[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 24 KB, 354x454, dna.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1494244 No.1494244 [Reply] [Original]

So I've been debating with my friend about genetics and heredity. He seems convinced that environmental effects can strengthen your genome... for example, if your grandfather were a smoker, then you would be safer from the negative effects of smoking, among other things. Does this make any sense? And he was saying something about sliding genes?
It sounds wrong, and I'm just really confused now... Would /sci/ perhaps be willing to shed some light on this situation?

>> No.1494263

>>1494251
Your*

>> No.1494251

You're friend's a fucking retard

>> No.1494264

I'm no biology major, but I had a bio teacher freshman year who was convinced of the same thing, and later got fired. But no, your friend is a tool.

>> No.1494272

>So I've been debating with my friend about genetics and heredity.

why? O_o

>> No.1494278

Evolution occurs through the process of random mutations

>> No.1494281

>>1494278
NO

Not that either

SO MUCH MISINFORMATION

IT HURTS

>> No.1494284

>>1494251
This

If a person is a hard-working blacksmith, and as big thick ropey arms, his children would not be born with arms which could snap a man

>> No.1494297

>>1494281
you're wrong

>> No.1494312

>>1494244
Epigenics have demonstrated that the environment has a lot of influence over gene expression and it is possible for some environmental factor to have some positive effect, smoking being one of those effects. As for the smoking case in particular I doubt it, he needs direct proof and i think you will find that for every positive thing there will be thousands of negative things, you know how many toxic organics are in cigarette smoke? You know how much of that fucks with your dna? So your friend is right in principle and most likely wrong in his particular case.

>> No.1494316

Lamarck was wrong.

But I suggest you look up epigenetics as it's somewhat similar to the topic at hand.

>> No.1494323
File: 52 KB, 678x444, spongefreak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1494323

>>1494278

>Evolution occurs through the process of random mutations

>> No.1494334

Well if your grandfather lived through a famine, both you and he would likely be shorter than your genes would otherwise have predicted.

However, your friend is bullshitting.

>> No.1494344

i was taught this too....

>> No.1494366

>>1494323
But it's true, you fucking retard.

>> No.1494374

>>1494344

I think you just fucked up the ideas..

Their is a similar phenomenon that would support this idea, but it only SEEMS that way.

>> No.1494381

>>1494366

Yes but that's not it at all

It's natural selections + your occasional randomness thrown in

>> No.1494388

>>1494381

>There is chocolate in a chocolate cake
>FUCK NO YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD FOR BELIEVING THIS
>Wtf?
> There are chocolate AND cake, you fucking faggot

>> No.1494396

>>1494388
Look at the damn sentence LOOK AT IT..

That seems to imply that evolution PRIMARILY occurs through random mutations.

WHICH IS HORSESHIT

>> No.1494399
File: 22 KB, 400x307, ^_^Cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1494399

>>1494278
>>1494281
>>1494323
>>1494366
He actually is right.
Mutations are the raw material that evolution works with. I think the misunderstanding here may be that the guy who greentext'd up there thinks that Natural Selection==Evolution when natural selection is, in fact, just one of the ways we conveniently hash up evolution. Genetic drift is a much bigger contributor if you look at the DNA itself.

>> No.1494403

>>1494366

No, it's not how "evolution works". Random mutation along with sexual recombination of genes gives natural selection the raw materials it...well, selects from.

Selection and genetic drift are a huge part of it as well.

>> No.1494413

all you fags should read yourselves some lamarck

>> No.1494425
File: 80 KB, 885x586, ThreeFoxesYawningAtTheSameTime-photoshopped-is it kit or swift.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1494425

>>1494399
>>1494403
'The hell?
That was either copied from me or one of the scariest hive minds I've ever seen.

>> No.1494429

Is his general idea this?

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

or is his idea generally saying "My grandpa didn't die of smoking, I must have some genetic predisposition that helps me with smoking?"

>> No.1494431
File: 16 KB, 256x353, 1279672418950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1494431

>this thread

>> No.1494445

>>1494425

Seriously.

I was >>1494323 and >>1494403

>> No.1494471

Smoking is said to alter some of your DNA. This creates a higher chance that your child will die on birth if you happen to pass on this DNA.
Thats what this debate is about, rite?

>> No.1494478

>>1494244
Epigenetics shit's real bro

>> No.1494483

>>1494471

lol wat

>> No.1494552

>>1494471

Only if it occurs in germline would that work.

>> No.1494585

>>1494552
so if i pump my testes with tobacco my children MAY have stronger lungs?