PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on March 16, 2018, 01:41:15 PM
-
Saw articles the other day claiming that NASA had confirmed that an extended stay in orbit had changed the DNA of an astronaut so that he was no longer considered the identical twin of his earth-bound brother. But on return to Earth about 93% of the changes eventually reverted, leaving 7% to persist.
That whole body DNA of any measurable amount would change was quite a shock to read. So I checked several of the stories, finding differences in wording that ended up making different claims. My paraphrase in the first paragraph was the kindest, since some reporters had changed the text to mean that 7% of the DNA of the astronaut had changed! That was absurd, so I tracked down what I thought was the NASA web site source for all these articles and found only highlights - that there were epigenetic changes (epigenetic roughly means the DNA doesn't change, but how it is read does change) causing gene expressions to change - some due to methylation (gunk gets stuck to portions of the DNA, making it unreadable.) The only direct DNA change mentioned was lengthening of the DNA telomeres (which shortened on return to Earth.) I concluded that some reporter misunderstood the preliminary report (released at the end of January) and all the subsequent media simply forwarded the misinformation on.
Later in the evening my wife asked if I had seen the articles about extended space travel changing DNA - she said it didn't make sense to her (she having a little more formal training in biology than I.) I said I had seen it but had looked into it and as far as I could tell it looked to me like someone got it wrong - it was changes in gene expressions - and the amount of expression changes wasn't terribly clear even on the NASA page. But a 7% change of DNA (or the genetic expression) would be HUGE - like fatally so!
So this morning I am seeing retractions - some media are apologizing for getting the story terribly wrong. To paraphrase another saying: "Those who can, do, those who can't, try to report on those who do."
-
Journalism is dead.
-
Yes, I heard that report and immediately doubted the accuracy of it. Assuming it produced a functioning being, a 7% change in DNA would produce something unrecognizable as a human. For comparison, humans and cats share about 90% of our DNA.
Perhaps it is good to recognize how poorly they do these things. It causes us to doubt the facts all the time, especially when they talk about things I don't know something about. I just assume there is always a gross error in the news.
-
Yes, I heard that report and immediately doubted the accuracy of it. Assuming it produced a functioning being, a 7% change in DNA would produce something unrecognizable as a human. For comparison, humans and cats share about 90% of our DNA.
Perhaps it is good to recognize how poorly they do these things. It causes us to doubt the facts all the time, especially when they talk about things I don't know something about. I just assume there is always a gross error in the news.
Before:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/19/21/457FCDE700000578-4998372-image-m-17_1508445536461.jpg)
After:
(http://www.monstersinmotion.com/cart/images/BWTHINGUSE1%20(2).jpg)
-
Is that Gabby Gifford's husband, Mark Kelly? If so, he should have stayed in space. He's a huge hypocrite, especially with the Second Amendment.
-
Yes, I heard that report and immediately doubted the accuracy of it. Assuming it produced a functioning being, a 7% change in DNA would produce something unrecognizable as a human. For comparison, humans and cats share about 90% of our DNA.
Perhaps it is good to recognize how poorly they do these things. It causes us to doubt the facts all the time, especially when they talk about things I don't know something about. I just assume there is always a gross error in the news.
Yeah, me too.
Some of the media is even reporting that "Man" is the culprit responsible for climate change.
-
There could not be a 7% mutation and reversion frequency, period. Mutations don't revert at that rate. However, there could have easily been a reversible 7% change in the epigenome, i.e. in the chemical modifications done to DNA and the histone proteins associated with it. These can easily be reverted and do alter gene expression.
Identical twins aren't identical genetically anyway. Oh, they start out that way, but each has individually different somatic recombination and transposition events.
-
It didn’t say that h had a 7% change in DNA.
It said that 7% of the changes remained after returning. It may have been a fraction of a % that changed and 93% of that change reverted.
-
There could not be a 7% mutation and reversion frequency, period. Mutations don't revert at that rate. However, there could have easily been a reversible 7% change in the epigenome, i.e. in the chemical modifications done to DNA and the histone proteins associated with it. These can easily be reverted and do alter gene expression.
Identical twins aren't identical genetically anyway. Oh, they start out that way, but each has individually different somatic recombination and transposition events.
You mean the science is not settled?
-
There could not be a 7% mutation and reversion frequency, period. Mutations don't revert at that rate. However, there could have easily been a reversible 7% change in the epigenome, i.e. in the chemical modifications done to DNA and the histone proteins associated with it. These can easily be reverted and do alter gene expression.
Identical twins aren't identical genetically anyway. Oh, they start out that way, but each has individually different somatic recombination and transposition events.
Why is there a "homosexual gene"? Shouldn't that have been filtered out due to "natural selection"?
-
Why is there a "homosexual gene"? Shouldn't that have been filtered out due to "natural selection"?
There isn't that we know of. The only explanation I've ever heard of for homosexuality is that multiple male births can masculinize the intrauterine environment, and said masculinization can affect development of the central nervous system. There's actually data to back it up, and it makes sense evolutionarily.
I've never seen anything that made any sense at all for female homosexuality.
-
There isn't that we know of. The only explanation I've ever heard of for homosexuality is that multiple male births can masculinize the intrauterine environment, and said masculinization can affect development of the central nervous system. There's actually data to back it up, and it makes sense evolutionarily.
I've never seen anything that made any sense at all for female homosexuality.
Funny. Female homosexuality I completely understand. Male homosexuality; not at all.
-
Funny. Female homosexuality I completely understand. Male homosexuality; not at all.
Exactly. My wife doesn’t understand that. I tell her that they like what guys like, and that guys hope we’re invited to the party.
-
Funny. Female homosexuality I completely understand. Male homosexuality; not at all.
I was simply alluding to its etiology.
-
Human male, and female reproductive parts are designed to work together to achieve procreation, and extend the being of our species. Male/Male Homosexuality has always confused me, as there is no compatibility of parts there. None at all.