|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can Chromosome Counts Change? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: But... but... that begs the question-how did the first hox gene arrive?
quote: Icic... but that doesn't answer how the retroviral protein arose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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 Family This would be the experimental/statistical method of determining whether they would be in the same family.
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: 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: Could that possibly be because the proposed evolutionary lines are also arbitrary and being debated? Of course, it couldn't be....
quote: 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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024