Whose genes are we passing on?

[Daecon]

So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right?

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

 

Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures?

 

In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction?

[moth]

some of our genes will still be in the pool, but probably in a creature as different from us as we are from voles.

don't we share genes with most living creatures? if i remember even yeast have quite a few genes in common with humans.

maybe the genetic info matters more than body type.

[Patrick Henry]

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

 

1/(2^n) genes will be passed on, according to probability.

[Psycho]

some of our genes will still be in the pool, but probably in a creature as different from us as we are from voles.

don't we share genes with most living creatures? if i remember even yeast have quite a few genes in common with humans.

maybe the genetic info matters more than body type.

Indeed, there is homology between eukaryotes, with many conserved regions in specialized proteins, the first posts implication is a fallacy anyway, because one of the many principle of genes is they can mutate so in the end you pass on what is yours to the next generation but given time what is passed on is no more yours than your sons or your dads, for all intensive purposes, it is just what has become from random mutations that have had positive or little effect on the phenotype of the offspring that are passed on. Edited April 4, 2009 by Psycho

[north]

So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right?

 

YES

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

as well as our genes

 

hence , oh , your child looks like you or thinks like you

 

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

 

maybe

 

Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures?

 

they would

 

since we have become larger , smarter and less a victum of the larger

 

In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction?

 

survival

[habana999]

Who's genes are we passing on?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right?

 

Yup

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

Yes we ARE passing on 'our' genes, they are 'our' genes because they are unique to us. Noone else has that combination.. think genetic recombination

 

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

 

yes for sure, but not 100% of them (0% if as is often the case the female has been procreating with another male)

 

Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures?

 

Well I doubt small vole like creatures would really care. Only some groups in society today conciously care if their genes are being passed on

 

In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction?

 

Well i dont think the result would be a big fat zero, obviously there are genes that enable us to live and breathe and without them we would die out. Most mutations that do occur are maladpative and therefore don't survive to the next generation, but yes of course genes will diversify over the next 65 million years but to the extent of the last 65 million years is doubtful (i think). We have reached the 'state' of being that makes us superior to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Anyway you only have to look at research which shows certain genes have been about for thousands/millions of years and have enabled us to link species to species through the ages.

As for the importance of reproduction.. well thats a done deal, our genes make us horny.. we reproduce

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Who's genes are we passing on?

 

 

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

Yes we ARE passing on 'our' genes, they are 'our' genes because they are unique to us. Noone else has that combination.. think genetic recombination

 

OK excuse my mistake....50% of them, but still 'ours'

[cameron marical]

There are mutations too, wich differ your cells from past generations.

[Mr Skeptic]

So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right?

 

A necessity for evolution, but you need not follow it yourself. Unless you want to pass on your genes, that is.

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

Mostly yes, but we're also passing down a few bits unique to us. There are some mutations, and also simply the combination of genes we have. The combinations are of course rather volatile, but still important especially in the short term. The mutations are extremely unlikely to get reversed (though they might not be passed on), but usually are more significant in the long term.

 

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

 

Yes. But don't act as if the genes belong to you. Only a few of your genes will carry a mutation unique to you.

 

Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures?

 

They're still largely the same genes. Just a few modifications.

 

In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction?

 

Well, reproduction is still necessary for evolution (not to mention perpetuating the species). I think that in a thousand years we'll have done far more than evolution would due to genetic engineering, probably enough to be a new species of human.

[Sisyphus]

(0% if as is often the case the female has been procreating with another male)

 

Huh? A bit of a non sequitur, no?

 

Most mutations that do occur are maladpative and therefore don't survive to the next generation,

 

This is incorrect. Everyone has a few mutations, and most of them don't have a noticeable effect.

 

but yes of course genes will diversify over the next 65 million years but to the extent of the last 65 million years is doubtful (i think). We have reached the 'state' of being that makes us superior to the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

Nature doesn't care that you consider yourself superior. What does matter is the fact that we can now alter genetics directly and intentionally, which makes it pretty much inevitable that human beings are going to be changing quite a bit, very quickly.

[GDG]

So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right?

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

 

This is more semantic than anything else. Once you've inherited them, are they not your genes?

 

Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures?

 

Doubt that they were capable of appreciating such questions...

 

In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction?

 

They'll be their genes at that point If we have any biological decendants 65 million years from now, they will have at least some of the genes we have today, and probably a majority of them (although probably all of them will have mutated somewhat from their present-day sequences). This of course assumes we do not adopt a science fiction progression, and either (a) convert ourselves to electronic versions, or (b) engage in massive genetic engineering.

[Daecon]

This is more semantic than anything else. Once you've inherited them, are they not your genes?

I suppose so. Much in the same way as any other hand-me-downs.

[habana999]

Huh? A bit of a non sequitur, no?

 

 

This is incorrect. Everyone has a few mutations, and most of them don't have a noticeable effect.

 

I was talking about mutations that would actually have a significant effect (i.e. severe illness or genes that would drastically change how we look) rather than those with little noticable effect

 

Nature doesn't care that you consider yourself superior. What does matter is the fact that we can now alter genetics directly and intentionally, which makes it pretty much inevitable that human beings are going to be changing quite a bit, very quickly.

 

I know that nature doesnt 'care' if we are superior, the fact is we are, in the same way the dinosaurs were over other species around at the time. Some lived for 35 million years with no 'significant' change.. they didn't need to adapt. Of course if we consider genetic engineering amongst humans beings, we will change rather more rapidly but still, I believe, not to the extent that that small vole has done over the last 65 million years.

[J.C.MacSwell]

So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right?

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

 

Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures?

 

In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction?

 

What does that imply then, about the importance of life in general, if you only live one millionth of that time?

[Sisyphus]

I know that nature doesnt 'care' if we are superior, the fact is we are, in the same way the dinosaurs were over other species around at the time. Some lived for 35 million years with no 'significant' change.. they didn't need to adapt. Of course if we consider genetic engineering amongst humans beings, we will change rather more rapidly but still, I believe, not to the extent that that small vole has done over the last 65 million years.

 

And what way might that be? If you're going by "able to survive longest as a species with the least change," then horseshoe crabs, who have been more or less the same for ~450 million years, are far superior to anything we're closely related to. But then, that seems like kind of an arbitrary criterion.

[habana999]

And what way might that be? If you're going by "able to survive longest as a species with the least change," then horseshoe crabs, who have been more or less the same for ~450 million years, are far superior to anything we're closely related to. But then, that seems like kind of an arbitrary criterion.

 

I wasn't implying that any species had to be 'superior' in the way indicated in my previous post (i.e. top of the food chain), in order to survive unchanged for millions of years. I noted that as 'a' reason with regards to the human race and used dinosaurs as a comparison to back up that thought.

 

Horseshoe crabs haven't evolved because they have been, for 445 million years, the 'optimal design' for survival within their environment.

 

Obviously species evolve or don't evolve for different reasons.

 

It would be interesting however, to consider what 'natural' physiological changes will happen amongst humans over time.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm

[Sisyphus]

So by "superior" you meant the top of the food chain? That also seems arbitrary, and I don't see what it has to do with the rate of evolution.