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:   Adding information to the genome.
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 31 of 280 (532197)
10-21-2009 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phage0070
10-21-2009 11:35 AM


DNA does not need to be "functional" to be selected for, so your question is irrelevant.
Okay, to return to the question. How do you see the functional, non-redundant genome growing over time?
Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Phage0070, posted 10-21-2009 11:35 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phage0070, posted 10-21-2009 11:36 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 32 of 280 (532198)
10-21-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 4:31 PM


the bacterium has evolved the ability to survive flucloxacillin therapy, by acquiring a new gene (extra "information")
This is horizontal gene transfer (HGT), popular among microbes but rare among eukaryotes. It certainly isn't going to multiply the functional genome by nearly 8 fold per billion years, is it?
A valid answer, nonetheless.
Edited by Kaichos Man, : typo

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 4:31 PM Blzebub has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2009 3:19 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2009 5:59 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 33 of 280 (532199)
10-21-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Pauline
10-21-2009 8:56 PM


Re: No new information indeed...
Unfortunately, this belief in "the fall" is not supported by science, nor is the absolute mandate that there can be no new information in the genome.
What about the first and second laws of thermodynamics? They certainly point to a universe who structure is that of conservation and not innovation as required by the evolutionary theory.
You have several blatant errors in those two sentences.
First, while the second law of thermodynamics may apply to the universe as a whole it does not necessarily apply to subsections of the universe--you, for example. Because of your ability to acquire energy from the outside you are able to temporarily reverse the overall entropy of the universe. The earth does the same thing, using energy from the sun. This means, of course, that creationists who use the second law as an argument against evolution are displaying a gross misunderstanding of that law.
Also, evolutionary theory does not require innovation. It explains evolution as descent with modification. That means that subsequent generations can have more, less, or about the same level of whatever "innovation" means. The religious belief in "the fall" does not agree with real world data.
Third: the first law of thermodynamics doesn't enter into the discussion at all.
An aside--I love it when creationists start quoting scientific laws, as if either they understood them or as if those laws actually meant what creationist websites led them to believe. On another website evolutionists were assured that "the second law of thermal documents" showed that evolution couldn't happen. We were also assured that the odds against evolution producing some result or other were 1720 against. Moral: you should understand something about science before you start to lecture scientists on the details, lest you look silly rather than erudite.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. [quoting 1Ti. 1:7].
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 8:56 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 34 of 280 (532201)
10-21-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kaichos Man
10-21-2009 10:53 PM


Kaichos Man writes:
Okay, to return to the question. How do you see the functional, non-redundant genome growing over time?
There are mutations. Some are functional, some are not. Some are selected for, some are selected against. I would expect the functional and non-functional genome to grow over time, assuming it provided an evolutionary advantage.
Perhaps you could be more specific with your question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 10:53 PM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 11:48 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 35 of 280 (532203)
10-21-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phage0070
10-21-2009 11:36 PM


Perhaps you could be more specific with your question?
According to one researcher (and I don't know if he's right or wrong, but the maths is pretty simple so he's probably right) the size of the functional, non-reduntant genome has increased by 7.8 fold every billion years. Concentrating on the "functional, non-redundant" part, I'd like to know by which process(es) this was achieved.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phage0070, posted 10-21-2009 11:36 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2009 3:13 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 280 (532213)
10-22-2009 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Kaichos Man
10-21-2009 11:48 PM


According to one researcher (and I don't know if he's right or wrong, but the maths is pretty simple so he's probably right) the size of the functional, non-reduntant genome has increased by 7.8 fold every billion years. Concentrating on the "functional, non-redundant" part, I'd like to know by which process(es) this was achieved.
It's called "evolution".
Perhaps you would like to refine your question until it is not a vague slush of incomprehension. Or perhaps you would not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 11:48 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 37 of 280 (532214)
10-22-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Kaichos Man
10-21-2009 10:20 PM


How can the person first posing the question be guilty of evasion?
When his question is devoid of meaning, and when he runs away from explaining what he means it to mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 10:20 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 280 (532216)
10-22-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Kaichos Man
10-21-2009 11:30 PM


