Organs can now be grown!

[Occhidiangela]

Is that like soylent green, or more like Snapple? :o
[right][snapback]106536[/snapback][/right]

Why do I think you were prompted to say that via PM? :shuriken:

It's more like Snapple™, with honey. And no, it doesn't taste like Chicken Snapple. :lol:

Occhi

[Rinnhart]

Why do I think you were prompted to say that via PM?  :shuriken:

It's more like Snapple™, with honey.  And no, it doesn't taste like Chicken Snapple.  :lol:

Occhi
[right][snapback]106546[/snapback][/right]

Hahaha, hey now, I'm no cheater. Besides which, I think we both lost due to the Ghostiger derailment.

[GriffonSpade]

Hahaha, hey now, I'm no cheater. Besides which, I think we both lost due to the Ghostiger derailment.
[right][snapback]106562[/snapback][/right]

So in conclusion there are a bunch of genes floating around, some generally useful, some possibly useful, some possibly destrimental, some generally detrimental, and then you have those funny vestigial thingies, and each could flip around and become one of the others given the correct circumstances, and then what we have and do and get can affect what we become.

Survival traits:
1) surviving until you can reproduce
2) getting someone to reproduce with you
3) reproducing as much as possible
4) offspring getting survival traits too

Things like good senses are "generally useful," but can be detrimental if something exploits your sensitivity

Things like large body frames are "possibly useful" but can be detrimental if you need to move quickly or hide in a small space

Things like sickle cell anemia are "possibly detrimental" but can be useful if you should get malaria(note that this would be "generally helpful" in tribal africa)

Things like not having legs are "generally detrimental" but can be useful if you get something else to take care of you

Things like the little nubs on constricting snakes are "vestigial thingies" generally useless, but can potentially be helpful, as in tickling mates or something, but also potentially detrimental, getting stuck on something or getting ripped off

(Note that these are linked some more and some less to actual genetics!)


Yup, that means Einstein, the 7 foot tall basketball player, the hunter, the rapist, and the guy born without legs all can wind up as being the fittest! :ph34r:
(or they can wind up never getting a date, dying of a heart attack, eating some bad meat, getting shot, or being drowned at birth)

[Drasca]

(Note that these are linked some more and some less to actual genetics!)
Yup, that means Einstein, the 7 foot tall basketball player, the hunter, the rapist, and the guy born without legs all can wind up as being the fittest! :ph34r:
(or they can wind up never getting a date, dying of a heart attack, eating some bad meat, getting shot, or being drowned at birth)
[right][snapback]107147[/snapback][/right]

Supposedly my family name is shared with over 100 million other people. Does that mean that our progenitor's genes were successful? or that they just like to breed like rabbits?

[Assur]

Supposedly my family name is shared with over 100 million other people. Does that mean that our progenitor's genes were successful? or that they just like to breed like rabbits?
[right][snapback]107155[/snapback][/right]

It could also mean that your ancestor got his name from a common profession in which he was active, e.g. miller or smith, and that the ancestors of other families also had that profession and hence the name. So no common progenitor for you :)

[Occhidiangela]

It could also mean that your ancestor got his name from a common profession in which he was active, e.g. miller or smith, and that the ancestors of other families also had that profession and hence the name. So no common progenitor for you :)
[right][snapback]107202[/snapback][/right]

Other than the proverbial Adam and Eve, of course. :D

*ducks to avoid all of the book throwing*

Occhi

[Drasca]

Other than the proverbial Adam and Eve, of course.  :D

*ducks to avoid all of the book throwing*
[right][snapback]107204[/snapback][/right]

Isn't incest illegal? :whistling:

May those that try it encounter many bears, and when they do, pray they be Christian. If there be a Christian bear, the bear might kneel and also pray, "Bless you father for this meal I am about to receive..."

from a common profession in which he was active, e.g. miller or smith

Its one of the top five Asian surnames with no inherent professional meaning, so that explanation doesn't count ;)

[GriffonSpade]

Supposedly my family name is shared with over 100 million other people. Does that mean that our progenitor's genes were successful? or that they just like to breed like rabbits?
[right][snapback]107155[/snapback][/right]

1) If they bred like rabbits and actually managed to not die more than they bred, then that counts as SOME kind of success doesn't it?

