PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     The Dinochicken

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

From here:
Dinochicken

"Some of the world's leading paleontologists are attempting to recreate a
dinosaur
— or something a lot like a dinosaur — by starting with a chicken embryo and working backward to engineer a "chickenosaurus" or "dinochicken," project leader Jack Horner told Discovery News.
Such "reverse evolution" has been successfully performed in mice and flies, but those studies focused on re-introducing just a few bygone traits. The dinochicken project instead has the goal of bringing back multiple dinosaur characteristics, such as a tail, teeth and forearms, by changing the levels of regulatory proteins that have evolved to suppress these characteristics in birds."

So, this would only work IF evolution was valid.  And as was shown, it has been accomplished in flies and mice.  Any comments?




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:02 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 11:02 PM on March 5, 2009 :
 Any comments?


Reminds me of a science fiction book I read in 3rd grade.

As long as it doesn't turn into a "Day of the Triffids", I say go for it.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:18 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very interesting!  Now a dino-chicken would be pretty hard to explain by means of Creationism.  Thanks Demon!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:55 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As long as it doesn't turn into a "Day of the Triffids", I say go for it.

I read "Day of the Triffids" too, in fifth grade, I think.

I don't think we have to worry about that but this might be a scary sight:

"When and if the dinochicken is created, Horner looks forward to bringing it out on a leash during lectures."



(Edited by Demon38 3/6/2009 at 01:21 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:17 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was just thinking about that.  The thing would have teeth - I hope Dr. Horner would be careful!  :0)

BTW - what's a Triffid?  I never read the story.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:49 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I really like the cool pictures and I bet they would taste good. Kind of like chicken?

However, I'm not sure how this supports evolution. The scientists are taking a preconceived notion and making the experiment fit. By changing the levels of regulatory proteins seems to me more like making selective deformities.  
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 08:17 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My prediction is that there's nothing you can activate in a chicken to make it grow antennas.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?

Teeth, claws and a tail are far more likely.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?

The "deformities" are not random.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:11 AM on March 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp  My prediction is that there's nothing you can activate in a chicken to make it grow antennas.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?

I agree because the chicken doesn't have antennas. But it does have wings, a tail bone, and feathers. I predict they could cause deformities in all of these areas. And I'm sure many others could be deformed as well. But I doubt the scientists have the sophistication to cause more than just a few minor changes at a time and I doubt the chickosaurs could pass these changes on.

wisp  Teeth, claws and a tail are far more likely.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?

I agree because the structure is already there. It just has to be deformed.

Do you think they could give me a prehensile tail?

wisp  The "deformities" are not random.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?

I agree. They are caused by the "designer" scientist (otherwise known as Dr. Moreau)
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:16 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree because the chicken doesn't have antennas.
Nor teeth, nor claws (in the upper limbs, i mean).

But it does have wings,
Nobody said anything about wings.
a tail bone, and feathers.
Nobody said anything about feathers either.

Teeth, claws and a tail are far more likely.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?

I agree because the structure is already there. It just has to be deformed.
Just??? You can make a chicken grow claws and teeth just by deforming it via minor genetic switching?

Do you think they could give me a prehensile tail?
Now you're mocking me. You know that nobody says that chickens had prehensile tails.

The "deformities" are not random.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?

I agree. They are caused by the "designer" scientist (otherwise known as Dr. Moreau)
You say he can't put antennae, because chickens don't have them. But you can accept teeth and claws, even when chickens don't have them either (not anymore at least). Why?

You seem a bit too willing to accept that it's possible. Almost like you intimately know that Evolution is true.

Because if it was wrong, why would antennae be any less likely than teeth?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:14 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx I agree because the structure is already there. It just has to be deformed.

wisp  Just??? You can make a chicken grow claws and teeth just by deforming it via minor genetic switching?

You're right. It is an oversimplification. My point is that the people doing this experiment are working with material that is already there. Though I don't believe they can get claws to form on the wing tips nor teeth other than serrations on the beak without adding them to the genes.

timbrx  Do you think they could give me a prehensile tail?

wisp Now you're mocking me. You know that nobody says that chickens had prehensile tails.

