Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 May 2000 16:24:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
553 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> 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'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
sounded like I meant a new gene would arise. I'm sure that won't happen in the
next couple generations. But, I assume that promiscuity is a polygenic effect,
so we can assume (if we accept my premis) that the factors making up
promiscuity can be influenced by selection.
Obviously, it's in the 'interest' of the species to reproduce as much as
possible up until the point where we're wasting energy that should be devoted
to caring for the young. Up to a point. There are population densities where
catastrophic disease that could substantially injure the whole of the species
is being courted. At that point, it's in the interest of the species to slow
down reproduction.
> > 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
Well...the selection is weaker than mutations that kill infants suffer, but I'm
not sure that you can just discount it. The organism we're discussion can
reproduce for at least 35 years. Even if HIV takes 18 years to kill, that
still cuts out almost half their reproductive years. So (discounting
confounding variables) those prone to contract HIV are more likely to produce
fewer offspring than those not prone to HIV infection. So selection will take
a bit longer. The gene frequency will still drift.
> Since there is no selection, I don't see how your 'weak abstinance gene' will
> arise. Can you explain your hypothesis better?
Do the two bits above address this fully?
> 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?
Assume it's a polygenetic affect. Some are dominant some are recessive. I'm
not up to calculating the time it would take, but it seems to me that it would
happen.
[snip]
> 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.
It may be slow. Everything in genetics is slow.
[snip]
> What's your interest in genetics(just curious)?
Since I was little, and my father explained Punnet(sp?) Squares and basic
inheritance, it has been interesting. I have been breeding pet stock for most
of my life: guppies as a child (9-14), fancy rats off and on since about age
12, African Cichlids as a young adult, show cats for the last ten years, and
I'm soon to start chickens since I just moved to the "country."
I'm just interested in lots of stuff. Almost everything actually.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| Christopher Weeks wrote: <snip> (...) Ok- I'll assume. This may spawn a separate discussion, but did anyone read that 'natural history of rape' book that made a lot of headlines a few months ago. i haven't read it yet, but i have read some other (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Thanks! (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
