The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[El_Machinae]

How about children of older mothers (or fathers, especially) have a genetic disadvantage?

Pubmed

BACKGROUND: Older paternal age may increase the germ cell mutation rate in the offspring. Maternal age may also mediate in utero exposure to pregnancy hormones in the offspring. To evaluate the association between paternal and maternal age at birth with the risk of breast cancer in female offspring, a case-control study was conducted in Korea. METHODS: Histologically confirmed breast cancer cases (n = 1,011) and controls (n = 1,011) with no present or previous history of cancer, matched on year of birth and menopausal status, were selected from several teaching hospitals and community in Seoul during 1995-2003. Information on paternal and maternal ages and other factors was collected by interviewed questionnaire. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated by unconditional logistic regression model adjusting for family history of breast cancer in 1st or 2nd degree relatives, and lifetime estrogen exposure duration. RESULTS: The risk of breast cancer significantly increased as the paternal age increased (p for trend = 0.025). The association was stronger after controlling for maternal age; women whose fathers were aged >or=40 years at their birth had 1.6-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with fathers aged <30 years. This association was profound in breast cancer cases in premenopausal women (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.12-3.26, for paternal aged >or=40 vs. <30) (p for trend = 0.031). Although the risk of breast cancer increased as maternal age increased up to the intermediate, and then reduced; the risks in women whose mother were aged 25-29, 30-34, and >or=35 yrs at birth compared to women whose mothers were aged <25 years, were 1.2, 1.4, and 0.8, respectively, the trend was not significant (p for trend = 0.998). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that older paternal age increases the risk of breast cancer in their female

*trend not significant does not mean there was not trend. Just that the p value was too low.

This is significant because of the age of the father being so important.

 

[El_Machinae]

Mice? Someone asked for mice? How about people!

Mitochondria play a vital role in the metabolism of energy-containing compounds in the oocyte cytoplasm to provide adenosine trisphosphate for fertilization and preimplantation embryo development. In this study, ratiometric confocal microscopy with the mitochondrion-specific membrane potential-sensitive fluorescence dye JC-1 (5,5',6,6'-tetrachloro-1,1',3,3'-tetraethylbenzimidazolyl-carbocyanine iodide) was used to measure the activity of mitochondria in human oocytes and developing preimplantation embryos. Mitochondria in oocytes and embryos were characterized by distinct localized aggregation patterns. These patterns however did not determine localized regions of heterogeneity in mitochondrial activity. Mitochondrial activity was analysed during oocyte maturation and after fertilization. The activity of mitochondria in fresh metaphase II oocytes was negatively correlated with maternal age. This trend continued when the activity of developing embryos was analysed. Mitochondrial activity was strongly correlated with the rate of embryo development on day 3 after fertilization, but not on day 2. Partial regression analysis showed that the rate of cleavage of preimplantation embryos was more highly correlated with embryo mitochondrial activity than maternal age. These data suggest that the efficiency of mitochondrial respiration in oocytes and preimplantation embryos is closely correlated with the programmed rate of embryo development, and suggest that maternal age further influences this factor. The loss of mitochondrial activity in oocytes obtained from ageing couples may therefore contribute to lower embryo development and pregnancy rates observed during cycles of IVF.

 

[ironduck]

Mice? Someone asked for mice? How about people!

That was me with the mice because of the short timespan for subsequent generations.. the article you quoted (if I understood it correctly) mentions what I already am aware of, that the risk of defects increases with age while the pregnancy rate drops. However, I can't tell whether the mtDNA damage is accumulative from that article. It would make sense that it is since it's cloned, but if it's really the case we should a) be able to show it in short-generation span animals and b) there doesn't seem to be evidence to support it through human history. At what point should this 'perfect' mitochondriom have been absorbed anyway? Tracing back millions of years it seems unlikely that there's an accumulative degeneration (even asuming a perfect birth age scenario). To me it suggests that the checks are at least effective when the mother's age is low on average, meaning no accumulation of defects in that case.

Btw, that study is made from IVF subjects which means it's only a partial picture..

 

[El_Machinae]

However, I can't tell whether the mtDNA damage is accumulative from that article.

How can it not be? If there is mtDNA damage in the egg, and then the mitos clone themselves in the woman's offspring, then the damage would still be present.

 

[Sidhe]

That's not proof. That's not proof at all.

My evidence fits the hypothesis that originally the DNA was 'better' and now it's gotten 'worse' (though still acceptable), since it's certainly partially degraded (junk DNA, etc.) now.

You're disregarding evidence because it doesn't fit your theory.

This is not my field so forgive me if I sound ignorant, but junk DNA seems to have an ability to preserve genes that need very little change over time and would cause extremely damaging mutations should they change significantly. Read that in New Scientist say the word and I'll fish it out, may take a while though.

It seems that introns serve more purpose than we thought, we still don't understand why they are there but we are beginning to see the evolutionary advantages in them.

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

Best I can do for now.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How about children of older mothers (or fathers, especially) have a genetic disadvantage?

How about sticking to the matter allegedly at hand, viz. mtDNA?

Your second piece is about what I asked for, however. Can I please have the link to where I found it?

 

[The Last Conformist]

How can it not be? If there is mtDNA damage in the egg, and then the mitos clone themselves in the woman's offspring, then the damage would still be present.

Natural selection would be expected to weed out inferior mtDNA lines. A woman with degraded mtDNA, somewhat by definition, has lesser chances of reproducing than one with healthy ones.

 

[ironduck]

How can it not be? If there is mtDNA damage in the egg, and then the mitos clone themselves in the woman's offspring, then the damage would still be present.

