Adding information to the genome.

The literature I have been reading doesn't mention the "nature" of the protein, but does mention the location and occasion of expression (e.g. in the leaf, on the application of heat). Can you explain the effect the promoter has on the "nature" of the protein more fully? Then what does specify these considerations? So you are saying that the evolutionary modification of the malleus, incus and dentary was not genetic in nature? Then what on earth caused it? Obviously not mutation. A dance the genes were sitting out, apparently. Just out of interest, what was controlling "the timing and concentrations of proteins"?

---

"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

Hi Kaichos Man,Your concluding question is answered by your opening quote. You end asking: And you began with the answer when you quoted me saying: You're working so hard at not understanding evolution that in just the last couple posts alone you thought I was arguing both for hopeful monsters caused by genetic changes, and for significant phenotypic changes with no genetic basis at all.I'm not really aware of any evolutionists here who understand evolution so poorly that they would argue for either one. Whenever you think an evolutionist is arguing counter to how evolution works then I think you can safely assume you're misinterpreting him.When I say that there are no genes specifying the position, shape, size and orientation of morphological structures like the bones of the inner ear I do not mean that genes are not the controlling elements. I just mean that the way they exercise control is not by explicit specification of parameters like these. In other words and for example, there is no gene with the x-coordinate of the malleus bone.Genes produce proteins that go everywhere throughout the body driving a complex dance of chemical reactions that can result in widespread change and development. In all likelihood there is no mutation that would move just the malleus bone one millimeter during development while leaving the incus and stapes in place. Whatever proteins or complex of proteins that drive their position will likely affect all of them at the same time, and other things as well. That's why there is no requirement for a coordinated set of simultaneous mutations.--Percy

Hi Kaichos Man,It is a common mistake that creationists make, to assume that several mutations must occur at once. Of course, it is part of creationist propaganda (falsehoods), rather than actual fact. Curiously, what the fossil record actually shows is sequential development, so your basic assumption is false. First the dentiary bone extends into more of a jaw bone, then a second hinge forms before the mallues, stapes and incus move away to form an independent ear structure.http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html [quote]Fortunately, however, there are also a number of skeletal differences between reptiles and mammals. For one, reptiles have a mouth filled with several teeth which are more or less uniform in size and shape; they vary slightly in size, but they all have the same basic cone-shaped form. By contrast, mammals tend to have teeth which vary greatly in size and shape; everything from flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is comprised of several different bones, which hinge on the quadrate bone of the skull and the angular bone of the jaw. In mammals, however, the lower jaw is comprised of only one bone - the dentary, which hinges at the quadrate of the skull. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). In reptiles, there is only one bone - the stapes.Colbert and Morales (1991, p. 127) describe the transitional nature of the tritylodonts in particular: [indent]"In many respect[s], the tritylodont skull was very mammalian in its features. Certainly, because of the advanced nature of the zygomatic arches, the secondary palate and the specialized teeth, these animals had feeding habits that were close to those of some mammals . . . . Yet, in spite of these advances, the tritylodonts still retained the reptilian joint between the quadrate bone of the skull and the articular bone of the lower jaw. It is true that these bones were very much reduced, so that the squamosal bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw (the two bones involved in the mammalian jaw articulation) were on the point of touching each other." [/indent]Flank (1995) writes: Next in the reptile-to-mammal transitional sequence are the cynodonts. Pictured here is Cynognathus, a classic example of the cynodont reptiles. Of course, when faced with a specimen such as this, one is forced to wonder if it can truly be called a "reptile". The skull appears basically mammalian, the hip structure seems basically mammalian as well, but with very distinct similarities to reptiles as well. Also notice that the grastral ribs and vertebrae seem to be forming a primitive breast-bone (sternum) - and strikingly resembles the gastral ribs/vertebrae of the earliest mammals from several orders. The gastral "floating" ribs have been reduced to almost nothing, and they are completely absent in mammals, yet very large in reptiles. This animal isn't quite a mammal, but it isn't quite a reptile either. This animal truly appears to be reptile and mammal. It is a perfectly intermediate form. [/quote]Thus we see a sequence of changes as the jaw shifts from reptilian to mammalian, with the bones that form the mammal inner ear being freed up to specialize in hearing (rather than doing double duty in reptiles).No multiple mutations needed, just a simple "step by step slowly he turns" process, typical of evolution in general, and the development of the mammalian ear in particular. Who needs to do fictional maths when there is evidence that absolutely refutes the base assumption of multiple mutations? Not only is there a clear transition from one stage to the next, but there are a number of other discrete mammalian characteristics also showing development in stages.Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

Okay, so genes are the controlling elements. If, however, they do not specify the position, shape, size and orientation, then what does? Fine. Then how are the parameters specified?

