It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Human DNA variance

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Hello all,

This is my first post here and I would like to say this is an amazing website opening infinate courses of thought.

After watching a report by the BBC about the fact the difference in individual Human DNA varies alot more than was previously thought, I've had question that I think would be answered here quite well, and could be a good subject for discussion.

If Human DNA varies so much between individuals could that mean that different races could be classed as different breeds of humans? e.g. In dogs there are several hundred breeds, Dalmation, Laborador, Husky and Alsation etc. They are all dogs except their DNA is different as to create different characteristics and therefore breeds.

Would this mean that we are indeed not all created equal? Asian, Black, White. Are these different breeds of humans? Are we all alot different, more than at a skin colour level, at genetic level?

I hope this post does not turn into some kind of rascist rant, I don't believe it will as I have read alot on ATS and it seems a very educated and mature forum.

I just hope somebody with more knowledge than me will clear up my conundrums and set me straight.

Thanks.




posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Interesting, I have wondered about that myself. In addition, what about blood types. I am not sure if DNA shows in the blood, but, I too, would like to know.

Not getting off the topic, however, if there are different species of humans would it be impacted by belief systems. For example, is there a reason some people do not get sick, or heal faster. The scientific community is making it possible for parents to choose the traits of their children, eye color, I.Q., etc. (I am not in agreement with this). It appears they have got to the point where they are attempting to play God. I have also read where DNA will become part of our identification, and listed on drivers licenses. I only hope it does not lead to more intolerance, it seems people have enough trouble with ethnicity and skin color.


February 2003
Choosing Our Children's Genetic Futures
Bioethicist Gregory Stock on the inevitability of designer babies.
By Erika Jonietz
Gregory Stock
Position: Director, University of California, Los Angeles, Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society
Issue: Designer babies. Advances in biology and medical technologies are pushing the frontiers of genetic engineering to the point where the possibility of parents' selecting specific traits for their children is closer to science fact than fiction.
Personal Point of Impact: Author, Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future


www.technologyreview.com...


THE CASE FOR NATIONAL DNA IDENTIFICATION CARDS
Foes of the United States have demonstrated their ability to strike at the heart of this country. Fear of renewed attacks and a desire for greater national security have now prompted many to call for improvements in the national personal identification system. In particular, the possibility of a national identification card containing the carrier's DNA information is being seriously considered. However, this raises difficult questions. Would such a card system, and the extraction of individuals' DNA it entails, violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? This article will show that such a card system could in fact be found to be constitutional under the law of privacy as it stands today.


www.law.duke.edu...


The human genome reference sequences do not represent any one person’s genome. Rather, they serve as a starting point for broad comparisons across humanity. The knowledge obtained is applicable to everyone because all humans share the same basic set of genes and genomic regulatory regions that control the development and maintenance of their biological structures and processes.


www.ornl.gov...



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I am totally in favor of using genetics to better the life of human beings. It is beyond me how some religious people can vehemenently opose genetic science and at the same time espouse how we "should work to make the world better for everyone". I'm sure those humans who suffer from genetic disorders would much rather not have the genetic disorder.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
try and get the docc on the dna race
ib and nat geo its really good in answering you questions about race relation to dna apparently the most common dna comes from one tribe in africa were we all origninated from its a weird one

any way thereis one dna trace ibm didnt find its the fag genee i believe its the 67 cromasone or an extra one what ever



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Another thought... perhaps they could use the gene research to determine the aliens from the humans. I am sure the aliens would not want it used for this purpose and it is probably not what they had in mind (since they comingled they try to remain anonymous.)


Would this mean that we are indeed not all created equal? Asian, Black, White. Are these different breeds of humans? Are we all alot different, more than at a skin colour level, at genetic level?


I have read that all nations shared the same blood until they became inhabitated (I am looking for more info on this.) If I remember correctly, there is an alus (DNA) that aliens do not possess, some have referred to this as the God gene, and where there is a trait for some people who had tails, this is very strange, because all people do not share this trait).

