Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adding information to the genome.
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 46 of 280 (532243)
10-22-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Jack
10-22-2009 5:55 AM


Now, the -lactalbumin gene has substantial sequence similarity to a gene family that code for lysozymes (specifically to Ca2+ binding c-lysozymes).
The material I found suggested the similarity was in the order of 35-40%. Hardly "substantial" when you consider human and mouse DNA is 92% similar.
The calcium-binding lysozyme that's so strikingly similar to -lactalbumin isn't present in humans, is it? So it has to be a case of gene duplication followed by "whoops, we've lost one".
All in all, not a great example of growing the genome through gene duplication.
Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2009 5:55 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2009 9:56 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2009 10:02 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 47 of 280 (532255)
10-22-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Kaichos Man
10-22-2009 9:13 AM


The material I found suggested the similarity was in the order of 35-40%. Hardly "substantial" when you consider human and mouse DNA is 92% similar.
Either the source you read was wrong, or you misunderstood. 40% of the sequence is identical, the rest is very similar.
The calcium-binding lysozyme that's so strikingly similar to -lactalbumin isn't present in humans, is it? So it has to be a case of gene duplication followed by "whoops, we've lost one".
I don't know for certain whether it's present in humans, but it is most certainly present in other mammals. It's possible we've subsequently lost it, but that is hardly relevant to the point, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-22-2009 9:13 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 5:58 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(2)
Message 48 of 280 (532256)
10-22-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Kaichos Man
10-22-2009 9:13 AM


An aside on similarity
As an aside, on this:
Hardly "substantial" when you consider human and mouse DNA is 92% similar.
Gene similarity is a concept that has many different ways of being understood. When scientists talk about similarity between individual genes they are usually talking about aligned sequence similarity - that is you place the two genomes and look for the base pairs that are identical and occur in the same order and count matches. Figures such as the 92% mouse DNA figure come from a completely different method which simply involves dropping DNA from both into solution and measuring temperature changes. These methods give completely different numbers.
Then there's the relatedness figures given for siblings - 50% of your DNA with your brother, etc. - these are looking only at genes that vary between individuals in one of the possible populations. Different numbers again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-22-2009 9:13 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 6:03 AM Dr Jack has not replied

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


Message 49 of 280 (532309)
10-22-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Kaichos Man
10-22-2009 7:44 AM


Doesn't it sound triumphant? Can't you see Charlie standing there, jut-jawed and resolute, beating back the hordes of bleating Creationists?
Unfortunately, the paragraph finishes:
However, it is now clear that the mammary gland did not evolve from a brood pouch [1].
Laugh!
Yes, after 150 years of research scientists know more about biology than Charles Darwin did. This is because scientists can find stuff out.
They also think that creationists are a bunch of shambling halfwits, and that creationism is a load of driveling crap. This is because scientists can find stuff out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-22-2009 7:44 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 50 of 280 (532319)
10-22-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kaichos Man
10-20-2009 8:41 AM


deleted
- deleted by Briterican -
Edited by Briterican, : Added nothing to the discussion. Please accept my self-censorship as an apology.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-20-2009 8:41 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 5:50 AM Briterican has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 51 of 280 (532326)
10-22-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Modulous
10-22-2009 8:59 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
Hi Modulus,
The origin and evolution of lactation, Anthony V Capuco and R Michael Akers
Yep, I just googled it and found the source. They go on to discuss the evolutionary history of lactation and where it fits in the tree of descent from common ancestors:
quote:
Lactation appears to be an ancient reproductive feature that pre-dates the origin of mammals. A cogent theory for the evolution of the mammary gland and lactation has been provided by Olav Oftedal [1]. The features of current mammals were gradually accrued through radiations of synapsid ancestors, and the mammary gland is hypothesized to have evolved from apocrine-like glands associated with hair follicles (Figure 1). Oftedal suggests that these glands evolved from providing primarily moisture and antimicrobials to parchment-shelled eggs to the role of supplying nutrients for offspring. Fossil evidence indicates that some of the therapsids and the mammalia-formes, which were present during the Triassic period more than 200 million years ago, produced a nutrient-rich milk-like secretion.

It's just classic creationists, quote mining from the introduction of a paper in which the authors attempt to define the problem that they wish to discuss. The structure of the paper is:
Yes, the fact that original ideas may not be correct in details, and that later evidence and increased knowledge can result in revisions of such ideas is an integral basal concept in science that seems to escape some people.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 10-22-2009 8:59 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 6:44 AM RAZD has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 52 of 280 (532354)
10-22-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
10-22-2009 8:05 AM


Crappy subtitle
The origin of mammary glands and lactation is certainly a new and interesting theme at this forum. How about having a subtitle that will show up in the topic message index (which Percy promises will return some day). Such may be useful in making this little gem stand out in the sea of the other messages.
Or something like that.
No replies to this message.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2009 8:05 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


(1)
Message 53 of 280 (532383)
10-23-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Briterican
10-22-2009 5:53 PM


Re: deleted
Edited by Briterican, 23-Oct-2009 9:40 AM: Added nothing to the discussion. Please accept my self-censorship as an apology.
Oh, don't be so self-deprecating, Briterican. Adding nothing to the discussion never stopped Doctor Adequate...

