Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

How Do You Like Your Science? (Genetic recombination)

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Stickleback genome (APRIL 04, 2012 ): http://www.hhmi.org/news/kingsley20120404.html Analysis of Stickleback Genome Sequence Catches Evolution in Action.
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 18, 2012
      Stickleback genome (APRIL 04, 2012 ):
      http://www.hhmi.org/news/kingsley20120404.html Analysis of Stickleback
      Genome Sequence Catches Evolution in Action. Reuse of Key Genes Is a
      Common Theme. A model for evolutionary change. Sticklebacks are small
      migratory fish that have colonized many lakes and streams of the Northern
      Hemisphere (California stream male shown here). Scientists have recently
      decoded the genome of 21 populations around the world, making it possible
      to identify how genes change when organisms adapt over and over again to
      new environments.

      Genetic recombination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination In
      eukaryotes, recombination also occurs in meiosis, where it
      facilitates chromosomal crossover. The crossover process leads to
      offspring's having different combinations of genes from those of their
      parents, and can occasionally produce new chimeric alleles. In organisms
      with an adaptive immune system, a type of genetic recombination
      called V(D)J recombination helps immune cells rapidly diversify to
      recognize and adapt to new pathogens. The shuffling of genes brought about
      by genetic recombination is thought to have many advantages, as it is a
      major engine of genetic variation and also allows sexually reproducing
      organisms to avoid Muller's ratchet, in which the genomes of
      an asexual population accumulate deleterious mutations in an irreversible
      manner.

      Charles P: How Sticklebacks Colonized
      Lakes<http://www.hhmi.org/news/kingsley20120404.html> The
      HHMI video, "How Sticklebacks Colonized Lakes" is another recent example of
      EMPIRICAL METHODS that can be interpreted as PURPOSEFUL DESIGN of the
      stickleback genome in ancient times to assure the survival of some
      individuals in a hostile environment. This has nothing to do with religion.

      Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) Evo-devo
      research shows us that the NEW INFORMATION comes from GENETIC RECOMBINATION
      of genes from male and female parents. This occurs following the RULES OF
      MEIOSIS where it facilitates chromosomal crossover. Sticklebacks are an
      example of "stasis" in the fossil record.

      Charles P: Stickback pelvic
      evolution<http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/stickleback_fossil_record_video.html>
      In this video you can see the evolution of the stickleback population
      pelvis from REDUCED to INTERMEDIATE to COMPLETE in 10,042 years and then
      back to INTERMEDIATE to REDUCED by year number 26,750. The stickleback
      genome seems to be PURPOSEFULLY DESIGNED to undergo natural selection with
      DEVELOPMENTAL CONSTRAINT.

      Charles P: All of the genes have existed since ancient times. The more
      than 21 stickleback populations have evolved from the original PURPOSEFULLY
      DESIGNED stickleback population genome. Each individual stickleback
      remained the same species its entire lifetime.

