3 ms·

>It may, perhaps, be a reasonable conclusion that the environment (at any level) alone does not confer the property, but it is certainly less reasonable to conc

by darawk 10y ago

>It may, perhaps, be a reasonable conclusion that the environment (at any level) alone does not confer the property, but it is certainly less reasonable to conclude that the environment is not relevant to the property and it results from genetics alone. We can, however, rule out the environment as a sole causal factor. Since the only other possible factor is genetics, we must conclude that genetics plays some role in longevity. Hence, > The genetic basis of longevity is highly debatable is false. Its basis is not debatable.

hyperbovine 10y ago
Actually, it is. I can tell by the way you argue that you are not (successfully) in science, so this is probably a futile gesture, but here is a paper which touches on what I am saying: http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/53A/6/M441.full.pdf http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/53A/6/M4... The paper looks at twins in Sweden. Hence, everyone in the study was subject to more or less the same environmental conditions, while only a portion (the monozygotic cohort) are genetically identical. You can use this design to isolate the portion of variance in longevity attributable solely to genetics, while making no other structural assumptions about the possible mechanism. At the extremes of the age distribution (this includes your lobster people) they essentially found no such component. Over the entire age range you can explain perhaps a third of variability in longevity by genetics. Also, you seem to be under the impression that lobsters and humans are completely different at a genetic level. This is again false. I don't know offhand what the number is for crustaceans, but humans and frogs share about 80% of disease-causing genes, for example (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100429/full/news.2010.211.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100429/full/news.2010.211.ht...). A great deal of the animal genome evolved a very long time ago and is conserved throughout the entire kingdom.
- darawk 10y ago
  > The paper looks at twins in Sweden. Hence, everyone in the study was subject to more or less the same environmental conditions, while only a portion (the monozygotic cohort) are genetically identical. You can use this design to isolate the portion of variance in longevity attributable solely to genetics, while making no other structural assumptions about the possible mechanism. You seem to be completely missing my point. Twin studies do not prove that genetics are not a component of longevity. All it shows is that among the genes the commonly vary between human twins there is little influence on longevity. A far narrower statement than genetics does not influence longevity. > At the extremes of the age distribution (this includes your lobster people) they essentially found no such component. Over the entire age range you can explain perhaps a third of variability in longevity by genetics. My lobster people are not captured by any distribution. They do not exist. You cannot simply extrapolate the curve of Swedish twins out to lobster people. That isn't how statistics works - that isn't how anything works. >Also, you seem to be under the impression that lobsters and humans are completely different at a genetic level. I am not at all under that impression. What I am under the impression of is that lobsters have extreme longevity relative to humans, and that that can be explained by the ways in which their genome differs from ours (primarily, at least).
  - hyperbovine 10y ago
    > My lobster people are not captured by any distribution. They do not exist. Well then, at least we agree that the point you trying to make, successfully or not, is pointless.

by darawk 10y ago

hyperbovine 10y ago

Actually, it is. I can tell by the way you argue that you are not (successfully) in science, so this is probably a futile gesture, but here is a paper which touches on what I am saying: http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/53A/6/M441.full.pdf http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/53A/6/M4... The paper looks at twins in Sweden. Hence, everyone in the study was subject to more or less the same environmental conditions, while only a portion (the monozygotic cohort) are genetically identical. You can use this design to isolate the portion of variance in longevity attributable solely to genetics, while making no other structural assumptions about the possible mechanism. At the extremes of the age distribution (this includes your lobster people) they essentially found no such component. Over the entire age range you can explain perhaps a third of variability in longevity by genetics. Also, you seem to be under the impression that lobsters and humans are completely different at a genetic level. This is again false. I don't know offhand what the number is for crustaceans, but humans and frogs share about 80% of disease-causing genes, for example (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100429/full/news.2010.211.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100429/full/news.2010.211.ht...). A great deal of the animal genome evolved a very long time ago and is conserved throughout the entire kingdom.

darawk 10y ago
> The paper looks at twins in Sweden. Hence, everyone in the study was subject to more or less the same environmental conditions, while only a portion (the monozygotic cohort) are genetically identical. You can use this design to isolate the portion of variance in longevity attributable solely to genetics, while making no other structural assumptions about the possible mechanism. You seem to be completely missing my point. Twin studies do not prove that genetics are not a component of longevity. All it shows is that among the genes the commonly vary between human twins there is little influence on longevity. A far narrower statement than genetics does not influence longevity. > At the extremes of the age distribution (this includes your lobster people) they essentially found no such component. Over the entire age range you can explain perhaps a third of variability in longevity by genetics. My lobster people are not captured by any distribution. They do not exist. You cannot simply extrapolate the curve of Swedish twins out to lobster people. That isn't how statistics works - that isn't how anything works. >Also, you seem to be under the impression that lobsters and humans are completely different at a genetic level. I am not at all under that impression. What I am under the impression of is that lobsters have extreme longevity relative to humans, and that that can be explained by the ways in which their genome differs from ours (primarily, at least).
- hyperbovine 10y ago
  > My lobster people are not captured by any distribution. They do not exist. Well then, at least we agree that the point you trying to make, successfully or not, is pointless.