This is horizontal gene transfer (HGT) ...
If you learned more about genetics you would make less stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 11:30 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 280 (532217)
10-22-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kaichos Man
10-21-2009 10:46 PM


The problem with gene duplication as a path to increased genomic complexity is that in some ways the phenomenum is its own worst enemy. When a gene duplicates its susceptibility to natural selection is (roughly) halved. A deleterious mutation to one copy is compensated for by the other copy, rather than being selected out. This results in rapid "subfunctionalisation", with two damaged genes doing the work of the undamaged original.
This means that the two subfunctionalised copies are actually constrained to their tasks (assuming the original gene was a vital one) and neither of them actually have the luxury of evolving into something novel.
When I read gibberish like this, I thoroughly understand why geneticists think that creationists are stupid and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 10:46 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(2)
Message 40 of 280 (532228)
10-22-2009 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kaichos Man
10-21-2009 10:46 PM


The problem with gene duplication as a path to increased genomic complexity is that in some ways the phenomenum is its own worst enemy. When a gene duplicates its susceptibility to natural selection is (roughly) halved. A deleterious mutation to one copy is compensated for by the other copy, rather than being selected out. This results in rapid "subfunctionalisation", with two damaged genes doing the work of the undamaged original.
This means that the two subfunctionalised copies are actually constrained to their tasks (assuming the original gene was a vital one) and neither of them actually have the luxury of evolving into something novel.
Firstly, so what? What differences does it make if some gene duplication and modification doesn't add "information"? Secondly, most multi-part proteins where the parts are from different families are better at their function than their single part equivalents - does being better as something constitute a change in information by your standard?
quote:
How does an entirely new function originate after gene duplication? More detailed molecular studies of model gene families are needed to look into the emergence of novel gene function.
  —Zhang
I think your "probably" is almost entirely errant; certainly no such inference is drawn by Zhang himself. And can we be quite clear than Zhang does not question that it does happen, but merely recognises the limits in our knowledge of this area, please?
Anyway, let's look at an examples.
Lactation. Lactose is synthesized in placental mammals by an enzyme called Lactose synthase. This enzyme is composed of two proteins: galactosyltransferase and α-lactalbumin.
Galactosyltransferase on its own will form lactose from UDP-galactose and glucose but only at glucose concentration levels far about those found in vivo, it's primary purpose on it's own is the transfer of galactose units from UDP-galactose to N-acetylglucosamine linked to proteins.
α-lactalbumin binds to galactosyltransferase to form lactase synthase by modifying the shape of galactosyltransferase slightly so it now readily catalyses the combination of UDP-galactose and glucose to form lactose.
Now, the α-lactalbumin gene has substantial sequence similarity to a gene family that code for lysozymes (specifically to Ca2+ binding c-lysozymes). Lysozymes are enzymes that form part of the innate immune response by attacking molecules called peptidoglycans found only in bacterial cell walls. More intriguingly still, monotremes do not synthesize (much) lactose in their milk but they do include a large quantity of lysozyme with it (presumably, to help protect the offspring from bacterial infection) - the particular kind of lysozyme that α-lactalbumin is most similar too - and this lysozyme has a very weak lactose catalysis effect when combined with galactosyltransferase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 10:46 PM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-22-2009 7:44 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 46 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-22-2009 9:13 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 41 of 280 (532229)
10-22-2009 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Kaichos Man
10-21-2009 11:30 PM


This is horizontal gene transfer (HGT), popular among microbes but rare among eukaryotes.
It may be transferred between microbes by HGT but it did not emerge by HGT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 11:30 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


(1)
Message 42 of 280 (532236)
10-22-2009 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Jack
10-22-2009 5:55 AM


