|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,506 Year: 3,763/9,624 Month: 634/974 Week: 247/276 Day: 19/68 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Grape Ape Inactive Member |
salty writes: Information must have a source and there is virtually no evidence that new information has been added during the differentiation of the genera Pan,Gorilla,Pongo and Homo. In fact I can't think of an example demonstrating the addition of meaningful new specific information anywhere. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. I'll be glad to enlighten you, but it's not anything that can't be found by doing a quick PubMed search.
Birth of two chimeric genes in the Hominidae lineage. quote: Accelerated Protein Evolution and Origins of Human-Specific Features. Foxp2 as an example. quote: The Tre2 (USP6) oncogene is a hominoid-specific gene. quote: _____________ These are just a few examples of unique genes within human beings (many more will be found when Pan gets sequenced). You're saying that all "information" was already there prior to the divergence of Homo, Pan, Gorilla, etc.. So where did the new ones in Homo come from? It seems to me that your claim about new "information" is easily refuted by two commonly observed phenomenon in comparative genomics: 1) The tendancy for novel genes to exist uniquely in some species, but not in any closely related species (PMCHL1, PMCHL2, and Tre2 are a few examples from above.) Please note that if you're going to claim that the other species lost this gene from the original "information", then you're talking about multiple parallelisms. There is also clear-cut evidence for recent origin in many of these cases. 2) The tendancy for homologous genes to have different sequences and functions in closely related organisms (FOXP2 from above). Clearly an example of new information. Starting with "A" in a common ancestor and then ending up with "A" and "B" in its descendants is about as clear-cut as it gets. So both paralogues and orthologues have to be accounted for. Now either it's obvious that new information has arisen since the common ancestor of the great apes, or you're using a definition of information that's not biologically relevant. Using the two most common definitions of information as used by information theorists (Shannon information and Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity) it's been demonstrated that mutation and selection are perfectly capable of increasing information. If you're using "information" differently, then you'll have to give it a rigorous definition, show why it can't (or hasn't) increased, and explain how it's relevant to biological organisms. As far as I'm concerned, the only relevant metric of information -- that is, the addition of functional complexity (akin to Kolmorgorov-Chaitin complexity) -- can easily be shown to have increased by the above examples. And there are many others, some of which you can find here. Please note also that many of these novel genes have tell-tale signs of recent origin, especially the retrogenes. What's ironic here is that most ID-types claim that new information has been added but that mutation and selection are somehow incapable of doing the job. It really can't be both. You can't both have new information, but no way of getting it, and then have no new information. Of course neither one is true. But it's always fun to see mutually exclusive claims coming from the ID camp. [This message has been edited by Grape Ape, 03-20-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grape Ape Inactive Member |
salty writes: Sure you can. Maybe the information was already present and simply repressed as it so obviously is in ontogeny. Um, repressed to the point of nonexistence? The examples I pointed out simply do not exist in non-human apes. We're not talking about a case of a "turned-off" gene or anything like that. We're talking about a gene in Homo that is coding and functional versus the complete absence of any such gene in Pan or other great apes. And it's not as if we don't know how these new genes evolve. Salty, I don't think anyone doubts that chromosomal rearrangements can cause some phenotypic change (other than lethality). But to claim that they are the only method of phenotypic change, you would have to ignore the plethora of site-directed mutagenesis experiments, knock-out experiments, directed protein evolution, and observed instances of selection both in the lab and in the wild. In short, you'd have to ignore nearly everything we know about molecular evolution. Furthermore, how do you establish that the rearrangements that we've had are anywhere close to sufficient? The karyotypes between humans and chimps are highly similar. The biggest difference is the Robersonian fusion of chromosome 2. And I believe that there are a few arm translocations. But it ain't much. The fossil record shows that we've gone through quite a few intermediate stages since our divergence from Pan. How do account for that with a handful of rearrangements?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grape Ape Inactive Member |
peter writes: PB: this is GUToB rule #3 Hi Peter. I'm afraid I don't have time to go hunting for whatever the GUToB is. It seems to me simply that you could address things in terms of current molecular knowledge -- especially as it applies to salty's claims -- and just leave it at that. But since it seems that you've been given a vacation, I'll just address a few points quickly.
PB: The genes you call unique have been derived from preexisting DNA elements, as predicted by GUToB. Well of course they've been derived from existing DNA elements. They are the result of gene duplication and the incorporation of non-coding elements into coding regions, among other things. The point is simply that they represent an increase in information via natural means. Salty has claimed that there hasn't been any new information. And the rest of the ID movement claims it couldn't have happened by natural means. They're both wrong.
In addition, it is highly unlikely that such genes arrived by random muations and selection (one can calculate a bit on it) and thus I advocate a non-random mechanism. LOL! It has been calculated, and they're perfectly capable of arising through random mutation and selection. Just read some of the papers.
