|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4517 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adding information to the genome. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4517 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
DNA does not need to be "functional" to be selected for, so your question is irrelevant. Okay, to return to the question. How do you see the functional, non-redundant genome growing over time? Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4517 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
the bacterium has evolved the ability to survive flucloxacillin therapy, by acquiring a new gene (extra "information") This is horizontal gene transfer (HGT), popular among microbes but rare among eukaryotes. It certainly isn't going to multiply the functional genome by nearly 8 fold per billion years, is it? A valid answer, nonetheless. Edited by Kaichos Man, : typo "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Unfortunately, this belief in "the fall" is not supported by science, nor is the absolute mandate that there can be no new information in the genome. What about the first and second laws of thermodynamics? They certainly point to a universe who structure is that of conservation and not innovation as required by the evolutionary theory. First, while the second law of thermodynamics may apply to the universe as a whole it does not necessarily apply to subsections of the universe--you, for example. Because of your ability to acquire energy from the outside you are able to temporarily reverse the overall entropy of the universe. The earth does the same thing, using energy from the sun. This means, of course, that creationists who use the second law as an argument against evolution are displaying a gross misunderstanding of that law. Also, evolutionary theory does not require innovation. It explains evolution as descent with modification. That means that subsequent generations can have more, less, or about the same level of whatever "innovation" means. The religious belief in "the fall" does not agree with real world data. Third: the first law of thermodynamics doesn't enter into the discussion at all. An aside--I love it when creationists start quoting scientific laws, as if either they understood them or as if those laws actually meant what creationist websites led them to believe. On another website evolutionists were assured that "the second law of thermal documents" showed that evolution couldn't happen. We were also assured that the odds against evolution producing some result or other were 1720 against. Moral: you should understand something about science before you start to lecture scientists on the details, lest you look silly rather than erudite.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member
|
Kaichos Man writes:
There are mutations. Some are functional, some are not. Some are selected for, some are selected against. I would expect the functional and non-functional genome to grow over time, assuming it provided an evolutionary advantage. Okay, to return to the question. How do you see the functional, non-redundant genome growing over time? Perhaps you could be more specific with your question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4517 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
Perhaps you could be more specific with your question? According to one researcher (and I don't know if he's right or wrong, but the maths is pretty simple so he's probably right) the size of the functional, non-reduntant genome has increased by 7.8 fold every billion years. Concentrating on the "functional, non-redundant" part, I'd like to know by which process(es) this was achieved. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
According to one researcher (and I don't know if he's right or wrong, but the maths is pretty simple so he's probably right) the size of the functional, non-reduntant genome has increased by 7.8 fold every billion years. Concentrating on the "functional, non-redundant" part, I'd like to know by which process(es) this was achieved. It's called "evolution". Perhaps you would like to refine your question until it is not a vague slush of incomprehension. Or perhaps you would not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How can the person first posing the question be guilty of evasion? When his question is devoid of meaning, and when he runs away from explaining what he means it to mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is horizontal gene transfer (HGT) ... If you learned more about genetics you would make less stuff up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The problem with gene duplication as a path to increased genomic complexity is that in some ways the phenomenum is its own worst enemy. When a gene duplicates its susceptibility to natural selection is (roughly) halved. A deleterious mutation to one copy is compensated for by the other copy, rather than being selected out. This results in rapid "subfunctionalisation", with two damaged genes doing the work of the undamaged original. This means that the two subfunctionalised copies are actually constrained to their tasks (assuming the original gene was a vital one) and neither of them actually have the luxury of evolving into something novel. When I read gibberish like this, I thoroughly understand why geneticists think that creationists are stupid and wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
The problem with gene duplication as a path to increased genomic complexity is that in some ways the phenomenum is its own worst enemy. When a gene duplicates its susceptibility to natural selection is (roughly) halved. A deleterious mutation to one copy is compensated for by the other copy, rather than being selected out. This results in rapid "subfunctionalisation", with two damaged genes doing the work of the undamaged original. This means that the two subfunctionalised copies are actually constrained to their tasks (assuming the original gene was a vital one) and neither of them actually have the luxury of evolving into something novel. Firstly, so what? What differences does it make if some gene duplication and modification doesn't add "information"? Secondly, most multi-part proteins where the parts are from different families are better at their function than their single part equivalents - does being better as something constitute a change in information by your standard?