Hi Mr jack.
Still reading up on lysozymes, and fascinating stuff it is. Came across this pearler and thought I'd share it with youo:
"The challenge was that evolution of lactation was not feasible, because a neonate could not obtain a survival benefit from consuming the chance secretion of a rudimentary cutaneous gland. In response, Darwin hypothesized that mammary glands evolved from cutaneous glands that were contained within the brood pouches in which some fish and other marine species keep their eggs, and provided nourishment and thus a survival advantage to eggs of ancestral species. Two hundred years after Darwin's birth, the theory of evolution by natural selection remains a cornerstone of biology, as it has withstood this and other challenges."
Doesn't it sound triumphant? Can't you see Charlie standing there, jut-jawed and resolute, beating back the hordes of bleating Creationists?
Unfortunately, the paragraph finishes:
However, it is now clear that the mammary gland did not evolve from a brood pouch [1].
Laugh!

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2009 5:55 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2009 8:05 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 44 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2009 8:11 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2009 3:44 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 43 of 280 (532237)
10-22-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Kaichos Man
10-22-2009 7:44 AM


laugh first think second?
Hi Kaichos Man, what was the source of your pearl? It doesn't seem to reflect modern thinking.
Unfortunately, the paragraph finishes:
However, it is now clear that the mammary gland did not evolve from a brood pouch [1].
True, it likely evolved from a sweat gland:
Mammary gland - Wikipedia
quote:
Mammary glands are the organs that, in mammals, produce milk for the sustenance of the young. These exocrine glands are enlarged and modified sweat glands and give mammals their name. The mammary glands of domestic mammals containing more than two breasts are called dugs.
This is logical as sweat could be licked by young, and this would provide liquids and result in stimulation to sweat more to fulfill the purpose of sweating. A feedback cycle ensues.
Laugh!
One should always be careful of laughing first and thinking second. Especially when what you posted does not challenge or even address the issue that Mr. Jack raised for how the molecules work.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : pearl
Edited by RAZD, : mrjack

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-22-2009 7:44 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 10-22-2009 8:59 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 52 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-22-2009 10:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(2)
Message 44 of 280 (532238)
10-22-2009 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Kaichos Man
10-22-2009 7:44 AM


150 years of science in found something out shocker
Still reading up on lysozymes, and fascinating stuff it is. Came across this pearler and thought I'd share it with youo:
I know, amazing isn't? A biologist speculating 150 years ago got some sutff wrong. Wow. A man who didn't know about genes, didn't know about the molecular basis for tissue differentiation, didn't know about the existence of control genes, or how they work, didn't know about the chemicals involved in lactation - and so ad nauseum - didn't get his ideas about the details right? I'm staggered.
While you're at it why don't you have a quick crow about how his ideas on sexual reproduction were so wonderfully, absurdly incorrect? I'm sure a good laugh will do you good.
What I don't understand is why you'd think it'd make any difference to me? Or any modern scientist?
Edited by Mr Jack, : missed a word
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-22-2009 7:44 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(4)
Message 45 of 280 (532241)
10-22-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
10-22-2009 8:05 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
Hi Kaichos Man, what was the source of your pearl? It doesn't seem to reflect modern thinking.
The origin and evolution of lactation, Anthony V Capuco and R Michael Akers
quote:
Lactation appears to be an ancient reproductive feature that pre-dates the origin of mammals. A cogent theory for the evolution of the mammary gland and lactation has been provided by Olav Oftedal. The features of current mammals were gradually accrued through radiations of synapsid ancestors, and the mammary gland is hypothesized to have evolved from apocrine-like glands associated with hair follicles
It's just classic creationists, quote mining from the introduction of a paper in which the authors attempt to define the problem that they wish to discuss. The structure of the paper is:
"It was thought to be impossible for evolution, says the authors. Darwin had a hypothesis. Darwin's hypothesis was falsified. Here is a review of a more current hypothesis...."
Because of course, we evolutionists believe that Darwin was the perfecti of evolution. All evidence must be interpreted to be consistent with the divine words of St Darwin. Any dissent from this dogma will be met with excommunication from the hallowed halls of the lab and library.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2009 8:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2009 6:28 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 56 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 6:19 AM Modulous has seen this message but 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