true, ... The report found numerous discrepancies between the Gallo team's laboratory records and the results claimed in the 1984 paper, ... the report's investigative team was unanimous in its opinion that Dr. Popovic had committed scientific misconduct. The discrepancies, in the investigators' view, stemmed from "misrepresentations or falsifications of the actual methodology and data," and could not have been due merely to honest mistakes or honest differences in judgment. Dr. Popovic's lawyer, Barbara Mishkin, disputed the charges of misconduct. She said that when he arrived in the United States in the early 1980's as a refugee from Czechoslovakia, he was uncertain of the standards of note-keeping and accuracy that might be demanded of him. ... The report's investigators, initially led by Suzanne Hadley of the Office of Scientific Integrity, said there were numerous false statements in the 1984 Science paper, including several about the growth of H.I.V. in the lab, ... ---- At this point I a have to ***STOP*** The article is focusing on patents surrounding the discovery of HTLV-III (III as opposed to HTLV-I or HTLV-II). ---- HTLV-1 (use the wikipedia if you like) gene map human T-cell leukemia virus (I and II) receptor (or HTLV-1) at 17q21-q23 "Furthermore, Hinrichs et al. (1987) found that transgenic mice expressing the tat gene of HTLV-1 develop a syndrome resembling neurofibromatosis (162200), a disorder that has been localized to human chromosome 17cen-q21. The only other retroviral receptor molecule unequivocally identified was the CD4 leukocyte antigen which is used by HIV viruses involved in AIDS. HTLV-1 is etiologically associated with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma and tropical spastic paraparesis (see 159580), while HTLV-2 is associated with T-cell hairy cell leukemia (HCL) (Rosenblatt et al., 1986). Ratner et al. (1990) described the cases of an adult black brother and sister who developed adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma resulting from infection from HTLV-1. Both had lived almost exclusively in the area of St. Louis, Missouri." - OMIM 143090 17cen-q21 If there is chromosomal linkage we should see the NFS and the HTLV-1 sharing a common epidemiology. It is only logical to make the connection 17cen-q21 <> 17q22-q22. ---- So here is the $64k question: Is leukemia a sexually transmitted disease? When was the last time you heard of a bad case of cancer going around? Is leukemia a retrovirus? HTLV was the first retrovirus discovered in 1977. It is also associated with lymphoma. Are all of these viruses as well? If there is any difference -- any doubt -- there should be data available for each and every one: Virus YES / Virus NO

I read all the way through that article yesterday and I can't remember the first thing about it today. Oh well. I found LRE1 the L1.2 LINE RETROTRANSPOSABLE ELEMENT when searching OMIM for retrotransposons. The NCBI map only gestures at the notion; there is no sequence, phenotype or morbidity linked to it. Hot L1s account for the bulk of retrotransposition in the human population It is almost a functional or it is a functional gene/protien/mutation. This is not clear. There is discusion about the trunctation of the 5' end. This truncated or broken LINE is then transposed and this causes "mutation"/disfunction? Again I don't have a LINE-1 sequence as with every most other genes. There are LINE's discussed as x many in the genome, y are truncated, z are not. There is then discussion about ethnic sampling and further differences which, again, is too abstract for my objective mind. There is also an evolutionary model! The successive emergence and amplification of distinct Ta L1 subfamilies shows that L1 evolution has been as active in recent human history as it has been found to be for rodent L1 families. In addition, Ta-1 elements have been accumulating in humans at about the same rate per generation as recently evolved active rodent L1 subfamilies. Unfortunately evolving into a tumor is a possibility. Human LINE-1 retrotransposon induces DNA damage and apoptosis in cancer cells This 22q11.1-q11.2 locus is linked with "Asymmetric crying facies velo-cardio-facial"/DiGeorge syndrome. Which from my understanding looks, ironically like Barbara Bush Do we just watch her and see what develops? I can't determine where the retrovirus's are in the genome. I would not recognize one unless it was designated as one.

