Kevin's Watch

What does it take - 100,000 or so genes to make me..er... me. Presumably if I take any one of those genes, exppting the case where it might be a personal mutation that has occured in my translation process, I assume that that gene will be found to occur in many other human beings in exactly the same form that it occurs in me.

I assume this also to be the case for every other gene to be found in my personal genome. So in other words, what makes me specific and unique, is not the actual genes that I posess individually - but the combination in which they occur to produce me. [A bit like the letters that occur in 'Hamlet' are the same letters - the a's, b's and c's etc - that are found in every other book in the English Language, but it is their unique combination in 'Hamlet' that makes 'Hamlet' 'Hamlet' {:? sorry about that guys}].

Ok - so if I start picking out people at random and looking at their genomes, for each person I pick out, I will find a few genes that we two share. With no two individuals will I [in all likelyhood] share the same genes [though it is not impossible I guess], but for each and every gene I have some individual somewhere will share it with me - and in all likely hood a very large number of individuals.

So if I kept picking people out , sooner or later, every gene I have in my genome would be represented in the group of people that I have selected. Question; On everage how many people would I need to pick out at random to be sure that all of my genes would also be found among their collective genes.

[Incidentally this slightly absurd idea is the only consolation I have for not having had any children of my own [I have step-children and grand children who I love dearly, but none of my own] and for being 'the last in the line' of my family name. ie It dies out with me - a responsibility I take with no small sadness, but life does not always go where you choose it to. So as I say, I tend to console myself with the idea that at least genetically, nothing is lost and nothing gained by the having of children [or not] - it's all just mixing up the letters.]

Where's Prebe when you need him?

I think that the actual differences are tiny. However, there are many, many possible variations.

So individual genes, probably not may people. Specific combinations of individual genes might be different.

(Not taking into account at all psychological (even maybe physiological) differences.)

--A

Funny things genes. I read on one occasion [may even have been in *The Selfish Gene*] that your degree of affection for different family members is almost in exact proportin th the number of shared genes you have with them. ie your affection for a grand-child is about half of that for a child and a parent about the same as for a sibling etc. Not sure it stacks up too well as an idea but it at least brings out the idea that we might be more under the controll of 'the little guys' than we realise.

Doesn't sound like Dawkins...not back then anyway.

And I can certainly say that anecdotally it's not true.

But certainly the premise of the selfish gene is just that. That we're more under their control than we like to think.

--A

peter wrote:Funny things genes. I read on one occasion [may even have been in *The Selfish Gene*] that your degree of affection for different family members is almost in exact proportin th the number of shared genes you have with them. ie your affection for a grand-child is about half of that for a child and a parent about the same as for a sibling etc. Not sure it stacks up too well as an idea but it at least brings out the idea that we might be more under the controll of 'the little guys' than we realise.

That is insane. By that logic, I shouldn't have any affection for our children because they don't share my genetic code. I'm sure they'll understand if I tell them "sorry--I don't love you any more because you don't have my DNA".

I'm Murrin wrote:Relevant.

Hee...nice catch.

I'm not sure the affection/genetic percentage is anything like true, though.
I'm sure there is a genetic component to affection...but the expression and the environment and the fact that affection is fluid/dynamic/complex/multi-functional...
I mean, Hashi's is anecdotal in isolation and his presentation here...but there is plenty of research/evidence on current civilization and historical/anthropological to counter the gene-founded control/determination.