Can Chromosome Counts Change?

"Although in each of the methods of chromosome increase you mentioned, neither of them allow for "NEW" genetic information to arise."Rrhain: Where did i say that chromosome increases don't happen?? I simply stated that "NEW" information had not arised. The duplication of a chromosome does not create "NEW" information, and when in the merging and breaking of chromosomes no "NEW" information is added either. The chromosomes are only being mixed up allowing for more deversity within a certian pool of genes. But neither of these case produces brand new genetic information.Crashfrog:No species is to specific. If i use the example from above you will understand. Just from looking up the zebra species which i had thought there to only be one i found that there are actually 3 species of zebra. And they can interbreed. But Zebras can also hybridize with other species too like horses(Zorse) and donkeys(Zonkey) to and give birth to both feritle and infertile offspring. A Mule(cross of a horse and dokey) for instance usually only gives birth to infertile offspring but fertile mules have been born. I think its about 1 in 10,000.
Lions and Tigers have been crossbread(Ligons, Tigions), wolves and dogs have, Dolphins and whales(Wolphin), Lama and camel(Cama), Smallmouth and large mouth bass(meanmouth), Lake trout and brook trout(splake).So Species is to precise, because if a zebra and a horse, which are two different species can interbreed then they are apart of the same "created kind". So kind would be above species.

What about processes that add totally new base sequences? Do those add new "information" (whatever that is)? Mmm-hmm. So, if I have two species which historically had the ability to interbreed, but through mutation they totally lose that ability, can I assume that a new kind has been created? That happens, you know.What about ring species? That's where you have a linear series of species where each species can interbreed with its neighboors but the first species in the series can't interbreed with the last. An ascending inter-infertility is consistent with increasing genetic distance due to gradual evolution but how does that jive with your created kinds?

some_guy responds to me:

quote:

---

Where did i say that chromosome increases don't happen?? I simply stated that "NEW" information had not arised.

---

You missed the point. Let's try responding to what I said, shall we? Do you not see the point? If you agree that chromosome counts can increase, then how can you not say that new genetic information has arisen?How is having more chromsomes not an example of more information?

quote:

---

The duplication of a chromosome does not create "NEW" information

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?How does one not get new information when you have new chromosomes?You seem to be of the opinion that a copy isn't new information. You need to disabuse yourself of this notion.And if you still can't figure it out, think of this: What happens when the genes on that new chromosome mutate? Now you've got the original gene on one of the chromosomes and a different gene on the other one.You really haven't thought this through.Isn't a mutation the creation of something new? Something that wasn't there before? Something that is completely novel to the population.So if you can increase the chromosome count and you can mutate it, how do you conclude that there is nothing new?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

No if historically 2 species could interbreed then they are apart of the same created kind. EX:"In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological 'species'. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new 'species' was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...Here are some examples of what can cause breeding barriers:Ecological isolation- this is when the populations' habitat differences prevent them from establishing contact with one anotherTemporal isolation- if the populations exhibit different mating times, they will not hybridizeBehavioural isolation- if the populations exhibit different mating habits, they will not mate with one another (for example, they may exhibit different degrees of responsiveness to pheromones)Mechanical isolation- if the morphologies of the genitalia of the two populations are "mismatched" they will be unable to mate with one another (such differences are particularly important in insects)Gametic isolation- if the sperm of one species is not tolerant of the conditions required by eggs of the other species, fertilization will be preventedHybrid sterility (the hybrid cannot reproduce, e.g., horses and donkeys yield sterile mules)http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/principles/B110MicrSpecRepr.htmlAlso think of this, a mule has lost the ability to interbreed with a horse and donkey but it is not a separate kind, because it came from the horse. Why would a species that is proven to have come from a certain species but then cannot interbreed be considered a sperate kind? In the beginning God created a set amount of animal and plant "kinds" and from those kinds many other species broke of from them, but they still remain apart of the same "kind", never being able to interbreed with other kinds whether or not they could interbreed themselves.Ring species are also all apart of the same kind."An ascending inter-infertility is consistent with increasing genetic distance due to gradual evolution but how does that jive with your created kinds?"This is not true. Increasing genetic distance is not an example of evolution it is only variation in an extreme direction within a specific gene pool. "NEW" information must be added for it to be considered evolution."What about processes that add totally new base sequences? Do those add new "information" (whatever that is)?"Would you care to give me some of these processes?Rrhain:Think about this, if I have one document and I go over to a photocopier and photocopy it then I have 2 documents, but does that second document tell me anything more than the first did? How does polyploidy, the duplication of chromosomes, add "new" information then?"How is having more chromosomes not an example of more information?""More" is not "New". Could you tell me how an animal or plant could evolve my having more chromosomes? It would eventually have more chromosomes then it could handle and would just die."Somatic doubling does not introduce any new genetic material, but rather produces additional copies of existing chromosomes. This extra DNA must be replicated with each cell division. Enlarged cell size is often associated with polyploids which can result in anatomical imbalances. Other deleterious effects can include erratic bearing, brittle wood, and watery fruit (Sanford, 1983). High level polyploids (e.g. octaploids) can be stunted and malformed, possibly resulting from the extreme genetic redundancy and somatic instability that leads to chimeral tissue."
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher..."And if you still can't figure it out, think of this: What happens when the genes on that new chromosome mutate? Now you've got the original gene on one of the chromosomes and a different gene on the other one."At the moment I am not disputing mutation I am disputing that polyploidy does not produce new genetic information. How does mutation happening during polyploidy prove that polyploidy itself allows for new genetic information to be produced? Cannot mutations happen outside of polyploidy?Now that we are talking about mutations though can you tell me how genetic mutations can progressively (as in continue to produce new information over time) result in new genetic information being added? And allow for evolution to take place. edited urls to fix page width - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-22-2003]

