Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 304 of 450 (615198)
05-11-2011 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Wounded King
05-11-2011 9:44 AM


Re: Gene Deletion/pseudogenisation
Wounded King writes:
The evidence suggest it is a pseudogene in humans but an active gene in chimps.
How should Figure A be interpreted to reach this conclusion? It looks like it's pairing each human genes with the corresponding chimp gene, so just above C4C1001 we see that C4C975 is paired with H4C720, but C4C1001 is not paired, and given the hierarchy it looks like a duplicated gene that branched off.
Also, how does one distinguish genes from pseudogenes in the figure?
Thanks for the help!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2011 9:44 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2011 11:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 308 of 450 (615212)
05-11-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Big_Al35
05-11-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Gene Deletion
Big_Al35 writes:
Having read the article a couple of times now I still can't confirm whether this is a real or a pseudo gene.
The main body of the paper does not mention the gene. That's because the paper is not about that gene, nor about whether chimps have genes humans do not. Probably no one has written a paper about whether chimps have genes humans do not because, incredible as it must seem to you who doubt the possibility, no one else doubts this. What would be incredible would be that after 7 million years of separate evolution that no new genes could have emerged on the chimpanzee side. So with regard to finding the evidence you requested the best we can do here in this thread is find papers on other topics that in passing touch on specific gene differences.
WK and I seem to agree that it is more likely than not that this is a gene rather than a pseudogene given the way it is presented in Figure A, but the paper doesn't say specifically. I suppose we could search for a paper that is more specific, but before we put any additional effort into this I think you should explain why you think this is important to your case. Please include in your explanation why pseudogenes are not just as significant as genes, since the paper describes many that are functional in one species (genes) and not in the other (pseudogenes). There's not much difference in effect between a non-functional gene and an absent gene. A former gene that is now a non-functional pseudogene is going to have pretty much the same effect as if it had been deleted and is now absent.
As amazingly accurate as cell division is, there is still much potential for error in the processes of division for asexual cells and of both gamete production and fusion in sexual species. Copying errors ranging from simple base substitutions, additions and deltions up to complete duplications and deletions of genes and even entire chromosomes are possible. In some flowering plants there is evidence of duplication of the entire set of chromosomes. New genes can also arise through gene insertions, for example, retroviral insertions.
So given all the possible things that can go wrong at the genetic level during reproduction and even subsequent life, why is it that you doubt that any and all of these happen in the history of species, including chimps and humans?
Given that humans and chimps have vast physical differences, I can't understand why you would choose as your only example, a "sense of smell" gene. I am not trying to be disputatious but aren't there any more worthy examples that are more suitable for study?
Again, no one is writing papers on whether chimps have genes that humans do not. We found evidence where it happened to pop up in Google searches. But you vastly underestimate the importance of the olfactory genes. While the smell sensors are small and not physically visible they evidently are of critical importance for tetrapods because of the amount of genetic and brain real estate dedicated to them.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Big_Al35, posted 05-11-2011 11:42 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Big_Al35, posted 05-31-2011 2:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 319 of 450 (617950)
05-31-2011 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Big_Al35
05-31-2011 2:32 PM


Re: Gene Deletion
Hi Al, welcome back!
Big_Al35 writes:
Percy writes:
Again, no one is writing papers on whether chimps have genes that humans do not.
You originally stated that chimps and humans both have genes that the other does not have. Please provide evidence for your claims or alternatively retract your remark.
As WK said, we've already provided that evidence. While probably no one is writing papers where the main topic is whether chimps have genes humans do not, by perusing the literature we were able to find papers that mentioned genes chimps have that humans do not, and that humans have that chimps do not.
It is very likely that there are species more closely related than chimps and humans that share all their genes and only differ in their alleles, and maybe WK can name some, but the general rule is that the more distant the relationship between species the fewer genes they will share.
I'm concerned that you never do anything with the information people provide, you just move on to ask more questions. Unless you can explain why you want this information there's really not much point in continuing to fetch information for you.
You also stated that while humans and chimps share 98% of their genome...
It was actually you who gave the 98% figure back in Message 253:
BigAl35 in Message 253 writes:
Thats very interesting given that we share 98% of our entire genome with chimpanzees and yet only 2-3% of the genome consists of genes!
So if you've found a contradiction it is with yourself.
What is the point you hope to make with the information you keep requesting?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Big_Al35, posted 05-31-2011 2:32 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 321 of 450 (618124)
06-01-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Big_Al35
06-01-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Gene Deletion
Hi Al,
I think if you want me to do more work looking up information for you then you should explain what point you hope to make with this information, because so far you have ignored information previously provided and just moved on to ask another question.
Why is it that you doubt that chimps have genes humans don't anyway? Do you doubt that gorillas have genes humans don't? Monkies? Lemurs? Vietnamiese pot-bellied pigs? Is there any rhyme or reason to your doubts, or do you just like making busy work for people?
So explain to us the implications. If it turns out that humans have genes chimps don't, but chimps have no genes that humans don't, what would that mean for your position? How would it advance your cause?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Big_Al35, posted 06-01-2011 1:24 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 326 of 450 (618213)
06-02-2011 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Big_Al35
06-02-2011 6:22 AM


Re: Gene Deletion
Big_Al35 writes:
Ahh finally we have something to work with ie MYH16.
And also KIR2DL6, KIR2DL7, KIR2DL9, KIR3DL4 and KIR3DL5 that WK enumerated in the next paragraph. This is in addition to the other gene that chimps have that humans don't that we provided before your brief absence .
It has now been shown that humans have genes chimps don't, and that chimps have genes humans don't, and we're curious what you're planning to do with this information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Big_Al35, posted 06-02-2011 6:22 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Big_Al35, posted 06-03-2011 4:03 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 330 of 450 (618387)
06-03-2011 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Big_Al35
06-03-2011 4:03 AM


