Can Chromosome Counts Change?

quote:

---

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?

---

As usual, an argument about "information". In the strictest sense yes, as you have an increased quantity of information (like 2 copies of a book instead of one), but whether there is any novel information is something else (ie new protein families).Of course, instead of using the term "information" it is probably better to use "fitness". So for example, triticale(n=21), a hybrid between rye (n=7) and wheat (n=14) in many environmental circumstances has a higher "fitness" compared to rye or wheat.

quote:

---

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?

---

That sounds like you're going off on a tangent. I thought we were talking about chromosome duplications/non-disjunction/fusion of genomes, etc not mutations [This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-08-2004]

quote:

---

No, not like two copies of a book. A bit more like to coffee machines. You get twice as much of something. I'd have to do some digging to find a reference but there are cases where a duplicated gene makes a difference in the phenotype.

---

Doh.... that's from a difference in gene EXPRESSION. The protein produced is still the same, but the expression of the gene would be different. Yes, it may affect phenotype, as for example in plants where hexaploid, tetraploid plants, etc show different phenotypes to plants that are simply diploid, but as for novel information.... that is something else.

quote:

---

Of course, there are also places where duplication then allows a place for mutations to accumulate. Do you agree there is new information at that point?

---

If they mutate, they may produce different proteins. Thus you could say that the information is different. Where you and I may disagree is whether novel protein families could arise by mutations.

quote:

---

Why not? If the coding gene changes wouldn't a new protein result. What is a protein family?

---

Well, for example you peeps like to use the example of haemoglobin C. So we have a mutation from haemoglobin A to haemoglobin C, which are still within the same "protein family". I suppose you could call it similar to micro vs macroevolution except on a molecular level.Now, if you could show a way to mutate haemoglobin C to something say, like cytochrome C (yeah I know, they could possibly be similar enough that you evolutionists might propose that the first haemoglobin came from a mutation in cytochrome C so it might be a bad example... or maybe not), that would be a different protein family [This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-09-2004]

quote:

---

Note, amphioxus has a single Hox cluster used in segment determination..look at Drosphila, then pufferfish, and mammals. There are more and more novel Hox genes and clusters that have arisen by duplication from an ancestral Hox gene. Each Hox gene specifies a different portion of the development process and therefore, each duplication is not just more of the same thing..they have diverged since duplication and acquired novel function. This is a gain in information...and it correlates with a gain in morphological complexity.

---

But... but... that begs the question-how did the first hox gene arrive?

quote:

---

Another example of a novel protein that has arisen recently is syncytin. It is a retroviral envelope protein that is crucial to syncytiotrophoblast fusion in hominids and Old world Monkeys but not in other mammals. Thus, a key step in the development of higher primate placental development appeared only recently.

---

Icic... but that doesn't answer how the retroviral protein arose.

quote:

---

So what? Why is that relevant to the issue that you first raised? The fact is that duplication and mutation produces new "information" and new phenotypes. That was the issue. Leave the goalposts alone until the game is over. Same goes for your other line on the retroviral protein doesn't it?

---

It IS relevant. You mention duplication and mutation-what if you don't have a haemoglobin A to duplicate/mutate into haemoglobin C? From a creationist viewpoint a gene family would be created ex-nihilio, while from an evolutionary viewpoint all genes arose from duplication/mutation from another gene. Apart from the first of course

quote:

---

You other description of "protein families" makes it sound like you have made up the idea. Do you have a source discussing them? One that supplies a useful, operational definition so we can tell where one starts and the other leaves off.

---

Well, you could take the evolutionary definition of protein families. The evolutionary definition then defines protein families are families of proteins that are evolutionarily related-ie the various homologous haemoglobins found in different organisms. From the creationist viewpoint it would be similar, except that the various protein families would have arisen via mutation from the first "created kind".This has been discussed previously between Tranquillity Base and several others (a shame he's no longer on these boards ). The link is http://EvC Forum: Does gene reuse and genome plasticity have to indicate common descent?

quote:

---

Same goes for your other line on the retroviral protein doesn't it?

---

From the creationist viewpoint there is no problem with this-to quote TB, "It's clear that this is simply an example of horizontal transfer and that it does not explain how the gene itself arose."

quote:

---

Right, but there's no difference between micro and macroevolution, so that doesn't really explain anything.

