what were George w Beandle's thoughts on Hereditary facotrs and genetics?
466067
I guess you can find it well in his nobel lecture.. here is the link :\n\nhttp://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1958/beadle-lecture.pdf
732746
Lamarck's theory was on acquired traits--that if my parents needed to be stronger, their gametes would change to make a genetically stronger genome for their offspring.  It is entirely false.  There is no ability for the requirements within a lifetime to change the capacities of the genes in the gametes.\n\n"Use it or lose it" is a mischaracterization, to an extent.  Even in Darwinian evolution, there can be a degree of "use it or lose it" for a species, in that if it takes effort to maintain features, and those features are not used, then the features can become metabolically disfavored and thereby eliminated through natural selection.  Since most advantageous traits still hold a cost on some level, the loss of the advantage means that the cost becomes innately disfavorable.\n\nThe biggest difference in Darwin versus Lamarck is that Darwin looked at a species as a whole, whereas Lamarck focused on individuals.  Since evolution works at the species level, Lamarck missed the big picture, and the scale of his vision was far too narrow.
585719
>>>>who found tthe field of modern gentics?\n\nNormaly credited to Gregor Mendel.\n\n>>>and what suger is used in DNA?\n\nRibose\n\n>>>what is crossing over\n\nA transfer of lengths of DNA between chromosomes during meiosis.
529504
No, that's pure bullsh**.  The extent of defects you mention would only occur after generational inbreeding, but only then in strains that have significant defects to begin with.  Healthy parents have healthy offspring.\nIn people, royalty often married their close kin (giving rise to "bluebloods").  In those situations, yes, some genetic defects thus became more pronounced (see below for an example), simply because the pool of genetic characteristics is limited.  Whenever you limit nature's choices---that is, whenever characteristics from the male parent are the same as those possessed by the female parent---then odds are great that that characteristic will show up again in the next generation.  But this stands true for good characteristics as well as bad.  Closely related intelligent individuals would very probably have very intelligent offspring.  Two idiots---related or not---would give rise to idiot offspring.  Thus, concerning livestock (for example) breeders often use inbreeding (breeding sibling to sibling, or parent to offspring) to improve a breed and thus weed out bad genes.  \nSocially, for people, of course, that would be regarded as disgusting.  Inbreeding is far from a guarantee that offspring (of whatever species) would be at all unhealthy.  The danger with inbreeding is that bad genes (only those that are dominant over good genes of the same category) will over time, over generations, become more pronounced.  Queen Victoria's family thus had the health problem of hemophilia.  Her line carried the gene for hemophilia. Her kinsmen, Prince Alexis of Russia, was a hemophiliac.
944591
Gregor Mendel\nThe Beginning of Biomathematics\n\n\nWithout being really noticed by contemporary scientists, the book titled Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybride (Treatises on Plant Hybrids) and written by the Austrian (Moravian-Silesian) Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel appeared in 1865. Mendel’s treatise described his observations on the inheritance of various characteristics ("factors") in cross-bred pea plants as manifested in the phenotypes of subsequent generations. Later known as Mendel’s Laws, his famous principles of hereditary transmission were to revolutionise the cultivation of plants and the breeding of domesticated animals in the twentieth century. Biochemistry and molecular biology have found the molecular basis of Mendel’s Laws in form of gene expression in cells and gene transmission in the germline. Mendel’s work made it possible for the first time to exploit the genetic resources of organisms systematically. Mendel’s name marks not only the beginning of genetics as a scientific discipline in its own right but also the beginning of the systematic use of mathematics, quantified measurements and applied statistics in biology.\n\nMendel at the University in Vienna\n\nGregor Mendel was born on either 20th or 22nd July, 1822 in Heizendorf (today Hynice in the Czech Republic), a village near the border between northern Moravia and Silesia. From 1851 to 1853, Gregor Mendel studied zoology, botany, chemistry, and physics at the University of Vienna. He became a member of the Zoologico-Botanical Society of Austria and has published two scientific treatises in the "Verhandlungen" of this scientific organization (1853 and 1854). Probabely due to health reasons (epilepsia ?), Mendel has returned to Brno without formally finishing the University in Vienna.\n\nExperimentation in the monastery garden results in laws of inheritance ...\n\nWith the support of the Abbot of the Augustinian monastery in Brno, Cyrill Franz Napp, who took a lively interest in the natural sciences and plant cultivation, Mendel began his experiments with the hybrid cultivation of pea plants in 1856. After spending eight years carrying out experimental work in the monastery garden, he reported on the results of his observations at the meetings of the Association for Natural Research in Brno on the evenings of February 8th and March 8th, 1865. The Association published the written accounts of these observations in 1866, under the title Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybride. They appeared in Volume 4 of the Association’s records, Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn.\n\n The garden of the Augustinian Convent in Brno. This view is looking towards the entrance to the garden, with Mendlovo namesti, Mendel Square, beyond.  In the shadows in front of the tree can just be seen part of the foundations of the greenhouse that Mendel used.  His peas were planted in the beds against the building on the left.\nThe same area in a photograph dating from the 1920s.  This view is looking in the opposite direction and shows a close up of the garden area that can be seen in the shadows of the building in the previous photo. It is precisely here that Mendel grew his peas. \n... but there was little reaction from the scientific community\n\nWe know from contemporary written reports that the audience received Mendel’s lectures courteously but with blank incomprehension. He must have been bitterly disappointed at the indifference with which his revelations were greeted. Mendel’s approach and the nature of his experimentation were simply too unconventional for his age. Nobody before him had ever attempted to use mathematical and statistical analysis as a means of interpreting the results of biological inquiry. Additionally, Mendel was known as a relatively shy person and might not have presented his results with the necessary emphasis and stress. Another reason for the absence of any response from the scientific fraternity of the day w