Re: Gene Deletion
Hi Al,
Is everything okay? Before your brief absence you seemed pretty intent on making a case that we can't really determine the relatedness of species, but now something else seems to be occupying your mind that you're not telling us. What's up?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Big_Al35, posted 06-03-2011 4:03 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 333 of 450 (619587)
06-10-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by tesla
06-10-2011 12:51 PM


Re: Gene Deletion
Hi Tesla,
Big Al's position is that humans have every gene that chimps have and more. He seemed to feel that more is better, and that it is therefore impossible that chimps could be better than humans by having more genes. He isn't likely to see an argument that humans have less of anything than chimps as helpful.
On a more general level Al's position is that it isn't possible to use genetics to differentiate between species, and so he's also unlikely to welcome the work of Dr. Kingsley identifying key genetic differences between humans and our nearest relatives.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by tesla, posted 06-10-2011 12:51 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by tesla, posted 06-10-2011 2:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 335 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2011 2:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 336 of 450 (619604)
06-10-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Wounded King
06-10-2011 2:39 PM


Re: Not Al's position as I understand it
Yes, you're right, it would have been better had I emphasized that he doesn't accept that genetic analysis can derive ancestry. Regarding whether species are defined by distinct sets of genes he has been inconsistent. What he was saying back around Message 146 contradicts his position later on when he was arguing that humans and chimps shared all the same genes.
But it is a mistake to see too much coherency in Al's views. Any sense that some might think is there I claim is not real but is merely in the eye of the beholder, a kind of conceptual pareidolia.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2011 2:39 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 340 of 450 (622598)
07-05-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Big_Al35
07-05-2011 8:11 AM


Re: Gene Deletion
Hi Big Al,
Welcome back. Have you returned to resume the discussion we were having last month?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Big_Al35, posted 07-05-2011 8:11 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Big_Al35, posted 07-06-2011 7:43 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 342 of 450 (622725)
07-06-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Big_Al35
07-06-2011 7:43 AM


Re: Gene Deletion
Big_Al35 writes:
I was just curious to know where this discussion would be headed without my input. However, it would appear that between you, you have very few ideas and have made very little progress.
You were wondering whether the discussion with you would continue after you left? How odd!
Anyway, if you'd like to continue the discussion about the definition of species then that's what this thread is here for.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Big_Al35, posted 07-06-2011 7:43 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Big_Al35, posted 07-10-2011 3:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 344 of 450 (623465)
07-10-2011 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Big_Al35
07-10-2011 3:48 PM


Re: Gene Deletion
Big_Al35 writes:
Are you saying that unless I contribute you will close this thread down? Be my guest.
I'm not sure where that's coming from, and I'm a participant in this thread, not a moderator.
Anyway, not sure why you keep keep popping back in if you're not interested in continuing the discussion, but if you'd like to do that then the thread's open and available.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Big_Al35, posted 07-10-2011 3:48 PM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Big_Al35, posted 07-18-2011 7:01 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 358 of 450 (625028)
07-21-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Big_Al35
07-21-2011 7:21 AM


Re: Frameshifts
Hi Big Al,
I think you misunderstand what WK is saying. The "ludicrous and irrelevant stipulation" he refers to is not the possibility of frameshift mutations, but your statement that, "Only from this context [human to human frameshift mutations] can we then move on to presuppose frameshifting across the species." The question is, what does this mean?
WK and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum in interpreting your posts. I believe you do not often understand the details we're discussing and that much of what you say does not make sense. WK believes that what you're saying does make sense, and so he imposes upon your words an interpretation and meaning that I believe is not actually there.
So in your statement about presupposing frameshift mutations, I saw it and thought it fairly resistant to any unambiguous interpretation and probably reflecting more confusion. WK saw it and thought you were making an inappropriate presupposition. In any case, in your quoted passages his latter statement does not contradict his first.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Big_Al35, posted 07-21-2011 7:21 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Big_Al35, posted 07-21-2011 8:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 439 of 450 (653018)
02-17-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Big_Al35
02-17-2012 11:02 AM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
Big_Al35 writes:
Please could you provide evidence that "what you can see" does not constitute evidence?
Taq was replying to Robert Byers' statement that he sees "rapid diversity as an option within Biblical boundaries." Taq's reply to Robert was that he doesn't want to hear his claims about what he thinks he sees, he wants to see his evidence.
Robert was claiming that the diversity of species we see today is due to accelerated evolution over a short period after the flood. Do you have any evidence that anything like this ever took place?
It would be especially welcome if you could tie your answer in to the topic (Definition of Species), something Robert was never able to do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Big_Al35, posted 02-17-2012 11:02 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Big_Al35, posted 02-20-2012 1:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 442 of 450 (653379)
02-20-2012 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Big_Al35
02-20-2012 1:01 PM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
Taq said he was interested in what Robert can evidence, not what he can see. By "see" Robert did not mean he had visual evidence, but was just stating his opinion, as when someone begins, "The way I see it..." When Robert says that he sees accelerated evolution as possible within a Biblical context he is offering opinion, not evidence.
Robert has enormous difficulty staying on topic, and whether speciation can occur very rapidly does not really have anything to do with the topic. This thread is over four years old, probably time to close it down. If on-topic discussion doesn't resume soon I'll put this thread into summation mode.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Big_Al35, posted 02-20-2012 1:01 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 445 of 450 (653401)
02-20-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by Big_Al35
02-20-2012 3:49 PM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
Robert no longer has posting permissions in this forum. He lost them when he persisted in posting the same unevidenced claims over and over again.
Looks like it's up to you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Big_Al35, posted 02-20-2012 3:49 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024