      Charles P: Constraints on Evolutionary
      Change<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_03>
      The
      CROSSOVER process of meiosis leads to offspring's having different
      combinations of genes from those of their parents. Another evo-devo
      research discovery is "A lineage's development may limit the sorts
      of phenotypes that it can evolve. This limitation is called a developmental
      constraint". REUSE OF KEY GENES IS A COMMON THEME.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • D R Lindberg
      ... Stickleback ... Northern ... recently ... possible ... to ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination In ... organisms ... about ... a ...
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 20, 2012
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Stickleback genome (APRIL 04, 2012 ):
        > http://www.hhmi.org/news/kingsley20120404.html Analysis of
        Stickleback
        > Genome Sequence Catches Evolution in Action. Reuse of Key Genes Is a
        > Common Theme. A model for evolutionary change. Sticklebacks are small
        > migratory fish that have colonized many lakes and streams of the
        Northern
        > Hemisphere (California stream male shown here). Scientists have
        recently
        > decoded the genome of 21 populations around the world, making it
        possible
        > to identify how genes change when organisms adapt over and over again
        to
        > new environments.
        >
        > Genetic recombination:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination In
        > eukaryotes, recombination also occurs in meiosis, where it
        > facilitates chromosomal crossover. The crossover process leads to
        > offspring's having different combinations of genes from those of their
        > parents, and can occasionally produce new chimeric alleles. In
        organisms
        > with an adaptive immune system, a type of genetic recombination
        > called V(D)J recombination helps immune cells rapidly diversify to
        > recognize and adapt to new pathogens. The shuffling of genes brought
        about
        > by genetic recombination is thought to have many advantages, as it is
        a
        > major engine of genetic variation and also allows sexually reproducing
        > organisms to avoid Muller's ratchet, in which the genomes of
        > an asexual population accumulate deleterious mutations in an
        irreversible
        > manner.
        >
        > Charles P: How Sticklebacks Colonized
        > Lakes<http://www.hhmi.org/news/kingsley20120404.html> The
        > HHMI video, "How Sticklebacks Colonized Lakes" is another recent
        example of
        > EMPIRICAL METHODS that can be interpreted as PURPOSEFUL DESIGN of the
        > stickleback genome in ancient times to assure the survival of some
        > individuals in a hostile environment. This has nothing to do with
        religion.
        >
        > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) Evo-devo
        > research shows us that the NEW INFORMATION comes from GENETIC
        RECOMBINATION
        > of genes from male and female parents. This occurs following the
        RULES OF
        > MEIOSIS where it facilitates chromosomal crossover. Sticklebacks are
        an
        > example of "stasis" in the fossil record.
        >

        Interesting!

        Verrrry interesting!

        You take an example of change, from one species to a number of species,
        and label it "an example of "stasis" in the fossil record."

        So now it appears that your concept of "stasis" (which you have never
        actually defined or explained, despite being asked several times) now
        includes change.

        Which is the opposite of stasis.

        Another recent example of EMPIRICAL METHODS demonstrating that your
        "stasis" explanation is bogus.

        Or am I missing something? Do you have something to say that you are not
        explaining clearly?

        Cheers!







        The sharp division between the `natural forces' and the actions
        of the `designer' in the ID literature has overtones of a
        deistic view in which `nature' is presented as being
        quasi-autonomous, whereas the actions of the intelligent designer are
        restricted to a rather limited repertoire of events in the patch-work
        quilt. Dembski refers approvingly to Aristotle's idea that design
        completes "what nature cannot bring to a finish", but the Bible
        simply knows of no such dualism between "design" and
        "nature", speaking only of a single created order. As Augustine
        succinctly put the point back in the 5th century: "Nature is what
        God does". All that scientists can do in their work is to describe
        what God does.
        . . . .
        My own view is that the arguments of the ID movement are a Trojan horse
        bringing what is essentially secular un-Biblical thinking into the heart
        of certain evangelical fellowships within Europe. In its place we need
        to emphasise the great Biblical truths of the creative handiwork of God
        in every aspect of the created order without exception, an order in
        which `nature' was long ago kicked into touch as an unnecessary
        appendage of pagan ancient philosophy and of enlightenment thinking.
        - Denis R. Alexander, Is Intelligent Design Biblical?
        http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/Resources/Articles/Article-Archive/EN\
        _IDarticle.pdf





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Charles Palm
        D R Lindberg: Interesting! Verrrry interesting! You take an example of change, from one species to a number of species, and label it an example of
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 20, 2012
          D R Lindberg: Interesting! Verrrry interesting! You take an example of
          change, from one species to a number of species, and label it "an example
          of "stasis" in the fossil record." So now it appears that your concept of
          "stasis" (which you have never actually defined or explained, despite being
          asked several times) now includes change. Which is the opposite of stasis.
          Another recent example of EMPIRICAL METHODS demonstrating that
          your "stasis" explanation is bogus. Or am I missing something? Do you
          have something to say that you are not explaining clearly?

