|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Human DNA as good as it gets? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Actually a two-parter if possible
I was scanning through information on ther Human Genome Project and was wondering... 1. If humans are at the top of the food chain, is our DNA as complicated as it gets? Are there any plants or animals with more complicated DNA? 2. Does human DNA contain the sum total of all the DNA that has gone before us. In other words, can human DNA be "read" as the greatest Natural Biology history text of Earthly fauna there is? (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
1. If humans are at the top of the food chain, is our DNA as complicated as it gets? Are there any plants or animals with more complicated DNA? We are not at the top of the food chain; insects and bacteria are. They eat us. I am pretty sure (but don't know) that by some measures of complexity (number of genes, chromosomes, base pairs) we are not the most complex. It may well be that by other measure we are but I don't think that is known yet.
2. Does human DNA contain the sum total of all the DNA that has gone before us. In other words, can human DNA be "read" as the greatest Natural Biology history text of Earthly fauna there is? Yes and no. The totality of the gene pool of all organisms is a record of all that has gone before and the enviroments they adapted to. However, the record has been written over and written over again and as you go back it is more jumbled like a palpimset (sp?) that has been used more than once.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Mespo writes: 1. If humans are at the top of the food chain, is our DNA as complicated as it gets? Are there any plants or animals with more complicated DNA? It depends on how you define 'complicated'. If you look at the building blocks of DNA, then the DNA of all species is equally complex, because the building blocks and the general structure of DNA units are the same for all species. But the number of these units - the length of the entire DNA molecule - and the order in which these units appear in the molecule, is different for each species. So if you define 'complicated' as the length of the DNA molecule, then some species are more 'complicated' then others. But contrary to what you might think, this has nothing to do with our place in the food chain. For example, humans have 3 x 109 (3 billion) units in their DNA, whereas a certain amoeba (Amoeba dubia) has 67 x 1010 units. That's 223 times as 'complex' as a human. Not bad for an amoeba.
2. Does human DNA contain the sum total of all the DNA that has gone before us. In other words, can human DNA be "read" as the greatest Natural Biology history text of Earthly fauna there is? No. Although in a certain way the history of our ancestors has been accumulating in our DNA over millions and millions of years, this accumulation is far from perfect. The accumulation is not a matter of just adding the DNA of all our ancestors together, but of copying it, editing it, and deleting some of it. Some very basic genes, common to all life, have been carried over from generation to generation, virtually unchanged. They constitute the oldest chapters of the history book. But other genes may have been edited rigorously, making it hard to recognize them for what they once were. Their ancient history is lost forever, unless you are able to list every small change they have undergone, and in the right order too. You must also bear in mind that a lot of the earthly fauna has developed along other branches of the evolutionary 'tree of life' than our own. From the moment their branch split from ours, their history was no longer accumulated in what was to become our DNA. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Jan-2006 12:17 PM "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
But contrary to what you might think, this has nothing to do with our place in the food chain. For example, humans have 3 x 109 (3 billion) units in their DNA, whereas a certain amoeba (Amoeba dubia) has 67 x 1010 units. That's 223 times as 'complex' as a human. Not bad for an amoeba. WOW. Great response. Obviously there is no evolutionary pressure to clean house. No "Mr. Clean Gene". I guess shutting off genes not necessary for an organism's survival is easier than dropping them off at the Salvation Army Thrift Store. DNA obesity apparently is not an issue, either. (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
2. Does human DNA contain the sum total of all the DNA that has gone before us. In other words, can human DNA be "read" as the greatest Natural Biology history text of Earthly fauna there is? Your cousin has a child by mating with an individual neither of you are related to. Do you suddenly gain any portion of that individual's genes, even though you're related to their offspring? No. Neither does human DNA contain any genes except those we inherited from our ancestors and those we developed ourselves. So too have all the other species on earth developed genes that we simply don't have. Every single living organism on the planet has gone through just as much evolution as we have; in most cases, considerably more. That's a considerable amount of time for them to develop genetic sequences that have nothing to do with ours.
