Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 May 2000 20:42:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
641 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> Uh, sure. I was mostly kidding, but that's cool! Good luck with grad school.
Thanks!
> > > Could it be that when there gets to be too many of a given organism in a
> > > localle, and predation isn't taking care of it, diseases become a likely • vector
> > > for population control. Maybe (if AIDS turns out to be as big a threat as
> > > some suggest) some genetic drift will occur from this causing us as an • organism
> > > to be able to keep it in our pants a bit more.
>
> [snip a tentative agreement to the first half of my conjecture]
> >
> > The problem with you example is that it isn't entirely genetic drift that will
> > keep our urges in check.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that it's impossible for us to
> have gene (or polygene) that tells us not to procreate so much? That can't be
> it, because that's wrong. The drift won't keep our urges in check, but 'our'
> (it's more correct to say 'their') new "weak abstinence" gene will.
Umm.. It's possible. There is certainaly variation in how people conduct
their sexual lives, but I am not sure if that is genetically or socially
induced. Maybe a little of both. So where does the 'weak abstinance gene'
arrise from?
> I think that the victims of infection dying counts as selection as long as they
> can no longer breed. Right?
yes, they are selected out of the population, but they have a chance to breed
before they are selected, which will pass their genes to the next generation.
So there is virtually no selection differential against HIV/AIDs victims(the virtually takes care of
childhood cases/those whodon't reproduce by choice/etc).
Since there is no selection, I don't see how your 'weak abstinance gene' will
arise. Can you explain your hypothesis better?
> Sure there is...well not exactly resistance... If two people are born on the
> same day, begin growing up, one of them starts experimenting sexually at
> thirteen and get's an HIV infection, but the other waits until eighteen when
> their knowledge and discipline allow them to more fully practice safe sex. If
> we posit that the age at which sexual curiosity is piqued is genetically based,
> then the ones who start earlier die off and reproduce less. The genome drifts
> toward the one of the survivors. That's just one example. The gene could
> control life-long desire to copulate, etc.
Maybe. I think it depends on a few factors even with a genetic basis to
sexual curiousity. The first what is the dominance relationship of this gene?
If it is a recessive gene then it may not be expressed in all or none offspring
dependent on the genotype of the other parent. If it is dominant, it could
spread rather quickly through the pop. Polygenes and epistatic effects
could be a whole different story... However, I just think the change
would be too slow... (maybe i'll try the math on this tonight.
> I don't follow.
sorry, I think i was trying to say something similar to what you said in
the above paragraph. simply put. some people fool around more than others.
> > Genetic drift/selection probably won't be a barrier to the virus's spread.
>
> Again. Maybe I'm missing your whole point...or you were mine. I'm not sure.
I think it all comes down to the selection issue. The 'sexual curiousity' or
whatever gene, doesn't seem like it would be strong enough to reach a high
frequency in the population, at least in a few generations. Maybe it would
work if there was a selective force that acted on HIV/AIDS before it spread
and/or offspring were made. It still comes down to the fact that it is spread
before it is acted upon.
> I don't think so. This furthers my assumption that I miscommunicated, or you
> read something into it. I'm very familiar with the basics of genetics. (That
> is VERY familiar compared to the average citizen, but I'm sure I know quite
> little compared to you. :-) Does my further elaboration convince you that I
> wasn't proposing a Lamarkian scheme of inheritance?
Yes, it does clear some things up... I think it was this phrase, "some genetic drift will occur
from this causing..." It just seemed like a lamarkian state-
ment. looking back now after reading this post, I don't think it was. sorry.
thanks for clearing it up though :)
What's your interest in genetics(just curious)?
-chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I'm sure (well, as sure as I can be with no real evidence, so take this to mean that it seems exremely likely) that sexuality is controlled both by genetic and environmental factors. I guess the way I named the "weak abstinence gene" it (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Uh, sure. I was mostly kidding, but that's cool! Good luck with grad school. (...) vector (...) organism (...) [snip a tentative agreement to the first half of my conjecture] (...) I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that it's (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