Hmm, I wonder where that gene would be. Maybe there is evidence remaining of what happened to it.

There is also the potential to loose or effectively loose the benefits of advantageous recessive traits by diffusion. There was an issue of Time magazine that had a composite of what "mixed" America would look like. That is if everyone in America were to reproduce without reservation. If this were the case, the recessive traits would be rapidly drowned out. Maybe someone knows the equation for calculating the homozygous expression of a gene in a given gene pool. If it is so unlikely it can no longer be selected for, it becomes, in effect, worthless. Institutionalized inbreeding would isolate it from an inequitable gene pool and give it opportunity for expression (as well as preservation and the extractive differentiation of genotype). Of course the majority of reproduction is done with bias towards race and other criteria. If and when it is not the resulting offspring is usually associated with an ethnicity regardless. This has the potential advantage of adding traits to a "race", or otherwise homogeneously closed gene pool. The selection of the traits from the next generation of "in-mixed" offspring is then possible. To select recessive traits, the offspring must be "hybrid-mixed" and require more offspring for the observation of the recessive trait. Due to the complex constraints of such reproduction it is rare except in the offspring of war parties. For example (pure) blue-eyes is extremely rare in the African and Asian populations. We can therefore safely assume that Caucasians have not substantially (or overwhelmingly at least) contributed to to these gene pools as some of the Vietnam horror stories might suggest. The Austrialian population is an interesting one. They have, over several generations, homogenized what was a select group of individuals. Interestingly these homogenized populations exhibit their multiple origins better than those of the founders and shows a selectivity with regard alleles in combination. It is distinct none the less. The American population on the otherhand, a less uniformly installed population, tends to display disunion more readily and is not has not been pruned selectively in regards one to the other. We can thereby assume that the Australian population did slough off some alleles to accommodate the others in order to achieve harmony.

As a quantum entity, I think vitalism, et al., is a theory (philosophical concept really) that has not progressed with the rest of science. The "humors" have not yielded any evidence of a source of life or vital essence (like green slime and the toaster in ghostbusters). Science eventually branched off into schools of Chemistry and Biology. "Organic Chemistry" and "Biochemistry" being one with respect to the other. The whole idea is really just expanded into what we know as biology. The biological process as we know it is distinct from other all other systems, and this because of the "vitalism" we attribute to it. "Medicine", however, remains the same. We do not employ religious or spiritual practices in medicine. Perhaps the extraction of ethereal vitalism is found in crystallology and the like. But, the scientific introspection is an entirely logical construct, philosophical, in regards to "vitalism". The Degenerate Biologist and the Perverted Physician are probably most inclined to vitalism by virtue of the Fiddle-Diddle Instinct. As a religious or philosophical construct there is little more than vantage point to be gained.

Parts 1-3 are a bit conspiracy theory oriented. 4-7 are more interesting. HIV: The Greatest Medical Hoax of Our Time part 1 part 2 part 3 part 4 part 5 part 6 part 7 Points this video asserts: Electron microscope images of HIV virus Isolation of HIV (I found this to be slightly undertoned which is inappropriate for such discussion about monads) Indigenous retrovirus (or is that Endogenous?) Western blot tests for antibodies (not viruses or RNA) -- antibodies found in many people with specific diseases Western blot is a test with a sensitivity Western blot test is different in different countries "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test - Western Blot)

I've been schooped. "There can be many alleles" Yes and it seems to me that there should be one or virtually none. They are "mutations". They are unique. If there is one thing Darwinian evolution tell us: at replacement rate of reproduction they should not increase and they should not decrease in number (beyond statistical fluctuation). In fact, the homozygous individual would be impaired and there should be a net loss, since we do not eliminate a negative homo in this case. This would suggest to me that the gene is changing. It is mutating. "So you're hypothesis didn't come from your studies and is not original to you." No, I am not prompted to investigate the crevasses of human decay. I have no study. I might open up a clinic, however. This all should have been done. I should have the information, if not in textbooks, as a clear an concise statement of fact, theory, observation, striking leads, a trend, interjection, pie chart -- something. Something that doesn't make me look like I am swinging at the air.