Indeed, mechanism for non-random mutations (NRM) have recently been described. For an overview of NRM see Caporale's book "Darwin in the genome" and (almost) all my threads. From reading reviews of Caporale, it doesn't appear that she advocates any non-random (with respect to fitness) mutational mechanisms. Instead she points out mutational mechanisms that are more likely to produce an adaptive effect, rather than those that "intentionally" strive for a particular result. It shouldn't come as a surprise from a Darwinian standpoint that molecular mechanisms that are more likely to produce good phenotypes will themselves spread. But that's something entirely different from a mechanism that intentionally hits a prespecified target in response to certain evironmental cues. Corporale appears to be every bit as Darwinist as myself. The only such "adaptive mutation" that's ever been seen to occur is that from the work of Barry Hall. It was thought for a time that these might indeed be some sort of Lamarkian evolution, but it's since been discovered that they're fully Darwinian. I'm afraid there are no known mechanisms of the kind you seem to be alluding to.
You didn't get it. Functional DNA elements do not just drop out of the sky (that would falsify the GUToB). The 'novel' genes have been derived from preexisting DNA elements and are most likley re-assembled through NRM. Probably, there are gene-generating mechanisms in the genome. Well of course they don't drop out of the sky. Are you not aware of existing models for gene evolution? Most of them rely on duplication of existing elements, because that allows for redundancy, which allows for new functions to be added while old ones are retained. And then mechanisms like exon-suffling and transposition help create new genes by mixing and matching functional domains. The point is simply that they add "information" and complexity to the genome, contrary to salty's claims. Whatever it is that you're advocating, it doesn't seem any different than the standard mainstream evolutionary view, other than the fact that you're tossing "non-random" mutation in there for no good reason. And if you want an example of a gene that does appear to "drop out of the sky", check out turf-13. It's a functional gene that came from entirely non-coding sequences.
PB: If the genes are really novel you would be right. But they are not. They are derived from preexisting DNA elements. How are you defining "novel". Given that it's not really possible for a gene to come from something that wasn't an existing DNA element, this is not a useful meaning of the term. What are you looking for, some DNA that forms de novo from carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen? The whole point of evolution is that DNA comes from existing DNA, but that it can change or duplicate, resulting in creatures that are different than the DNA that they came from. You could keep moving the goal posts all the way back to the origin of life, but this is irrelevant to our current discussion (which incidentally, salty seems to have limited only to metazoans). I'm using the term "novel" to mean a new and unique function, one that was not carried out by the DNA element from which the new gene came. They examples I provided and many others show that this can and does happen quite a bit. That's enough to falsify salty's claim to "no new information". Not to mention the core claim of the ID movement.
The recent origin of such genes make it highly doubtful that they arose through a random mechanism. For instance the gene in the LCR16a segment (Johnson et al, Nature 2001, 413;514-19). That paper doesn't support your claims at all. The copies of this gene share 98% sequnce identity. If you want to find evidence against mutation and selection, find a gene of recent origin that has no homology to any known gene or non-coding squence. As it is, the authors drew up an nice little phylogenetic tree showing this gene's origin, and that of its paralogues in other apes. And there is not the slightest hint of evidence that this gene required "non-random" mutation. You are probably talking about the fact that the substitution rate for the coding sequences was higher than that of the neutral sequences. Well guess what? That's what's expected from positive Darwinian selection. And that's exactly what the authors say. They were measuring positive selection, not the mutation rate. And you might want to check out their recent paper for a model of the evolution of this gene family.
PB: The duplication-divergence mechanism sounds reasonable but cannot be the origin of the members of the Src-phosphatase family: point mutations give non-viable phenotypes (while knockouts are viable). In fact this family falsifies the evolutionary vision. Cite please. There are an awful lot of Src proteins. Which protein(s) was knocked-out? On which protein(s) were mutations performed? Did they do saturation mutagenesis, or just mutations on the catalytic site? Based on your misunderstanding of the previous paper (and the one below), I strongly doubt that the literature on Src supports your claims in any fashion.
PB: My still unaddressed question I've asked almost a year ago: When a functional redundant gene is knocked out is there a loss of information? Depends on how you define information. In most cases, yes.
It should be noted that redundant genes do not have an association with gene duplication and do not mutate faster. (in: A genetic uncertainty problem by D. Tautz, TiG 2000; 16:475-7) Did you read further than the first two sentences of the abstract?
quote: Indeed, the point of this paper is to explain in evolutionary terms why these redundancies exist. By making it look like an unsolved mystery, you are giving people the impression that this is somehow an uncrossable barrier for evolution. You are using an old creationist tactic, and discrediting yourself in the process. Furthermore, if you know anything about knock-outs, you'll realize why they're not always a good way to detect function. Laboratory organisms are kept under strictly controled conditions, such that any subtle effects which might be important in the wild will not matter in the lab. Knock-outs are best for detecting essential genes or those that affect gross morphology, but are limited in detecting other functions. The paper you cite makes that exact point too:
quote: Good grief man, why are you asking me to explain this for you when the paper you cite has the answers?
