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:   New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 16 of 77 (578426)
09-01-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
08-31-2010 2:26 PM


So I propose a new name, "The Bacteria Diet Theory".
Hey, I think one of the Olsen twins is on this diet.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-31-2010 2:26 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 17 of 77 (578495)
09-01-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Granny Magda
09-01-2010 11:35 AM


Re: "Fossil"
Fossils can tell you that RM and NS took place? Talk about a canard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 09-01-2010 11:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 09-02-2010 8:11 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:08 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 18 of 77 (578504)
09-01-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Wounded King
09-01-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Why on Earth was this Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Of all the people who post here WK, if you really study biology like you claim you do, you should never beter than to just throw your hands up in the air, and say, well we have it mostly figured out already, so what is there to argue.
So now you seem to want to say that there is tons of evidence that doesn't involve the simplistic biology mutations which do nothing to form new structures, and then you just back away and basically say...its out there.
Well, the truth is, what's actually out there, when you see the studies of developmental biology is not the gradual, RM, NS construction of animal development, instead what we are seeing more and more, is the evo-devo style of large scale changes, being "switched" on by animals to self-style their own needs. You know this perfectly well, and I am sure this is why you keep wanting to bring up the "other mechanisms" argument for biology-within being willing to pin down what you mean. Because you know this presents a huge problem for Darwinian biology. If organisms have switches that control large scale areas of their development, who decides which switches get used. And where did the switches come from to begin with? Don't just tell me the evidence is "out there" that is a weak, defenseless ploy of surrender.
If you think this topic is too weak to be promoted, what do you think about people saying fossils are the evidence for RM/NS? What do you think of the lack of ONE concrete example in this thread so far of a non-bacterial example of anything? What do you think of people sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "we are right" so we don't care about evidence. If anything is fucking stupid, its that people want to accept this theory so badly, that they will accept that anything proves their theory true, including that fossils are the proof of the mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2010 11:55 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nij, posted 09-02-2010 12:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 26 by caffeine, posted 09-02-2010 6:14 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 27 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2010 7:59 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 19 of 77 (578563)
09-02-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Bolder-dash
09-01-2010 8:53 PM


Re: Why on Earth was this Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Fossils as a whole are evidence that changes occurred; we see the progression of species developing and adapting to changes in the environment, coinciding with the evidence of those environmental changes, in multiple lineages. One of the better examples of such a progression is humankind and its ancestry.
{I have a feeling you might try the old "no transitional fossils" claim. Please don't bother, just in case you were going to.}
The fossils -- among other things -- also indicate that the same life processes used today were used in the past. We know that mutations are a fact of those life processes. Hence the fossils -- among other things -- are evidence that random mutation existed in the past.
Secondly, natural selection is evidenced by fossils: the ones that aren't suitable get wiped out and produce few if any fossils, compared to the numbers we get for organisms that were well-adapted to that environment. And we see that the fossils have adaptations to the environmental conditions evidenced by the surroundings they were found in.
Fossils are evidence for RM/NS. Not the only evidence, but they are part of it.




This is being used as a response to other people, since three posts to do the job of one seems excessive. Feel free to ignore it.
I propose a new name for creationists: fucking morons.
You mean you don't call them that yet?
Wow, dude, get with the times; that's an old one
At first I thought you said you weren't talking about a big dick, and I was going to disagree. But then I reread.
L. O. L.
Ah, subbie, your scathing wit so often brightens my afternoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-01-2010 8:53 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by subbie, posted 09-02-2010 12:58 AM Nij has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 20 of 77 (578569)
09-02-2010 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nij
09-02-2010 12:24 AM


Re: Why on Earth was this Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Ah, subbie, your scathing wit so often brightens my afternoon.
Well then, how about a little something, you know, for the effort?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nij, posted 09-02-2010 12:24 AM Nij has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 21 of 77 (578573)
09-02-2010 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
09-01-2010 5:46 PM