​

How would you tell the difference between two protiens in the same family and two protiens from different families?

---

From both the evolutionist and creationist viewpoints, the answer would be the same-proteins that are "evolutionarily related", ie haemoglobin in various organisms today arising from a common ancestor, which in the case of creationism would be a created "kind".

quote:

---

Now, the last time that I looked into it, which was a while ago, the origins of plant hemoglobin were somewhat underdispute but if I remember correctly the most likely source would be an ancient unicellular or colony organism. Does that mean that your "kind" would be roughly equivalent to early life forms discussed by the evolutions side of this debate, and if not how not?

---

That is assuming that God did not create hemoglobin in more than one "kind". For plants and animals God may have given slightly different types of hemoglobin, as best suited to the task. Much like as human engineers today reuse "wheels" in basically every human invention-cars, trains, cogs... you name it.Of course, that would be from a creationist perspective. From an ID perspective your proposal could be correct Now, what is interesting is this-you assume that from an evolutionary viewpoint, their similarity can be explained, while refuting that of creationism (am I right in assuming you believe this?). From an evolutionary viewpoint then, why wouldn't there be some non-homologous proteins evolving to perform the same function? Why must they be evolutionarily related?From a creationist viewpoint the similar proteins made in different "kinds" at creation may be similar because God may simply "reuse" designs for similar purposes, with "tweaks" for their particular tasks. This may then allow mutations, horizontal gene transfer, etc to allow for changes in the environment.

quote:

---

Back to the question you couldn't answer - how would you tell the difference between two proteins from the same family and two from a different family?

---

How? By analysing the given protein sequences. I imagine you could tell the difference by running a computer comparison of the protein sequences-such as Genome Analysis: Search for a Largest Protein FamilyThis would be the experimental/statistical method of determining whether they would be in the same family.

quote:

---

How come you're still talking about "created kinds" when you couldn't even tell me what they are?

---

Well... "kinds" could possibly be along the lines of, in the kingdom/phylum/class/order/family/genus/species as somewhere around the family or order level. Ie, zebras, horses, donkeys, etc. (Technically nowadays I think taxonomists have added 3 domains as a level above kingdom... but not that it matters)I'm going to be going on a holiday for a while so I won't be able to post until I come back [This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-10-2004]

quote:

---

That's not really an answer. What would you look for in your analysis? What features identify protiens that share or do not share descent? How would you tell the difference between protiens sufficiently removed from the same family and protiens from two different families, if they're equally different in both cases?

---

That is what phylogeny and systematics is for. If they're equally different in both cases, well, which would evolutionary theory support? Such and such proteins were from a common ancestor, thus are in the same family... If they were equally different, then I'd say there's either something wrong with evolution or possibly horizontal gene transfer had something to do with it.

quote:

---

But those are arbitrary, human-imposed classifications, not organizational levels found in nature. So they can't be "kinds". For the "kinds" argument to have merit it has to be based on something actually found in nature.

---

That may be true, but taxonomists try to modify and use these classication systems to help conform with evolutionary relationships. Why else are there always so many arguments for such-and-such an organism to be defined as within or not within a given clade?

quote:

---

But of course the evolutionary view is that all protiens are ultimately from the same ancestor.

---

But the evolutionary view is also that all hominids came from the same ancestor, zebras/horses/donkeys from the same ancestor, the cat family. But your point here is moot; evolutionary theory would still have to have only one possible "family" from which the protein evolved, not two. Of course, with evolutionary theory the two possible "families" were once together....

quote:

---

The argument is because the classification systems are arbitrary. If they were an actual phenomenon of nature, there'd be no argument whatsoever.

---

Could that possibly be because the proposed evolutionary lines are also arbitrary and being debated? Of course, it couldn't be....

quote:

---

So what's a kind, again? How do I tell if two organisms are in the same "kind" or not?

---

Well, one method is from the fossil record-paleontology. Horses, zebras, donkeys with a common ancestor. If they all descended from the same organism, then they're one "kind". If they happen to go further, to say, all mammals... then they'd still have with the creationist definition be a "kind", even if it went all the way to bacteria-so that would be one method of falsifying this theory. So if it went all the way to bacteria, or a common plant/animal ancestor as a "kind", this YEC theory would obviously be wrong.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-10-2004]