|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Let me guess - you are an 'expert' keyboard player, too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Well, there is at least one lie....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Can't remember which thread this should go in, so am posting it in several...
quote: What example? Oh yes - an example of a gene duplication and subsequent mutation that conferred a benefit to the population. The series of gene duplications in what we now call the beta globin gene cluster, a group of 5 genes and a pseudogene. Epsilon-globin, which is expressed in the embryo, has a higher affinity for oxygen than does the adult-expressed beta and delta globin, thereby making it easier for an embryo to gets its 'fair share' of oxygen. Epsilon arose via a duplication from other genes starting with proto-beta. Healthy embryos make for healthy offspring, and healthy offspring are beneficial to the population. What about an insertion that confers pesticide resistence? A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1* Science 297:2253-7. Some interesting findings: From the abstract: "Transgenic analysis of Cyp6 1 shows that overtranscriptionof this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated wit a single Cyp6 1 allele that has spread globally. The is allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6 1 gene." From the paper: "First, resistance to DDT was wide-spread, as expected, and second, resistance can persist in laboratory strains in the absenceof pesticide selection, which suggests that little or no fitness cost is associated with this mechanism." "The observation that the nucleotide sequence around the first intron in Cyp6g1 (291 bp away from the site of the insertion) is identical in all the resistant alleles supports the concept of this global spread and suggests strong linkage disequilibrium or hitchhiking of nucleotide variation with the spread of DDT resistance." I was especially interested in your Information Theory expertise on this, because: there is no change in the expressed protein, just more of it, and this confers an advantage. Is this 'new information'? If not, why not? If it is, how is so when the expressed protein has not changed? The ref for how Gene duplication can result in altered phenotype is at the office, will post that later. But I did come across this pertinent ref (pay attention Freddie and Borger), emphases mine:************************************************* Amplification-mutagenesis: evidence that "directed" adaptive mutation and general hypermutability result from growth with a selected gene amplification.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2164-9 Hendrickson H, Slechta ES, Bergthorsson U, Andersson DI, Roth JR. Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. When a particular lac mutant of Escherichia coli starves in the presence of lactose, nongrowing cells appear to direct mutations preferentially to sites that allow growth (adaptive mutation). This observation suggested that growth limitation stimulates mutability. Evidence is provided here that this behavior is actually caused by a standard Darwinian process in which natural selection acts in three sequential steps. First, growth limitation favors growth of a subpopulation with an amplification of the mutant lac gene; next, it favors cells with a lac(+) revertant allele within the amplified array. Finally, it favors loss of mutant copies until a stable haploid lac(+) revertant arises and overgrows the colony. By increasing the lac copy number, selection enhances the likelihood of reversion within each developing clone. This sequence of events appears to direct mutations to useful sites. General mutagenesis is a side-effect of growth with an amplification (SOS induction). The F' plasmid, which carries lac, contributes by stimulating gene duplication and amplification. Selective stress has no direct effect on mutation rate or target specificity, but acts to favor a succession of cell types with progressively improved growth on lactose. The sequence of events--amplification, mutation, segregation--may help to explain both the origins of some cancers and the evolution of new genes under selection. ******************************************** Looks like the ball is in William's court now. Let the hand waving, insults, backpedalling, and story-telling begin!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Everything, it seems, can be used by the creationist as 'evidence' for their preferred hocus pocus...
That you do not accept the valid explanations presented for the lack of polymorphism in a ZFY intron in humans is your issue. You can claim that you have one 'example' of your 'non-Darwinian' beliefs, sadly, one such anomoly, if we are kind enough to grant it to you in the hopes of going on, is hardly sufficient to topple NDT or 'prove' whatever it is you believe in.
quote: Amazingly, that is what NDT says!quote: Amazingly, that is what NDT says!quote: Amazingly, that is what NDT says!Well, accept for this 'degenration theory' - since this is labelled a 'theory', perhaps you can point in the direction wherein I can read for myself what must be voluminous documentation for this theory. Of course, adaptive evolution results in an accumulation of new genetic information. But you knew that....
quote: Amazingly, that is what NDT says! Of course, the "non-degenrate" or better adapted organisms are selected for. So far, all I see is a co-option of NDT .
quote: Now here is where you go off the deep end. Evidence for "creatons" please. Evidence for morphogenic fields, please. Evidence that you are refilling your prescriptions, please.
quote: It did? Can I see the documentation for this? Hindsight is, afterall, 20/20. I would like to see the paper outlining the likely pesticide resistence strategies encumbent upon mosquitos having a multipurpose genome. Thanks.