Let's just say, for argument sake, that no one was quibbling with a RM/NS pathway for bacteria to exploit new energy sources (mind you there are also reasons to quibble with this, because of the evidence which suggests adaptive pathways for these mutations-but ignore that for now). I would say, well, does that explain everything?
Of course it doesn't. None of these types of simple mutations are creating any new kinds of potential structures. And even calling natural selection in bacteria the same thing as natural selection in reproductive choice situations faced by sexual creatures is unscientific. Bacteria simply divide. There are a thousand different reasons for the reproductive success of species which are competing in a eat, be eaten, be noticed, be handsome, be strong competitive scenario of Darwin's natural selection. There are no choices being made for who "get's the girl" like there are in the rest of the species reproducing world. Why should we draw conclusions from one world to the other as if they are the same thing? They aren't the same at all.
So this type of reasoning applied to the RM-NS tag team is illogical on the face of it. You have no evidence for it in nature so why claim you have. I think any of branch of science would be insulted at such a lack of standards by which it jumps to such conclusions.
And thus, we are back to saying all we have for ToE to grab its evidential dentures on is bacteria diet- no comparison at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2010 5:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 1:44 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 09-02-2010 4:24 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 22 of 77 (578575)
09-02-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 1:30 AM


I would say, well, does that explain everything?
No, it explains that random mutation can alter genes and therefore alter phenotype, because phenotype is specified by genes.
That's true of bacteria but it's also true of more complex life - our phenotype is determined by genotype, so changes to genes will change our phenotype.
None of these types of simple mutations are creating any new kinds of potential structures.
Please be very specific why you think an auxotrope reversion mutation in bacteria doesn't create a new "structure." If there's no additional structure then what is the mutation doing?
Bacteria simply divide.
True, but they divide at different rates, because it takes energy to divide (and they're subject to predation.) Bacteria that can't exploit any of the available carbon sources don't divide at all, because they have no source of material for growth. (The new bacteria have to be made of something.) Bacteria that can exploit an energy source have a marked advantage over those that can't; bacteria that can synthesize a nutrient de novo from simpler constituents from the environment have an advantage over those who are limited to collecting the nutrient (histidine, for instance) from the environment.
There are a thousand different reasons for the reproductive success of species which are competing in a eat, be eaten, be noticed, be handsome, be strong competitive scenario of Darwin's natural selection.
That's absolutely true. The great genius of Darwin is that it doesn't matter. It's all under the rubrick of natural selection. All of it - every source of differential reproductive success in organisms is natural selection, it doesn't matter whether its bacteria or bobcats. Different organisms in completely different environments - natural selection applies to them all.
That's the universality of the theory of evolution - it explains the history and diversity of literally every living thing on Earth. Everything that has lived on Earth. It's a fantastically robust and useful theory, precisely because it specifies some very general mechanisms - random mutation and natural selection - that apply to literally everything that lives or has lived.
You have no evidence for it in nature so why claim you have.
We have an abundance of evidence. You're simply unwilling to try to understand it. Any time you decide to end this ridiculous, ignorant posture, we're here to inform you as to the actual state of biological science.
Any time you ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:30 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 4:42 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 23 of 77 (578604)
09-02-2010 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 1:44 AM


Since I already knew you had absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the claims Darwinian evolution makes (crashfrog says so is not evidence, remember?), it was hardly necessary for you to waste four paragraphs claiming you can provide "abundance of evidence" proceeded by none.
I already knew you had none, thus the reason for this thread you see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 1:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:12 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 24 of 77 (578610)
09-02-2010 5:06 AM


