JimmyP

AnnaJ - Now you've introduced me to him. Maybe. I did a Biological Sciences degree where genetics made up a significant part. Don't ask me about immunology as it's way too complicated and i didn't pay attention in those lectures... Genetics was one of the main things I 'got' and especially Developmental Biology. Another role of genes is to express themselves in different areas of an embryo to create different parts of the body or organism. It's actually very elegant. You can also see marked similarities with developmental gene expression in various different kinds of organism, say flys, frogs and mice. Almost like seeing the evolutionary process in action...

Thanks. It turned out to be a bit of a missive. You need a medal for wading through it... There are so many misnomers about genetics fuelled by ill informed sources in the media. Even the BBC?s recent programmes on Darwin state some points as fact that have either not been explained properly or are completely untrue. ?Popular Science? is a bugbear of mine.

Genes have nothing what so ever to do with ?experience?. Genes are simply messages which code for, at the basic level, production of proteins. They also code for certain phenotypes or traits such as the smooth vs wrinkled peas used in Gregor Mendel?s experiments. Therefore ?life experience? is something nurtured and would be different for generically identical organisms living in completely separate environments. Evolutionary traits are passed onto every generation from the parents. Half of these traits come from the mother and half from the father. As a result not all of the phenotypes from the parents are passed on. In addition the recombination of genes from mother and father may interact in a different way to bring about a totally new phenotype not found in the parents. How many dark haired parents do you know with a blonde child? Evolution does not assume reproduction is curtailed but that survival is curtailed in those that are not fit enough for the given environment. This is where Darwins? ?survival of the fittest? theory comes in. How long the evolutionary process takes to confer a certain phenotype rendering a whole species fitter to survive is dependent on the genetic complexity of that organism. The more complex the genetic makeup the longer it takes to evolve. From current thinking part of the evolutionary process arises through DNA?s inability to replicate itself correctly 100% of the time, leading to genetic mutations. The length of ?time? it takes for a specific mutation or mutations to arise coding for a certain phenotype very much depends on how often the DNA is replicated and how ?big? that certain gene is. It would be quicker for a gene 10 bases in length to give rise to a ?fitter? phenotype that a gene that is 100 billion bases in length (bases are the constituent parts of DNA, three of which code for an amino acid when making proteins). Just think how every year, if not several times a year, a new ?flu virus infects thousands or millions of people. This is simply an evolution of the last ?flu virus. Because the genetic makeup of the virus is so simple any change caused in the reproduction of it?s genes gives rise to a new strain. As humans have such a complex genetic makeup, we cannot adapt (evolve) fast enough to predict the next strain of ?flu that is around the corner. However, this example is complicated further by the human immune system, which can evolve by itself... My comment above assumes that only one gene codes for a certain phenotype. In fact multiple genes can code for a given trait, which explains my comment above that genes passed on from parents can give rise to completely different phenotypes to those present in the parents. If a trait is ?fitter? for the environment and coded for by multiple genes then all these gene need to be passed on in their entirety and without mutation to the next generation. The probability of this happening is small as DNA coding and replication is simple but fallible. In fact today?s race will most likely not be any ?fitter? to survive today?s environment than humans were 2000 years ago. Yes, we might be more technologically advanced but there is a strong argument to say that this is not evolutionary. Again if you look even further back to the ancient Greeks, who?s to say that we are more evolutionarily advanced then them? The Aborigines of Australia are said to be the oldest race in the world. It?s thought that they date back millions of years. They have a very small gene pool as they were cut off from humans of the same species for such a long period of time on their native island and therefore did not share mutations from other areas of the world so readily. Mockney?s comment of us all being ?the result of an unbroken chain of successful procreation? has some truth. In humans the DNA found in the energy producing parts of each of our cells, called mitochondria, for both males and females is inherited from the mother. Therefore we can trace the lineage of this DNA to one ?Mitchondrial Eve? the mother that started the whole process, which in turn gives rise to an ?Out of Africa? theory where the human race as we know it came from. Charliecharlie, who?s to say whether the wise part or the foolish part of the child is deemed ?fittest? in the given environment. Also as the child has inherited half of it?s traits from it?s father and half from the mother it could very well be that both parents were part wise and part stupid. On top of this how do we know that stupidity or wisdom is coded for by a simple recombination of the genes from both sets of parents. It could be that mutations occurred or that the phenotypes are coded by multiple combinations of several genes. Most likely though wisdom and stupidity are nurtured traits, which are not governed by the child?s genotype. I won?t go near the whole argument of Asbergers Syndrome making males more genetically predisposed to various forms of ?intelligence?, which in fact is more probably an easy of performing certain tasks. Who?s to say what stupidity and wisdom are anyway?

Hey, I could be keen. I've got a car and bike rack too. When are you planning on going?

I'm keen. I've got a load of mates who'd be up for playing. We could get Dulwich College involved and use their pitches. I'm sure they'd have lots of old boys who would be interested as well.

Does anywhere in ED show the rugby? Guinness Premiership, Heineken Cup, EDF etc. I've tried to persuade the CPT, which is a stone's throw from me, to show it but was told that it was 'A Football Pub'. The two punters in there seemed to be more interested in their pint than the game they were showing. I didn't argue as the beer there is hellish expensive and the place has an atmosphere like a morgue... Is it possible to get away from football or am I in the wrong place?

I have been known to cycle to my office in Slough from ED...

I got fined for this a while ago. It's a legitimate fine but there's absolutely no warning of the fact that it's only buses that can cross directly from Rye Lane to Peckham Rye until you've reached the junction and committed the offence. A little sneeky if you ask me.

I bought a copy of the Cyrstal Palace Road photograph from the street market in Bromley earlier this year. Can't remember the name of the seller but they had lots of old photos of various places in and around London. I'll try and find out who I got it from.