It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Coral Has Same Number Of Genes As Humans - Challenges Evolution Beliefs

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Australian researchers studying coral formations have found that coral has the same amout of genes as human beings which challenges previous assumptions on evolution of organisms. Previously it was thought that the more complex form of organism the more genetic codes are needed. The study also found that some genes contained in the coral and humans are not found in the fruit fly or nematode, which are currently used as models to understand how genes control development.
 



www.abc.net.au
An analysis of one of the most abundant species of Australian coral also challenges long-held assumptions about how different organisms evolved.

The researchers have so far found 6,000 genes in the Acropora coral, which the researchers say suggests the coral's entire genome contains around 20,000 genes.

"The coral seems to have about as many genes as we do," Dr Ball said.

"This is a real surprise to us."

"The classical thought was that because you and I are more complex than a jelly fish, we had evolved more genes," he said.

"That looks like it isn't the case."




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Every day more and more discoveries are made like this that challenge long held beliefs of life's origins and these discoveries put more of the jigsaw puzzles we call life into their correct places.

The potential for these findings is limitless and the study researchers so far have only mapped a fraction of the corals genes.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Mayet]

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
.
I'm not sure this is really all that new.

Rice has 50,000 genes.
www.sciencedaily.com...
If memory serves me correctly there is some frog with more genes than human beings have.

A railroad boxcar has more metal than an automobile, but i would say the automobile is a more sophisicated machine than the freight car.

Recent findings show the non-coding (junk) DNA that is not a part of any gene has effects on organisms.

To say this challenges Evolution is a stretch.
We know only a little about how DNA-RNA and cells interact so this is like making grand schemes that attempt to describe a completely dark space. It is a bit premature.

analogy:
I have been in a dark space.
It was a cave.
This is a dark space.
Therefore this must be a cave.

limited experience quite often creates erroneous conclusions.

With the recent discovery of RNAi [the cell's policing mechanism of DNA-RNA] they can possibly start switching various selected genes on and off and see pretty well what they do. They might have to switch on sets [combinations] of genes to see what they do as a group.
.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
You really shouldn't dis jellyfish...I have known some humans that make jellyfish seem like the higher lifeform.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
Previously it was thought that the more complex form of organism the more genetic codes are needed.


This is untrue, it hasn't being thought this way in the biological circles for a long time. What we now know is that the number of genetic codes are unimportant, whats important is the interactions between these genetic codes which spawn exponentially different protein-protein interactions etc.

For example, for all the complexities of the human genome, we have around 3x10^8 or 9 bp of dna but only a small percentage of the DNA is coding genomic sequences.

EDIT: Self-censored

[edit on 1-8-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
I'm not sure this is really all that new.

Rice has 50,000 genes.
www.sciencedaily.com...
If memory serves me correctly there is some frog with more genes than human beings have.

A railroad boxcar has more metal than an automobile, but i would say the automobile is a more sophisticated machine than the freight car.

Recent findings show the non-coding (junk) DNA that is not a part of any gene has effects on organisms.

analogy:
I have been in a dark space.
It was a cave.
This is a dark space.
Therefore this must be a cave.

limited experience quite often creates erroneous conclusions.


your analogies are akin to brain surgery using a chain saw.
please do not avoid digesting the details.

the implication here is not simply; "duuuuh, big number equal human number." the implication is that there is matching genetic code that has developed, independently, on two separate branches of the evolutionary charts. this would indicate "repetitious" evolution, which would be beyond theoretically improbable.


Originally posted by rapier28
This is untrue, it hasn't being thought this way in the biological circles for a long time.

