Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Beneficial Mutations Made Simple
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 46 of 52 (315144)
05-25-2006 2:23 PM


Protein stability and global warming
Most proteins with complex functions (like enzymes) are very temperature sensitive. Simple mutations that result in replacement of one or two amino acids can affect the temperature sensitivity of functional proteins, for example the temperature of activation of an enzyme, because they affect the folding structure and structural integrity of the molecule, although not necessarily the active site.
As organisms become exposed to warmer and warmer temperatures as a consequence of climate change, some such mutations will inevitably become 'beneficial' (even if they are currently neutral or disadvantageous) simply because proteins will be required that can function effectively at a higher range of temperatures.
As our climate warms, any mutation confering improved heat tolerance could become beneficial.
Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 47 of 52 (315178)
05-25-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 2:03 PM


Re: HOX and morphology
If Homeobox genes act as the architect in where what body part goes, then the implication that a chance mutation can cause an evolvement never before seen, and that it can be successful until reproduction.
This statement is a not unreasonable supoosition but through your 'magical filter of fun' somehow it equates to...
Hox proteins are thought by some to be the vehicle driving beneficial mutations.
There is a world of difference for Hox genes to be a suitable substrate for potentialy beneficial mutations linked to large scale changes in morphology and being the 'vehicle driving beneficial mutations. Absolutely non of your references support this contention, the closest they come is the BioEssays review where they say "A large body of evidence has suggested that changes in developmental gene regulation are the predominant mechanisms that sustain morphological evolution", to which I would say, "Well, Duh!".
If you aren't parroting bullshit then you must just be producing it de novo by completely failing to understand what you read or exaggerating it to produce inflated claims. Merely posting the links doesn't show that they support you claim and reading them shows that they don't. Do you not notice that none of the direct quotes you posted actually support your claim?
These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
This particular bit of nonsense at least is not your own, the big problem is the 'complex structures' part which suggests that the complex structures spring fully formed from nowhere rather than being what they are, duplications of already extant limb structures.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 2:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 9:26 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 52 (315199)
05-25-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Wounded King
05-25-2006 6:15 PM


Re: HOX and morphology
There is a world of difference for Hox genes to be a suitable substrate for potentialy beneficial mutations linked to large scale changes in morphology and being the 'vehicle driving beneficial mutations. Absolutely non of your references support this contention, the closest they come is the BioEssays review where they say "A large body of evidence has suggested that changes in developmental gene regulation are the predominant mechanisms that sustain morphological evolution", to which I would say, "Well, Duh!".
If you aren't parroting bullshit then you must just be producing it de novo by completely failing to understand what you read or exaggerating it to produce inflated claims. Merely posting the links doesn't show that they support you claim and reading them shows that they don't. Do you not notice that none of the direct quotes you posted actually support your claim?
quote:
The Hox genes are important in body patterning and are thopugh to have an important role in the evolution of differeing body plans but to describe them as 'the vehicle driving beneficial mutations' just suggests you haven't the faintest familiarity with any of the science and are just parroting bullshit from some equally ill informed website.
The Hox family transcription factors control diversified morphogenesis during development and evolution. They function in concert with Pbc cofactor proteins. Pbc proteins bind the Hox hexapeptide (HX) motif and are thereby thought to confer DNA binding specificity... These data thus endow the HX with unexpected functions; this does not preclude that the HX could, however, play a role in target selection in other developmental contexts... HD proteins during evolution presumably relies not only on changes in DNA binding specificity, but also on changes in transregulatory properties. In this context, modifying the regulation of only a subset of Hox targets while leaving others unchanged, by gain or loss of regulatory modules such as the HX and PFER motifs, might provide evolutionary advantages and be causal in morphological diversification. The importance of a tight control of Hox transregulatory properties in evolution has recently gained further support from the evolving capacity."
http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/...ve-fly/segment/abdmla4.htm
"It is presumed that the evolution of morphological diversity in animals and plants is driven by changes in the developmental processes that govern morphology, hence basically by changes in the function and/or expression of a defined set of genes that control these processes. A large body of evidence has suggested that changes in developmental gene regulation are the predominant mechanisms that sustain morphological evolution, being much more important than the evolution of the primary sequences and functions of proteins. Recent reports challenge this idea by highlighting functional evolution of Hox proteins during the evolutionary history of arthropods."
Functional evolution of Hox proteins in arthropods - PubMed
"The Hox genes have been implicated as central to the evolution of animal body plan diversity. Regulatory changes both in Hox expression domains and in Hox-regulated gene networks have arisen during the evolution of related taxa, but there is little knowledge of whether functional changes in Hox proteins have also contributed to morphological evolution. For example, the evolution of greater numbers of differentiated segments and body parts in insects, compared with the simpler body plans of arthropod ancestors, may have involved an increase in the spectrum of biochemical interactions of individual Hox proteins. Here, we compare the in vivo functions of orthologous Ultrabithorax (Ubx) proteins from the insect Drosophila melanogaster and from an onychophoran, a member of a sister phylum with a more primitive and homonomous body plan."
Just a moment...
Welcome | Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
Every last one of those papers describe, in great detail, Hox being one of the possible pathways for morphology as it relates to an evolutionary process. Furthermore, I don't know what your aversion towards it is. If this isn't what you believe, that's great, because nor is it what I believe. I said that some believe that it is the driving vehicle for evolution. For you to say otherwise, you are either being obtuse intentionally or you're splitting hairs in order to direct attention elsewhere. Your lack of erudition on this matter doesn't negate the dissertations I presented. And diverging between obscurantist and hair splitting isn't doing either of us any favors.
quote:
These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Yeah, exactly. They aren't functional, which is why I have been stating that the Drosophila has thus far not been able to reproduce 'good mutations,' but rather injurious ones that would certainly eliminate them in the wild due to these deformities. However, my objection is that many evolutionists do think that because these morphologies exist, that a wild phenotype might be able to reproduce new body plans, and hence, aid in the propulsion of macroevolution. And there is nothing wrong with taking that into consideration... so long as they stop presenting it as if it were an unassailable fact, when it is far from it.
This particular bit of nonsense at least is not your own, the big problem is the 'complex structures' part which suggests that the complex structures spring fully formed from nowhere rather than being what they are, duplications of already extant limb structures.
I'm sorry, I'm not following you. What exactly do you mean?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix bold/italic codes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Wounded King, posted 05-25-2006 6:15 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 05-26-2006 2:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 49 of 52 (315229)
05-26-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 9:26 PM


Re: HOX and morphology
Every last one of those papers describe, in great detail, Hox being one of the possible pathways for morphology as it relates to an evolutionary process. Furthermore, I don't know what your aversion towards it is. If this isn't what you believe, that's great, because nor is it what I believe. I said that some believe that it is the driving vehicle for evolution.
Can you really not see the enormous disconnect between the one thing and the other? How can your mind work that you can type out something like 'Hox being one of the possible pathways for morphology as it relates to an evolutionary process' several times and then suddenly leap back to your bullshit claim that therefore scientists are saying that "Hox proteins are thought by some to be the vehicle driving beneficial mutations."
Your lack of erudition on this matter doesn't negate the dissertations I presented.
Not a single one of your references has backed up the bullshit claim you made. Apart from the fact that I disagree with you exactly how do you think I have displayed a lack of erudition? Should I have provided a list of reference not saying that "Hox proteins are thought by some to be the vehicle driving beneficial mutations."? Why bother, you have done it for me. Your own raplies are full of statements which your papers show and not a single one of them equates to "Hox proteins are thought by some to be the vehicle driving beneficial mutations.". Just because you post a whole lot more references not saying that doesn't somehow support your cllaim. You could have a 1000 such references not sayingit and you still wouodn't have substantiated the claim that scientists say that "Hox proteins are thought by some to be the vehicle driving beneficial mutations." Just look back at the much more qualified statements you have derived from your references. Especially since one refers to developmental gene regulation which is a much broader category than either Hox or homeobox genes.
If you think you are giving me an instructional lecture on evo-devo then you are deluded. I live and breathe evo-devo on a daily basis.
Yeah, exactly. They aren't functional, which is why I have been stating that the Drosophila has thus far not been able to reproduce 'good mutations,' but rather injurious ones that would certainly eliminate them in the wild due to these deformities.
Any chance you might address my non-erudite points on the nature of the mutational screens or maybe give us a reference for your 80 year screening project if you aren't thinking of the Nusslein-Volhard/Weischaus screens and subsequent similar screens. If you could show that this 80 year program was to look for beneficial large scale morphological changes it would be a good step in making your argumnet less weak. Otherwise you might qualify your statement with "..in a mutational screen designed to look for embryonic lethal abnormalities under an abnormally heavy mutagenic burden."
TTFN,
WL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 9:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-26-2006 12:32 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 52 (315360)
05-26-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Wounded King
05-26-2006 2:20 AM