PB: Apparently biological information can not be defined that way, since non-phenotype knockouts are rather the rule than exceptions. But did you take them to the opera? The examples I cited have an obvious function. For some of them, the function is still unknown. But in any case where you have a biological function being determined by a DNA sequence, you've got information as far as I'm concerned.
PB: What is the selective constraint to keep redundancies stable in the genome? Try reading the paper you cited. It answers that question quite nicely. [This message has been edited by Grape Ape, 03-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grape Ape Inactive Member |
salty writes: There are far more differences in the karyotypes of man and his living relatives than you claim. I can easily see a dozen between man and chimp. That's fine, but you have to demonstrate that all of them have major phenotypic effects, and even then it's probably not enough. Given the nearly identical phenotypes of various chromosomal races among other animals (like Mus cited earlier -- dozens of such examples are known), it seems unlikely that any more than a small percentage of any translocation, fusion, etc. is going to have a major effect.
quote: The problem is, I'm pretty sure that there have been a lot more than just a dozen. (It would actually only be six for H. sapiens and six for Pan since our divergence from a common ancestor, assuming that these karyotype changes were equally likely to happen in each lineage.) I'm not sure what the latest count on human ancestors is, but it's getting close to a dozen if it hasn't already surpassed that. And our record for now only goes back a couple of million years and is mostly absent in the 4-6 million years immediately after our divergence with Pan. So the true number of recognizable intermediate steps is far larger than the scant but informative record that we have to deal with. Even if we assume that each chromosomal change constitutes a morphological change, and as before we certainly can't assume that, we're still not going to account for all of the steps between ourselves and our LCA with chimps. And moreover, the steps do not seem to be very discrete. There is quite a lot of difference between early erectus and late erectus for instance, and between archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grape Ape Inactive Member |
salty writes: I still maintain that the best explanation for the emergence of true species does not require the addition of new information which has been generated through mutation and selection. I would say that anytime you start with one species, and then you end up with two species, you've automatically got an increase in information. Just like almost any mutation will increase the information content of the gene pool. Please keep in mind the particular way in which a genome is organized also contains information. If you don't agree, then what you're saying in effect is that any collection of a set number of A, T, C, and Gs contains the same information as any other. Obviously, that's not the case. Gene order is important in some cases for how the genome works (and certainly the order of nucleotides within a gene is), and I don't think anyone doubts that chromosomal rearrangements can be important in evolution. They're not the only thing that's important mind you, but why you would claim that they represent "no new information" puzzles me. Are you really saying that if you started with a genome of size X with a given sequence, and then you rearragned it numerous times to create millions of other genomes of size X but with different sequences, that you haven't gained any information? Please note that it's possible to get absolutely any sequence you want, as long as the relative abundance of nucleotides remains the same, simply by rearranging a genome if you do it enough times. It just doesn't figure that you can't get information by rearrangement. The irony here is that if rearranging the genome really couldn't change its information content, according to either Shannon theory or Kolmorgorov-Chaitin, then it would have almost no information at all. (In case anyone's wondering, a low Shannon-information genome would extremely simple, like containing nothing but As, whereas a low K-C information genome would be a near-random collection of nucleotides. It's only in cases like these that rearrangments wouldn't matter.) If you want to continue with the information claim, you've got to do what I suggested earlier on this thread, and that's provide a rigorous metric of information that's relevant to biology. Maybe you've tried to do so in one of your papers, but regardless you should briefly do so here. I'll admit that I haven't read through all of your papers (nor am I likely to do so) but there's no reason why I should have to put myself through that. I haven't read any of Claude Shannon's papers either, but I have no trouble understanding Shannon information when it's explained in layman's terms.
I want a demonstration that selection of mutations (other than reorganization of existing information) can produce true species. I just don't see it anywhere. I am not going to endorse a mechanism that has been tested to death like the mutation/selection model of neoDarwinism. There comes a time when it must be abandoned. Okay, how do you define "True Speices"? Is that similar to how some people define "True Christianity", which is to say whatever they think it is whenever it suits them? Are you not aware the the very concept of species is itself problematic? By hanging your claims on what does and doesn't constitute speciation, you've set yourself up a moveable goal post. It would be more fruitful to focus on adaptive morphological and genetic change, which is the really interesting part of evolution IMO. People have already posted examples of speciation that did not require chromosomal rearragnements. What's wong with those? Once again, we run into a bit of irony. The whole reason that the definition of a species is hard to pin down is because of evolution. Species don't suddenly cleave asunder as your hypothesis seems to maintain that they should. Rather they tease apart slowly, and we often witness them in any one of a myriad of stages during that teasing. I for one think that they can also separate rapidly under certain circumstances, but the fact that they don't always do this would seem to defeat your hypothesis.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024