---

"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

One bone is getting larger, while two bones are getting smaller. You believe this can happen through a single mutation? It is precisely this "sequence of changes" that requires detailed methodological explanation. Do you agree with Percy that the size, shape and orientation of jaw components are not decided by genes? No. The growth of the dentary must be perfectly matched by the shrinkage of the malleus and incus or a misshapen jaw -and a severe survival disadvantage- results. Unless you can show how a single mutation can shrink and reposition two bones while growing another at a compensatory rate, you need multiple simultaneous mutations.

---

"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

Still using your fraudulent (Message 83) signature I see. Quelle surprise.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Interesting ... even Kaichos Man's signature is a fraud.I guess his idea is that even if, by accident, everything in the main body of his post happens to be true, then he'll still manage to post something dishonest.

I think it is the simultaneity of the mutations that RAZD is questioning rather than the multiplicity. He is positing multiple sequential mutation spread out over geological ages. What is your evidence? As RAZD says there are numerous fossil examples of intermediary forms of jaw/ear bones, are you saying that these are all examples of rare surviving examples of disadvantaged sports which just happened to be fossilised? There is considerable reason to doubt such a claim.TTFN,WK

Nothing does. There is no such thing as parameters for position, shape, size and orientation in the genes. Since these parameters don't exist, they aren't specified.When scientists first began studying ant colonies they believed that there had to be some central control. They didn't began making progress on ant behavior until they finally accepted that there wasn't any central control, that each ant was an autonomous unit responding to external stimuli.You're not going to make any progress on understanding how genes are expressed until you finally accept that there isn't any specification of specific parameters.Genes produce proteins that travel throughout the body driving growth and metabolism through a complex dance of chemical reactions. There is no gene and therefore no protein that specifies the x-coordinate of the malleus bone. There's only proteins working in concert to drive chemical reactions that result in certain outcomes. A single mutation that changes a single protein level or timing of delivery or modifying it slightly will affect growth and development of many things at the same time.--Percy

I was helped to understand when it was first pointed out to me that, contrary to a lot of news articles, DNA is not analogous to a blueprint. It is somewhat more like a recipe.A blueprint shows an image of the final result -- in fact that image is most of the blueprint.A recipe may have a pretty picture of the result but it is irrelevant. You follow the steps and out comes (well, not so much for me ) something delicious.The recipe doesn't say where each nut in the banana loaf goes the process distributes them.The recipe doesn't say how high it will rise, the specifications of the recipe and the environment determine that within some range.Changing something in the recipe may change the taste, height, density and lots more.

So the shrinkage of the malleus and incus and their migration back into the inner ear didn't happen through gene expression? Then it wasn't evolution. And it isn't heritable.Curiouser and curiouser.

---

"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

Yes, I picked up on that. "Slowly I turned, step by step" suggests he's accepting multiple mutations.However, I still insist on simultaniety (try pronouncing that ). The shrinkage of the malleus and incus must happen at the same time as the expansion of the dentary, otherwise a misshapen jaw results (e.g. an overbite or an underbite).Edited by Kaichos Man, : smiley trouble

---

"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

G'day Ned. Yes, that seems to be what Percy's getting at. However, we are learning more and more about DNA every year. It was only about five years ago that scientists were suggesting only 2% of the human genome codes for anything. Now, with the discovery of regulatory pathways etc. the figure seems to have grown to around 10%.So I wouldn't be surprised if the "blueprint" does exist, and we just haven't worked out how to read it yet.

---

"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

And as longs as that isn't too severe, it does not impede the organism and will thuis be given to its offspring. Who can then have a mutation that makes it all nice and straight again.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

No, it wasn't. It was more like 20 years ago. Since the 80's researchers have been finding many different types of conserved non-coding genetic elements. It is hardly surprising that now that sequnceing is so much cheaper and easier more and more of these things are coming to light. Now if you were talking about coding for proteins then 2% would probably still be the answer you would get.You seem to be taking genetics to task for not knowing things that there were absolutley no readily available genetic methods for discovering at the time. Ohno's original 'junk' DNA paper was published in 1972, 3 years before the first reliable sequencing method was developed by Sanger. Wow, you really don't know what you are talking about. They were teaching about regulatory pathways when I was in University 15 years ago and it was already well established developmental genetics by then.TTFN,WK