But here is the really intriguing part.
Its like, yea, now I know you have all this "abundance of evidence. Because its like crashfrog has said so. Plus I know that Wounded King has also claimed that there is so much evidence that's its a complete canard to start a thread or even suggest otherwise. plus Granny will tell you that its all in a book, if you just read it in English or whatever language she uses, and Percy has said that they are just waiting for someone to ask what specific evidence you want, and they will be happy to provide it, and Dr. A has also made it clear that the evidence is everywhere, but he just won't provide it because us fools can't understand it, and then there's NIj and Coyote and Subbie, and they have made it clear that the evidence is so overwhelming as to create an impenetrable wall of knowledge...so what they are all saying is they are just waiting for the one opportunity for someone to simply ask them, and they just can't wait, they are dying to reveal it, if only someone, anyone would just ask!
So now I am thinking, maybe they are waiting for someone to pay them? Or perhaps its a secret club, and you have to join and go through hazing first? I mean, I know there are all of these fence sitters out there that they are desperate to convince of the voracity of their bullet-proof theory, but perhaps their bond to their secret fraternity of the Order of The Darwinian Evidence Brotherhood is so strong, that even though they really really want to convince the fence sitters to join their common cause of spreading atheism throughout the world, their loyalty to the Brotherhood prevents them.
Unless you pay the monthly dues, maybe.
Of for the love of the right person asking....boy we wish we could share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 11:17 AM Bolder-dash has replied

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


Message 25 of 77 (578619)
09-02-2010 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Admin
09-01-2010 1:45 PM


Re: Why on Earth was this Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
This is probably one of the weaker proposals I've ever promoted, but I felt it would provide a thread to discuss Bolder-dash's beliefs about the lack of evidence for evolution that had been intruding into other threads. I can now direct such discussion to this thread.
So it's a sort of trash-can? I see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 09-01-2010 1:45 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 26 of 77 (578625)
09-02-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Bolder-dash
09-01-2010 8:53 PM


Re: Why on Earth was this Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
What do you think of the lack of ONE concrete example in this thread so far of a non-bacterial example of anything?
That's odd, only one detailed example of evidence was given in this thread, by Taq in Message 14. It didn't include any bacteria at all, as Taq pointed out. You completely ignored it and wrote several posts insisting nobody had offered any evidence.
You're never going to notice any evidence if you just ignore it when it's shown to you.
Edited by caffeine, : added link to Taq's post and the word 'it'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-01-2010 8:53 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


(1)
Message 27 of 77 (578652)
09-02-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Bolder-dash
09-01-2010 8:53 PM


