Another one..

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/dn13743-complete-cookbook-for-running-a-genome-published.html

Ok I’m done. For now. My genetically manipulated grapevines are calling.

M.

P.S. Gericke I’d be interested to read that article when you write it…

You remember the genetics lessons? I’m glad. Althogh I would hardly call it brilliant. I’ve learned a lot more since then, perhaps even improved my teaching abilities. So feel free to direct any questions to me. If you’re interested. The offer stands…

The article you posted is fascinating. It illustrates the possible role and effect of epigenetics during development and how that indeed can change an individuals phenotype.

Thank you G. Intriguing reading.

M.

I think I should write a proper article on my views in this regard.

For those who are interested something on the issue:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn13844-abuse-may-trigger-gene-changes-found-in-suicide-victims.html

This was a great discussion and I learned a lot. Thanks!

G.

Religious themes in LOTR? Tell me more

The brown-eyed parent might carry alleles for both brown and blue eyes, and might pass on the blue eye allele. The offspring may thus have a 50/50 chance of carry only alleles for blue eyes? (And in that case have blue eyes.)

*scribbles quick Punnett diagrams* It all depends on the brown-eyed parent. If said parent is heterozygous for brown eyes, then yes, you are correct. If the parent is homozygous for brown eyes, then all the progeny will have brown eyes.

Now religious themes in LOTR is something I might visit some time. Maybe sketch out some of my wild unfounded speculations on what might have transpired in Tolkien’s mind.

I would appreciate such speculation. To spur you on a bit, it is clearly apparent that Tolkien tried to fit many Catholic themes into his work (Iluvatar=God, Ainur=angels, Melkor/Morgoth=Lucifer/Satan, original sin=repentance but diminishment of the Atani). He also incorporated the Atlantis myth (which was the result of an interesting bet he and C.S. Lewis had) in the Fall of Numenor. His ideas for the Quendi, however, were quite different. Perpetual re-incarnation, nirvana, prophecy and predestination…not exactly aspects associated with the Christian mythos! There are also very strong influences from Northern European sagas and, later in his work, attempts to make his mythology congruent with the findings of science. It is a tremendous mishmash of stories, but still an incredible and wonderful piece of work.

Marthelize, I’m glad you weren’t exposed to Batten’s talk. Any scientist would have suffered through that piece of dreck. Your joke regarding hairy bodies and moving to a cold climate was just eerily reminiscent of one of the points Batten was trying to make. Hope that clarifies the issue.

Batty seminar? Sorry I think I’ve missed something. You’re referring to the Batten seminar…of which I haven’t paid any attention at all and just noted the existence of it in passing. So…why do you think I’m a “sufferer”?

I was being frivolous with the hairy-feet-and-cold-climate remark by the way

Hugo:

Not bad for someone who didn’t have high school biology! I’m impressed. You’re not too far off. A person with brown eyes may carry the allele for blue eyes (I am an example of that). But the chances aren’t 50/50 as the blue eye allele is recessive and the brown eye allele is dominant. So if a person has both alleles, they’ll always have brown eyes. (But if they marry someone with blue eyes, then the children could inherit both blue eye alleles and thus have blue eyes)

Oh and by the way… I love being challenged

So these changes in expression are very temporary. At most they might last a few generations, but barring an actual mutation in the DNA it won’t be stable for long. The idea that our behaviour influences our “genetic makeup” (there’s that word again) is debateable.

This is what I was trying to point out above…you can make choices that will alter gene expression patterns in your body, but choices that alter your genome I find highly implausible. Not to mention that it is impossible for epileptics or Alzheimer’s sufferers to choose not to have these diseases, to get back to an earlier point.

Also, apologies for the use of “genetic make-up”, which I think I introduced. I agree, genotype would have been a better choice of word.

As for the epigenetics of growing hair on your feet… well.. perhaps if you’re really very hairy.. and you move to a very cold climate….?

Ack…dare I ask, another Batty seminar sufferer?

Or if someone disagrees with me it can be voiced?

Because it is so much fun to disagree with an expert when you’re a lay-person, I’m going to nitpick:

If one parent has blue eyes and one parent has brown eyes, the offspring will carry the allele for both brown and blue eyes but will most likely have brown eyes.

The brown-eyed parent might carry alleles for both brown and blue eyes, and might pass on the blue eye allele. The offspring may thus have a 50/50 chance of carry only alleles for blue eyes? (And in that case have blue eyes.)

Heh, I didn’t have high school biology, I’m nitpicking only because you’re an expert. My sincerest apologies for being pedantic.

Now religious themes in LOTR is something I might visit some time. Maybe sketch out some of my wild unfounded speculations on what might have transpired in Tolkien’s mind.

I’ve read through all the genetics-related parts of the previous posts, and I must say you all seem to have a fairly firm understanding of the general idea, but some terms thrown around are less than scientifically sound…

“Genetic make-up” is one. I know the phrase is thrown around a lot but scientifically it’s not really relevant. Answers.com defines the Genotype (recognized scientific term) as:

“1) The genetic makeup, as distinguished from the physical appearance, of an organism or a group of organisms.
2) The combination of alleles located on homologous chromosomes that determines a specific characteristic or trait.”