Lowest common dominator, can't be no one, can't be in a tree. hmm. You know if there is one thing I hate it's factions.

Are you messing with Major Tom?

My guess is magnesium from the aluminum alloy. :S

The way this is done in reagent preparation is with a catalyst (like the one in a car, only the sulfur gums everything up). It cost 8$ a liter for reagent grade 100% sulfuric acid, it's industrial cheap but only because it is industrially made in large quantities. Burning sulfur, ie brimstone which reminds me of the Black Beard pirate quote This will make you sick. It is not a very good way to make sulfur dioxide either. You will make a mess and ruin your lab. Why you don't have sulfuric acid, I don't know, but it is used to make most of the other acid reagents. And lye is used for most -OH. Elemental sulfur is good for -S- type reactions I think (can't remember). It will bind Hg.

China seems to follow the general male/female trend. As you can see the colors are defined differently in the two maps. In Africa there isn't just this reverse trend but there is a contrasting population surrounding the hole. Even similar populations of displaced Africans, in the Caribean and elsewhere (not the African Americans) where the population is jungle thick, exhibit steep trends in what seems to be "unpenetrated" areas. It is rare that such areas encompass an entire country. Part of this may be a susceptibility to cervical cancer but that's not genocide. Eastern Europe has a large number of lung cancer deaths in males. Otherwise the Ukraine and select surrounding populations have a very low rate of cancer. Some of these countries paid for the institutionalization of incurable insanity during WW2. I would not be surprised to see a link between a cancer and mental deficiency. Some of this data may be off the mark on several counts. Data shows, historically, reported figures have swung wildly between extremes. Cancer is a funny thing. The cancer cells have DNA missing, particular fragments that other cells have. What difference this makes or why these regions are deleted in very specific cancers? From the gene data, the global cancer statistics, historical records and photographs of gene pool entrants, my own clandestine epidemiological investigations and some figurin' and reconin': The sonic hedgehog locus plays a part in enviro-sensitive cancers. Particularly lung/oral/esophageal/pharynx cancers (they may be an over lap) seem to have a variety of deletions but seems to be the same set of deletions. There seems to be an aggravating effect induced by cigarettes, but also plain old tobacco. Nicotine itself is a poor carcinogen. The genes on the sonic hedgehog locus I suspect are responsible for these types of cancers are in the gimap series. The 7 or so gimap proteins hold the genes together. A defect in these proteins would result in DNA being lose in the nucleus, exposing it to damage. When damage does occur the site is excised from the chromosome. Individuals like George Custer tend to escape notice. Partly because the SSH locus produces a variable dysmorphia that often mild. Thus there may not be resemblance between individuals. ie Ariel Sharon, George Custer, the guy who had Lincoln shot: and this guy in found in East Africa or slave runners daughters or the armless Brazilians. The mentality is the same. And so are the cancers.

The technology can also be our demise -- the H-bomb, chloro-fluorocarbons and the ozone layer, partial hydrogenation, methylbromide -- the list goes on. I don't think we can rely upon secular genocide either. It is seen in the complete lack of hygiene in Kosovo; the European mentality is one of competitive domination and terrorism, which leaves nothing but a mess. And the mainstream phobia prevents the media from so much as documenting just how unique things can become. There is a reluctance to recognize that man without mental faculties man is a naked piece of warm meat, often not fit for consumption. The "solution" the mainstream is comfortable with is bringing this to "the test" and after sufficient inconveniences have been bestowed upon an individual he or she has wholesomely graduated civil survival. Of course, all good people. So on and so forth. And this is why my money is on the Asians. The Asians are not much different -- they all look the same. In a token society, you must be able to recognize the counterfeit. In the world to come, you must know who you are and you must like it.