Re: Why on Earth was this Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
if you really study biology like you claim you do
I don't claim to study biology, I am a working post-doctoral researcher. But as I have often pointed out qualifications are irrelevant.
you should never beter than to just throw your hands up in the air, and say, well we have it mostly figured out already, so what is there to argue.
That isn't what I said, I just pointed out how ludicrous your strawman was.
So now you seem to want to say that there is tons of evidence that doesn't involve the simplistic biology mutations which do nothing to form new structures
No, that isn't what I said. What I said was that the evidence for the role of simple mutations, and most single instances of mutation are essentially simple be they deletions or insertions or transversions or transitions, is not restricted to bacteria.
As to 'forming new structures', this is just more IDist flack, like the creationists who want us to show them cats giving birth to dogs. You want us to show you experimental evolutionary evidence showing the undirected production of novel limbs or organs in a field that is barely a century old when the evidence suggests such structures take millenia to evolve.
Now novel traits are a different matter, I could cite the evolution of insecticide resistance in various insect species both in laboratory experiments (Adcock et al., 1993; Pittendrigh et al., 1997; McKenzie and Batterham, 1998)and out in the field (Ffrench-constant et al., 2004;Labbe et al., 2007; Karasov et al., 2010). As with the nylon bug example many of these are instances of insects being exposed to novel environmental factors and adapting to them and the genetic basis of these adaptions is often as simple as a nucleotide substitution, although a number of resistance mutations have been identified associated with transposon insertions as well (Aminetzach et al., 2005).
what we are seeing more and more, is the evo-devo style of large scale changes, being "switched" on by animals to self-style their own needs.
Please provide one scintilla of evidence to support this. You may complain that the only evidence for RM/NS is from bacterial experiments, and when you do you are wrong, but when it comes to directed adaptive mutation that really is the case and it is only identifiable in a handful of examples as well. There is absolutely no evidence as yet for such mechanisms operating in animals.
My own background is in evo-devo and I can assure you that what you describe bears no relation to it. There are no large scale developmental changes 'switched on', what there are are genetic modules of signalling molecules and downstream effector cascades that we see re-used again and again in various different developmental contexts and for which we can see simpler varieties in less morphologically complex organisms.
We do know that ectopic expression, expression outwith its normal pattern, of some genes can lead to the growth of extra limbs for example. We also know that the changes required to alter a genes pattern of expression or level of expression are exactly the sort of simple mutations I described earlier. Small, even single nucleotide, mutations can cause changes in expression which in turn lead to changes in the morphology of the organism.
You know this perfectly well, and I am sure this is why you keep wanting to bring up the "other mechanisms" argument for biology-within being willing to pin down what you mean
I gave you several very specific examples of other mechanisms, obviously I can't predict what as yet undiscovered mechanisms there are because I'm not psychic.
Because you know this presents a huge problem for Darwinian biology.
No, I don't. I'm beginning to agree with Dr. A's complain that it is the height of futility for you to lie about what I know or believe to me.
If organisms have switches that control large scale areas of their development, who decides which switches get used.
As I said, this is an incredibly bad representation of what developmental biology has shown us, but in terms of what really happens the answer should be obvious. When mutations lead to morphological differences in organisms in a population the thing that decides which mophology comes to predominate, or rather the different morphologies comparative fitnesses, is natural selection with a bit of noise from genetic drift thrown in.
And where did the switches come from to begin with?
We have quite extensive evidence from comparative developmental genetics for a wide variety of more rudimentary froms of various developmnetal modules in less complex animals such as C. elegans, Ciona intestinalis, sponges and others. There is also a very compelling body of data showing how a few key types of protein (such as FGF, BMP, WNT and HOX proteins) have diversified into larger families as organisms have evolved more complex morphologies. This isn't a linear relationship by any means but the number of transcription factors, key regulators of gene expression, has been suggested to correlate quite well with morphological complexity . Some argue that other regulatory factors such as microRNAs have had an equally important role in morphological evolution.
what do you think about people saying fossils are the evidence for RM/NS?
I'd agree that fossils aren't evidence for RM/NS per se. They certainly show compelling evidence for the dynamic nature of biological morphology over time and for common descent within the animalia. They are consistent with RM/NS but in the absence of accompanying genetic evidence they don't really seem to add to the evidence for RM/NS. I think that what people perhaps really mean is that they are evidence for evolution.
What do you think of the lack of ONE concrete example in this thread so far of a non-bacterial example of anything?
I think it is due to the fact that people don't see the point in being sucked in to yet more creationist/IDist goal shifting. We get told, 'there are no beneficial mutations', so we show the research in the most extensive well documented and controlled cases, which are bacterial, only to be told 'Well yeah, but there are no beneficial mutations that aren't in bacteria'.
We start with the simple cases because, as is brought home to us again and again, most of the people making these claims have very rudimentary grasps of both evolutionary biology specifically and also biology in general. In many cases they are simply parroting criticisms they have taken from elsewhere on the web. And as we also see repeatedly they will use all sorts of tortuous logic to try and fit reality to their preconceptions.
Anyway just for you I have provided several examples from the animal kingdom earlier in this post.
What do you think of people sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "we are right" so we don't care about evidence.
I think you should stop doing it.
If anything is fucking stupid, its that people want to accept this theory so badly, that they will accept that anything proves their theory true, including that fossils are the proof of the mechanisms.
Frankly I think you have only yourself to blame, you framed your OP in terms of Darwinian evolution but what you are actually attacking is the modern synthesis with its focus the accumulation of genetic changes under selective pressures. Darwin had no real framework for the generation of inherited rather than acquired morphological variation other than that it existed.
I think many people have been taking your critique as being directed at the broader category of Darwinian evolution rather than simply RM/NS, but I may be wrong and they do have reasons for arguing that RM/NS is evidenced by elements of the fossil record, that is for them to say.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-01-2010 8:53 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 28 of 77 (578655)
09-02-2010 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Bolder-dash
09-01-2010 8:38 PM