Although, some may benefit from this research I do not believe man is capable of governing himself as has been proven in society time and time again.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Im not sure of the exact percentage but the human DNA variance between individuals is less than one percent. At the present time we are all classified as one species. Because of the convienience of travel to almost all parts of the earth now the isolation required for a group of people to evolve into a different species is almost impossible. Also, this takes a tremendous amount of time.

You mentioned dogs as an example but you have to remember that most of the breeds of dogs were created on purpose by humans through selective breeding. These matches probably would not have come about through a natural process.

You do bring up an excelent topic of discussion though in relation to the future of the human species. What would happen if sometime down the road humans do start to populate other planets. You have a different environment coupled with an isolated gene pool. Viola! Evolution! LOL



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
It's theoretically possible, but I would think that most or all 'inferior' humans would probably have been weeded out by natural selection a very long time ago.

Jared Diamond wrote an interesting book called 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', in which he rather convincingly argues that the reasons some civilizations developed to a much more advanced level has nothing to do with race. He argues that things like geography, local crops, weather, disease, and that sort of thing, contributed to civilization levels.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
When you're talking about "big variance" between humans, you have to take into account that only about 13% of the entire genome even codes for anything, and only a slight percentage of that portion can vary without terminating the fetus. Human beings, although incredibly varied and different in various areas, are not different species. Different species would not be able to mate, and all of us can obviously mate with anyone else of the opposite sex.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by arius

I'm sure those humans who suffer from genetic disorders would much rather not have the genetic disorder.




No doubt.

But you are aware? ...Most so-called "genetic disorders" result from recent mutations.

Why don't we just stop contaminating our world with mutagens?

Instead of creating mutagens that cause mutations, which create disease, then creating technologies to treat the diseases caused by the mutations that were caused by the mutagens we created?




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by arius

I'm sure those humans who suffer from genetic disorders would much rather not have the genetic disorder.




No doubt.

But you are aware? ...Most so-called "genetic disorders" result from recent mutations.

Why don't we just stop contaminating our world with mutagens?

Instead of creating mutagens that cause mutations, which create disease, then creating technologies to treat the diseases caused by the mutations that were caused by the mutagens we created?





Sources?

A great deal of genetic disorders aren't really due to "mutagens", as said mutagens would not cause the deletion, doubling, or tripling of a chromosome that is characteristic of Down's, Superman, etc.

Most "disorders" that result from single base or multiple base mutations, rather than at the chromosome level, are fairly well known to have existed for centuries, if not millenia (Tay-Sachs, Sickle cell).



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by arius
I'm sure those humans who suffer from genetic disorders would much rather not have the genetic disorder.


No doubt.

But you are aware? ...Most so-called "genetic disorders" result from recent mutations.

Why don't we just stop contaminating our world with mutagens?

Instead of creating mutagens that cause mutations, which create disease, then creating technologies to treat the diseases caused by the mutations that were caused by the mutagens we created?





Sources?




A quick primer:


MOST OF THE genetic disorders featured on this web site are the direct result of a mutation in one gene. However, one of the most difficult problems ahead is to find out how genes contribute to diseases that have a complex pattern of inheritance, such as in the cases of diabetes, asthma, cancer and mental illness. In all these cases, no one gene has the yes/no power to say whether a person has a disease or not. It is likely that more than one mutation is required before the disease is manifest, and a number of genes may each make a subtle contribution to a person's susceptibility to a disease; genes may also affect how a person reacts to environmental factors. Unraveling these networks of events will undoubtedly be a challenge for some time to come, and will be amply assisted by the availability of the draft (and complete) sequence of the human genome.

Also see: Introduction to Genes and Disease




OR, ...are you suggesting that one "genetically inferior" guy toured the world for a few years a few decades ago impregnating a few million women per year - thus explaining the current epidemics of "genetic" disease?






sp format

[edit on 7-1-2007 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The "disorders" they cited (cancer, asthma, and diabetes), are not solely genetic disorders. I was referring to purely genetic issues. Learn the difference.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Originally posted by soficrow

...Most so-called "genetic disorders" result from recent mutations.

Why don't we just stop contaminating our world with mutagens?

Instead of creating mutagens that cause mutations, which create disease, then creating technologies to treat the diseases caused by the mutations that were caused by the mutagens we created?



Sources?




Originally posted by soficrow
A quick primer:


MOST OF THE genetic disorders featured on this web site are the direct result of a mutation in one gene. However, one of the most difficult problems ahead is to find out how genes contribute to diseases that have a complex pattern of inheritance, such as in the cases of diabetes, asthma, cancer and mental illness. In all these cases, no one gene has the yes/no power to say whether a person has a disease or not. It is likely that more than one mutation is required before the disease is manifest, and a number of genes may each make a subtle contribution to a person's susceptibility to a disease; genes may also affect how a person reacts to environmental factors. Unraveling these networks of events will undoubtedly be a challenge for some time to come, and will be amply assisted by the availability of the draft (and complete) sequence of the human genome.

Also see: Introduction to Genes and Disease




OR, ...are you suggesting that one "genetically inferior" guy toured the world for a few years a few decades ago impregnating a few million women per year - thus explaining the current epidemics of "genetic" disease?





The "disorders" they cited (cancer, asthma, and diabetes), are not solely genetic disorders. I was referring to purely genetic issues. Learn the difference.




I referred to "most so-called genetic diseases" - you asked for sources. Learn some manners.

And careful, your agenda is showing again.




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

I referred to "most so-called genetic diseases" - you asked for sources. Learn some manners.

And careful, your agenda is showing again.


The specific examples I used were multiple loci genetic disorders, the most obvious and debilitating genetic disorders. Your post was specifically responding to me by trying to somehow prove that genetic disorders are new, which they aren't.

As for learning manners, ever since my first day on this board, you have done nothing bu belittle, bitch, whine, complain, and poke fun at ANYONE who disagrees with you, no matter how little evidence you have to support your radical claims. You are a thorn in the side of this community, and the sole reason this board rarely sees activity when compared to the other boards.

Have a nice day =).



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Your post was specifically responding to me by trying to somehow prove that genetic disorders are new, which they aren't.




I was responding to arius:




Originally posted by arius

I'm sure those humans who suffer from genetic disorders would much rather not have the genetic disorder.




soficrow posted on 6-1-2007 at 07:28 AM (post id: 2860892)

...Most so-called "genetic disorders" result from recent mutations.

Why don't we just stop contaminating our world with mutagens?

Instead of creating mutagens that cause mutations, which create disease, then creating technologies to treat the diseases caused by the mutations that were caused by the mutagens we created?




bsl4docposted on 6-1-2007 at 09:39 PM (post id: 2861999)

Sources?





soficrowposted on 7-1-2007 at 04:17 AM (post id: 2862343)

A quick primer:


MOST OF THE genetic disorders featured on this web site are the direct result of a mutation in one gene. However, ...as in the cases of diabetes, asthma, cancer and mental illness. In all these cases, no one gene has the yes/no power to say whether a person has a disease or not. It is likely that more than one mutation is required before the disease is manifest,...

Also see: Introduction to Genes and Disease






bsl4doc posted on 7-1-2007 at 05:38 AM (post id: 2862453)

...I was referring to purely genetic issues. Learn the difference.





soficrow posted on 7-1-2007 at 09:41 AM (post id: 2862869)

I referred to "most so-called genetic diseases" - you asked for my sources. Learn some manners.




bsl4doc posted on 7-1-2007 at 03:12 PM (post id: 2863386)

You are a thorn in the side of this community, and the sole reason this board rarely sees activity when compared to the other boards.





You pull this same routine over and over.

You present yourself as a medical expert, while representing corporate interests - then you misrepresent anyone who disagrees with you or calls you on your lies and bs.

When your agenda is disrupted - you make personal attacks. Which can only be deflected by reviewing the facts, to reveal your lies.