Some genes are identified as cancer prone. International Agency for Research on Cancer (click on GLOBOCAN 2002 or other data base) healthcare variables: cancer reporting compliance and capability, diagnostic paradigms, cultural impediments (ie sari's in Islamic countries), medical facilities, cultural perception of healthcare environmental variables: solar UV exposure, weather, food stuffs and vitamin intake, water supply contamination, regional pathogans, industrial toxicity physiological variables: age, sex, early non-cancerous death, genetics North Korea and South Korea have almost identical statistics. Your thoughts?

I think *most* mutations are Repeat Expansions. "Fragile X" explanations may help. --- There is a state of heterochromatin that utilizes repeats: For example, all human chromosomes 1, 9, 16, and the Y chromosome contain large regions of constitutive heterochromatin. This is as opposed to Euchromatin which does not use these repeats. In cells there is a "change" or Epigenetic Inheritance overtime. I don't know what role this plays exactly but you can follow along to see how changes can occur -- some good, perfectly normal, natural aging process -- others bad for the cell but otherwise nothing comes of them like cancer or anything. Involved in this could be Satellite DNA, Paramutation, Gene silencing, Transvection and my personal favorite Nonsense Mediated Decay. --- Anyways these Trinucleotide repeat expansions (whatever their origins) are often looped when the DNA helix's. Why, how they got their -- I don't know -- but they (something) seems to have effected the protein that is assigned the good job of regulating the DNA. I think it is the BRCA1 aka polyQ or poly glutamine. If you browse this locus alternating morbidity/pheno/gene_seq sorting, scroll up and down -- you'll see "huntingtin type 1" (or Huntinton's is sameting), some structural genes etc. all clustered there on the same block of squidgable DNA. Also there is also a chromosome 17 frame index -- may be involved with heterochromatin like functionality. But most of goofy sh*t has already been processed into the DNA when you get it. I don't know how all of this happens after expansion -- the DNA may be "repaired" by the system to make it fit into a helix. At which point adding (that is repeating this new mistake to make it even) or deleting is done.. They say "what you don't know, can't hurt you." It may be true. Few mutations will give you cancer. They also say everyone is of good humor and rather jovial, free spirits -- this is with no teeth, weird hair, slightly retarded and having to hold your eyelids up with something. And watch what you eats too! -- This TATA box binding protein has been linked to degenerate sequencing. Note the BRCA1 gene. This is a mutation frequency graph from the linked article about Homologous Recombination (HR), and the contrasting Non-Allelic Homologous Recombination (NAHR). Impotence is a possible result. Anyways SNP is a relatively rare event, bordering on extremely rare. The number of generation that would need to be genetically analyzed in a cloned cell line -- much less one that undergoes genetic recombination -- would be prohibitive in the laboratory environment. It could just as plausibly be space aliens as any given mechanism in a proper organism.

You have a rather sour take on modern agricultural technology. There are currently 6 billion or so. The figures I saw had Africa and Asia as major population points. Not rapid of growth or decline, however. Very moderate figures. There will be an energy bump. We just started using fossil fuels and they are already almost gone. I think this is almost seen as a solution to unwanted problems. It's not going to bring the population down to a billion. As "mechanized" as things are now, I think people are creatures of this earth. They are overwhelmingly the large mammal creatures of this earth but still of this earth. The more paving that needs to be done, the more motorized wheelchairs their will be. People do the same people things however, only with mobile assistance. It's not like anyone buys a car, three cases of Readi-Whip and builds a fusion reactor with his or her spare time. That's not the type of motivation an individual has.

Clearly this is an intangible concept. Discussions arguing intangibles is not acceptable in polite society. Most of the time this subject persists because no has answered: "What are you doing and why are you doing it?" If the intangible concept of what a person is comes up then the question has not been answered. As far as the animal thing goes, lean with the flakiness of chicken but tastes like pork, slightly salty. Don't ask.

These are psychotropics as opposed to nootropics or "smart drugs". I think propanolol is a given "nootropic" status. As is deprenyl, pyrogulamate and vinopoticene (I don't think I spelled one of these correctly). Ginkgo balboa might even be considered a smart drug. Which is about the effect any of these others would have. Mostly vasodilators -- nothing that'll take the paint off a car or anything.