Re: "Fossil"
Hi BD,
Fossils can tell you that RM and NS took place? Talk about a canard.
Not on their own, no. But then we already know, from real-time observations, that both RM and NS do take place, so we hardly need fossils to prove any such thing.
What the fossil record does do is provide evidence for evolution. If evolution were true, we would expect to see that organisms preserved in the fossil record change over geological time. That would be in accordance with the ToE. And that is exactly what we do find.
Also, if the ToE were true, we would expect not to find anachronistic fossils, like say, Cambrian rabbits or Triassic birds. And guess what; that is something that we never find, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of fossils are known. This too constitutes clear evidence in favour of the ToE.

This thread is easily the most foolish and absurd on the whole forum. You know perfectly well that there are multiple lines of evidence for the ToE. Genetics, population dynamics, geology, biogeography, etc. are all frequently cited as evidence for the ToE. You know this. You may not agree that such evidence is valid and no-one is saying that you have to, but to pretend that it does not exist is childish and fatuous.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-01-2010 8:38 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 77 (578702)
09-02-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 5:06 AM


But here is the really intriguing part.
No, here's the really intriguing part - I know you've seen 29+ evidences for Macroevolution, and Beneficial Mutations, because I've linked these things to you. I know you've seen bacterial evidence of complexity-increasing mutations because I showed it to you. I know you've seen evidence of common descent by modification in this thread, because Taq showed you the journal article in Message 14.
But for some reason, all that stuff "doesn't count." Bacteria don't count, even though they have the same genetic basis as all other living things, because, well, they're bacteria and we're not. (Why be so human-centric? Evolution explains the evolution of bacteria and humans, as well as everything else.) Common descent doesn't count because, well, you couldn't understand the words in the paper. TalkOrigins articles don't count because they're from TalkOrigins and written by scientists, I guess. And all the other ample evidence of structure-forming mutations we've presented in this thread and the Evolution of Skeletons thread don't count because, well, I'm not sure, because you never responded to it, you just ignored it. And of course evidence in books doesn't count because, well, who the fuck knows?
Plus I know that Wounded King has also claimed that there is so much evidence that's its a complete canard to start a thread or even suggest otherwise.
I'm just going to tell you, now, that you don't know what the word "canard" means, because you're not even remotely using it correctly.
plus Granny will tell you that its all in a book
Yes, information is frequently found in books.
Or perhaps its a secret club, and you have to join and go through hazing first?
You just have to open the books and read them. You have to follow the links that are being given to you. You have to read the journal articles that are being presented to you, instead of ignoring them.
You have to stop asking for evidence and then completely ignoring all attempts to give it to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 5:06 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:17 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 30 of 77 (578713)
09-02-2010 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Bolder-dash
09-01-2010 8:38 PM


Re: "Fossil"
Fossils can tell you that RM and NS took place? Talk about a canard.
Fossils can tell you that RM and NS took place? Talk about a canard.
Other way around. Mutations can tell us how the fossils changed.
quote:
Nature. 2004 Mar 25;428(6981):415-8.
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage.
Stedman HH, Kozyak BW, Nelson A, Thesier DM, Su LT, Low DW, Bridges CR, Shrager JB, Minugh-Purvis N, Mitchell MA.
Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA. hstedman@mail.med.upenn.edu
Comment in:
Nature. 2004 Mar 25;428(6981):373-4.
Abstract
Powerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus--traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology--shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size and emigration of Homo from Africa. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.

A mutation in our MYH gene results in a weaker jaw muscle. A weaker jaw muscle requires less bone as an anchor. This allowed for both the gracilization of the human lower jaw and the expansion of the cranium.
But just on a more general note, perhaps you could answer this question. Why are humans and chimps different? What explains this difference?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-01-2010 8:38 PM Bolder-dash 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