|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Species | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Big_Al35 writes: Is this a pseudogene or a real gene? According to the paper, which you could read yourself so I don't know why you're asking me since you obviously don't trust me any further than you can throw me, it's a real gene. But again, the important question is why do you care? These are the key questions. Please answer them:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1245 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
By the way, sport, if you're going to use adult words, use the fucking word. We're adults here. Well, some of us are. Randomly substituting asterisks just make you look silly. And believe me, you don't need any help in that direction.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
The evidence suggest it is a pseudogene in humans but an active gene in chimps. For some further human specific pseudogenes (HSPs) which have become fixed in the human population see Kim et al. (2010). This paper identifies 38 distinct human specific pseudogenes 25 of which are Olfactory Receptor (OR) genes. Some of the non-OR pseudogenes are CMAH, GLRA4, MBL1, MHY16, SIGLEC-13, TDH and KRT41 (for the full list see here. The authors used a more stringent approach than the original human-chimp comparison paper which had identified 120 putative HSPs, the supplementary table I linked to in the last sentence also includes the criteria they used to gategorise many of these as non-authentic HSPs.
Hopefully having established to any reasonable person's satisfaction that chimps have some functional genes humans don't and humans have some functional genes chimps don't why not now relate this back to the topic at hand, the definition of species? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined:
|
subbie writes: By the way, sport, if you're going to use adult words, use the fucking word. We're adults here. Well, some of us are. Randomly substituting asterisks just make you look silly. And believe me, you don't need any help in that direction. Who the fuck are you? I wasn't talking to you anyway. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
You are right it may be a chimp specific expansion rather than a human pseudogenisation event. I was trying to find the actual sequences in the Human Olfactory Data Explorer (HORDE) but unfortunately none of the terms there correspond to the nomenclature in the paper, I took human OR4C10P, which is a pseudogene, to be the orthologue of the chimp sequence, but now I'm doubtful if that is correct.
From the figure itself there is no way to tell the functional genes (intact) from the pseudogenes, quite why they didn't bother to do this is beyond me since they go on to say how many there are of each. Given this omission there is not actually enough information to tell which orthologous pairs are both intact or in which one or both members are pseudogenised. I suppose since the point of the figure was simply the expansions this is understandable, but it would have been nice information to have. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Percy writes: How does it help your position if chimps don't have genes humans don't? In other words, why do you care? Do you even know? Or are you, as I suspect, just disputing everything without rhyme or reason? Having read the article a couple of times now I still can't confirm whether this is a real or a pseudo gene. I can't find a single other source which verifies the C4C1001 gene either. The name of the gene consisting purely of numbers and letters is intriguing too. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
The name of the gene consisting purely of numbers and letters is intriguing too. This statement is hereby nominated for the Web-Wide WTF??? Award for May, 2011. How are genes typically named, Big_Al?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1245 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
How are genes typically named, Big_Al? Well, I've got several pair of Wranglers, my wife likes Lee and I've also got a very old pair of Levi's that I've cut off because the knees wore through but I can still get them around my waist after 20 years. Now, I do think that the Levi's are called 505, so maybe that might intrigue Big Al, but at least they're Levi's and not just 505. Edited by subbie, : Subtitle Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
How are genes typically named, Big_Al? Well we've had a few examples of gene names egAPOL1, APOL4, CARD18 This new one C4C1001 does not follow that convention ie four letters and a number but then I have no idea how they choose the names and thats why I said I was intrigued. Do you have any ideas about how they name genes? Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
Do you have any ideas about how they name genes?
Ever hear of google?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 790 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Ever hear of google? Hey, thanks for that. I will have to give that a try sometime. Not now though...I have to clip my toe nails first. You have to prioritise you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1245 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes: Ever hear of google? Hey, thanks for that. I will have to give that a try sometime. Not now though...I have to clip my toe nails first. You have to prioritise you know. Way to reach for the stars, Sport! Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
Well I have little patience for people that want to be spoon fed. Take some responsibility to alleviate your ignorance and do some basic research. God forbid, you might actually learn something.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024