If humans are at the top of the food chain There isn't really a food "chain." It's a food web, when you get right down to it. Plants use the sun and nutrients from decomposers in the soil to create sugars; animals eat the sugars; those animals are eaten by other animals, those animals die and are eaten by soil decomposers, those soil decomposers are eaten by plants and combined with energy from the sun to create sugars.... You get the idea. Humans are no more at the top of a food "chain" then they're at the top of an evolutionary "ladder", or indeed, at the top of anything. It's anthrogenic ego of the most common sort, unfortunately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Every single living organism on the planet has gone through just as much evolution as we have; in most cases, considerably more. That's a considerable amount of time for them to develop genetic sequences that have nothing to do with ours. So, if I'm understanding you crashfrog, the DNA of the most primitive organism alive today doesn't even come close to resembling the DNA of that same organism when it evolved eons ago. Combined with Parasomnium's response, there is no back-tracking to that organism's DNA First Edition? (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So, if I'm understanding you crashfrog, the DNA of the most primitive organism alive today doesn't even come close to resembling the DNA of that same organism when it evolved eons ago. I wouldn't say it doesn't come close; many genetic sequences are "conserved"; that is, they don't change much over time, or among individuals in a population. There's clues to be had, if you know how to look. But, no rewinding the DNA to First Edition doesn't seem to be possible. Anyway, I don't like to say "primitive." What's primitive in a contemporary context? Are bacteria "primitive", even though they're the most successful lifeform - by far - the Earth has ever known? Bacteria are adapted to their many varied environments, just as anything else is; evolution didn't stop for bacteria any more than it stopped for lizards or mammals or apes. "Simpler" is perhaps a better term. Bacteria are definately simpler than metazoan life, like humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5008 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi Mespo
Mespo writes: Obviously there is no evolutionary pressure to clean house I suspect that there would be evolutionary pressure to limit the size of the genome where replication rate is highly selected. This could be the case in the gamete-producing cells of many organisms, and of course in the case of many pathogenic microorganisms. Such organisms do seem to have more "streamlined" genomes than human beings. "Bloated" DNA (i.e. introns, repetitive elements) are found less commonly in prokaryotes than eukaryotes. Part of the reason is probably due to the strength of selection on different populations. Populations of bacteria contain huge numbers of individuals, therefore selection is stronger because genetic drift does not play such an important role in determining the frequency of stretches of useless/bloated DNA. Populations of chimpanzees, on the other hand, are relatively tiny. Selection simply isn't strong enough to overpower the drift that naturally fixes gene bloat in the genome. in edit:A key article for anybody interested in the evolution of genome complexity is The origins of genome complexity by Michael Lynch. You can get it free online in pdf form by doing a google search. Here's the abstract:
quote: Mick This message has been edited by mick, 01-19-2006 04:13 PM This message has been edited by mick, 01-19-2006 05:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Speel-yi Inactive Member |
Check out C-value paradox sometime. The amount of DNA has almost no relationship to the complexity of the organism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Speel-yi Inactive Member |
quote: Primitive relates to something that comes first, as in "primary". It originally had nothing negative about it. Another way to look at the first type of anything is generalized and then things tend to move to more specialized forms, with the consequent risk of extinction that goes with specialization. You in fact can have extremely specialized bacteria, so specialized that when their host/niche dies; so do they. At the root of the problem is how most people conceptualize evolution in that it is generally believed that species such as ourselves are at the top of the evolutionary "ladder". Only problem is...there is no ladder. This message has been edited by Speel-yi, 02-04-2006 11:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Primitive relates to something that comes first, as in "primary". Ok, but the implied chronological relationship isn't there, either. I would hazard a guess that I'm older, by far, than almost every single living bacterium on the planet. In that sense, I'm the one who came first.
Only problem is...there is no ladder. Oh, I see. You're agreeing with me. Ok.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fabric Member (Idle past 5694 days) Posts: 41 From: London, England Joined: |
i read the other day that our human dna has'nt changed in the last 10,000 years of recorded history, do you peeps think there will be a big sudden change or very small changes over long periods of time....
why dont we see changes in human evolution happening now...or how long do you think it will be untill we start noticing them....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Speel-yi Inactive Member |
There are changes in human DNA all the time, each of us has about 10 mutations that are more or less neutral.
There are also changes in the frequency of alleles in populations over time. This in its simplest form, is evolution in the Darwinian sense. That is to say, a population will have variation of the frequency of traits within it at any given time. An easy way to look at it is to look at something like eye color in a population. If a community has a generation with 90 blue eyed people and 10 brown eyed people in one generation and the next has 100 blue eyed people and no brown eyed...that is evolution. The frequency of the genes has changed. (It would be safe to say that the blue eye allele has become fixed in this case.) The above case only would involve genetic drift. In a case involving Natural Selection, take a look at the number of people that now are carriers for Sickle Cell Anemia. The numbers are growing because of the presence of the Malaria parasite. You also may wish to consider The Red Queen Hypothesis where a species has to continuously adapt to the selective pressures brought about by the pathogens and parasites or become extinct. (We have to keep "running" just to stay in the same place.) The human race is constantly evolving and so are the pathogens that prey upon us. Evolution happens...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
i read the other day that our human dna has'nt changed in the last 10,000 years of recorded history, do you peeps think there will be a big sudden change or very small changes over long periods of time.... You'd have to supply the source for that statment. There seem to be a lot of cases where it has changed. There is reason to think that the black death supplied enough selective pressure that europeans (and other subject to it) carry some mutations that others don't. That is the kind of evolution that we would expect to see over the 10,000 year time frame. This sort of thing will, of course, be reduced by a much larger, interacting population.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024