Re: HOX and morphology
Can you really not see the enormous disconnect between the one thing and the other? How can your mind work that you can type out something like 'Hox being one of the possible pathways for morphology as it relates to an evolutionary process' several times and then suddenly leap back to your bullshit claim that therefore scientists are saying that "Hox proteins are thought by some to be the vehicle driving beneficial mutations."
The papers themelves, along with my addition of boldened, highlighted text, is enough to show you what they believe. Its a theoretical outlook on how it may be possible in the evolutionary sense. Even if I didn't have that, all I need is this one sentence. If you fail to grasp what they are saying, then it is truly your lack of erudition or your lack to grasp the English language. Either way, your point is rendered ineffectual and moot.
"The Hox genes have been implicated as central to the evolution of animal body plan diversity.
Hox genes have been 'implicated' as 'CENTRAL' to the 'EVOLUTION of animal body plan diversity... i.e. change, evolvement, from one thing to another. There is no ambiguity. There... is... no... ambiguity as to what this means. If there is still some cloud of confusion looming over your head, then you might want to reconsider some remediation.
If you think you are giving me an instructional lecture on evo-devo then you are deluded. I live and breathe evo-devo on a daily basis.
I don't care if you're the smartest guy in the room, have acquired the most knowledge on evolution, or live and breath evo-devo... It all means nothing when I have proven my point that some geneticists believe that Hox genes might be the driving vehicle in evolution. Once again, I don't see what your problem is. If you don't believe that, then that's fantastic; neither do I. But some do. And that was the entire premise of my post. Why you felt the compulsion to argue against it is beyond me. Why, even after I provided a mound of evidence, you still felt the need to argue is beyond me as well. Are you a polemicist? Does arguing, just for the sake of arguing, fancy some penchant of yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 05-26-2006 2:20 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Wounded King, posted 05-26-2006 12:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 51 of 52 (315372)
05-26-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
05-26-2006 12:32 PM


Re: HOX and morphology
I'm not sure how to continue when you seem incapable of admitting that your initial claim was wildyly exaggerated and keep shifting the goalposts to something more limited and reasonable.
It is insane to ask why I deny that...
Hox genes have been 'implicated' as 'CENTRAL' to the 'EVOLUTION of animal body plan diversity
When that isn't what you said in the first place that I then disagreed with. Being 'central to' something is not the same as being the driving vehicle of something, the 'evolution of animal body plan diversity' is not the entirety of evolution and it certainly doesn't say anything at all about beneficial mutations specifically which was the major thing I was criticising as being totally out of place in your initial claim.
Why, even after I provided a mound of evidence, you still felt the need to argue is beyond me as well. Are you a polemicist? Does arguing, just for the sake of arguing, fancy some penchant of yours?
No but having my questions avoided in such a high handed arrogant manner does encourage my stubborn streak. You didn't address a single one of the more significant points I made in my initial response to you in Message 14, instead you go off on one trying to justify a totally exaggerated strawman claim you attribute to 'some' and proceed to post umpteen references absolutely none of which support that strawman claim.
Just to remind you once again the original claim was...
Hox proteins are thought by some to be the vehicle driving beneficial mutations.
Now why not go back and actually address my points about the nature of mutational screens or provide a reference for the proboscis having been thought to derive from a 'spare' leg, or something more worthwhile than this pointless repetition of supposed support for your nonsense claim.
*ABE* Or am I just been needlessly pernickity, any lurkers feel like weighing in? Is NJ's claim consistent with the references he's posted and I'm just to stubborn to see it? Has NJ sufficiently substantiated his claim?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-26-2006 12:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jazzns, posted 05-26-2006 1:19 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 52 of 52 (315400)
05-26-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Wounded King
05-26-2006 12:47 PM


Re: HOX and morphology
Honestly WK, I think there is a problem in this discussion for "some people" in distinguishing mutation in the sense of a change in a gene with mutation in the sense of X-Men or other drastic morphological change. What seems to be missing here is more fundamental than what you may be attributing to malice.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Wounded King, posted 05-26-2006 12:47 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024