I have no idea what this "expert" is on about, any first year biology lecturer at university can tell you that his full of ****. Yeast, has around 6000 genes.


again, please refrain from ignoring the details. it seems that the implication is much larger than you are willing to actualize. this is not simply about numbers, but rather a phenomena showing that either we evolved from coral, or that the evolutionary process is relatively easier than thought and now has been shown to happen multiple times. this idea of course is silly. it is beyond comprehension how unlikely this would be to happen when taking the complexity of life into consideration, and at this point in our understanding, does lend credence to such thoughts as; "gee, then maybe we didn't evolve."

further, to speak with such contempt regarding a scientist is, to say the least, immature. not only do i know as fact that this concept is looked down upon in the scientific community, but there are multiple proofs of the same concept and it still goes ignored (i am sorry that i cannot recall the details of said proof, but i am not a scientist and it was a molecular biologist who explained it to me. it generally has to do with certain kinds of fish having genetic traits which take eons to develop, and the evolutionary link between the two species exhibiting the traits does not have those traits. not even dormant - i will do my best to get a better explanation if possible).

to say that there is no agenda in the scientific community is ignorant. to say they are stupid people is greater ignorance. ignorant does not necessarily mean "stupid." it just might simply mean "biased."

daved



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Ok, i apologise for my flippant remark, was never meant to be offensive.

Actually, having re-read the article, i was more or less reacting to the heading that it "Challenges Evolution Beliefs". I can't find anyway in the original article that says it challenges evolution beliefs?

I think the title is a bit misleading, it almost seems like its leading to the evolution/creation debate, which the article does not.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I don't think comparing the complexity of genes between coral and human beings is an effective method of "challenging" the theory of evolution...

While humans do have a far more diverse range of specialized skills and abilities, coral is much more of a specialist in its own domain....To assume that because it sits on the ocean floor and sucks its meals from the water that its not complex is faulty logic....

I mean - Have any of you ever taken a look at the complex reproduction system that coral has in place? It’s bizarre as hell.....

I see this simply as one more chapter in the book of evolution we have come to know thus far....As to which side it leans on, that remains to be seen - But its a bit too early to postulate that it flies in the face of far many more years of research....



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
I see this simply as one more chapter in the book of evolution we have come to know thus far....As to which side it leans on, that remains to be seen - But its a bit too early to postulate that it flies in the face of far many more years of research....


Concur. At least we have the tools now to accurately discern the protein interactions of the thing. Before, it would have taken years to do so and we still wouldn't have been sure. Damn I have a hard time getting the last sentence of your comment to come out of my brain.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Only thing it says to me is that the lifeform has an unbroken lineage that traces back farther-evolution is full of dead ends and much of what works also contains recessive genes of the failed attempts.

Looks like coral simply has been around longer and had lots and lots of varieties and attempts at survival of the fittest. Mammals haven't been thru any real significant changes for millenia and when they do, seem to branch out and eliminate competition. Coral probably coexists with all sorts of varieties.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
.
What it implies is that evolution operates not only as a statistical probability, but also as a mechanism that exploits improbable opportunities [which itself was a result of statistical probability].

A naturally occuring mechanism that leverages probabilities into the improbable.

Higher life forms are not purely the result of monotonous interminable mechanisms, but that life is functionally spring loaded to take advantage of useful variations, that may not be directly correlatable to a gene count.

Might mean that basal biology for any evolution is somewhat similar [although Left-Right chiral might be a biforcation], but higher lifeforms may use different [randomly created] genetics to attain similar abilities.

What a strange little machine life is.
Kind of spooky.

Life is auto-abstracting chemistry & structure?

New theory:
Life is based on smoke ~ . ~~ @ ~ . . .

With life the better is never the enemy of the perfect, because it has no idea of perfection and only acts as better than or worse than. All is relative from here and now.

Maybe it implies that order that [is able to] takes advantage of [feed from] chaos is able to create more order.
.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Does anyone here know just what percentage of our geonome is made up of recessive genes?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Does anyone here know just what percentage of our geonome is made up of recessive genes?


If by recessive you mean genes that are not expressed because its suppressed by another copy, it depends on your genetic makeup.

I think by recessive you mean non-coding DNA. The vast majority of DNA in the human genome are non-coding, however scientists believe that they still have function in evolution, namely allowing genes to rearrange without disruption the whole genome.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Found this article which covers the, so called, "junk" DNA in our geonome:

i-newswire.com...

Turns out the stuff isn't junk at all and it does influence proteins.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join