          STASIS: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_49 Many
          lineages on the tree of life exhibit stasis, which just means that they
          don't change much for a long time. In fact, some lineages have changed so
          little for such a long time that they are often called living fossils.
          Coelacanths comprise a fish lineage that branched off of the tree near the
          base of the vertebrate clade. Until 1938, scientists thought that
          coelacanths went extinct 80 million years ago. But in 1938, scientists
          discovered a living coelacanth from a population in the Indian Ocean that
          looked very similar to its fossil ancestors. Hence, the coelacanth lineage
          exhibits about 80 million years' worth of morphological stasis.

          Charles P: Thank you for the clarification. In the video, the stickleback
          population evolved over a time period of 26,750 years. Each individual
          stickleback remained the same species for its entire lifetime (for a few
          years only). Please reread the scientific conclusions based upon evo-devo
          EMPIRICAL METHODS clearly outlined in the HHMI video. I do not understand
          what it is about STASIS that you think is bogus.

          Charles P: After the 26,750 years of this study, the STICKLEBACKS EVOLVED
          TO BECOME STICKLEBACKS. Sticklebacks did not go extinct. Given the choice
          that the fossil record shows us "stasis" and "extinction", my choice is
          that sticklebacks are an example of "stasis".

          Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
          Pakicetus is an example of "extinction". Aetiocetus is an example of
          "extinction". The gray whale is an example of "stasis".

          EXTINCTION: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_49
          Extinction
          is extremely important in the history of life. It can be a frequent or rare
          event within a lineage, or it can occur simultaneously across many lineages
          (mass extinction). Every lineage has some chance of becoming extinct, and
          overwhelmingly, species have ended up in the losing slots on this roulette
          wheel: over 99% of the species that have ever lived on Earth have gone
          extinct. In this diagram, a mass extinction cuts short the lifetimes of
          many species, and only three survive.

          Charles P: Thank you for the opportunity to "discuss" something without
          having to "debate" definitions. The evidence in nature is same for
          everyone. We only differ in our INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • D R Lindberg
          ... example of ... example ... concept of ... being ... stasis. ... you ... Many ... they ... changed so ... the ... that ... lineage ... stickleback ...
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 21, 2012
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > D R Lindberg: Interesting! Verrrry interesting! You take an
            example of
            > change, from one species to a number of species, and label it "an
            example
            > of "stasis" in the fossil record." So now it appears that your
            concept of
            > "stasis" (which you have never actually defined or explained, despite
            being
            > asked several times) now includes change. Which is the opposite of
            stasis.
            > Another recent example of EMPIRICAL METHODS demonstrating that
            > your "stasis" explanation is bogus. Or am I missing something? Do
            you
            > have something to say that you are not explaining clearly?
            >
            > STASIS: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_49
            Many
            > lineages on the tree of life exhibit stasis, which just means that
            they
            > don't change much for a long time. In fact, some lineages have
            changed so
            > little for such a long time that they are often called living fossils.
            > Coelacanths comprise a fish lineage that branched off of the tree near
            the
            > base of the vertebrate clade. Until 1938, scientists thought that
            > coelacanths went extinct 80 million years ago. But in 1938, scientists
            > discovered a living coelacanth from a population in the Indian Ocean
            that
            > looked very similar to its fossil ancestors. Hence, the coelacanth
            lineage
            > exhibits about 80 million years' worth of morphological stasis.
            >
            > Charles P: Thank you for the clarification. In the video, the
            stickleback
            > population evolved over a time period of 26,750 years. Each
            individual
            > stickleback remained the same species for its entire lifetime (for a
            few
            > years only). Please reread the scientific conclusions based upon
            evo-devo
            > EMPIRICAL METHODS clearly outlined in the HHMI video. I do not
            understand
            > what it is about STASIS that you think is bogus.
            >
            > Charles P: After the 26,750 years of this study, the STICKLEBACKS
            EVOLVED
            > TO BECOME STICKLEBACKS. Sticklebacks did not go extinct. Given the
            choice
            > that the fossil record shows us "stasis" and "extinction", my choice
            is
            > that sticklebacks are an example of "stasis".
            >
            So, by your own figures, you have "about 80 million years" on the one
            hand, and "26,750 years" on the other. Do you really think that those
            two time periods are comparable, with one about 3000 times as long as
            the other?