quote: Yeah, I guess no evolutionary biologist/geneticist had ever even thought about differential gene expressions. Wow. I guess NDT is all wrong... So, how does that fare for the creationist information arguments?quote: Already addressed. You have taken the "fingers in ears shouting LALALALAL" approach. What could I possibly add? [Fixed quoting. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 11-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Here is your big chance, Pete.I have offered it to you before, and like all creationists before and likely all that will follow, you simply ignored it. Go here: http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm Apply your amazing scientific insights as they pertain to MPG. Analyze the sequence data there, and tell us all: Which of those nucleotide sites represent non-random changes. Which are evidence for MPG. Which are anomolous for MPG. Surely, you can do this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
duplicate
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Informed scientists understand that the two are not mutually exclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Great deduction. Now tell us all which ones are which. You must be able to do this, lest your 'theory' be vacuous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] quote: MEGAROTFL! I must say you are consistent! Perhaps you should let me write your posts for you, I know what you are going to say before you say it! [/quote] Oh, you are so clever Fred! You knew I was going to write this? Why didn't you pre-resond, then?quote: I will go with the evidence. You will go with your fairy tale protection. http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/PE/PE41.html "The phylogenetic distribution of globin genes is consistent with their degrees of divergence." There is lots more, of course, but most is farily technical and I know that it is over your head. No time line is mentioned there - but the time does not really matter, does it? You are just producing your usual red herrings, or is it double standards? For do you not assume a priori that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old (talk about megaROFTLMAO!) whenever you engage in your little ego-stroking fests? The difference is, Williams, I can actually produce evidence supportive of my claims. You produce accusations, repeated assertions, and bombast. What Williams the creationist does not understand is that there are valid reasons for accepting the time frame. As I indicated before - let the hand-waving and dodging begin. No legitimate rebuttal? Insult insult insult! Accuse of 'fallacious reasoning'! Yeah, thats the ticket to Heaven!quote: I take it then that you are just going to ignore the other aspects of my post? Perhaps you are not the genetics and information theory expert that you tell everyone you are... So, were you ever planning to support your claims? Or are you content to just do your little flame dance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: If you say so... Apparently, you are the only person in the world that knows this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: "Hypothetical"? You mean the situation for which there are literally hundreds of published papers on? I am still waitiing for legitimate scientific support for your many delusions of importance.quote: Only according to you. That really doesn't mean much. At least I do not need to rely on repeated assertions for my "evidence."quote: So, as is a common creationist tactic, you have set up an impossible 'challenge.' Apparently, you want something to occur meeting the above criteria in 'real time.' Informed and rational creationists know that this is an unrealistic and therefore fallacious challenge.quote: Is that so? Perhaps you can provide some documentation for this.Of course, I have no doubt that you do not really mean that. Think about it - are you sure you want to take such a position? It will do some damage to your fellow creationists' pet 'theories'... quote: Bullshit. You saying this over and over does not make it so. Ask Dr.Tom Schneider. Ask Kimura. And indeed, ask yourself.You just said that it is possible, but now you say it is impossible. And you believe it impossible because you personally have not had your 'challenge' met... What fluff... quote: ROTFLMAO! Tell us all, wizard, how many lab experiments have verified ANY aspect of your religious fantasy? How many 'kinds' have been descended from some original stock via loss of information that was already there? What a joke. Of course, what the creationist demonstrates is that he still does not understand how genomes operate, and I suspect that is why he is ignoring my other citation. Gene duplications - even without subsequent mutation - can alter function and phenotype. How does that fit your precious "information theory"? According to other creationist information hawks, duplicating genes does not increase information. And when I have asked them the same questions, they clam up, too.
quote: The level of delusion displayed by the creationist is truly phenomenal. By the way - if tree rings are not 'coded information', what are they? I don't think you understand the amount of 'information' tree rings possess. That or you are not this 'expert' you keep telling people you are...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: You have never read even one of Kimura's papers, have you?For if you had, you would know that NT does NOT deny selection, nor does selection deny neutrality. And you wonder why I don't take you seriously?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Why are creationists so purposely obtuse and thickheaded? If you do not think that they are mutually exclusive, why did you ask? If you think differently, why did you reply to Mam that conserved regions in introns refute the NT? You could at least try to be consistent in your rants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: So is observing something in a lab your new criterion for scientiific validity? Or just when your 'challenges' have been via observations in nature? Because, if you are going to use observation in a lab as your key scientific criterion, which you seem to be doing, I will like to see the documentation for the observation - in a lab - of creation ex nihilo of a 'kind' by Yahweh.quote: The irony is too rich... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] quote: Yea, right. O’le Scott shut ‘em up! The truth is, this is a no-brainer. For your answer, why don’t you ask Tom Schnieder if he thinks gene duplications alone represent increased information.[/quote] Why don't I? Maybe because that is not what I asked. "How does that fit your precious "information theory"? is what I aksed. Please do not continue to toss out your red herrings to cover the apparent fact that you have no answer when, as an expert in information theory and genetics, you should. If you cannot explain the impact on the flow of information in a genome during the phenotypic shift caused by a gene duplication, then just say so.quote: Thyats right - I forgot that you are an "expert" in Gittian Information Theory. The 'theory' conjured up by a creationist, for creationists. Because, after all, if the 'code' didn't come from humans of the deity that mooned Moses, it cannot really be a code. Funny thing - your boy John Paul said that they do contai information - 'code', if you will... but that it took a person to get the information out of it (duh). But that brings up another point - the ole' cretin definition game. Make up your own defintions that favor cretinism. Thats the ticket! Like I said, I guess you just have no clue how much 'information' there are in tree rings, if you know what to look for.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024