It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Gene re-arrangemnt due to "natural selection"?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 24 2008 @ 09:08 PM
"Mutations" are are retained by "Natural Selection"

Video Clips

In 1989, Hox genes (clusters of genes) were discovered in mice and worms. It was then found that every creature on earth was constructed with the same clusters of genes. The strange thing is these universal gene clusters manifested themselves in different ways in different animals, and were responsible for different regions.

For example, the same gene that’s responsible for the tail of the mouse, as well is responsible for the rear extremities of the grasshopper. Sermonti

So what is it that makes a mouse a mouse, a fly a fly? The fact is, no one knows. One thing that is known, is that DNA is not the dictator of life that scientists had thought. DNA is not the generator of genetic informtion.

It is not the genes that elicit nascent form, but the nascent form that selects the genes and recruits them for its program. Sermonti

Lol, an arm can never be a leg. Life was complex from the very beginning and different species are original. No evolution.

Scientists had desperately hoped that hox genes could be used as a proposed genetic mechanism to allow for speciation and macro evolution. By 1997 the notion had been completely discarded

It is tempting to extrapolate that gain of hox genes in a cluster increases the complexity of an organism by allowing additional segments to be specified. Initially these would be just like adjacent segments, but there would be opportunity to evolve into more specialized functions. For example, if there are three sets of legs in insects, could another set of legs be added just by duplicating a hox gene that specified a leg segment of the body? What do the hox gene clusters of spiders, centipedes and millipedes look like? Are there dozens of duplicated hox genes that specify many identical segments? This provides the possibility of macroevolution. Duplication of hox genes, or whole hox gene clusters, followed by deletion and mutation might alter a species very dramatically in a short time period.

The notion that additional body segments might arise from duplicated hox genes was disproven by analyzing ther hox gene clusters of centipedes and onychophorans. The International Society of Developmental Biologists and the Society for Developmental Biology met in July 1997 at Alta, Utah. Researchers reported that centipedes and onychophorans, primitive, wormlike creatures believed to be the closest living relatives of the organisms that gave rise to the arthropods, including insects, have the same eight homeobox (Hox) genes as insects themselves. This indicates that the diverse body segments of insects did not evolve as a result of Hox gene duplication as previously thought, but may instead have arisen as a result of changes in Hox gene regulation. (Science 277, 639 1997).

It still seems that organisms were complex from the begginning

Mutations in the 8 genes of the HOM complex cause large scale mutations in flies. A mutation in bithorax causes a fly to have an extra set of wings. Mutation in antennapedia causes a leg to grow where an antenna should be. These genes are not master switches for making wings or legs, but they specify position in the fly's body. The order of the genes on the chromosome is the same as the order of segments in the fly's body where they are expressed. The left most gene is expressed in the head, the right most gene is expressed in the abdomen. When a gene is deleted or mutated, the segment where it is normally expressed cannot tell where it is because its position clue is gone, so it behaves like the closest segment to it. That is why a bithorax mutation causes an extra set of wings. The segments adjacent to the bithorax segment dictated what should be made.

lol, the theory of human Evolution

[edit on 24-5-2008 by Hollywood11]

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 10:02 PM
I believe that is finds a way.

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:58 PM
But how?

There has to be some kind of real conrete genetic mechanism to allow for it.

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:36 PM
Im not a naturalist or a scientist but its evolution.They evolve to the surroundings.

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:53 AM
I like the post but could you clarify what you mean? Molecular biologists could point to the Hox genes being like place markers for other genes to work on and that evolution did it.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:50 AM
I would say that before anyone should be talking about anything being done by "evolution", they have to have a concrete genetic mechanism and explanation.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by Hollywood11

