Acropora millepora and it's human genes

I was going to wait to start this thread, but the question was asked why I was talking about vertebrates in the sub-discussion of no new phyla evolving....This is one reason vertebrate genes and the general subject of an appearane of prescribed evolution have been on my mind. I am not an evo and don't ascribe to saltationalism, but do think it has more merit than Darwinism.My question for this thread is where did complex even human genetic expressions come from in a non-vertebrate, as the paper below indicates. Moreover, the authors suggest there was a massive loss of genes from the theoritical commom metazoan ancestor during the evolution of many lineages, which seems to me to be the opposite of what you would expect from Darwinism. They reveal the existence of gene sequences for complex even human nerve function in a creature with no physical expression of complex nerve function since the species has no a complex nerve system.One wonders if the human gene sequences had any physical expression in the creature, or if they did, what sort of expression. Furthermore, they posit that the theoritical metazoan common ancestor had a "a stunning degree of genetic complexity".Where did that complexity come from? Specifically, how could human gene sequences evolve via natural selection if human traits were not present to be selected for. PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning CompanyCertainly, natural selection could play no role here in selecting complex, human nerve systems since no complex human nerve systems existed. At the same time, they came from somewhere....where? What process? Was there an incredible genetic diversity and range within very simple organisms with all the latent ability to evolve into specific forms, including humans. Moreover, the authors say there was a massive loss in some animal lineages. Is the loss of genes and genetic complexity the means by which evolution occurs generally with animals, and if so, how could natural selection play a role in the development of such a stunning genetic complexity in very simple organisms?Lots of edits.....sorry about that. One more note: keep in mind that this species is not within the theoritical lineage of human beings. I am not arguing, just to be clear, I accept common descent and evo phylogenetic trees anyway. However, it is worth noting that these complex human genetic sequences occur outside the chordate phylum. This is a non-vertebrate.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : to correct some grammar and spelling mistakesEdited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : edit a 2nd time for clarityEdited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This seems fine, except where you parenthetically state that they think the genes were lost and reevolved or somehow regained. I can't find where the article says that. Can you indicate where in the article I can find that, or if it isn't there amend your proposal?Also, I couldn't find where in the article it says that these genes were not expressed, so same request for that, tell me where to find it or amend your proposal. Thanks!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Here is where they indicate they are not expressed, at least for complex nerve functions. Here is where they state there was a massive loss of genes. Also, note it in the summary if you follow the link the mention of the loss of genes and the paradoxical nature of such complexity since "organism contains apparently few tissue types and the simplest extant nervous system." http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?u...They imply in the quotes I gave that the loss of genes was regained, but I was mainly typing from memory having read a few articles on this. Here is the paper. They argue that evidence of human genetic sequences in this less complex species is evidence of massive loss of genes. I think it's reasonable to think they infer that they reappear later....don't you?The only question and qualification of my OP statements is that one could still envision perhaps that some strain of evolution leading to us did not experience such loss of information. That is a bit dubious perhaps though considering the time involved.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Thanks for the info. As I suspected, the article makes no comment about whether the genes were expressed, nor whether natural selection operated on them. Obviously selection had to have operated on them at some point, because they were deselected in the invertebrate lines. You should amend that part of your thread proposal. The article (I fixed your link to it, you included spaces and line breaks when you cut-n-pasted it) contains no implication that I can see, including in the abstract you quoted, that the genes were regained, which would seem to be, at least in the absence of any explanation, wildly improbable in an evolutionary context. Descendants of these ancient genes could only be present in modern humans if there is an unbroken line of descent. You mentioned getting this idea from other papers, so if this point is important to your thread you need to cite one of those papers. But the possibility seems as unlikely as somehow regaining the original text of the books lost when the library at Alexandria burned. Without modern "descendants" of those books (i.e., copies, which for some of those books have turned up) there seems no possibility of regaining the original text, and the analogous is true of lost genes.So you need to amend your proposal on this point, too, or provide a supporting reference.But if you amend your proposal on these two points, would it still be making the point you hoped to make?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Are we reading the same thing? The article states that they were not expressed for complex nerve function. That's why they were surprised.Do you not see that?We can speculate and one of the scientist does, that they could be expressed for something else, but he really doesn't know. More research is needed, but they are clearly not expressing what they do in humans.On the point of natural selection, you got it backwards. I am not talking of the way in which there was "massive loss" of genes and so were deselected when I speak of natural selection. I am referring to the fact that an organism had genes for complex nerve functions, even human functions, and since it had no complex nerve function, there is no way for these gene sequences to be selected for by natural selection, at least not as expressions of nerve functions.You can speculate as one guy does that maybe the same gene sequences somehow do something else there, but (and this is crucial) regardless, they indicate the theorized common metazoan ancestor was very complex genetically, and that genes and genetic complexity was lost as evolution occurred. Their term for this was "massively lost".Is it the prediction and common understanding that more primitive organisms are more complex genetically and greater complexity as an organism is the result of massive loss of genes in the theorized evolutionary line?So my question is where did this massive genetic complexity come from if it could not arise through natural selection? Certainly, this simple organism did not have a human brain? So how did the genes for a human brain get in there?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Hi Randman,As is frequently the case, you've made your interpretation of what some article really says, and you're prepared to argue for your interpretation at length. I'll promote your proposal when there is congruency between your claims and your references, and not before. Until then, we'll just have to disagree.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I revised the OP raising the same questions, of course, but not explicitly stating the paper makes or raises all the same questions. The paper does mention a massive loss of genes in some animal lineages and other things such as the existence of human genetic sequences in an organism which has not complex nerves, etc,.... See what you think. Imo, it is fact-based analysis.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