How bout we get back to the topic now?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

When your agenda is disrupted - you make personal attacks. Which can only be deflected by reviewing the facts, to reveal your lies.

How bout we get back to the topic now?


Genetic Dental Disorder (~1.5 million years old)Skeletal Dysplasias and Lim Malformations (Ancient Egypt)

Two very common and very ancient disorders. Sofi, you cherry-picked the disorders you cited because they are obviously easily exacerbated or even triggered by modern environmental factors (asthma is worse in large cities due to air quality issues, diabetes is often caused by obesity and poor diet).

I have an issue with someone who carefully chooses information that only fits their argument while ignoring the other literature simply to try to slander the other individual. You are a disgusting human being. Go put your tinfoil hat back on.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Sofi, you cherry-picked the disorders you cited




BSdoc - I referenced a US National Institutes of Health online publication called Genes and Disease. From the publication's intro:



Genes and Disease is a collection of articles that discuss genes and the diseases that they cause. These genetic disorders are organized by the parts of the body that they affect. As some diseases affect various body systems, they appear in more than one chapter.

With each genetic disorder, the underlying mutation(s) is discussed, along with clinical features and links to key websites. You can browse through the articles online, and you can also download a printable file (PDF) of each chapter.




The quote about diabetes, asthma, cancer and mental illness - that you say I "cherry picked" - was pulled directly from the US National Institute of Health promo page for the publication:


MOST OF THE genetic disorders featured on this web site are the direct result of a mutation in one gene. However, ...as in the cases of diabetes, asthma, cancer and mental illness... It is likely that more than one mutation is required before the disease is manifest,...






I have an issue with someone who carefully chooses information that only fits their argument while ignoring the other literature simply to try to slander the other individual.




I am not slandering you - simply copying and pasting your lies and misrepresentations, as evidence. You are slandering yourself by your behavior.

The US National Institutes of Health is a respected source. The Genes and Disease publication is a solid and general reference work on "genetic" disease - it's a collection of articles on 'genetic' disease, and the mutations that cause them. As stated in the intro:

"Genes and Disease is a collection of articles that discuss genes and the diseases that they cause."





You are a disgusting human being. Go put your tinfoil hat back on.




It is ill-mannered - and against the TOC - to make personal attacks.

Your boorish bullying promotes ignorance.

You might convince some people that genetic diseases are not caused by mutations - or that most mutations are ancient, not recent - but the fact is:

Human industrial activity has contaminated our world. One of the effects is an increased rate of human mutation, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in "genetic" diseases - caused by mutations.


So again:

Why don't we just stop contaminating our world with mutagens?

Instead of creating mutagens that cause mutations, which create disease, then creating technologies to treat the diseases caused by the mutations that were caused by the mutagens we created?





posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Human industrial activity has contaminated our world. One of the effects is an increased rate of human mutation, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in "genetic" diseases - caused by mutations.


So again:

Why don't we just stop contaminating our world with mutagens?

Instead of creating mutagens that cause mutations, which create disease, then creating technologies to treat the diseases caused by the mutations that were caused by the mutagens we created?


When did I say that there aren't recent disorders, or that environmental mutagens (whether natural or not) have no role in disorders?

I was replying to the fact that YOU implied ALL genetic disorders are recent and have mutagens to blame.

This is simply not the case. Mutations and disorders have existed as long as DNA has: it's called evolution. When a mutation is beneficial, it is an evolutionary advance. When it is detrimental, it is a disorder. I'm sorry you can't grasp this concept.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
Hello all,

This is my first post here and I would like to say this is an amazing website opening infinate courses of thought.

After watching a report by the BBC about the fact the difference in individual Human DNA varies alot more than was previously thought, I've had question that I think would be answered here quite well, and could be a good subject for discussion.




It could be, excepting propaganda from corporate marketing hacks.






I just hope somebody with more knowledge than me will clear up my conundrums and set me straight.




Eeeewww.

Please, educate thyself.

If you rely on others to do it for you, at best you will become a good mouthpiece, programmed for regurgitation.

But welcome to ATS.


- sofi



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join