|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The origin of new genes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xXGEARXx Member (Idle past 5151 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
Well, I got you to respond. I was wondering who the first person would be to point that out and it was you. HA HA.....
Why don't you and I have a debate? I am not sure if you are interested or not, but I would like to have a good discussion. What are the subjects you enjoy debating, if you are even interested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Why don't you go to one and respond to a current message?
Just an idea. Cause so far you look kind of silly.(that is the nice way to say it) Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xXGEARXx Member (Idle past 5151 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
SEE! Now two people! Who said Christ is the only one to be resurrected?
Sure thing Theodoric.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
That’s right, nothing but false examples of beneficial mutation are repeatedly hyped up by biologists as beneficial mutation! I'm guessing that any beneficial mutations presented will be arbitrarily assumed false by you but for those with an open mind, one example includes CCR5-delta-32 (a mutation that makes you immune, or nearly immune, to AIDS). Other examples of mutations are those that make our muscles stronger, reduce fat, or provide high cholesterol tolerance. Mutations enabled flavobacterium to digest nylon and apple maggots to digest apples (they used to eat hawthorn). One of my professors has a photographic memory. Some women are reputed to be tetrachromatic (have an extra type of cone photoreceptor in their eyes that allow to see a greater depth of color). Here's an article by MSNBC that shows pics of a boy that has twice the muscle and half the fat of other toddlers thanks to a genetic mutation. MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Everything I mentioned so far is a beneficial mutation. Sickle cell anemia can be beneficial as well, in places where malaria is common.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
Everything I mentioned so far is a beneficial mutation. I'm 100% behind the general thrust of your post but I think that at least in the case of the myostatin mutation it is a bit early to say whether that is a beneficial mutation or not. Certainly similar mutations are considered desirable when they have arisen in sheep and cows, but that is a matter of our own preference in selecting animals which will produce leaner meat or more of particular cuts. Whether this would be a beneficial mutation in the wild is another matter since myostatin mutations have also been linked to reduced fertility and calving difficulty in cattle. Similarly tetrachromacy is a fascinating phenomenon, and it is easy to see how better colour discrimination could be beneficial in an everyday sense, but isn't necessarily an evolutionarily beneficial mutation, i.e. one that improves reproductive success. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm taking a break from the stress of my own thread and running across interesting posts elsewhere. I didn't read this whole thread so I may not get your point here:
Similarly tetrachromacy is a fascinating phenomenon, and it is easy to see how better colour discrimination could be beneficial in an everyday sense, but isn't necessarily an evolutionarily beneficial mutation, i.e. one that improves reproductive success. I'm wondering how many traits are supposed to have arisen from NON evolutionarily beneficial mutations, that don't improve reproductive success -- I would imagine the vast majority myself -- in which case how did they become fixed at all? Also, there seems to be a common habit of simply assuming that any trait originated with a mutation rather than any hint that anyone actually KNOWS that it did from empirical evidence at the genome level. You see an interesting rare trait and CALL it a mutation, that's about it. Yes you can come up with some examples of some mutations in genetic studies but they aren't very convincing to someone who isn't an evolutionist as having anything of the power to fuel the massive changes evolution expects. But maybe there's more actual empirical evidence back on this thread a ways? Or some other thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Wounded King and rockondon,
Similarly tetrachromacy is a fascinating phenomenon, and it is easy to see how better colour discrimination could be beneficial in an everyday sense, but isn't necessarily an evolutionarily beneficial mutation, i.e. one that improves reproductive success. My understanding is that tetrachromacy in humans is not due to a new mutation per se, rather it is associated with the color-blind mutation in females. That females with this condition are usually related to colorblind males. I believe it is normally a shift in the wavelength range for the red cones towards orange. Of course birds have four to six cones, and human ancestors apparently lost some because they were nocturnal and they weren't necessary at the time. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm wondering how many traits are supposed to have arisen from NON evolutionarily beneficial mutations, that don't improve reproductive success -- I would imagine the vast majority myself -- in which case how did they become fixed at all? Genetic drift.
Also, there seems to be a common habit of simply assuming that any trait originated with a mutation rather than any hint that anyone actually KNOWS that it did from empirical evidence at the genome level. A new genetic trait is a mutation by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Genetic drift, yes. OK, that's logical. Not empirically established, but logical.
A new genetic trait is a mutation by definition. Exactly, thank you. It doesn't have to be empirically demonstrated, it's defined into existence, it's assumed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I realize that your religion requires you to be wrong about some things, but why the heck do you have to be wrong about everything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Hi Faith,
I could almost hear Dr Adequate holding himself back in Message 145!
Faith writes: Genetic drift, yes. OK, that's logical. Not empirically established, but logical. You're sure there's no empirical evidence supporting the idea of genetic drift?
A new genetic trait is a mutation by definition. Exactly, thank you. It doesn't have to be empirically demonstrated, it's defined into existence, it's assumed. How one interprets "genetic trait" depends upon context since a new genetic trait could emerge from a unique combination of existing alleles, but in the context that Dr Adequate intended a new genetic trait is a new allele or stretch of DNA, which *is* a mutation. It's the definition of mutation, Faith. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Faith.
Faith writes: I'm wondering how many traits are supposed to have arisen from NON evolutionarily beneficial mutations, that don't improve reproductive success -- I would imagine the vast majority myself -- in which case how did they become fixed at all? What is it with you and fixed traits? You are obsessed with fixation. Give an example of a non-beneficial trait that is fixed in a natural population. I'm skeptical that you're going to find as many as you think you are. Edited by Bluejay, : Fixation and sub-title -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Genetic drift, yes. OK, that's logical. Not empirically established, but logical. It is empirically established in the Wright-Fisher model and the Hardy-Weinberg principle. Genetic drift is an unavoidable consequence of random mating as the math demonstrates.
Exactly, thank you. It doesn't have to be empirically demonstrated, it's defined into existence, it's assumed. If generation 100 has a different DNA sequence than generation 1 where in the world do you think those differences in DNA came from? Magic? ABE: The analogy that is often used for genetic drift is surnames. After many generations an isolated village will tend to have just a few surnames even if the village started with many surnames. This is due to (nearly) random mating. Some lineages will necessarily disappear while others become more prominent by randomness alone. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asking Junior Member (Idle past 5068 days) Posts: 19 Joined: |
I'm assuming that virus's inserting themselves into our genetic material comes under lateral gene transfer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4832 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
I need some clarification on how science defines "new genes" and how they believe they emerge in the eukaryote evolution.
Does science believe that all informational genes were packaged in the first multi-cellular organism? Evolution meaning that through reshuffling these genes allowed new innovations that were never used in the past? Science states that bacteria obtain new genes but not currently documented in our genes. yet it appears it did happen. Or was it the first multicelled organism had a very few genes, just enough to allow it to function and then through evolution new genes emerged and added to the gene pool of life. This makes more sense since many species did not start out with specialized compartments for organs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024