Sorry, Mammuthus — I don’t mean to step on your toes, here. However, Peter’s assertions are sucking me in
quote:
M: Your term multipurpose does not really suggest anything to me. Is my genome there to make a strong cup of coffee on Tuesdays and as another purpose to type on a keyboard? As for redundant genes, there are many examples of how recombination and transposable elements leads to gene duplications which can turn out to be extremely useful i.e. syncytin, or the genes for red and green color vision etc.
PB: This hypotheis has been tested and falsified. There is no relationship whatsoever between genetic redundancies and duplications. Evolutionisms' biggest frustration: redundant genes unrelated to duplications. In addition, redundant genes do not change more rapidly than essential genes. How did redundant genes evolve into different genes, while there is no selective constraint on the genes? Answers not to be found within the evolutionary paradigm.
How has the hypothesis (which one, btw - it's not clear from your post) been falsified? Name one single example of a "redundant" gene that CAN’T be related to one of the known mechanisms such as duplication, transposition, mutation, chromosome fusion or doubling, etc.
quote:
M: I also find it disturbing that you claim that your ill defined hypothesis explains ALL biological principles and then claim you will not describe it here.
PB: All information an organism needs to adapt to an environment is already present in the genome. It only has to be activated. This can be in response to external stimuli. The activation may lead to gene shuffling (as recently observed in some bacteria), or maybe even to non-random mutations in promoters. The SNP we see in genes throughout the genome may be generated in a similar way due to a degenerate mechanism of gene shuffling, non-random mutation etc.
There is absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Please show one single study, with references, on any population of any organism, where the introduction of a new pathogen, mutagen, or environmental factor produced fortuitous variation that allowed the population to adapt to the new conditions. All other studies show, on the contrary, that unless the variation was already present, the population will be severely disrupted. In local populations, this disruption — even if relatively minor — can cause extinction. Since we see local extinctions occurring regularly, your statement that some kind of miraculous activation or
ex nihilo creation of a genetic adaptation will allow the population to adapt to the new conditions is falsified.
quote:
PB: First prediction:
The major part of the genome is not used (redundant). As a matter of fact that is wat we see.
True, as far as it goes, although I’m glad you clarified how you are using redundant. As Mammuthus pointed out, most of the genomes of the organisms so far sequenced consist of non-coding junk DNA (like the 40% of the genome that consists of a three-nucleotide repeat in
Drosophila melanogaster or the alu sequences in humans), transposons, broken or pseudogenes, retroviral insertions, etc. The other meaning of redundant (i.e., duplicate function), was what I thought you were using. However, this observation is actually a prediction of evolution: duplication, retrotranscription, fusion, mutation, etc are what created these sequences in the first place.
quote:
PB: Second prediction:
Mutations are introduced at the same spots within related species. As a matter of fact that is what we see, too.
Yeah, sometimes. However, this is based on the inheritance of the same hotspot or sequences through common descent. It has nothing to do with any multipurpose genome, unless you can show that ALL organisms — related or not — have the exact same thing. Otherwise, you’re just providing additional evidence for a common ancestor of the two species. The further back in time the speciation event took place, the more divergent will be the genome.
quote:
PB: Third prediction:
Mutations are the same with respect to nucleotide. That is also what we observe.
What? This statement makes no sense. Please clarify. If you’re saying that hotspot mutations are almost always the at the same nucleotide position, and the same mutagen will effect that particular nucleotide (or sequence) in the same way, then you’re correct (although there are variables: some organisms have unique adaptations/other mutations that can mitigate the effects of a particular mutagen not shared by even VERY closely related organisms, so it’s not 100%). However, if you are saying that every mutation that effects a genome of a particular organism will ALWAYS be in the same place with regards to mutations in a related species, you are making another wild assertion without facts. In fact, the exact opposite is what we see — hotspots and mutations inherited from a common ancestor aside. Mutations occurring in different species are often in different places, except as noted. That’s what random means.
quote:
M: You just say that redundant genes are evidnece that some mythical god waved his beard at DNA and created everthing a million years ago, 1 year ago, 5 minutes ago?
PB: There are species that demonstrate no variation at all with respect to DNA sequences (without being a clone), and one could interpret this phenomenon as created last year, last century. Whatever.
Name one, and provide the study that indicates this.
™ Version 4.2