quote: I think your "probably" is almost entirely errant; certainly no such inference is drawn by Zhang himself. And can we be quite clear than Zhang does not question that it does happen, but merely recognises the limits in our knowledge of this area, please? Anyway, let's look at an examples. Lactation. Lactose is synthesized in placental mammals by an enzyme called Lactose synthase. This enzyme is composed of two proteins: galactosyltransferase and α-lactalbumin. Galactosyltransferase on its own will form lactose from UDP-galactose and glucose but only at glucose concentration levels far about those found in vivo, it's primary purpose on it's own is the transfer of galactose units from UDP-galactose to N-acetylglucosamine linked to proteins. α-lactalbumin binds to galactosyltransferase to form lactase synthase by modifying the shape of galactosyltransferase slightly so it now readily catalyses the combination of UDP-galactose and glucose to form lactose. Now, the α-lactalbumin gene has substantial sequence similarity to a gene family that code for lysozymes (specifically to Ca2+ binding c-lysozymes). Lysozymes are enzymes that form part of the innate immune response by attacking molecules called peptidoglycans found only in bacterial cell walls. More intriguingly still, monotremes do not synthesize (much) lactose in their milk but they do include a large quantity of lysozyme with it (presumably, to help protect the offspring from bacterial infection) - the particular kind of lysozyme that α-lactalbumin is most similar too - and this lysozyme has a very weak lactose catalysis effect when combined with galactosyltransferase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
This is horizontal gene transfer (HGT), popular among microbes but rare among eukaryotes. It may be transferred between microbes by HGT but it did not emerge by HGT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4517 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined:
|
Hi Mr jack.
Still reading up on lysozymes, and fascinating stuff it is. Came across this pearler and thought I'd share it with youo:
"The challenge was that evolution of lactation was not feasible, because a neonate could not obtain a survival benefit from consuming the chance secretion of a rudimentary cutaneous gland. In response, Darwin hypothesized that mammary glands evolved from cutaneous glands that were contained within the brood pouches in which some fish and other marine species keep their eggs, and provided nourishment and thus a survival advantage to eggs of ancestral species. Two hundred years after Darwin's birth, the theory of evolution by natural selection remains a cornerstone of biology, as it has withstood this and other challenges." Doesn't it sound triumphant? Can't you see Charlie standing there, jut-jawed and resolute, beating back the hordes of bleating Creationists? Unfortunately, the paragraph finishes:
However, it is now clear that the mammary gland did not evolve from a brood pouch [1]. Laugh! "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Kaichos Man, what was the source of your pearl? It doesn't seem to reflect modern thinking.
Unfortunately, the paragraph finishes:
However, it is now clear that the mammary gland did not evolve from a brood pouch [1]. True, it likely evolved from a sweat gland:Mammary gland - Wikipedia quote: This is logical as sweat could be licked by young, and this would provide liquids and result in stimulation to sweat more to fulfill the purpose of sweating. A feedback cycle ensues.
Laugh! One should always be careful of laughing first and thinking second. Especially when what you posted does not challenge or even address the issue that Mr. Jack raised for how the molecules work. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : pearl Edited by RAZD, : mrjack by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
Still reading up on lysozymes, and fascinating stuff it is. Came across this pearler and thought I'd share it with youo: I know, amazing isn't? A biologist speculating 150 years ago got some sutff wrong. Wow. A man who didn't know about genes, didn't know about the molecular basis for tissue differentiation, didn't know about the existence of control genes, or how they work, didn't know about the chemicals involved in lactation - and so ad nauseum - didn't get his ideas about the details right? I'm staggered. While you're at it why don't you have a quick crow about how his ideas on sexual reproduction were so wonderfully, absurdly incorrect? I'm sure a good laugh will do you good. What I don't understand is why you'd think it'd make any difference to me? Or any modern scientist? Edited by Mr Jack, : missed a word Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Hi Kaichos Man, what was the source of your pearl? It doesn't seem to reflect modern thinking. The origin and evolution of lactation, Anthony V Capuco and R Michael Akers
quote: It's just classic creationists, quote mining from the introduction of a paper in which the authors attempt to define the problem that they wish to discuss. The structure of the paper is: "It was thought to be impossible for evolution, says the authors. Darwin had a hypothesis. Darwin's hypothesis was falsified. Here is a review of a more current hypothesis...." Because of course, we evolutionists believe that Darwin was the perfecti of evolution. All evidence must be interpreted to be consistent with the divine words of St Darwin. Any dissent from this dogma will be met with excommunication from the hallowed halls of the lab and library.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024