Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Here's a question that's been bugging me, I don't know why but it has and I would appreciate it if some one could shed some light on it.


Let's say there are two children and let's scientifically call them A and B. Going back 50 generations:

A's parents, and their parents, and their parents parents etc all had their child at the age of 20

B's parents, and their parents, and their parents parents etc all had their child at the age of 30


Is child B more evolved because their genes are from older and more experienced parents? (I realise there will be 500 years difference between them)


I think what I'm asking is, at what point in life do the evolutionary traits and life experience get passed on to a gene that would pass to a child? At what point do they stop?


Any ideas?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/5619-a-question-about-genetics/
Share on other sites

Well, since they all survived to procreate, there was no evolutionary selection at all. Evolution assumes that reproduction is curtailed in species less well adapted to their environment.


Evolution sometimes gets confused with advancement, but it's not, it's adaptation. Hence you can evolve to be more stupid if the world around you became less challenging.


I'd just add that it's always been accepted that cultural/educational traits are not inherited genetically (which would negate the whole debate), however recent research has suggested that cultural items can be transmitted...

Your evolutionary cards are dealt at conception as your DNA maps out the mutations that may, or may not contribute to enhanced chances of survival.


Indeed all survived Huguenot, but some may have had a genetic propensity to survive the black death, and procreated with someone else who did thus helping ensure that unbroken line, so we can't be sure that no evolutionary processes happened.


In fact aren't we* all the result of an unbroken chain of successful procreation of at least 50 generations?


*apart from those of us made from mud or ribs of course.

Mind you, with things like radiation and powerful chemicals that can alter your DNA sequences, I guess it can be post conception now.


In fact do these hiccups occur in the womb post conception? Ask a scientist Mark.


I watched X-Men last night, so I know everything...

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> Mind you, with things like radiation and powerful

> chemicals that can alter your DNA sequences, I

> guess it can be post conception now.

>

> In fact do these hiccups occur in the womb post

> conception? Ask a scientist Mark.

>

> I watched X-Men last night, so I know everything...


You only watched it last night? Emma Frost doesn't have a bun in the oven now does she?


Edit due to multitasking.:-/

Huguenot, have you got a reference for that research? Sounds interesting.


Mark, the ten additional years of learning and working that each generation of B parents had would not change their genetics. Experience and learning changes behaviour, but not genes.


Genetic mutation usually happens during cell division. There are two types of cell division one which produces an exact copy of the cell with all its genetic material and one which produces a cell with exactly half the genetic material of the original. It is the second type of division, meiosis, that produces eggs and sperm.


Put simply, I'm not really much of a scientist, each human cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes that hold all of our DNA.

During meiosis the chromosomes line up in pairs and the cell splits in two with one of each pair going into each cell. So, each egg or sperm contains half the parent's DNA and, because the order in which the chromosomes line up is not fixed, each egg or sperm is different. Mutation is most likely to happen during the process of cell division when, again a massive over simplification, chromosomes can split unevenly or become damaged.


Genetic disorders either occur as a result of this kind of mutation, Down's syndrome for example is the extra duplication of one particular chromosome, or through so called Mendalian inheritance, were one or both parents passes down a defective gene.


Mockney, radiation, infections and drugs can all affect and even stop normal development in the womb leading to birth defects, but these are congenital (present at birth) rather than genetic. A person with the typical limb shortening deformity caused by their mother taking thalidomide during pregnancy can have a child with entirely normal limbs, because it was their development affected by the drug not their DNA.


Back to your question Mark, child A and child B would be very different, because as you said they would have been born 500 years apart and had entirely different experiences and influences, but the things that we experience and learn do not change our DNA.

I didn't realise that this example was real enough to cite Black Death, I thought it was just a question of whether something that has an equal number of iterations would evolve differently based on cultural issues?


Recent research suggested that children of 50 year old men averaged 3 points lower on IQ tests than those of 20 year old men, owing to genetic mutation. Over 50 generations that could have a significant impact.


If you have children at 30 rather than 20, then you're likely to be more secure financially and less stressed, which reduces the chances of negative mutation. However, if this was 500 years ago, you'd be dead by 35 so the kid would have to look after itself and may not make it at all?

Unlike Darwin?s original ideas on evolution it is not just random mutations that may or may not work out for the best. The current thought is that evolution is actually an adaptive trait, different organisms of the same species can evolve the same traits to cope with their environment without being directly related to each other. It can also happen at different rates depending on conditions. (I do have references for this and will dig them out when I get home this evening)


Still 50 generations and 500 years aren?t long enough for anything significantly noticeable to have evolved genetically. (well as far as I know but I'm no expert)


Now what would be interesting is if you had 2 sets of genetically identical individuals. Identical twins perhaps. 1 set male and the other female. You paired them off into 2 couples and dropped them in 2 completely different environments isolated from any other genetic interference. An artic tundra and a tropical archipelago perhaps.


Then you observed their offspring and how over the generations they evolved differently to adapt to their environments. You could then measure how many generations it will take until they became 2 genetically distinct species.


You would have to be immortal though and perhaps have 2 planets at your disposal for the experiment to work properly.

Annaj, I can't find that research. I have whole bundles of science mags lying around the house, and it would've been in one of those :(


It was interesting because it suggested that cultural issues actually impact the genetic make-up of individuals during their own lifetime.

Brendan, I've a feeling your experiment would be forcing siblings to procreate and things would be a little doomed in no short time, just look at those german emigr? utopian experiments in Argentina.


And it all sounds like pushing the morality envelope of science (especially the conquering another life supporting planet)


Of course, there were special dispensations for the scions of Adam and Eve, both genetically and morally speaking. In fact has anyone mapped the mud genome?

Annaj


I heard a similar theorem a few years ago that talks about the risks of older parents having children.


It has been the belief that a woman of over 35 has a higher risk of producing a baby with genetic defaults, however the new belief is that it is not the woman but the man that causes the defaults (read Defects in the baby) as a woman is born with all her eggs intact (therefore never produces any new ones and as a result cell division to create new eggs doesn't occur) where as a man produces spermatozoa by cell division, with each new Sperm being grown and created. Therefore the theory went on to state that the older a man is the more chance he has of producing defective sperm and the higher a chance he has of producing damaged offspring.


Therefore the scientists who brought this theory up state that an older woman has a higher chance of producing offspring with defects if their partner is also older, however if their partner is younger then the chances decrease and if they are a young woman with an older partner then the chances also increase dramatically. (ergo it is always the males fault not the womans)


Not sure if this theory has been verified but it makes sense when you consider the way that humans produce eggs and spermatozoa. (it also makes the younger man fancying granny in Little Britain a bit more palatable)


I guess going back to the original question by Mark, then quite possibly yes there will be differences between the children but to see if it is a result of parents age, parents genetics or parents lifestyle then you would need to conduct the experiment with identical twins all they way down the evolutionary path (hmmm, now give me ?100 million and I will start the experiment off)

Mark Wrote:


> I think what I'm asking is, at what point in life

> do the evolutionary traits and life experience get

> passed on to a gene that would pass to a child? At

> what point do they stop?


I think this wiki article will answer your question:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...