Mutations providing "new information?" Glad to oblige. (Old-timers, you've seen this before, and I'm copying my own post from a previous thread.)
-------------------------------
Ref: Nature, vol 414, pp 305-308 (2001) - "Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria" , by D Modiano et al. It's not online, to my knowledge, except by paid subscription.Normal human hemoglobin ("HbA") is coded for by DNA which reads, as the 16th through 18th positions of a certain gene, GAA. This codon tells a cell's protein factory to put the amino acid glutamate at the sixth spot along the peptide that will become the beta chain of your or my hemoglobin. However, in a large number of West Africans, particularly the Mossi of Burkina Faso, this speck of DNA reads AAA. The distribution of folks with this variant looks like a bull's-eye: lots of the gene in one area of Burkina Faso, and fewer and fewer people with it as you move away from that center. The distribution is consistent with the idea that one person had the mutation about a thousand years ago, and that it spread through his or her descendants since. (Most people weren't terribly mobile in that area until nearly modern times - at least until the slave trade started.)Now this DNA change alters that sixth amino acid on the beta chain of hemoglobin to lysine, making HbC. Most people with hemoglobin C never know it - some have mild anemia, gallstones, or spleen problems. But Modiano's paper documents that Mossi children that have both genes for HbC are 7% as likely to develop malaria as their classmates who have boring old HbA. 7% as likely to get the disease that kills a couple of million kids in West Africa every year. And that's because their genome has the information to make a protein that has one amino acid that's different from the one in their neighbors, and in their ancestors, too, if you go back a ways. New information. Useful new information. (You will agree that being able to make two different proteins is "more information" than being able to make only one, won't you? Kids in the study that had the AC genotype - that had both HbA and HbC in their blood - had a 29% reduction in their chance of getting malaria.) New, useful, "information" from a mutation.Now a footnote: if your DNA reads GUA instead of GAA in this position, you get a valine in position 6 and have sickle-cell trait - the result of a different mutated hemoglobin called HbS. This protects against malaria, too, but the side effects can be severe, including fatal, especially if you have both genes for HbS. This, too, is "new information" - a different protein is being made.

Fabulous.Now, pretend you have four species. A and B have never been able to interbreed. C and D were able to interbreed until about 200 years ago. What test can you perform to distinguish between these four species? Basically, given two species that can't interbreed, how do you know whether or not they used to be able to interbreed, or never have been able to interbreed?If there's no such test, how can you be sure that all life isn't simply decended from one original "created kind"? "Splice" or "insertion" mutations actually add new nucleotides to the DNA, as far as I'm aware. If new nucleotides aren't new information, what would be? If entirely new genetic sequences in the organism - such as what happens if a chromosome is duplicated, then mutated - don't represent "new information", then you'll have to explain what you think information is, and what it means to quantify it. As far as I'm concerned, DNA doesn't code for information - it codes for protiens, and there's no requirement for new information to generate novel protiens. Novel protiens are all you need for evolution, not new information.

some_guy quotes from the ridiculously ignorant AiG:

quote:

---

In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other.

---

But what is a "kind"? From all examples ever given, a "kind" is just another term for "species" and if so, then the scenario described actually contradicts the conclusion: If A and B can breed with C but not each other, then they most likely evolved and are not the same "kind."They're called "ring species."

quote:

---

Also think of this, a mule has lost the ability to interbreed with a horse and donkey

---

Um, "lost"? A mule never "lost" anything. It is a hybrid of two species that are diverging. It doesn't exist except through the breeding of two species that have nearly severed ties.Once again, you're simply avoiding defining what a "kind" is.

quote:

---

Ring species are also all apart of the same kind.

---

But since a "kind" is a species and ring species are separate species, then that is evidence of new "kinds" appearing, in complete contradiction to your claim.some_guy then responds to me:

quote:

---

Think about this, if I have one document and I go over to a photocopier and photocopy it then I have 2 documents, but does that second document tell me anything more than the first did?

---

Yes.You see, one of the things we know about genes are involved in morphological traits is the amount of protein that is made. If you have only one copy of a gene, you only get so much. Get two, and you get more.Thus, an organism with two copies of the exact same gene will be morphologically different from an organism with only one.You are too obsessed with the surface and need to look at the full implications of what happens when you suddenly have more genetic material floating around.

quote:

---

"More" is not "New".

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Of course more is new. It wasn't there before, it is there now, it's new. You're forgetting that the biology of the individual is more than simply whether or not you have a gene. It is also about how many copies of the gene you have. If you have more copies of it, you are physically different from your brethren.

quote:

---

Could you tell me how an animal or plant could evolve my having more chromosomes?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?How is acquiring more chromosomes not evolution right before your eyes? Getting more chromosomes is evolution by definition.You're asking for an example of blue and when shown a clear sky at high noon, you are claiming that you need more.

quote:

---

At the moment I am not disputing mutation I am disputing that polyploidy does not produce new genetic information. How does mutation happening during polyploidy prove that polyploidy itself allows for new genetic information to be produced?

---

Because more is new. It wasn't there before, it is there now, it results in a change in morphology, it is necessarily new.

quote:

---

Cannot mutations happen outside of polyploidy?

---

Of course, but you'll just claim that mutation doesn't result in new information, either...merely a change in the information but no increase. See below.You refuse to synthesize. If chromosome counts can increase (which results in new morphology) and if mutations can change genetic sequences (which results in new morphology), then how does one insist that the two don't work together to produce "new" genes (which results in new morphology) by any definition of "new" one might consider?When you're trying to open a lock with a key, you need to put the key in the lock, but that won't unlock the lock all by itself. You also need to turn the key, but that won't unlock the lock all by itself. But if you put the key in the lock and then turn it, you unlock the lock.Even if we take the unreasonable stance that increasing genetic material through copying doesn't change morphology and if we then take the similarly unreasonable stance that changing genetic material doesn't increase it, how can one possibly claim that copying genetic material and then changing it doesn't result in new genes?

quote:

---

Now that we are talking about mutations though can you tell me how genetic mutations can progressively (as in continue to produce new information over time) result in new genetic information being added?

---

See, you just fulfilled my prophecy. Mutations don't increase genetic information.You're so stuck on the claim of "no new genetic information" that you cannot see it happening all around you. You refuse to see that increases of genetic material from the smallest such as gene insertion to the largest such as polyploidy followed by mutation upon the copies does precisely what you claim can never happen, even though you admit that the two things can and do happen.

quote:

---

And allow for evolution to take place.

---

Do some research on the evolution of the blood clot cascade and you'll answer your own question.Your argument boils down to this:1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, and equality exists and works, but none of that shows that 1 + 1 = 2.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Coragyps:All right well I guess I cannot dispute this. I am no biology professor so I only have a limited understanding of what you have mentioned. New genetic information seems to have been added. But does this "new genetic information" result in speciation? or does this new information only remain within a specific "kind" or "species"? It seems to me that people in West Africa are as much human as you or I. Not even a new sub species (such as the zebra is to the horse) of humans has speciated or "evolved" due to this slight mutation. And I am also unsure of what the mutation has exactly done to the genes of these people, were new genes actually added, or were old ones simply altered or removed (which could still result in "new" information but I am just curious)?I would like you to give me an example of a mutation that has resulted in actual speciation.Crashfrog:<<"If there's no such test, how can you be sure that all life isn't simply descended from one original "created kind"?">>Well try to think of all of creatures that are and have ever existed on this planet, is there anyway you could think of any ring species that could link say a grasshopper to a buffalo? It is not possible, There are clear and obvious breeding barriers between at least the taxonomic level of "class", but if a clear definition and test for "kind" could be developed these breeding barriers would be defined specifically by "kind".<<"[Ring species is] where you have a linear series of species where each species can interbreed with its neighbours but the first species in the series can't interbreed with the last">>As of right now I have no test to prove that. But what kind of test do evolutionist propose to determine a common ancestor? Because "created kind" is somewhat similar to "common ancestor" (in that all creatures with a certain kind have all descended from a certain common first created kind) it may require a similar test.<<"If entirely new genetic sequences in the organism - such as what happens if a chromosome is duplicated, then mutated - don't represent "new information", then you'll have to explain what you think information is, and what it means to quantify it.">>Evolution cannot happen by chromosome duplication. Did you read my quote and link in my last post?"Somatic doubling does not introduce any new genetic material, but rather produces additional copies of existing chromosomes. This extra DNA must be replicated with each cell division. Enlarged cell size is often associated with polyploids which can result in anatomical imbalances. Other deleterious effects can include erratic bearing, brittle wood, and watery fruit (Sanford, 1983). High level polyploids (e.g. octaploids) can be stunted and malformed, possibly resulting from the extreme genetic redundancy and somatic instability that leads to chimeral tissue."Chromosome duplication does not produce new traits. It creates bigger cells, and can produce bigger than normal plants, but does not produce new genetic traits, or the addition of new genes to the DNA. The DNA does not change. And for evolution to take place the DNA must change.If you are confused by my word use, "new genetic information", then try substituting it with "new genetic material".
Chromosome duplication does not produce new traits. It creates bigger cells, and can produce bigger than normal plants, but does not produce new genetic traits, or the addition of new genes to the DNA. The DNA does not change. And for evolution to take place the DNA must change.If you are confused by my word use, "new genetic information", then try substituting it with "new genetic material".[This message has been edited by some_guy, 12-23-2003]

Are you moving the goalposts? You have been shown that chromosomes can increase. The chromosomes increasing is a falisfication of your "crucial aspect". Therefore kinds, as you were defining them are wrong. Care to try again? A zebra is not a subspecies of a horse. They are all of the same genus (Equus) but all are separate species. Of course there are barriers between classes. But they are only the same barriers that are between species. There are, after all, nothing but species. We then group them into higher things called classes and other groupings. Since the species and genus "barrier" is crossable and there aren't anything different for any taxa above species there aren't any other barriers. The common ancestors are observable in the fossil record. Where are the fossils of your "created kinds"? Correct me if I'm wrong but that post seems to be very muddled. Chromosome doubling has produced new species. Changing the argument to worrying about information doesn't stop them from being new species. Saying that they are in some way weak may be true some of the time but it is not all the time. In any case the claims were, no chromosome increase, no new species, no new traits. They weren't discussing strengths and weaknesses. Once you've admitted to all the past errors then we can move on to this new position that you might be trying to adopt.The chromosome doubled species are not identical to the parent species therefore they have "new traits".Now, if you will admit that much of what you've posted and sited has been wrong we can move on to the arguement about new "information" (I will take it that this means different, novel genetic sequences in the DNA).Once we find a case for novel sequences your last argument is gone isn't it?

Wow, I am amazed at the way you quote someone else without any understanding on your part."Chromosome duplication does not produce new traits. It creates bigger cells, and can produce bigger than normal plants, but does not produce new genetic traits, or the addition of new genes to the DNA. The DNA does not change. And for evolution to take place the DNA must change."1) Trait = a distinguishing feature of your personal (substitute genetic) nature. i.e. above.2) If you are naively thinking of a gene as a linear box then maybe I can understand why you would think "a new gene" had not been added. However, larger than normal plants could require the plant to improve the function of genes necessary for better photosynthesis, root system, etc. i.e. evolving into a new plant3) DNA changes all of the time. Certain blood types are more susceptible/less susceptible to certain diseases (sorry can't recall which ones). I think this would qualify as a DNA change that improves the chances of you living to reproductive age (which is a requirement I believe for natural selection), AND blood type changes happen all of the time.The flaw in your argument is that you are trying to "look" at DNA macroscopically. You are thinking of DNA as though you interchange the pieces like Legos. Just look at the mutations that are more prevalent in a specific ethnicity(not sure if this is the correct word) such as Tay-Sachs and Sickle Cell anemia.You might want to pick a gene, any gene, and go to PubMed (get the URL off of Google, etc) and just read about some of the work that is ongoing in functional genomics. It will make you appreciate the complexity of what you seem to suggest is a no/yes situation.Good Luck.------------------
Two most important senses in life: common and humor.

There is some literature on mouse "chromosomal races" -- different populations of the common house mouse (Mus musculus) have different numbers of chromosomes. Check http://www.pubmed.org for examples -- search for "mouse chromosomal races", though without the "'s. PubMed has abstracts of a lot of biomedical-related stuff, including molecular-evolution work.

We've pointed out that speciation occurs as an accumulation of mutations. What you're asking is akin to asking "I would like you to give me an actual example of a footstep that resulted in traveling to a different city." It's not possible simply because you can't concieve of it? What arrogance! There is more in this universe than you can concieve of, Guy. Like what, exactly? Remember that taxonomic categories are essentially arbitrary groupings of evolutionary "distance", much as "mile", "kilometer", and "city block" are all arbirtary groupings of real distance.What you're saying is that you can walk a city block, but you can't walk a mile. I say that the same process that can carry you to the next block can carry you to the next mile. I keep asking for the barrier that will stop you from walking a mile, and you keep trying to show me, but then we look and it isn't there - every time you postulate where the "kinds" barrier is, I show you evolutionary developments that are crossing it.You can hardly claim that people can't walk a mile if I can show you people who are doing it. Please, continue to read my sentence. I said "chromosome duplication then mutation." Don't just stop at "duplication." If I have the sentence:I have a cat.And I duplicate it:I have a cat. I have a cat.Then I might very well not have new information. But then, if I mutate the new string:I have a cat. I have a hat.Now how is that not new information?And you haven't really answered my question: how do you tell the difference between decendants of one original kind that have lost the ability to interbreed and decendants of two different original kinds that never could interbreed? If you can't tell the difference than you must accept at least the possibility that all life is decended from one original kind - aka a common ancestor.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-24-2003]

This new information - how to make HbC in addition to HbA - doesn't change one species to another. Heck, standard-issue chimpanzee hemoglobin is identical to human HbA. The point is that over, say, 100,000 generations, with little changes like this one every now and again, it's possible to have an outcome where the final product isn't all that similar to the starting organism. Think wolf and Pekingnese - yes, that one had human help, for some inexplicable reason, but it wasn't near as long as 100,000 generations, and you must admit that the product doesn't much resemble the starting point. One "letter" of the DNA code in the starting gene changed, which changed one amino acid in the hemoglobin that the gene coded for. And this new, different hemoglobin does some things in the presence of malaria parasites that the original doesn't do.

quote:

---

We observe populations that once could interbreed - were once even the same population - stop being able to interbreed as a result of accumulating change through mutation. It's called "speciation". How can you talk about "created kinds" if new "kinds" - under your proposed definition - arise all the time through observed processes?

---

Crashfrog, you yourself have actually observed all of this speciation occuring? Gee, are you sure you aren't relying upon authority at all for that claim? In fact, you even say "we"...who is this "we" you are referring to???? Surely not any competent authorities in the field.**********************************
PS: To try to head off at least one of Crashfrog's predictable childish counters, I am absolutely not claiming that species don't arise in nature frequently by reproductive isolation; just that Crashfrog is relying upon authority when making that statement, despite his/her arguments against doing such in a another thread.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-27-2003]

quote:

---

What about processes that add totally new base sequences? Do those add new "information" (whatever that is)?

---

Crashfrog, have you yourself observed the actual before and after nitrogenous base sequences of DNA, witnessing first hand the addition of new "information"? Gee, are you sure you're not relying upon authority at all in your claim?***********************************
PS: To try to head off at least one of Crashfrog's predictable "counters", I am not claiming that information is not added to genomes by changes in base sequences, just that Crashfrog is relying upon authority in her argument, despite his/her arguments against doing such in another thread.