Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The origin of new genes
xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 5120 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 136 of 164 (550617)
03-16-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Wounded King
03-15-2010 11:12 AM


Re: New Genes?
Well, I got you to respond. I was wondering who the first person would be to point that out and it was you. HA HA.....
Why don't you and I have a debate? I am not sure if you are interested or not, but I would like to have a good discussion. What are the subjects you enjoy debating, if you are even interested?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2010 11:12 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 7:57 PM xXGEARXx has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 137 of 164 (550625)
03-16-2010 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by xXGEARXx
03-16-2010 7:24 PM


There are lots of active discusions
Why don't you go to one and respond to a current message?
Just an idea. Cause so far you look kind of silly.
(that is the nice way to say it)

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by xXGEARXx, posted 03-16-2010 7:24 PM xXGEARXx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by xXGEARXx, posted 03-16-2010 8:24 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 5120 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 138 of 164 (550630)
03-16-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Theodoric
03-16-2010 7:57 PM


Re: There are lots of active discusions
SEE! Now two people! Who said Christ is the only one to be resurrected?
Sure thing Theodoric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 7:57 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 139 of 164 (552509)
03-29-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Philip
12-19-2006 7:52 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
That’s right, nothing but false examples of beneficial mutation are repeatedly hyped up by biologists as beneficial mutation!
I'm guessing that any beneficial mutations presented will be arbitrarily assumed false by you but for those with an open mind, one example includes CCR5-delta-32 (a mutation that makes you immune, or nearly immune, to AIDS). Other examples of mutations are those that make our muscles stronger, reduce fat, or provide high cholesterol tolerance. Mutations enabled flavobacterium to digest nylon and apple maggots to digest apples (they used to eat hawthorn). One of my professors has a photographic memory. Some women are reputed to be tetrachromatic (have an extra type of cone photoreceptor in their eyes that allow to see a greater depth of color).
Here's an article by MSNBC that shows pics of a boy that has twice the muscle and half the fat of other toddlers thanks to a genetic mutation. MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Everything I mentioned so far is a beneficial mutation. Sickle cell anemia can be beneficial as well, in places where malaria is common.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Philip, posted 12-19-2006 7:52 PM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Wounded King, posted 03-29-2010 6:08 PM rockondon has not replied

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


(1)
Message 140 of 164 (552526)
03-29-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by rockondon
03-29-2010 4:01 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
Everything I mentioned so far is a beneficial mutation.
I'm 100% behind the general thrust of your post but I think that at least in the case of the myostatin mutation it is a bit early to say whether that is a beneficial mutation or not.
Certainly similar mutations are considered desirable when they have arisen in sheep and cows, but that is a matter of our own preference in selecting animals which will produce leaner meat or more of particular cuts. Whether this would be a beneficial mutation in the wild is another matter since myostatin mutations have also been linked to reduced fertility and calving difficulty in cattle.
Similarly tetrachromacy is a fascinating phenomenon, and it is easy to see how better colour discrimination could be beneficial in an everyday sense, but isn't necessarily an evolutionarily beneficial mutation, i.e. one that improves reproductive success.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by rockondon, posted 03-29-2010 4:01 PM rockondon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 7:49 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2010 8:30 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 141 of 164 (552542)
03-29-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Wounded King
03-29-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
I'm taking a break from the stress of my own thread and running across interesting posts elsewhere. I didn't read this whole thread so I may not get your point here:
Similarly tetrachromacy is a fascinating phenomenon, and it is easy to see how better colour discrimination could be beneficial in an everyday sense, but isn't necessarily an evolutionarily beneficial mutation, i.e. one that improves reproductive success.
I'm wondering how many traits are supposed to have arisen from NON evolutionarily beneficial mutations, that don't improve reproductive success -- I would imagine the vast majority myself -- in which case how did they become fixed at all?
Also, there seems to be a common habit of simply assuming that any trait originated with a mutation rather than any hint that anyone actually KNOWS that it did from empirical evidence at the genome level. You see an interesting rare trait and CALL it a mutation, that's about it. Yes you can come up with some examples of some mutations in genetic studies but they aren't very convincing to someone who isn't an evolutionist as having anything of the power to fuel the massive changes evolution expects.
But maybe there's more actual empirical evidence back on this thread a ways? Or some other thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Wounded King, posted 03-29-2010 6:08 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2010 10:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 147 by Blue Jay, posted 03-30-2010 10:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 164 (552553)
03-29-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Wounded King
03-29-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
Hi Wounded King and rockondon,
Similarly tetrachromacy is a fascinating phenomenon, and it is easy to see how better colour discrimination could be beneficial in an everyday sense, but isn't necessarily an evolutionarily beneficial mutation, i.e. one that improves reproductive success.
My understanding is that tetrachromacy in humans is not due to a new mutation per se, rather it is associated with the color-blind mutation in females. That females with this condition are usually related to colorblind males. I believe it is normally a shift in the wavelength range for the red cones towards orange.
Of course birds have four to six cones, and human ancestors apparently lost some because they were nocturnal and they weren't necessary at the time.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Wounded King, posted 03-29-2010 6:08 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 143 of 164 (552578)
03-29-2010 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
03-29-2010 7:49 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
I'm wondering how many traits are supposed to have arisen from NON evolutionarily beneficial mutations, that don't improve reproductive success -- I would imagine the vast majority myself -- in which case how did they become fixed at all?
Genetic drift.
Also, there seems to be a common habit of simply assuming that any trait originated with a mutation rather than any hint that anyone actually KNOWS that it did from empirical evidence at the genome level.
A new genetic trait is a mutation by definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 7:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 11:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 164 (552592)
03-29-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Adequate
03-29-2010 10:43 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
Genetic drift, yes. OK, that's logical. Not empirically established, but logical.
A new genetic trait is a mutation by definition.
Exactly, thank you. It doesn't have to be empirically demonstrated, it's defined into existence, it's assumed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2010 10:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-30-2010 6:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 03-30-2010 9:40 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 03-30-2010 1:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 145 of 164 (552612)
03-30-2010 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
03-29-2010 11:35 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
I realize that your religion requires you to be wrong about some things, but why the heck do you have to be wrong about everything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 11:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 146 of 164 (552625)
03-30-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
03-29-2010 11:35 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
Hi Faith,
I could almost hear Dr Adequate holding himself back in Message 145!
Faith writes:
Genetic drift, yes. OK, that's logical. Not empirically established, but logical.
You're sure there's no empirical evidence supporting the idea of genetic drift?
A new genetic trait is a mutation by definition.
Exactly, thank you. It doesn't have to be empirically demonstrated, it's defined into existence, it's assumed.
How one interprets "genetic trait" depends upon context since a new genetic trait could emerge from a unique combination of existing alleles, but in the context that Dr Adequate intended a new genetic trait is a new allele or stretch of DNA, which *is* a mutation. It's the definition of mutation, Faith.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 11:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 147 of 164 (552627)
03-30-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
03-29-2010 7:49 PM