I don't know, but somewhere along the line it would appear that the accumulation is halted, and if there's accumulation even in the best scenario then it would appear that a 'perfect' mitochondriom should have been absorbed in recent history. That's not what data suggest elsewhere, so something is awry as far as I can tell. So it would make sense to check if degeneration actually does accumulate in test subjects such as mice, wouldn't it?

Perhaps there are enough checks in the system to avoid accumulation, including natural selection.

 

[El_Machinae]

How about sticking to the matter allegedly at hand, viz. mtDNA?

Your second piece is about what I asked for, however. Can I please have the link to where I found it?

The nuclear DNA is more protected (you'll find fewer articles positing that aging-associated defects is due to damage to the nuclear DNA than articles positing that it's due to defect in the mtDNA), so evidence that nuclear DNA damage is age associated in the offspring is similar to evidence that mtDNA is damaged.

Sorry for not providing the link. I googled the text to provide it.

PS: Why am I being asked to validate my assertions? None of the other competitors do? They can just zing in, make wild claims, and you guys have a talk origins link ready. Not fair!

if there's accumulation even in the best scenario then it would appear that a 'perfect' mitochondriom should have been absorbed in recent history.

Exactly! With Adam!

 

[ironduck]

PS: Why am I being asked to validate my assertions? None of the other competitors do? They can just zing in, make wild claims, and you guys have a talk origins link ready. Not fair!

Are you actually being serious about the issue or are you just playing devil's advocate? Because if you're actually being serious I'm sure you see that even in best case scenarios there would be accumulation if accumulation is present.

As for all the creationists, they themselves already know they're making useless assertions

 

[ironduck]

Exactly! With Adam!

And what about all the other organisms?

 

[El_Machinae]

They got their perfect mitochondria at the Creation too!

Doesn't the mitochondrial "eve" occur before the y-chromosome "adam"? That makes sense, since the mitos came from Eve and the Y-chromosome came with Noah!

(PS: I'm not just elfing the thread - it's actually a question that's occured to me that I haven't researched the answer to)

edit: I'm kinda pleased that it's a unique question. I should go brag in Bozo's 'original thought' thread.

 

[Xanikk999]

Heh this is hilarious. Not a single creationist is responding. This doesnt prove the theory of evolution but its definitly more probably then anything suggested by creatonists.

Im sorry i dont have anything to add but you guys sound like expert and i mean expert biologists. I love biology but i am still not that knowledgable about cellular biology.

 

[ironduck]

They got their perfect mitochondria at the Creation too!

But shouldn't the short-span generation have degenerated much further by now then?

Doesn't the mitochondrial "eve" occur before the y-chromosome "adam"? That makes sense, since the mitos came from Eve and the Y-chromosome came with Noah!

I think it would make more sense to say that Adam was a neuter until Eve came about to define him as male.

(PS: I'm not just elfing the thread - it's actually a question that's occured to me that I haven't researched the answer to)

I figured as much, but it's still an interesting question. That's why I keep harping on about the evidence for accumulation, there must be studies for it..

 

[ironduck]

edit: I'm kinda pleased that it's a unique question. I should go brag in Bozo's 'original thought' thread.

I don't think the issue of accumulative mtDNA degeneration is a brand new thought

 

[ironduck]

I know bgast1 was active in this thread earlier, maybe he will help me with my rainbow questions?

 

[El_Machinae]

But shouldn't the short-span generation have degenerated much further by now then?

In the wild, there is many more offspring, so natural selection can work much more aggressively.

I can't think of any direct studies (though you think it would be easy with mice*), it's just something that occured to me while collecting information from a few different fields (the biology of aging, and the viability of cloning protocols, actually)

*probably an evilutionist conspiracy to hide the truth!

 

[Sidhe]

Heh this is hilarious. Not a single creationist is responding. This doesnt prove the theory of evolution but its definitly more probably then anything suggested by creatonists.

Im sorry i dont have anything to add but you guys sound like expert and i mean expert biologists. I love biology but i am still not that knowledgable about cellular biology.

Unfortunately fools rush in where creationists fear to tread, this thread series hasn't got x thousand posts for nothing, if you want a creationist argument you'll have to refer to the answers some people gave ages ago. It's also a good education in biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry etc. worth it whatever side of the fence you're on.

 

[Urederra]

\(PS: I'm not just elfing the thread - it's actually a question that's occured to me that I haven't researched the answer to)

I should have patented the word.

Since there is not many creationists around, I post the following article for you guys to debunk it. Have fun.

Some scientists have identified a serious problem with the larger Mega Fauna (mega fauna are animals weighing more than 100 pounds). From what we know about gravity and muscle strength, the bird with the 30 ft wingspan for example should not have been able to get off the ground.

Yet, it was not a flightless bird. Another animal that could fly, the Pteradactyl and its cousins had wingspreads of up to nearly 60 feet. Although the wings folded, what did they do with them while on the ground?

The very largest birds today who weigh just a fraction of what that bird weighed, and they get into the air with some difficulty. Other animals, particularly the very large dinosaurs should have had quite a bit of trouble moving those vast amounts of weight around.

The larger elephants living today seem to be almost at the extreme of supportable body weight versus muscle strength, yet many of the dinosaurs weighed many times more.

The Hornless rhino was almost eighteen feet high and 27 feet long. It was probably by far the biggest mammal ever. How did its legs support that kind of weight? How could an animal that big be strong enough to get up once it had laid down?

 

[El_Machinae]

I should have patented the word.

It was an excellent invention