            On another forum I often look at, there is one individual who keeps
            claiming that evolution is disproved by the fact that there are still
            worms, and repeats the claim no matter how many times it is pointed out
            to him that there is nothing about evolution that would lead us to
            expect that worms would all disappear.

            I'm afraid that you are in danger of making a similar error in your "the
            STICKLEBACKS EVOLVED TO BECOME STICKLEBACKS." Of course they did. The
            time involved is too short for much of anything else to happen.

            But you seem to be missing the point. Stickleback is a broad term that
            includes a number of different species. And the number of species has
            INCREASED greatly since the end of the last ice age.

            Animals have evolved, but they are still animals. Mammals have evolved
            but they (we) are still mammals. Birds have evolved into hundreds of
            species, but they are still birds. Insects have involved into MILLIONS
            of species, but they are still insects. Is this not evolution?

            . . . . .
            >
            > Charles P: Thank you for the opportunity to "discuss" something
            without
            > having to "debate" definitions.

            Of course there's not much point in debating definitions, but it is
            impossible to discuss anything if we have not agreed on what words mean.

            Otherwise, I can say that a turkey is a tree, and you can't tell me I'm
            wrong, because I can have my own special way of defining trees, so that
            the meaning includes turkeys (after all, they both start with T). We
            could debate this forever without reaching any conclusion.

            So it would be nice if you would be so kind as to define clearly and
            precisely what you mean or understand by "stasis" and "extinction." If
            all the change we have seen in sticklebacks in a few thousand years is
            included in your definition of "stasis," you obviously have a different
            understanding than I do (and most scientists, I would venture to guess).



            > The evidence in nature is same for
            > everyone. We only differ in our INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence.
            >

            It is sad to see that you have let yourself be taken in by this
            anti-science gobbledygook. Creationists/IDists cherry-pick their
            evidence to find details that might support their position, and ignore
            the rest.

            Since you seem to be so impressed with Intelligent Design, I have a
            beautiful example of it for you. Let's see you prove scientifically,
            using EMPIRICAL METHODS, that it's wrong.

            Every time I approach an intersection, the traffic lights turn red. So
            logic requires that there must be little men in the lights who change
            them every time they see me coming.

            And look, I can demonstrate it by EMPIRICAL METHODS, just by getting in
            my car and driving down St. Charles Boulevard to Highway 40.

            If the lights don't turn red, it's proof that they were looking the
            other way.

            Cheers!





            Haven't seen a gravity, have ya? you just see stuff moving around. we
            both put our own interpretation on it. obviously my fairies pushing
            stuff around theory is on equal footing with gravitational theory,
            because we have the same evidence but different interpretations.
            Alasdair Crawfish
            http://www.facebook.com/groups/214832310976



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Charles Palm
            D R Lindberg: So, by your own figures, you have about 80 million years on the one hand, and 26,750 years on the other. Do you really think that those two
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 21, 2012
              D R Lindberg: So, by your own figures, you have "about 80 million years"
              on the one hand, and "26,750 years" on the other. Do you really think that
              those two time periods are comparable, with one about 3000 times as long
              as the other?

              Charles P: Stewart says that I don't answer questions. I really do not
              understand what it is that is confusing to you. I really do hope to answer
              all questions in a respectful way.

              D R Lindberg: On another forum I often look at, there is one individual
              who keeps claiming that evolution is disproved by the fact that there are
              still
              worms, and repeats the claim no matter how many times it is pointed out to
              him that there is nothing about evolution that would lead us to expect that
              worms would all disappear. I'm afraid that you are in danger of making a
              similar error in your "the STICKLEBACKS EVOLVED TO BECOME STICKLEBACKS." Of
              course they did. The time involved is too short for much of anything else
              to happen. But you seem to be missing the point. Stickleback is a broad
              term that includes a number of different species. And the number of species
              has INCREASED greatly since the end of the last ice age. Animals have
              evolved, but they are still animals. Mammals have evolved but they (we) are
              still mammals. Birds have evolved into hundreds of
              species, but they are still birds. Insects have involved into MILLIONS of
              species, but they are still insects. Is this not evolution?