I would say that before you continue trying to poke holes in things you don't understand, that you research the topic at hand, at least briefly, before continuing.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:35 AM
i would argue to have a proper geneticist or biochemist explain regulatory proteins, gene activation and sequence activity
the behavior of regulator proteins and organism gene expression is far beyond the larger capabilities of most of who i have seen post in these forums.
I don't mean offense to any one, but I can no less explain the physics of gluons and quarks to anyone than post an explanation of this to explain evolution
evolution is a process not a thing that decides what is happening.
the same sequence shows up in so many living animals in this world because those are the commonalities of carbon based life.
we have 23 sets of chromosomes and there in lies a lot of sequences of active and inactive material..
Dogs i believe have 24 sets as do Gorillas
the Fruit fly has (drosophila sp.) has 10.
so understanding this makes understanding how evolution and speciation work much more complex.
This isn't just round peg round hole scenario or basic maths, this is biology on the scale of the Hadron Particle Accelerator, it will take more than a few Hox articles and obervances to explain it or disprove anything, infact it opens up more research to further understand mechanisms and the system in its entirety.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:50 PM
Well the burden of proof isn't actually on me here, it's on evolutionists.

What I have done is explain one proposed genetic mechanism that wold allow for speciation, and why that proposed mechanism has now been abandoned and is not a gentic mechanism that could explain eovlution.

I can't disprove every single evolutionary theory, I can only disprove individual ones, one at a time

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Hollywood11]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:17 PM
point well taken and put.
this however is the point of research you know
disprove one persons idea and search for more evidnec to support "x" hypothesis. the search continues and perhaps this theory hit a brick wall.

there is much more than this though

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:42 PM
Thanks for the reply. I think people who support evolution will refer to what seem to be natural selection events in nature, including the peppered moth story which seems to have backed up by recent work by a Cambridge professor, Michael Majerus.

Link to 2007 version

They will also refer to natural selection in MRSA and also in bacteria and other cells that develop drug resistance. In some cases they will point to development of mutations to confer a resistance phenotype on organisms. How would you answer?

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:22 AM
Yes but I do not believe disease resistance or anti biotic resistance plus a few million or billion years is an adequate explanation or adequate mechanism to let a bacteria eventually evolve into a man.

Because nothing, not even antibiotic resistance, can add new genes. It's like how you can de-evolve an animal, but an animal can never evolve forwards. You can make a wolf into a dog, or in other words you can make a wolf something less than itself, but you can never make a wolf more than a wolf.

It's like how there is always order in the universe. 1 is 1 and it can never lapse into 2. 2 is 1 but more than 1.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Hollywood11]

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:21 AM
you actually can add new genes
this is why the more "complex and advanced" animals tend to have more chromosomes (i mean really mammals versus invertebrates-worms and insects)
genetic material can break and re attach as long as the sequence bases (GATC) can line up with an opposing strand of DNA or RNA.
new proteins can be created as long as the regulatory protein or chaperones in the cell end up doing something- so this chance can create a new gene .

a sad example of adding new genes is ofcourse the unsuccessful trisomy children (most famous is ofcourse the Down's Syndrome Individuals) they have one extra chromosome and thus new extra genes in what makes a Human and it is successfulin that life is created, but unsuccessful as they typically do not reproduce, but this also happens on a random scale.
also chromosome can break and one can lose genetic material, also as a human this proves to be unsuccessful for the future.

you can make a dog a wolf because they are not genetically separate species, just labeled as such.
as Dog-Wolf hybrids are always fertile, unlike a Horse and Donkey making an infertile Mule.

and then bacteria , here the genotype must be expressing something different which the other bacteria did not have before-this makes it a two fold possibilty
1- the resistance to antibiotics was' there' and it took a constant onslaught of antibiotics to kill off all other bacteria which could not cope thus leaving one type which is resistant this would have been naturally selected out as it was the type which could survive. (although natural selection is not as simple as the 'fittest' there are other compounding factors which things are selected for other features which is technically not more fit just more successful at mating- best example by most professors is the lyre bird and peacock- how can these birds be more successful- the males of the species can barely fly... its the lovely plumage -wink in the monty python joke reference)