2) Maybe there was some really cool guy that had that name and everyone wanted to be like him

[Occhidiangela]

Isn't incest illegal?  :whistling:

May those that try it encounter many bears, and when they do, pray they be Christian. If there be a Christian bear, the bear might kneel and also pray, "Bless you father for this meal I am about to receive..."
Its one of the top five Asian surnames with no inherent professional meaning, so that explanation doesn't count ;)
[right][snapback]107239[/snapback][/right]

Generally, the prohibiiton is on cosanguinity among first cousins and immediate family.

If one believes the mitochondrial RNA theme, which takes us all back on one "proto-eve" a few million years ago in central Africa (Discovery had a great show on that about 10 years ago) the first generation or two of humans had to be indulging in incest.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Generally, the prohibiiton is on cosanguinity among first cousins and immediate family.  That second cousin of who you hold a candle for?  It's probably legel to pursue it, if the feeling is reciprocal.  Whether or not the family, or families, endorses such a union is another matter entirely.  :blink:

If one believes the mitochondrial RNA theme, which takes us all back on one "proto-eve" a few million years ago in central Africa (Discovery had a great show on that about 10 years ago) the first generation or two of humans had to be indulging in incest.

Occhi
[right][snapback]107363[/snapback][/right]

[Drasca]

Generally, the prohibition is on cosanguinity among first cousins and immediate family.

If one believes the mitochondrial RNA theme, which takes us all back on one "proto-eve" a few million years ago in central Africa (Discovery had a great show on that about 10 years ago) the first generation or two of humans had to be indulging in incest.
[right][snapback]107363[/snapback][/right]

Don't confuse the chicken with the egg yet, or declare that they're sexually frustrated. Human incest? Ok, it happens sometimes, and I have no way of tracking. Was incest necessary and guaranteed? I doubt that the form above was required. Possible, probably happened to an extent, but incest via one couple would show a generally lead to deformative genetic death. Given common ancestry at the cellular level can be far more sexually vigorous, I do not believe direct lineage from the chicken and egg is the answer. Certain forms of bacteria, when you open up their structures, readily accept bits of RNA from who knows where. Other forms can accept it from the dead remains of their comrades into their own structure. Genetic soup likes to mix. Co-development among several groups becomes a possibility.

Sure, mitochondria do suggest the diffusion path of development of common ancestry. However, the start of that ancestry isn't likely "human". There's little telling when we obtained the same mitochondria. It could be when we formed from individual subcellular beings to single cells formed of many specialized subcellular parts. It could be when we turned multicellular and absorbed other bits into us. It could be later somehow (probably involving sexual scandals between different species). Point being, we don't have to be from the same tribe of "humans" if our common heritage dates back further than all of that.

Given that the mitochondrial ancestry dates back further than what's "human", we could have co-development somewhere. More than one tribe could've been seperated from those primordial jungles by some event that requires us to rely more on this intellect we've developed.

[Taem]

I'm sure I'll get in trouble for my opinion, but here it goes:

It seems to me that the *race* issue has some merit genetically speaking. For example, it is my understanding that most African-Americans have the gene that can produce Sickle Cell Anemia (sp?) later in life. Also, there was an AIDS vaccine in development about three years ago that, when tested on a large group of people produced reults which were much better in certian ethnicities than others (something to the effect of 65% for African Americans, 45% for Chinese, 35% for Hispanics, and 5% for Caucasians). If I can find the article, I will link it because I'm almost positive the percents I listed are incorrect, however the discrepancy between races was huge and clear to see. It got me thinking that maybe we need to start examining the way we develop medicines for the masses by producing cures based on our individual needs because what works well for one person doesn’t always work best for *me* (or you). In regards to the discussion at hand, I don’t know if genetics would play such a huge factor in our evolution in this day and age, but still I think it should be considered.
[right][snapback]106527[/snapback][/right]

Here’s the links I promised, albeit a bit late:
Aids Vaccine
Sickle Cell Anemia