              Charles P: Of course it is evolution. Again, I do not understand what it
              is that is confusing to you.

              D R Lindberg: Of course there's not much point in debating definitions,
              but it is impossible to discuss anything if we have not agreed on what
              words mean. Otherwise, I can say that a turkey is a tree, and you can't
              tell me I'm wrong, because I can have my own special way of defining trees,
              so that
              the meaning includes turkeys (after all, they both start with T). We could
              debate this forever without reaching any conclusion. So it would be nice
              if you would be so kind as to define clearly and precisely what you mean or
              understand by "stasis" and "extinction." If all the change we have seen in
              sticklebacks in a few thousand years is included in your definition of
              "stasis," you obviously have a different understanding than I do (and most
              scientists, I would venture to guess).

              Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_49 This
              is what evo-devo researchers define as "stasis" and "extinction".

              STASIS: Many lineages on the tree of life exhibit stasis, which just means
              that they don't change much for a long time. In fact, some lineages have
              changed so little for such a long time that they are often called living
              fossils. Coelacanths comprise a fish lineage that branched off of the tree
              near the base of the vertebrate clade. Until 1938, scientists thought that
              coelacanths went extinct 80 million years ago. But in 1938, scientists
              discovered a living coelacanth from a population in the Indian Ocean that
              looked very similar to its fossil ancestors. Hence, the coelacanth lineage
              exhibits about 80 million years' worth of morphological stasis.

              EXTINCTION: Extinction is extremely important in the history of life. It
              can be a frequent or rare event within a lineage, or it can occur
              simultaneously across many lineages (mass extinction). Every lineage has
              some chance of becoming extinct, and overwhelmingly, species have ended up
              in the losing slots on this roulette wheel: over 99% of the species that
              have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct.

              D R Lindberg: It is sad to see that you have let yourself be taken in by
              this anti-science gobbledygook. Creationists/IDists cherry-pick
              their evidence to find details that might support their position, and
              ignore the rest. Since you seem to be so impressed with Intelligent
              Design, I have a beautiful example of it for you. Let's see you prove
              scientifically, using EMPIRICAL METHODS, that it's wrong. Every time I
              approach an intersection, the traffic lights turn red. So logic requires
              that there must be little men in the lights who change them every time they
              see me coming. And look, I can demonstrate it by EMPIRICAL METHODS, just
              by getting in my car and driving down St. Charles Boulevard to Highway 40.
              If the lights don't turn red, it's proof that they were looking the other
              way.

              Charles P: Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I am not a
              creationist. I am not "anti-science". I do not understand why you think
              that your "beautiful example" has anything to do with Intelligent Design.
              If there is anything you wish to discuss about the origin and diversity of
              life, I have an OPEN MIND to discussion of any EMPIRICAL METHODS and the
              science of biology.

              ==================================================

              Stewart: Science is not my area of expertise, that much is true.

              Charles P: I apologize for everything that bothers you and I acknowledge
              that you are to be respected for your inherent worth and dignity as a
              person.

              Stewart: I don't believe this Charles, if you truly regretted your conduct
              you would amend it by answering questions posed by myself and others in
              reciprocation. I have never before refused to provide an answer or
              explanation when asked for one. In this way I show my respect for other
              members of this forum. If I considered their views to be biased or
              unreasoned, as I do yours, I explain why. I don't just close my mind to
              them, wave them off dismissively and label them philosophies.

              Charles P: Thank you, Stewart. Honestly, I thought that I had answered
              your questions. If you would like to try again, I have an OPEN MIND and am
              willing to discuss anything dealing with the science of biology. In my
              opinion, if the discussion involves only LOGICAL REASONING and no EMPIRICAL
              METHODS, I consider it to be PHILOSOPHY.

              PHILOSOPHY: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy Investigation of
              the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based
              on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.