The origin of new genes

Now here is an interesting idea. You can say you read it first on EvC.Can a "gene" be something "other" than a piece of DNA that 'segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency.'Steven Jay Gould finally thought that "junk" DNA might be a proper appelation for the repeating parts of DNA that have been hypothesized to arise by various means.What if the this repeating DNA DOES have a function so far unrecognized in biology that is the influence of highest levels DOWN to the genic level of molecular forces? Could the repetative elements be discourgements to the individual organism's embryogeny from its species' individuality??How could such a thing happen???Well, I have a "crazy" idea. What if the Guanosine that can attach to microtubules actually represents some aspects of all the "traditional" genes (those defined as you suggested) but is REDISTRIBUTED in the cell soma by the independent dynamics of microtubule motion and yet due to the Gibbs/Gladshev minimization
Human Thermodynamics :: History

quote:

---

3. Gladyshev established that, in the process of ontogenesis, as well as phylogenesis and evolution, the specific value of the Gibbs function of formation of supramolecular structures of the ith organism tends toward a minimum, as defined by the following integral limit:

---

INCREASES the mechanical junctions that cause reptative elements to be added to genomes?The "gene" would then be codable by a second kind of "information" flow not strictly limited to the triplets of DNA but dependent on macromolecular interactions and extra-cell interactions which might be population rather than organism specific.I know it is speculative but this is a bare bones framework for an alternative notion of the gene. I remeber well when Amy McCune asked a lunchen of population biologists at Cornell exactly what a gene was and they could not answer short of the "thing" they manipulated in equations. This is not what she was looking for and neither was it what I was listening for.This defintion of a gene and how new genes might arise by consequence extends the "managament" capabilities of individual levels of organization beyond that contained by strict adherence to Crick's CENTRAL DOGMA of MOLECULAR BIOLOGY except that there may be a still a "one-directional" flow from the guanosine
Guanosine - Chemicals - Pharmacological Sciences
only to a split somewhere within the circuit I suggested. Gould thought that "junk" was an ok adjective but in this idea it is not. Evolvability would be parsed differently than he suggested was his preference.

Yes I do Dr. A. This post however is NOT one.
Yes it was sketchy and YES it was just an idea unlike most all of my other posts. I am sorry if you can not tell the difference.In the early 90s I was working with Jim Parks in the Animal Science Lab at Cornell on the cause of the low ratio of re-implanation in vitro fertilizations. He was favoring the idea that collagen may reveal the cause of the low experimental ratios while I suggested that the "information" necessary to sustain what I labeled the "centriolar" cycle might be the OBJECTIVE marker that could be observed and tracked to give some "time line" that could indicate where in the history of reproduction the faliures were resulting.In the process I was doing monoclonoal antibodies to tubulin and getting pretty color pictures of the insides of cells where tubulin was. I also did some simple stains of DNA at the metaphase plate and recovered 1 in 30 cells (after I artifically mixed the sperm and egg) that had perfect circular symmetry of the chromosomes.A decade earlier I was stitting down the road at a evolution"" seminar with Amy McCune who was asking as a new faculty member(who arrived on the campus AFTER I was already there) (Will Provine tried subsequently in the mid 90s to use her work, (she asked me specifically where in New Jersey to look for fossil fish), to argue against the simple logic of Phil Johnson's presenation of the how cladistics etc was being presented) EXACTLY what a gene was. I was shocked. If I was an undergraduate and I was being tested on all kinds of things then the faculty MUST be able to answer this question. They did not.What I suggested above is an answer to that question now another decade beyond not a word salad. Sorry for the appearence.The components I needed were:
A) some parts of organisms that increase in molecular quantity - hence "junk" DNA
B) some way to get the current taught "information" in THE GENE (ACTG of DNA as modified by ideas of the difference of regulatory and stuctural genes etc) into the idea I presented.(Here I was a little short on suggestions which might have had you think of word salad. I simple question than a doubt would have served me better if you really desired a positive response from me) During the metaphase plate I assume that somehow the Guanosine along the DNA is coordinated with microtubule elongation AWAY from the plate. Thus the microtubule may FURTHER encode only the G part of the protein-DNA codes. Now in the soma but within the "centriolar cycle" (obvious qualifications would have to be made in detail for differences of the presence of the centriole in different organisms etc) the microtubules INTERACT and perhaps the the "Protein" information as per the amino acids triplets directly interact with other cell chemicals including lipids etc (at any rate those chemicals that react with guanosine).C)use for the temporal realites from a higher level of combined ontogeny and phylogeny of the Gibbs Gladyshev Law, as the FORCE, capable of creating the increase in molecular representation of the quantity through the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Thus I speculated (and THIS is what makes the post "just an idea") the somatic RE-Distribution of previously concieved central dogma flows in through a 1/3 ratio of full semantic information transfer FROM the soma BACK to the DNA via Gladshev's contribution of minimzation.Word salads never result in anything but diagnoses. This however can lead to a complete change in biology. Obviously I have to recieve replys like, please explain that a gain rather than duhh that was really as incomprehensible as Wright's adaptive landscape holds orthogenesis etc. Regardless I KNOW the idea would result in a Nobel for the person who shows it exists. Ideas have to start somewhere. Try not to be so despondant that you might have come across something new and interesting at first blush. I am not saying this is, with my usual confidence I post with on EvC, I just wanted to point out an idea that shows that "the gene" may not be what one is tested to say it is in college.

Yes, I think the proper expansion of evolutionary theory PROVIDES room for Creationism rather than achieveing a hierarchy at its' expense. I find the social reality that supports discussion of creation and evolution to be LARGER than the secular constriction that predominates currently correct psychology on the event.It was nice that this thread was opened to deal with the more technical aspects of gene changes. If my less than rigorous proposal in this thread is correct, the actual chemical attractions and repulsions that accompany retrotransposition would have to be deriveable from the integral of Gladyshev I linked to and be "decodable" from the G content of DNA.I do not know if this is actually possible. THAT would have been good criticism of my post.

Faith you might take up that end of questions to me by going here:http://EvC Forum: Is Brad McFall a fruitcake or what? -->EvC Forum: Is Brad McFall a fruitcake or what?I do recall saying I was "a YEC." I am an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church USA. I see no reason from within biology to change my independent reasons for proclaiming belief in Christ. And aside, Kant provides many complex thoughts that indicate there is no other means (moral within and starry skieswithout) for me to fullfill my longing for a better peace. I was born in USA not India. I could not change that.