|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1270 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
What does this indicate for how you view primate evolution? I would agree with Taq, Percy and others that these were examples of gene loss in the ancestors of Chimpanzees since they branched off from a common ancestor with Humans. We can use these pattern of gene loss/gain with other primates to establish phylogenetic relationships and compare this to other features we see in the sequenced genomes to see if they concur. But this isn't why I posted because Taq and Percy already have this well in hand. What I was looking for was your own interpretation of these patterns. For example, creationists possibly including Durston, tend to separate humans from other primates as separate kinds, possibly going further with ape and monkey kinds. But this example you've raised contradict this depending on however you would define the significance of gene gain/loss.So how would you describe the relationships of primate species, if any, based on the distribution of shared genes?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So Percy and Taq argued that non-homologous genes between humans and chimps was due to gene loss in each. Having realised the error of their argument they are now arguing for the appearance of lineage specific genes.
I thank Percy for the chart that provides some gains and losses in number of genes. I find it particularly interesting to note the apparently high mutation rates in humans, chimps, orangotangs, mice and rats. Is this high rate of gene loss and gain observed in these populations today?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Meddle writes: I would agree with Taq, Percy and others that these were examples of gene loss in the ancestors of Chimpanzees since they branched off from a common ancestor with Humans. Actually, I didn't say that. It seems to me that other things being equal that something more symmetric should have happened, that humans and chimps should both have acquired and lost alleles and genes since the common ancestor. Here's some information I thought significant from the paper Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack says:
quote: In other words, chimps may have lost genes that humans did not; duplications were 10 times more common in the human genome; and gene regulation by non-coding regions is a large unexplored area. There's a lot more in the paper. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: So Percy and Taq argued that non-homologous genes between humans and chimps was due to gene loss in each. That's false. I offered many different explanations, from gene loss to de novo evolution of new genes. I never said that every single non-homologous gene between humans and chimps was due to gene loss.
I find it particularly interesting to note the apparently high mutation rates in humans, chimps, orangotangs, mice and rats. Where are you getting this from? A single substitution mutation can produce a new gene promoter and lead to the transcription of previously non-coding region of DNA. You don't need high mutation rates for the production of new genes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I find it particularly interesting to note the apparently high mutation rates in humans, chimps, orangotangs, mice and rats. Where are you getting this from?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I read that post and I can't see what you claimed anywhere in that post.
Are you telling untruths again, CRR? You do know that people can actually read, don't you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: From Percy in Message 223 What are you referring to specifically?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
That chart isn't measuring mutation rates, merely the rate of gene loss and gain.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Those values do not appear to be rate values since there is no indication of a time period.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I've been trying to track down more details about this chart:
I originally assumed the obvious, that the number in the right hand column is the number of genes, and that the red/blue numbers are the number of genes added/subtracted from the common ancestor. But now I'm not sure I trust this chart, for these reasons:
For these reasons, I'm disavowing this chart. But the original point made back in my Message 223 still stands. It's not valid to pay attention to "only one side of the ledger, namely losing genes." --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
(a) shows the numbers of losses and gains.
(b) shows the rates You have to backtrack to the article that Percy referenced; which I did. I agree with Percy that the graphs require further explanation. I couldn't work out the numbers on the right either. [edit] btw I thing the colours are reversed between the two graphs, which makes it a bit confusing. Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: (a) shows the numbers of losses and gains.(b) shows the rates Shows the rates of what? Gene loss/gain? Rate of duplication events? Indel rates? Substitution rates? Per nucleotide mutation rate?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
a) shows the numbers of losses and gains. (b) shows the rates There are no time units on graph b. I think you are making stuff up when you complain about rates being too high. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1270 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
I was still thinking back to the genes CRR cited in Message 167 which were examples of loss in Chimpanzees. But the discussion has moved on since then to include gene gain, so sorry for the confusion.
Also your graph in Message 223 comes from here but it is a supplementary image not in the main body of the article.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024