Can I say "artificial selection"? That the penis and vagina are what maintains the gene pool in the absence of natural selection? There are many species who's traits show evidence of no other determining factors. For instance there are a million different types of tweetie bird, most of whom are about same. The niche factor hardly applies to tweetie birds, especially with so many kinds. What separates them is their own exclusive mating selection. As they become species they are able to diverge from the archetypal tweetie and become specialized. The first article began with "survival traits that lead to minor imperfections". If a population is sequestered and selectively (or by unavoidable mating circumstances) mutates towards a vulnerability -- that vulnerability will be positively negated when it rejoins with the unmutated population. If there isn't one (maybe to evolved), well there you go. But there aren't a whole lot of examples of this. There just aren't that many hoops to jump through and I think this is the point the article is getting at: it all been done before. If you lose the ability, then it won't be done again. None of whom deny any of the others. Biologist have gone to great lengths to show through studies such as embryology, biomechanics, physiology, etc. why we have only one head. It is clear that having hooves rather than hands poses fewer issues than something like two heads. It can also be shown that going from flippers to hands is not such an amazing leap. In fact it can be show statistically and mathematically that this could have occurred "mutationally" by accident as a "new" event giving rise to a series of bones that are five fingers, hands on wrists. It is unlikely such a mutation was drawn up in more discriminating higher order organisms whose lives are more complicated. So how many organisms do you see hobbling around? There are a few, but by in large animals are maintained in such away as not to become vulnerable. It should not come as a suprise that there aren't more hamhocked beasts in this world.

This is entirely a different subforum but when the Canadian Dark Matter Weaponization Program is finalized, I think we're all going to be eating a lot more pancakes. I noticed North America seems kind of sparse. I have somewhere a vegetation map, well here's a biomes map we occupy most of the "good" space on earth. The equator is kind of low on this map.

I would say that "humans" of the future would have to come from humans of the present (or their ancestors). Otherwise we are replaced, and this is essentially extinct. If some human genetic material makes it's way into a frog in a last ditch effort to save mankind -- I'd say that doesn't count. (there's prolly a farm full of mice and such somewhere muttering under it's breath) As much as I'd like to see people not become grotesque mutants, it's still not extinct. Isn't species line usually drawn around reproducible populations? I thought Malthusian principle had technology leveling off with the population increasing. err is that not how it goes?... I know I did see an article (I think they took it down sciammind.com or sciam.com) that had global figures showing reproductive rate and income being closely related. Industrialized nations were at sub-replacement levels anyways. It was all national averages though. I don't think technology follows a binomial trend. And like cell size pays ohmage to surface area and volume ratio, so to will most "technological" advancements hit a cost effect and natural limition ratio ceiling -- and for the most part this is really what we are seeing, is gradual development of industrial resource and not technology skyrocketing.

I hesitate to make a statement that could be ethnically or racially contrived, but there is no doubt that the demographic has changed in the US over the last 150 years. This is a phenomenon that has been observed near many urban areas. Hearing, reading accounts of the conditions settlers went through, one gets the impression of a rather hearty group of disciplined men (and women) who very self-sufficient. But looking at photographs of the original settlers, they seem relatively, em, refined let's say. It could be photographic plates were to precious to waste on ugly people, I don't know. Is it possible society has become too rich in just the past two centuries? We hear of starving children in Africa, is this for the best? Food itself -- the where-with-all to store and save it, know when to come up with more, self awareness in regards to nutrition etc. -- is this going to put us into a nosedive or is this the way things always were?

OK let's set mark at when biological organisms of our genetic decent cease to be capable of posting on scienceforums.net. So what's a reasonable outlook? 100 years? 1000? 10000? 100k? Geneticly speaking, are we on our way out? We have the technology to sequence DNA and clone sheep, but also to keep less than healthy members of the population alive. If we are on our way out, at what point do we need to step in to reverse the trend? Is there a model we can use to predict these things?