This definition refers to the phenotype, i.e. the physical appearance and/or composition of the organism (phenotype generally refers mainly to visible qualities or appearance but is also applicable to morphology, development and behaviour)

The phenotype is linked to the genotype but does is not quantitative. Meaning the genotype might contain the genes for traits that are not expressed. Very simple example: If one parent has blue eyes and one parent has brown eyes, the offspring will carry the allele for both brown and blue eyes but will most likely have brown eyes. If they do have brown eyes, the phenotype does not reflect their genotype..

Umm..I think I’m rambling… apologies if that was a too simple explanation for something you already knew. I’m just trying to find a starting point in this vast ocean of a topic…

Ok so… epigenetics…
Kenneth made a very accurate statement about epigenetics:

“There is a difference between the genome and the expression of that genome, which is what epigenetics deals with. Although it is possible to permanently alter the expression of a gene (perhaps by some choice that you have made, such as to start smoking, or do drugs), you do not alter the underlying genomic DNA sequence.”

So these changes in expression are very temporary. At most they might last a few generations, but barring an actual mutation in the DNA it won’t be stable for long. The idea that our behaviour influences our “genetic makeup” (there’s that word again) is debateable.

“Specific epigenetic processes include paramutation, bookmarking, imprinting, gene silencing, X chromosome inactivation, position effect, reprogramming, transvection, maternal effects, the progress of carcinogenesis, many effects of teratogens, regulation of histone modifications and heterochromatin, and technical limitations affecting parthenogenesis and cloning.” (from Wikipedia)

The above list of epigenetic effects in humans are more usually related to illness, disease and developmental disorders ( eg. Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes as well as various cancers.)

Yes, environmental factors can influence gene expression. But to what extent? Can you change your hereditary disposition for bipolar disorder by simply “choosing to be awesome” (if you’ll forgive my How I Met Your Mother refernce..hehe)

Right. This discussion can go on forever and in many different directions. Maybe if there are specific things to be clarified? Or if someone disagrees with me it can be voiced?

Pardon if I rant and rave a tad somtimes. Science is my niche

As for the epigenetics of growing hair on your feet… well.. perhaps if you’re really very hairy.. and you move to a very cold climate….?

So the epigenetics of growing hair on your feet…

As a decisive fan of all things Tolkien, I doubt I would be able to watch this…

I went in with a certain kind of detachment. We were invited by friends. Being a Tolkien fan myself, I would not have risked watching the musical without external motivation.

That said, I enjoyed it. Because I decided I will enjoy it. Because the insane price of these spectacles dictates that I have to enjoy it. And appreciate it, because it was a gift. So yea, it was great. (But it wasn’t really LOTR.)

I take it you’ve all heard of the Hobbit movie news…

Actually no, I haven’t…?

As marvellous as the movies were, I still cringed at times because of the deviation from the original books. Too much of a purist…so a show still more cramped and rushed would have me rolling on the floor in a foetal position. And not in a good way.

I take it you’ve all heard of the Hobbit movie news…

The musical (LOTR) was a “skouspel”. What’s that in English? It wasn’t the kind of thing you would watch twice, it is no Les Misérables, no Phantom, no Cats. The music isn’t exactly memorable. The songs are “here and there”, it was effectively “drama with songs in between”, a little like the book?

Fitting that story into 9 hours on the big screen was already tough. Trimming it down to a couple of hours for a musical threw out a lot more. It was like a rushed recap of the main plot elements, some scenes combined in weird ways. It reminded me of a Harry Potter movie: to fully follow, you have to have read the book. (We had one person that was unfamiliar with the story.)

The worst? Bad voice acting or voice casting for the elves and for Aragorn. The elves didn’t move right and they didn’t sound right. They weren’t elves. They weren’t regal enough. They weren’t aloof. Aragorn was also much too gruff. He was a “skollie”, not a man from Numenor. Boromir sounded and acted more like a worthy king than Aragorn.

The ents also sucked. They looked great on their stilts, but they were rushed. They spoke too fast. And their “Entish” sounded like Shofar praying in tongues, which put me off.

But, in the end, it was a “skouspel”… uh… it was spectacular. If you go to see it, knowing you’re going to see “a spectacular” rather than LOTR or a musical, it’s great to see what they can do and how they did it, how they worked with the medium. Their black riders were brilliant, the acrobatics of the Uruk-hai (who were just called “orcs”) were cool. Stilts and prosthetics, spring loaded extensions to legs. Shelob (the huge spider) also looked great. It was interesting to see how they did the Balrog. It was no CGI, but it was interesting. As Gandalf I would have done the voice acting differently though. Especially the clear and strong assertion “You… shall not… pass!” exclamation followed by the breaking of the bridge was kinda “missing” in my opinion.

Oh, and Gandalf was also a little too “impulsive”. (Bad word, I just can’t think of the right one now.) But hey, this is my opinion, and the opinion of a fan of the books is often very, well, opinionated.