"maybe both are" Pls tell me direct responsible thing which triggers the cells for insulin resistance. Not like this; sugar causes increased insulin secretion>>increased insulin causes IR.
do your own experiments then. Opinions do not count for much in the scientific world, especially if you do not have any authority.
Thanks for the suggesions. My own experiment only indicates the same. Authorities? any one can be wrong and any other can be right in unsolved & with complication's issues.
Now another question; During anyone's life, one may get some hereditary predipositions by lamarckism, of immunity & resistance to some diseases & disorders. One can also acquire some immunity and resistance by getting him exposed to several diseases & disorders. Now my question is that; If a person gets hereditary predipositions & acquire during his lifetime by lamarckism , the immunities & resistances from certain diseases & disorders to which he or his parents were exposed? If these immunities & resistances will be passed on to his new generations or not by lamarckism ?
I agree, technically it is lamarckism which is defined as; Lamarckism holds that traits acquired (or diminished) during the lifetime of an organism can be passed to its offspring. Lamarck based his on two observations considered to be true in his day: Use and disuse - Individuals lose characteristics they do not require and develop those which are useful. Inheritance of acquired traits - Individuals inherit the acquired traits of their ancestors. With this in mind, Lamarck developed two laws: "In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears." "All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young" Now please awnser my question in this refeance. Thanks for correcting me.
The genetic mutations causing these diseases were never acquired. They already had a genetic predisposition for the disorder.
Do these words advocates for the early marriage & other similar types works in early life before the development limit is passed??
Then what is existing in this respect ?? Beauty due to elasticity of the science >>> Yesterday's Dead >> Today Alive >>Tomorrow Dead, OR Yesterday's Alive >> Today Dead >>Tomorrow Alive.....Alas!!... so on???Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
nothing is existing in this respect, except maybe if you really start fishing the retrovirus. It will add its genetic material to that of the host. If it would do this to a germline cell there is a chance that an acquired genetic change is passed on to the next generation. But it certainly isn't what you are hoping for to support your strange ideas.
Does my question not come under the Genes & Diseases details as mentioned under following link; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=gnd
Is there any awnser to my above question. If this can be possible then whether natural cloning can be possible in this type of blank ova?
I believe it is possible, if there is an error in the last stages of meiosis, but it certainly isn't common enough to have these eggs utilized for cloning.