The paper studies EST's in coral. The "E" in EST stands for "expressed". I can't promote a thread where the position and the reference are incongruent.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

What are you referring to here? The fact is the genes for complex human function are not expressing complex nerve function as the authors state. They are not sure what they relate to. One of them offers a hypothesis, but they state the findings are paradoxical. They certainly are arguing they do not express complex nerve function.The paper expresses surprise that genetic sequences for complex human nerve function exists in corals with no complex nerve function.Are you taking issue with that?Note this comment: Technau et al 2005Just to reiterate: I am frankly surprised you don't want to see a discussion about this finding because as the authors state it overturns commonly held views: PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning CompanyYou seem to have a problem with me addressing their comment that the findings are "paradoxical". Have you considered why they would think that?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

Please note especially: Page not found | Research & Innovation | University of AdelaideThis is why I speculated initially that perhaps these human genetic sequences would have to be lost and then added again. They do not appear in "the first model invertebrates. Of course, there are other explanations including evolution did not occur as evos insist.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I understand that you believe you're interpreting the article correctly. I disagreed, and after reading your last two posts, I still disagree. Your history is one of odd interpretations that you never give up, and I'll not be delivering myself to the curse of Santayana. You're welcome to continue to try to convince me, but as long as you continue to make clearly incorrect interpretations like this one: I will not be promoting this thread, because it wouldn't be a discussion of a the topic, but a lengthy and probably hopeless exercise of trying to convince you of what the article actually says.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

percy, I am not saying the article says the genes were lost and added again. The article does say the genes were considered to likely be present in the common metazoan ancestor, and that "in many animal lineages", there was a massive loss of genes.Then, I am speculating that if earlier forms of vertebrates lost these genes, perhaps the genes were lost and added again. The truth is the facts here raise a number of interesting questions, not all of which the article addresses. However, the article does say the facts are paradoxical and so more research is needed to understand their full implications.Some implications they do feel comfortable stating, however, such as evolution occuring creating greater physical complexity via a massive loss of genes, which is an interesting point on it's own and another is that the theoritical common metazoan ancestor was very complex genetically.The point of me bringing this in up is in part to ask where this genetic complexity within such simple organisms comes from. Speculation should be considered acceptable since frankly, we don't know the answer for sure.

The article and the paper do not say that the genes for human nerve function are present. The news article (and only that ) says that genes "corresponding" to those human genes are present. Getting that right is important.The Technau paper does not express surprise about human nerve function sequences at all (that I can find). You seem to imply that with your format.I don't find the word "paradoxical" anywhere.The papers and article make it extremely clear to what degree the findings are surprising and why.This is an interesting article to discuss. It is one that is beginning to fill in some of the details of our evolutionary history. The jigsaw is still represented by only a few scattered pieces so far. As we find more and fit them in we will have other surprises of this kind and get a much clearer picture.I have to agree with Percy. Until you demonstrate and ability to read these things with more comprehension it is useless to open a discussion about it with you involved.

Could be some confusion between the abstract or summary that was published and the other link to the whole article. But regardless, if you follow the link I provide, you can clearly see word "paradoxical" is taken straight from the abstract as I showed already and do so again below. http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?u... What about these comments? I think your insult on my reading comprehension is somewhat ironic and humorous considering the quotes above. It's not that hard to follow the links I provide and read the first paragraph with the statement using the term "paradoxical", for example.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

If you rewrite your OP to describe what you'd like to discuss I'll give it another look. Post a note when you're done.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director