Fixation on fixation
Hi, Faith.
Faith writes:
I'm wondering how many traits are supposed to have arisen from NON evolutionarily beneficial mutations, that don't improve reproductive success -- I would imagine the vast majority myself -- in which case how did they become fixed at all?
What is it with you and fixed traits? You are obsessed with fixation.
Give an example of a non-beneficial trait that is fixed in a natural population. I'm skeptical that you're going to find as many as you think you are.
Edited by Bluejay, : Fixation and sub-title

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 7:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 148 of 164 (552652)
03-30-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
03-29-2010 11:35 PM


Re: Brand-Spanking-New Alleles (Again)
Genetic drift, yes. OK, that's logical. Not empirically established, but logical.
It is empirically established in the Wright-Fisher model and the Hardy-Weinberg principle. Genetic drift is an unavoidable consequence of random mating as the math demonstrates.
Exactly, thank you. It doesn't have to be empirically demonstrated, it's defined into existence, it's assumed.
If generation 100 has a different DNA sequence than generation 1 where in the world do you think those differences in DNA came from? Magic?
ABE: The analogy that is often used for genetic drift is surnames. After many generations an isolated village will tend to have just a few surnames even if the village started with many surnames. This is due to (nearly) random mating. Some lineages will necessarily disappear while others become more prominent by randomness alone.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 11:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Asking
Junior Member (Idle past 5037 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 05-19-2010


Message 149 of 164 (562399)
05-28-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bernd
09-21-2006 5:32 PM


I'm assuming that virus's inserting themselves into our genetic material comes under lateral gene transfer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bernd, posted 09-21-2006 5:32 PM bernd has not replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4801 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 150 of 164 (569587)
07-22-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
09-22-2006 4:28 AM


New Genes
I need some clarification on how science defines "new genes" and how they believe they emerge in the eukaryote evolution.
Does science believe that all informational genes were packaged in the first multi-cellular organism? Evolution meaning that through reshuffling these genes allowed new innovations that were never used in the past?
Science states that bacteria obtain new genes but not currently documented in our genes. yet it appears it did happen.
Or was it the first multicelled organism had a very few genes, just enough to allow it to function and then through evolution new genes emerged and added to the gene pool of life. This makes more sense since many species did not start out with specialized compartments for organs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 09-22-2006 4:28 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 07-22-2010 12:03 PM barbara has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024