[ale] [OT] Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent or Not.

[tfreeman at intel.digichem.net]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, da Black Baron wrote:

> On Tuesday 26 August 2003 10:21 am, Chris Ricker scratched their ass, sniffed 
> their finger and quoth:
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, da Black Baron wrote:
> > > I assumed as much to be the case, I just wanted to make the point that
> > > there were random factors in the makup of a human being at the most basic
> > > level.
> >
> > Whether they're random is certainly debatable (and is debated -- that's one
> > reason some of the philosophy of science guys are now interested in biology
> > instead of physics)
> 
> I was under the impression that each sperm and egg held exactly 1/2 of the 
> parent's genes.  Is this incorrect?  

I'll be overridden by somebody who actually knows what they are talking 
about...

Not quite. The genetic material of the sperm's mitochondria is lost, and 
the egg's material is retained. So you are to some degree more related 
genetically to your mother than to your father. Within the nucleous (sp?) 
of your cells, yes, equal amounts of genetic material from each parent. 

>From this point on, however, I'm quickly _way_ over my head. sorry.

> 
> > Even for physical characteristics, genes don't strictly determine them.
> > Take height.  In higher mammals such as ourselves, quantitative genetics
> > shows that it's determined by a combination of ~100 genes, plus your
> > environment (where environment contributes about as much as the genes).
> > That still doesn't say it's random, though. In fact, it says exactly the
> > opposite....
> 
> That's if you take the posistion that your enviroment isn't random in many 
> ways.  I've read that our height is greatly influenced by our nutrition, for 
> example, which is why all those civil-war uniforms at the cyclorama look like 
> they were made for children- but do you have absolute control over what 
> nutrition your children get in all circumstances? 
> 
> > Maternal hormones have nothing to do with it, at least for all we know now.
> > If they did, someone would have long since marketed a pill so that
> > expectant moms could pick the gender of their babies ;-). It's determined
> > by which sperm wins the great race to the egg (which can be controlled by
> > flow sorting sperm to pick the desired X or Y, then doing artificial
> > insemination, but not by manipulating maternal hormone levels)....
> 
> OK.  I stand corrected.  Like I said, I'm not a genticist, or even a doctor, 
> for that matter...  :-)  Still, barring intervention such as you describe 
> above, there's *at least* a 50/50 chance involved in producing the 
> characteristics of your physical base make-up, wouldn't you agree?  
> 
> 
> 

-- 
=============================================
If you think Education is expensive
Try Ignorance
                   Author Unknown
============================================

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale