Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,331 Year: 3,588/9,624 Month: 459/974 Week: 72/276 Day: 23/49 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF against evolution
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6493 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 166 of 562 (79391)
01-19-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by DNAunion
01-17-2004 11:00 AM


Re: 98%
quote:
Another way to remember the difference is that EXons are EXpressed, and INTrons are INTervening sequences.
Also, technically, introns and exons related to RNA, not DNA.
To nitpick, introns are also "expressed" i.e. transcribed, but are spliced out as a posttranscriptional modification.
Also, not all exons make it into the protein for example the prion gene has 2-3 exons, the entire ORF contained ona single exon.
re chimp-human sequence divergence, there was a recent paper that suggested a much higher divergence in sequences when indels are taken into account. This will have to be factored in once the chimp genome sequence is completed.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15; 99(21): 13633-5. Epub 2002 Oct 04. Related Articles, Links
Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels.
Britten RJ.
California Institute of Technology, 101 Dahlia Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625, USA. rbritten@cco.caltech.edu
Five chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences (described in GenBank) have been compared with the best matching regions of the human genome sequence to assay the amount and kind of DNA divergence. The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels. The gaps in alignment are present in about equal amounts in the chimp and human sequences. They occur equally in repeated and nonrepeated sequences, as detected by REPEATMASKER (http://ftp.genome.washington.edu/RM/RepeatMasker.html).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by DNAunion, posted 01-17-2004 11:00 AM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by DNAunion, posted 01-19-2004 7:33 PM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 168 by sfs, posted 01-19-2004 10:00 PM Mammuthus has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 562 (79500)
01-19-2004 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Mammuthus
01-19-2004 10:28 AM


Re: 98%
quote:
DNAunion: Also, technically, introns and exons related to RNA, not DNA.
quote:
sfs: I don't know how they were originally defined (since I have no formal training in genetics), but intron and exon are routinely used to describe DNA in current genetics literature.
You’re right. (Also, I wasn't talking about historically: "related", with a "d", was a typo: I meant relate but didn't go back and proofread my post very well: so I might have confused things even more).
Exons and introns are terms that relate directly to RNA since for a primary RNA transcript, EXons are EXpressed sequences (they remain in the RNA after splicing has occurred) and INtrons are INtervening sequences (they are excised from the primary RNA transcript). Off the top of my head, I thought that referring to the DNA regions that map to RNA exons and introns as being actual exons and introns was informal, since the excision of introns and splicing together of exons occurs in RNA, not in DNA (and thus, supposedly, the terms would technically refer only to RNA). However, I checked and found I was wrong: the terms exons and introns refer to either the RNA or the DNA regions, without the latter being informal usage.
quote:
DNAunion: Another way to remember the difference is that EXons are EXpressed, and INTrons are INTervening sequences.
Also, technically, introns and exons related to RNA, not DNA.
quote:
Mammuthus: To nitpick, introns are also "expressed" i.e. transcribed, but are spliced out as a posttranscriptional modification.
Sorry, but I’m going to have to deny your nitpick.
I didn’t say introns weren’t transcribed, I said they weren’t expressed. It is clear from my last sentence in the quote that I am quite aware that introns are found in RNA (having been transcribed from corresponding DNA regions, of course). So it’s clear that what you meant by expressed is not what I meant by expressed: hence, nitpick rejected.
In fact, as I will show below, biology texts often times state what I did: that exons are expressed while introns are intervening sequences.
But first, let’s also look at the overall context. A primary RNA transcript has regions that are EXcised and regions that are left IN. So obviously, EXons are the regions that are EXcised and INtrons are the regions left IN. Right? Wrong. That’s completely backwards. The original poster was offering a way for someone to remember whether exons or introns are excised: I offered another way, one that is often times mentioned in biology texts. So the context is that we were after a simple way to remember which-is-which, and, EXons are EXpressed and INtrons are INtervening sequences: that works, and is used by many biology texts.
quote:
The noncoding regions within the gene are called introns (intervening sequences), as opposed to exons (expressed sequences). (bold in original, Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R Berg, & Diana W Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p278-279)
quote:
Such nucleotide segments have been called intervening sequences, contained within split genes. Those DNA sequences that are not represented in the final mRNA product are also called introns (int for intervening), and those retained and expressed are called exons ( ex for expressed). (Concepts of Genetics: Fifth Edition, William S Klug & Michael R Cummings, Prentice Hall, 1997, p344)
PS: Thanks for the additional info on human vs. chimp DNA similarity that included indels.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-19-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Mammuthus, posted 01-19-2004 10:28 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Mammuthus, posted 01-20-2004 3:22 AM DNAunion has not replied

sfs
Member (Idle past 2552 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 168 of 562 (79517)
01-19-2004 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Mammuthus
01-19-2004 10:28 AM


quote:
re chimp-human sequence divergence, there was a recent paper that suggested a much higher divergence in sequences when indels are taken into account. This will have to be factored in once the chimp genome sequence is completed.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15; 99(21): 13633-5. Epub 2002 Oct 04. Related Articles, Links
Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels.
Yeah, that was the paper I was referring to when I mentioned indels. I was just too lazy to look it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Mammuthus, posted 01-19-2004 10:28 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6493 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 169 of 562 (79534)
01-20-2004 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by DNAunion
01-19-2004 7:33 PM


Re: 98%
Hi DNAunion
There are in some cases, expressed introns
DNA Res. 2000 Feb 28; 7(1): 27-30. Related Articles, Links
mRNAs encoding zinc finger protein isoforms are expressed by alternative splicing of an in-frame intron in fission yeast.
Okazaki K, Niwa O.
Kazusa DNA Research Institute, Kisarazu, Chiba, Japan. kokazaki@kazusa.or.jp
We report here that a gene encoding a protein with three zinc fingers is expressed predominantly to produce a protein containing only two zinc fingers in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. A third zinc finger resides within the in-frame intron that is normally spliced out. By RT-PCR analysis, we detected a minor transcript encoding a protein with three zinc fingers. Such alternative splicing for assortment of zinc finger domains have been reported in animals and implicated in switching of the target genes expressed specifically during development. This is the first report of the occurrence of such zinc finger assortment in lower eucaryotes.
Another issue, if one studies gene expression, one can examine total RNA or mRNA. Total RNA will measure transcripts containing introns which have been expressed, hence gene expression. This is different from actually making a protein which does not necessarily correlate all that well with total mRNA levels in any case.
There are even functional genes in introns
Biochem J. 2002 Aug 1; 365(Pt 3): 833-40. Related Articles, Links
An open reading frame in intron seven of the sea urchin DNA-methyltransferase gene codes for a functional AP1 endonuclease.
Cioffi AV, Ferrara D, Cubellis MV, Aniello F, Corrado M, Liguori F, Amoroso A, Fucci L, Branno M.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Stazione Zoologica A. Dohrn, Villa Comunale 80121 Naples, Italy.
Analysis of the genome structure of the Paracentrotus lividus (sea urchin) DNA methyltransferase (DNA MTase) gene showed the presence of an open reading frame, named METEX, in intron 7 of the gene. METEX expression is developmentally regulated, showing no correlation with DNA MTase expression. In fact, DNA MTase transcripts are present at high concentrations in the early developmental stages, while METEX is expressed at late stages of development. Two METEX cDNA clones (Met1 and Met2) that are different in the 3' end have been isolated in a cDNA library screening. The putative translated protein from Met2 cDNA clone showed similarity with Escherichia coli endonuclease III on the basis of sequence and predictive three-dimensional structure. The protein, overexpressed in E. coli and purified, had functional properties similar to the endonuclease specific for apurinic/apyrimidinic (AP) sites on the basis of the lyase activity. Therefore the open reading frame, present in intron 7 of the P. lividus DNA MTase gene, codes for a functional AP endonuclease designated SuAP1.
RNA. 2000 Apr; 6(4): 616-27. Related Articles, Links
Expression of the Naegleria intron endonuclease is dependent on a functional group I self-cleaving ribozyme.
Decatur WA, Johansen S, Vogt VM.
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA.
NaSSU1 is a complex nuclear group I intron found in several species of Naegleria, consisting of a large self-splicing group I ribozyme (NaGIR2), which itself is interrupted by a small, group I-like ribozyme (NaGIR1) and an open reading frame (ORF) coding for a homing endonuclease. The GIR1 ribozyme cleaves in vitro transcripts of NaSSU1 at two internal processing sites about 400 nt downstream of the 5' end of the intron, proximal to the endonuclease ORF. Here we demonstrate that self-cleavage of the excised intron also occurs in vivo in Naegleria gruberi, generating an ORF-containing RNA that possesses a short leader with a sequence element likely to be involved in gene expression. To assess the functional significance of self-cleavage, we constructed a genetic system in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. First, a mutant yeast strain was selected with a mutation in all the rRNA genes, rendering the rDNA resistant to cleavage by the Naegleria endonuclease. Active endonuclease, which is otherwise lethal, could be expressed readily in these cells. Endonuclease activity also could be detected in extracts of yeast harboring plasmids in which the endonuclease ORF was embedded in its native context in the intron. Analysis of the RNA from these yeast cells showed that the excised intron RNA was processed as in N. gruberi. A mutant intron constructed to prevent self-cleavage of the RNA failed to express endonuclease activity. These results support the hypothesis that the NaGIR1-catalyzed self-cleavage of the intron RNA is a key event in expression of the endonuclease.
The problem with science textbooks is they are too general and usually take to long to update given the rapid pace of science and the near futility of keeping up with the primary literature.
RE: chimp human comparisons, as I understand it, how the comparisons are made is still controversial. Some only compare expressed sequences like EST sequences. Whether the initial studies will include transposons, HERVs, microsatellites, etc. is not clear..but inclusion will be essential ultimately in getting an accurate measure of the human-chimp genomic differences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by DNAunion, posted 01-19-2004 7:33 PM DNAunion has not replied