800901
Mendelian inheritance (or Mendelian genetics or Mendelism) is a set of primary tenets relating to the transmission of hereditary characteristics from parent organisms to their children; it underlies much of genetics. They were initially derived from the work of Gregor Mendel published in 1865 and 1866 which was "re-discovered" in 1900, and were initially very controversial. When they were integrated with the chromosome theory of inheritance by Thomas Hunt Morgan in 1915, they became the core of classical genetics.\nContents
166365
Mendel's work showed:\n\n1.Each parent contributes one factor of each trait shown in offspring. \n2.The two members of each pair of factors segregate from each other during gamete formation. \n3.The blending theory of inheritance was discounted. \n4.Males and females contribute equally to the traits in their offspring. \n5.Acquired traits are not inherited. \n\n\nSummary of Mendel's Results:\n\n1.The F1 offspring showed only one of the two parental traits, and always the same trait. \n2.Results were always the same regardless of which parent donated the pollen (was male). \n3.The trait not shown in the F1 reappeared in the F2 in about 25% of the offspring. \n4.Traits remained unchanged when passed to offspring: they did not blend in any offspring but behaved as separate units. \n5.Reciprocal crosses showed each parent made an equal contribution to the offspring. \n\nMendel's Conclusions:\n\n1.Evidence indicated factors could be hidden or unexpressed, these are the recessive traits. \n2.The term phenotype refers to the outward appearance of a trait, while the term genotype is used for the genetic makeup of an organism. \n3.Male and female contributed equally to the offsprings' genetic makeup: therefore the number of traits was probably two (the simplest solution). \n4.Upper case letters are traditionally used to denote dominant traits, lower case letters for recessives. \n\nAND ALSO SEE:
1049252
Charles Darwin was wise enough to steer clear of anthropology, despite suggestions to the contrary.\n\nHe did however discuss artificial selection (of pigeons) in detail, using it as a time-compressed analogy of natural selction. So if you consider breeds of domestic animals similar in origin to races, then that's about as far as he got.\n\nRemember, in Darwin's day there was as yet no concept of genetics (not until the popularization of Gregor Mendl's work, 30  years later).
652199
I'm very skeptical of a "god" gene.  A "gullibility" gene seems much more likely.\n\nYes, it is unfair to those who have been saddled with such a gene.  They'll have to work extra hard to overcome their disability.
1052261
You are quite correct. This isn't a ground breaking observation or anything, although you did well to think of it on your own.\n\nThis is one of the major problems with hybrid animals and plants because the F1 generation is usually relatively uniform while the F2 generation can produce throwbacks to either or both grandparents. \n\nBecause the chromosomes are randomly assorted it is quite possible to produce an individual that contains little or even no genetic material from one or even two grandparents.
226441
Mendel's First Law of Genetics (Law of Segregation)\n\nGenetic analysis predates Gregor Mendel, but Mendel's laws form the theoretical basis of our understanding of the genetics of inheritance.\n\nMendel made two innovations to the science of genetics:\n\n\n\ndeveloped pure lines\ncounted his results and kept statistical notes\nPure Line - a population that breeds true for a particular trait [this was an important innovation because any non-pure (segregating) generation would and did confuse the results of genetic experiments]
433542
Where is the genetic revolution headed? Without question, it contains great potential for good in the form of better drugs, better medical care, and improved understanding of how living things work. But there is another side to the revolution.\n\n“We want perfect babies,” says Jeremy Rifkin. “We want perfect plants and animals. We want a better economy. There’s no evil intent here. The road to the Brave New World is paved with good intentions.\n\n“Step-by-step, we are deciding to engineer parts of the genetic code of living things. Two important questions emerge: If we’re going to engineer the genetic code, what criteria does this society establish for determining good and bad, useful and dysfunctional genes? And I would like to know whether there is an institution anyone here would trust with the ultimate authority to decide the genetic blueprints for a living thing?”\n\nThese are questions that deserve answers. Who is better equipped than the Creator of DNA to determine what is a good or a bad gene? He is the one who knows the innermost workings of the genetic code, as is shown by David at Psalm 139:13-16: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware. My bones were not hidden from you when I was made in secret, when I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.” Would you not prefer to trust Him with the ultimate authority to decide the genetic blueprints for all living things?\n\nFor more info visit http://watchtower.org
481611
He is related to the Founders.  It is explained in the Series.  It does make for an interesting nature vs nurture debate.
765613
Hereditary means that 'it' is passed on through the famil lineage. Genetic means that it might only be the individual who is affected.
1075511
what Mendel gave us was the "Law of Independent Assortment" and the "Law of Random Segregation".  Basically, that chromosomes behave in an independent manner when segregating from each other. (ie-when chromosomes are segregated to your gametes, the chromosomes your father gave you will not all go together, they will act independently of each other.)\nIn short, he gave us a way to predict what ratios of progeny to expect from parental generations. \n\nFor example, a dihybrid cross between PPSS and ppss will result in all F1 progeny PpSs, and if intercrossed, those F1 progeny will produce F2 progeny in a 9:3:3:1 ratio....\nso on and so forth.\n\nOf course these principles don't really apply with more complex human genetics...
851956
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
102973
The study of genetics allows us to predict the traits that our offspring will inherit from their parents.  This allows parents to make plans for future complcations.  It also allows us to control food crops, animals breeds, and various other commerical uses.  I may also lead to the development of medications or preventitve means of treating many human diseases that are caused by genetic mutations.