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Briterican, posted 10-22-2009 5:53 PM Briterican has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 54 of 280 (532389)
10-23-2009 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Jack
10-22-2009 9:56 AM


It's possible we've subsequently lost it, but that is hardly relevant to the point, is it?
It is when the point is adding information to the genome. Losing one gene and gaining another puts you back at even.
Incidentally, some of the research suggested the a-lactalbumin gene evolved from Ca++ lysozyme, but most of it suggested they both evolved from a 'common ancestor' gene. Can you cast any light on this?

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2009 9:56 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Blue Jay, posted 10-23-2009 11:20 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 55 of 280 (532390)
10-23-2009 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
10-22-2009 10:02 AM


Re: An aside on similarity
Figures such as the 92% mouse DNA figure come from a completely different method which simply involves dropping DNA from both into solution and measuring temperature changes. These methods give completely different numbers.
You learn something new every day. While I don't doubt that what yousay is true, there are significant "ultraconserved" areas of identical sequence between humans and mice aren't there? (Not suggesting they are anything like the order of 92%, but it's interesting).

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2009 10:02 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 56 of 280 (532392)
10-23-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Modulous
10-22-2009 8:59 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
Two hundred years after Darwin's birth, the theory of evolution by natural selection remains a cornerstone of biology, as it has withstood this and other challenges
You, and Mr Jack, and RADZ, fail to see the point of the humour. It's not that Darwin got it wrong. It's that this scientist decided to make an editorial point about the theory and used, as it turned out, a very poor example to do so.
I don't know if you're old enough to have been exposed to Monty Python, but it's in the same vein as:
"They said I was mad to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it anyway- just to show them!...it sank into the swamp...

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 10-22-2009 8:59 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Jack, posted 10-23-2009 6:40 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 57 of 280 (532396)
10-23-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Kaichos Man
10-23-2009 6:19 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
It's not that Darwin got it wrong. It's that this scientist decided to make an editorial point about the theory and used, as it turned out, a very poor example to do so.
Um, no.
Do you read many scientific papers, Kaichos Man? What you've identified as "an editorial point" is actually the part of the paper that might be characterised as the "literature review". It's normal practice in these to discuss the historical context of the research into which the paper fits. This often, maybe even usually, includes a quick overview of once popular ideas that turned out to be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 6:19 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


(1)
Message 58 of 280 (532397)
10-23-2009 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
10-22-2009 6:28 PM


Re: laugh first think second?
Lactation appears to be an ancient reproductive feature that pre-dates the origin of mammals.
"Appears to be". Uh-huh.
A cogent theory for the evolution of the mammary gland and lactation has been provided
Oh good. Cogent. We can relax.
The features of current mammals were gradually accrued through radiations of synapsid ancestors
What, no "Once upon a time, long, long ago"?
and the mammary gland is hypothesized to have evolved from apocrine-like glands associated with hair follicles
Oh dear, an hypothesis. Let's hope it's cogent.
Oftedal suggests that these glands evolved from providing primarily moisture and antimicrobials to parchment-shelled eggs
Oh dear. He's got the proto-mammal suckling an egg on her hair follicle. Cogency alert!
Fossil evidence indicates that some of the therapsids and the mammalia-formes, which were present during the Triassic period more than 200 million years ago, produced a nutrient-rich milk-like secretion.
Amazing! 200 million year old fossils, and not only can they tell that they secreted stuff, they even know what was in it!
later evidence and increased knowledge can result in revisions of such ideas
Hmm. You know, I'm starting to like Darwin's version more and more...
Enjoy.
I did. Immensely.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2009 6:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 12:37 PM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 62 by Dr Jack, posted 10-23-2009 2:19 PM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2009 8:23 PM Kaichos Man has replied

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


(2)
Message 59 of 280 (532422)
10-23-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Kaichos Man
10-23-2009 5:58 AM


Addition of Information
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
Losing one gene and gaining another puts you back at even.
So, you agree that information can be added, as long as other information is taken away simultaneously?
You do realize that this is still addition of information, right?
And, you also realize that this requires every mutation that increases information to be accompanied by a simultaneous mutation that decreases information to the same or greater extent, right?
The problem you'll run into here is that the occurrence of mutations is pretty much insensitive to the consequences of mutations. You're proposing some sort of pre-emptive, phenotypic feedback mechanism that regulates whether mutations occur based on what the results of their occurrence will be.
I'm interested in hearing what you'll come up with for that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 5:58 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


(1)
Message 60 of 280 (532438)
10-23-2009 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Kaichos Man
10-23-2009 6:44 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
You appear to be a worshipper of "the god of the gaps". Finding any gap in mankind's scientific knowledge, on any subject whatsoever, leads the gap-god-believer to declare that "god did it".
If we all behaved in this way, we'd all still be sitting in damp, cold caves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-23-2009 6:44 AM Kaichos Man 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