sonicxp
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 562 (85547)
02-11-2004 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Andya Primanda
04-14-2003 5:12 AM


chlorphyll
you do know that oxygen is a prime component of chlorophyll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-14-2003 5:12 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by NosyNed, posted 02-11-2004 8:55 PM sonicxp has not replied
 Message 172 by Coragyps, posted 02-11-2004 9:41 PM sonicxp has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 171 of 562 (85548)
02-11-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by sonicxp
02-11-2004 8:53 PM


Re: chlorphyll
And your point is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by sonicxp, posted 02-11-2004 8:53 PM sonicxp has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 172 of 562 (85572)
02-11-2004 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by sonicxp
02-11-2004 8:53 PM


Re: chlorphyll
you do know that oxygen is a prime component of chlorophyll
In what way? Five atoms of oxygen out of about 135 total in chlorophyll a; one as a ring ketone, the others in ester linkages on side chains. How is that a "prime component?"
Oh, and hello, new person!
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 02-11-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by sonicxp, posted 02-11-2004 8:53 PM sonicxp has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by NosyNed, posted 02-11-2004 10:06 PM Coragyps has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 173 of 562 (85586)
02-11-2004 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Coragyps
02-11-2004 9:41 PM


Re: chlorphyll
Ah, I get it. Welcome sonicxp.
I think you are confused about free oxygen and oxygen bound in any chemicals. There was no free oxygen until living things formed it. There was, obviously, lots of oxygen in various compounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Coragyps, posted 02-11-2004 9:41 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by sonicxp, posted 02-12-2004 9:39 AM NosyNed has not replied

sonicxp
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 562 (85726)
02-12-2004 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by NosyNed
02-11-2004 10:06 PM


Re: chlorphyll
Thought that one would get your attention.
Then tell if oxygen is found in other molecules eg. h20. then tell me the way I did my chemistry, the way to get a ketone is to allow a alcohol to semi-oxidise. if you know another way. please tell.
if you read that article closely, they only produced very few amino acids in very small quantities, the other products were destructive to the amino acids so they couldn't exist without human influence to isolate the amino acids.
Thanks for greeting me too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by NosyNed, posted 02-11-2004 10:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by AdminNosy, posted 02-12-2004 10:09 AM sonicxp has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 175 of 562 (85735)
02-12-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by sonicxp
02-12-2004 9:39 AM


Summary
(sory should have been NosyNed)
I've only been half following this. It would be helpful to back up and summarize where we are at.
[This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-12-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by sonicxp, posted 02-12-2004 9:39 AM sonicxp has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2004 10:14 AM AdminNosy has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 176 of 562 (85738)
02-12-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by AdminNosy
02-12-2004 10:09 AM


evolution?
This thread was, once upon a time in a galaxy far away, "proof against evolution". However, the poster who opened it was aptly named.
If you are actually arguing something about abiogenesis rather than evolution you could tidy up with a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by AdminNosy, posted 02-12-2004 10:09 AM AdminNosy has not replied

sonicxp
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 562 (86388)
02-15-2004 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by lpetrich
04-14-2003 11:21 PM


Excuse me, but were you there - if you were actually there it would be called science. but if you weren't, it is called a religion - you believe that that is the way the world was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lpetrich, posted 04-14-2003 11:21 PM lpetrich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:33 AM sonicxp has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 562 (86390)
02-15-2004 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by sonicxp
02-15-2004 4:16 AM


Excuse me, but were you there
No, but the rocks we're looking at were. It's called "evidence", and it's how courts are able to convict people of crimes that were not witnessed.
You don't have to have been there, because you can be there where the evidence is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by sonicxp, posted 02-15-2004 4:16 AM sonicxp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by sonicxp, posted 02-16-2004 9:30 PM crashfrog has replied

sonicxp
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 562 (86793)
02-16-2004 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 4:33 AM


have you read your 'scientific method' lately. Just in case heres a link:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/...ppendixE/AppendixE.html
For something to be science, it must be observable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2004 9:34 PM sonicxp has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 180 of 562 (86795)
02-16-2004 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by sonicxp
02-16-2004 9:30 PM


For something to be science, it must be observable.
uh, yeah. I know. And processes happening in the past leave evidence that you can observe, in the present.
If I hold a rock in front of your face, and do tests on it right in front of you, what's not observable about that? You've observed the whole damn thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by sonicxp, posted 02-16-2004 9:30 PM sonicxp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by sonicxp, posted 02-17-2004 5:25 AM crashfrog 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