My two cents about the achievements of the EB team

[Blxz]

The ginger gene itself is theorised to be the result of interbreeding with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

Damn dirty gingers into beastiality as well.

[Cyclops]

Speaking of EB team's acheivements, has EB inspired CA to harden up and put more accurate detail in to RTW2? EB has to be a pretty rare case where the mod is better than the vanilla.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate the many beautiful (and wonderfully moddable) engiunes CA has crafted. I think that CA were forced into the well documented shabby shortcuts: they're obviously informed guys and respectful of history but had to make some commercial compromises to get the thing published (eg Pharoanic Ptolies).

Maybe EB has shown a little reality goes a long way, and CA has taken the opportunity to inject more realism on the back of that?

Damn dirty gingers into beastiality as well.

You be quiet or I bang you head with rock, and my sister/wife/red setter too!

[moonburn]

Damn dirty gingers into beastiality as well.

that should explain a few primal responses i seem to get when i see a ginger girl jumping up and down

ofc that that being said i do believe i have a few of those gens in me my dad as red beard when he lets that crap grow

[Blxz]

ofc that that being said i do believe i have a few of those gens in me my dad as red beard when he lets that crap grow

It is fascinating to think of all the little bits of DNA sitting inside us and where it may have come from. Where does our lineage 'start'? So many questions....

[moonburn]

considering some epigenetic remarks as many as 1% of our dna might actually be active

ofc that if you don´t live in a swamp i´m pretty sure that the dna marker that activates the anti yellow fever defenses ain´t that usefull doesn´t mean it might not be in future

or that our fish gens wich we still possess won´t be usefull in the future

in the end of the day all we know is that our dna are hoarders they don´t throw nothing out ... once you´re tainted you´re kids will forever be tainted matters not if the enviroment that surrounds them activates it or not it´s always there ... (ok evil laughter and make some stupid witty remark about antrophogy )

[Ludens]

in the end of the day all we know is that our dna are hoarders they don´t throw nothing out ... once you´re tainted you´re kids will forever be tainted matters not if the enviroment that surrounds them activates it or not it´s always there ... (ok evil laughter and make some stupid witty remark about antrophogy )

Actually, DNA is being thrown out all the time. You only pass on 50% of it to your child, after all. Of course, since most people have more than one child, the other 50% isn't entirely lost. But it doesn't "taint" your descendents for ever. There's a 50% chance it may not "taint" them at all.

"Taint" is the wrong word in any case, but that's another discussion.

By the way, it's true only 1 % of the DNA is transcribed into protein, but that doesn't mean the remaining 99% is useless. It includes structural elements, binding sites, epigenetic regulators, and so on. In fact, new research suggests that most DNA is used. Just not as a template for protein.

[Maeran]

Our lineage starts right at the start of life itself, of course.

With the whole Neanderthal/ginger thing; it is worth bearing in mind that concepts of species (especially closely related species and morphologically defined paleospecies) can get a bit woolly. Sometimes Homo neanderthalensis has been considered to be H. sapiens neanderthalensis and sometimes not, largely depending on who you're talking to.

I'd like to point out that the likely areas where humans and Neanderthals could have interacted have a huge swathe of more southerly sites, including into the middle east.
Yes, Neanderthals had ginger hair, but any hybridisation zone would likely be to the south and probably south east of Europe. Including the fertile crescent where all these good looking dark haired people supposedly came from as they swept Europe with their farming package (guess my hair colour :) )
Not saying it's impossible, but I don't buy it. The relative prevalence of ginger and blonde hair along the northern periphery of Europe, when considered with the presence of these hair colours at lower rates among worldwide populations, corresponds with a local selective advantage for lighter skin tones (better vitamin D production in weaker sunlight). The genes are already among the general population though.

[moonburn]

population adaptation can occur very fast so considering we´re talking 28.000 years = at least 1120 generations if not more we can use 20 years instead of 25 so phisical appearence can tell you very litle about your further back ancestors

from my understanding of epigenetics the gens are activated when they are needed and are sleeping/dorment when we don´t need them and from that point of view we use as litle as 1% unleass if your concept of activated gens includes those which we can consider dependent on others to be activated a bit like the mess that we sometimes find in a few programing lines that tecnically could simply be simplified but they are still there and without it the important programed lines wouldn´t work

as for the 50/50% for everytime we make kids it´s the so called genetic lotery

thus our genetic matrix are hoarders because they keep too much stuff with we could just simplify since today we don´t need it (doesn´t mean we won´t need it in the future if surrounding enviroment changes)
imagine the air becomes heavier with heavy metals and stuff like that and that civilization colapses if we didn´t had the gens to create barriers to protect the lungs our trial and error manouver until we found a new way of protecting ourselfs would take alot of death until we got the right mutation so we could have a new defense (i speak ofc of nose hair ... )

[Ludens]

Like I wrote, it is disputed that 99% of our DNA is inactive. The best you can say is that 99% of our DNA isn't transcribed into protein. I am sceptical of the notion that it contains back-ups of long dormant genes, since these are very prone to mutation*.

(* Or, rather, they are not subject to natural selection, so deleterious mutations accumulate. Natural selection is only affected by current fitness, so only genes that affect fitness in the here and now are selected for or against. Mutations in a dormant gene have no effect, so they are ignored. Unless a gene is used at least occasionally (every couple dozen generations or so), it will do the genetic equivalent of rusting away.)

This is getting rather OT, though. If the OP wishes it, I can move it to a new thread.

[helenos aiakides]

Like I wrote, it is disputed that 99% of our DNA is inactive. The best you can say is that 99% of our DNA isn't transcribed into protein. I am sceptical of the notion that it contains back-ups of long dormant genes, since these are very prone to mutation*.

(* Or, rather, they are not subject to natural selection, so deleterious mutations accumulate. Natural selection is only affected by current fitness, so only genes that affect fitness in the here and now are selected for or against. Mutations in a dormant gene have no effect, so they are ignored. Unless a gene is used at least occasionally (every couple dozen generations or so), it will do the genetic equivalent of rusting away.)

This is getting rather OT, though. If the OP wishes it, I can move it to a new thread.

I agree, and I'm impressed by your knowledge of biochemistry.

It is worth noting that when deciding the relationship genetically between animals, it is non-coding DNA (which we can debate about till the cows come home) which is used. This is because there is little or no selective pressure on it, so although highly conserved, they pick up mutations at a greater rate than "coding DNA" This can be used with a suprising degree of accuracy to determine how long ago species diverge etc. Traditional this was done by DNA-DNA hybridisation, but nowadays is done by means of computer software, which is a much more flexible tool. I digress.
I second Ludens' point, but I felt that it was necessary to emphasise that the "rusting away" process is slow
This post was useless, but I'm tired drunk and have already thrashed it out. It's probably a bit OT, and for that I apologise.