|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rapid speciation after the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6275 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: Kale, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and Brussels sprouts are all the same species of plant, Brassica oleracea. They do not represent rapid speciation. Cabbage was developed from kale about 2000 years ago and is specifically mentioned by Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE). Kale was known in ancient Egypt. Cauliflower and broccoli were developed by about 4-500 years ago. Brussels sprouts were developed in the 18th century in Belgium of course. http://www.ag.usask.ca/...nts/hort/hortinfo/veg/cabbage.html It just goes to show how much variation in phenotype you can get with small changes in genotype. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ It actually just goes to show how subjective taxonomics is at this end of the spectrum.
EDIT: I agree with you too - it also shows that small changes in genotype can generate large changes in phenotype. The key C vs E point is that macroevolution involves non-allelic gains in addition to these rapid allelic and gene loss changes. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
TB:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by: "The key C vs E point is that macroevolution involves non-allelic gains...". Could you clarify what "non-allelic" means? Non genetic? Behavioral? What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
It just goes to show how much variation in phenotype you can get with small changes in genotype.
Randy********************** Or even by phenocopy Moore RC, Xiang F, Monaghan J, Han D, Zhang Z, Edstrom L, Anvret M, Prusiner SB. Huntington disease phenocopy is a familial prion disease.Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Dec;69(6):1385-8. Burgess JR, Nord B, David R, Greenaway TM, Parameswaran V, Larsson C, Shepherd JJ, Teh BT. Phenotype and phenocopy: the relationship between genotype and clinical phenotype in a single large family with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN 1).Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2000 Aug;53(2):205-11.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Mental masturbation is not an explanation. Please try harder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Quetzal
Alleles are variants on a gene. A/B/O blood. Blue/brown eyes. In the moderne genomics era it simply means one or two DNA changes in a gene (SNPs). These are allelic differnces. You can put down the differneces between man and chimnp hemoglobin to such allelic differnces. They both still code for hemolgobin, habve the same 3D strcuture, bind the heme group and oxygen in the same way. Banks of novel gene families, contributing completely new pathways, are not allelic differnces.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Thanks for the clarification TB. (I know what alleles are, but thanks anyway.) For some reason your statement put me in mind of an argument I witnessed on another board between a pop gen guy and a mol bio guy about matrilineal inheritance of non-genetic factors. Went on for eight pages before they realized they were talking past each other...
quote: Since we're just back to this bit again, perhaps you're now ready to give specific examples of these "banks of novel gene families" that differentiate, say, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Unless TB has new information, last time this came up he referred to an estimate based on an extrapolation, which concluded that something like 30 genes or gene families (of unknown content) should exist between us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Was it 30 genes, or 30 gene families?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I don't recall specifically, but I do thnk it was gene familiaes. Of course,a gene family is the result of duplication of some 'parent' gene, and 'parent' genes can arise from translocations and all that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: *************** And Fred brought up 30 original kinds...what is with these guys and the number 30?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Mammuthus: That 30 is a mainstream estimate (for my number)! I think it is distinct gene families . It's extrapolated from the prelimnary analyeses of the mouse genome given the suppsed relative divergence times.
BTW Quetzal: I knew you knew about alleles - I expanded on it for the spectators.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
In the other thread Quetzal posted
EvC Forum: Intelligent Design Debate Continues including (amongst other things): quote: [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
My basic answer is that the 2000 or so speciation events per year required are not happening in series but in parallel. This is evoltuion we're talking about! It is a branching thing. It is multiplicative. Naively, but logically, if we branch from 20,000 kinds every 100 years one would quickly get 10 million kinds by 1500 BC.
And there are very good reasons for the branching rate to die down over time. Every system adjusts exponentially to a new environement. This is a mathematical law of equilibrium that would hold almost without exception. These exemplars of each kind, presumably hand picked by God, were suddenly flung into the world to their own devices. It makes a lot of sense for there to be a sudden adjustment to a new equlibrium based on the initial starting point and their new environments. We really should be looking at land based species since we are talking about post-flood ark-sourced diversifation. There are about 2000 land based families. Anyone know how many (non-insect) land-based species there are? Your Cambrian explosion analogy works only as far as the species number is concerned. In terms of informaiton content of the genomes there is no comparison. We are not proposing thre origin of a single new gene family after the flood. The Cambrian explosion generted the orgin of probably 50% of our curnet gene families in all of life! please note this oft ignored differnce in what you and what we claim.
quote: LOL! If some top fraction of the Cenezoic is catatrophic glacial melting then we actually see a lot of evidence of a multitude of variations of mammals. Think of any mammal and there was a bizaree assortment: e.g. elephant variations. Biogeography? We would explain that the current populaiton of marsupials are where they are becasue this is where they emmigrated after the flood, whether directed by God or not. Since then they have been isolated by geographical factors. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024