2- the bacteria for thousands of generations in hospitals have been killed off and reintroduced into people by them constantly providing a good place for growth, any one random mutation at all resistance to Methicillin (MRSa) would cause this lineage of bacteria to simply survive and cause trouble. and it does not have to be 'resistant' to the antibiotic, it could simply not be affected by it, as opposed to having a mechanism to block it or break it down- the pathway the penicillin type antibiotic work in a fashion usually disrupting the cellular mechanism to create proteins for proper life functions, it is likely a path way to create said proteins is different, or changed in a way the antibiotic doesnot bother it.
other theories for this example are about but these may be the more popular

but you see they are different and one proposes the information was there already in the gene sequence prior to the situation, (whether this is a previous mutation or a intelligently designed set of codes is not important to the theory) and the other idea suppose some random change which has proven to work and thus propagates.

i think it is more difficult to 'fall back' a species as the current plan can active gene sequences would need all new triggers to create the life plan of another less complex species (the flat worm DNA every mammal has in common for instance- can we activate this and create a flatworm form a human sequence? it has not been tried IIRC but if you do this you won't make a person and what do you do with the rest of the chormosomes? they are often interlinked in their functioning so what happens on Chr.2 may be needed on Chr.18 for example.
but adding new material can result in some thing special and new as all the information for life is there, something extra may create something different.
so far in people no luck, but in the rest of the animal and plant world new things might have already shown up. the commercial farming industry may have some examples of new produce.

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:47 PM
I would say for the most part all mutated, domesticated or hybridized animals and plants will eventually have to be wiped out one way or another nand their exctinction is always inevtiable. In otherwords, adding new genes is always either impossible or harmful.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:21 PM
yes you are correct
"adding new genes is always either impossible or harmful."
this is why it is such a slow and long process to happen.
we see as in our examples, the Down's syndrome error, and other abominations-

but we also see the few examples in the animal and plant kingdoms where genes were added and a new successful species arose.
a good read concerning this would be Stephen j. Gould's A "Wonderful Life."
speciation and all its fun. This is a great place to start understanding and he is a terrific author (RIP) in fact his whole library of material he has written is too good to pass up and written in a very accessible manner for every one professional and the curious or amateur theorists.
This topic can get very long and perhaps Dr. Gould can explain all this best from his grave in his books than I can here.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:33 PM
This is brilliant exposition. I notice that evolutionists are conspicuously absent from all molecular genetics arguments and prefer to stick to phylogenetic arguments. One-nil to Creationists!

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:57 PM
What I mean is that if a mutation seems beneficial in the short term, in the long run it still will lead to extinction. Eventually all "good" mutations, end up actually being bad ones.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:14 PM
Another thing one should consider is the role of junk DNA. 90% of human DNA doesn't appear to do anything. But the interesting thing is that since everything seems to have come from one ancestor, common DNA is everywhere, and you get the same genes in men, cows, mice, hell even corn. It seems that a lot of old unused genes from our ancestor species' are in there. Scientists who are puzzling it out about space explorations and the large amount of time it would take to travel anywhere, considered finding the hibernation gene and testing it to see if it still has its functionality (it's probably mutated and not be selected against by Natural Selection). Of course if we find it in humans and it is broken, we could always just copy-paste it from bears. That principal seems to work to the code for eyes, why not hibernation?

Now, Hollywood. You seem to think that the amount of genetic information determines hoe evolved a creature is. The example you used is the wolf and the dog. But this is bogus. Man has 3.2 billion base pairs (approx), 90% of which (2.88 billion) don't do anything, leaving 320 million that make you distinct from anything else. Doesn't it seem odd then that the puffer fish has 385 million base pairs and it uses all it's genes?
The lowly amoeba 670 billion pairs, the largest known genome, why does it have all that info? Its a single celled organism!

So no. things don't de-evolve, and it doesn't matter the size of your genome, it's how ya use it (innuendo not intended).

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:32 PM
There's no such thing as "junk" in this universe, everything has it's place and use within the whole. Every part of the universe has a purpose, each part and component no matter how small makes up this thing we call the universe.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Hollywood11

Even if that were true, we still have organisms that are billions of times small, simpler, lesser than we are yet have thousands of times more genetic information than we do. Fact.

"Junk" DNA is simply DNA that has no function, so if you don't like the term then lets call it "Non-functional DNA". We know it does nothing because you can take large amounts of it out of the organism and the organism will still develop.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in