I wasn't talking about the chicken. I'd like a prehensile tail for myself. Isn't it supposedly a suppressed trait?

wisp  The "deformities" are not random.
Do you agree, timbrx? Why?


timbrx  I agree. They are caused by the "designer" scientist (otherwise known as Dr. Moreau)
wisp  You say he can't put antennae, because chickens don't have them. But you can accept teeth and claws, even when chickens don't have them either (not anymore at least). Why?

The claws are there. (feet) Maybe they can cut/paste the genes?

wisp  You seem a bit too willing to accept that it's possible. Almost like you intimately know that Evolution is true.

I intuitively know that designers can design. The ability for scientists to manipulate genetics is surpassing sci-fi in its scariness.

wisp  Because if it was wrong, why would antennae be any less likely than teeth?

Good question. Maybe because antenna are a specialized highly complex sensory organ and simple "teeth" could be manifested as bumps or serrations on the already hard beak.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:52 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right. It is an oversimplification.
Ok...
My point is that the people doing this experiment are working with material that is already there.
Deactivated DNA?
Though I don't believe they can get claws to form on the wing tips nor teeth other than serrations on the beak without adding them to the genes.
How surprised would you be if they do it? Would you accept that as evidence for Evolution?

Because these experiments are not about adding stuff. More like awakening stuff.

I wasn't talking about the chicken. I'd like a prehensile tail for myself. Isn't it supposedly a suppressed trait?
Oh! But you're not an embryo!

The claws are there. (feet) Maybe they can cut/paste the genes?
These experiments are not about cut/paste.

You seem a bit too willing to accept that it's possible. Almost like you intimately know that Evolution is true.
I intuitively know that designers can design.
Again, this experiment isn't about designing new traits, but awakening old ones.

Because if it was wrong, why would antennae be any less likely than teeth?
Good question. Maybe because antenna are a specialized highly complex sensory organ and simple "teeth" could be manifested as bumps or serrations on the already hard beak.
Then proper teeth and claws without copypasting would amaze you?

(Edited by wisp 3/6/2009 at 9:30 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:39 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And yet, these aren't deformities, they are dinosaurian characteristics turned off in the chicken.  Characteristics that we can now turn on.  The question creationists have to ask is why God put dinosaur traits in a chicken.  And the only answer creationists can give is "God works in mysterious ways."
This goes back to the thread on evolutionary predictions.  The theory of evolution predicted this was possible.  Once again, another validated evolutionary prediction.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:28 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for prehensile tail, timbrx, you still have the plantaris muscle (originally used to swing from tree branches using our feet), and long roots for the canine teeth (used to be for fangs).

What do creationists say about the appendix? If we just devolved its function, how come we're still alive?

We still have the reptilian pineal gland. It still has photosensitive cells. Now why would it have photosensitive cells?

The answer is pretty simple if we look at reptiles. Sunlight used to reach the pineal gland.

Ah, so many simple answers under the framework of Evolution... They all fit so neatly... Every fossil ever found has its place in the evolutionary tree. No forcing necessary.

No surprise has ever been so big as to overthrow Evolution.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:57 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Demon38 at Fri March 6, 2009 - 8:28 PM
And yet, these aren't deformities, they are dinosaurian characteristics turned off in the chicken.  Characteristics that we can now turn on.  The question creationists have to ask is why God put dinosaur traits in a chicken.  And the only answer creationists can give is "God works in mysterious ways."
This goes back to the thread on evolutionary predictions.  The theory of evolution predicted this was possible.  Once again, another validated evolutionary prediction.


They haven't done it yet. However I would concede that it would be striking evidence in favor of evolution. I'm not sure about irrefutable proof, but than I'm not offering the million dollar reward.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 9:05 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 3:52 PM on March 6, 2009 :
You're right. It is an oversimplification. My point is that the people doing this experiment are working with material that is already there. Though I don't believe they can get claws to form on the wing tips nor teeth other than serrations on the beak without adding them to the genes.


No, they only have to turn the tooth making pathway back on.  And it's already been done.


Surprise: Chickens Can Grow Teeth


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:14 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, timbrx. I didn't want to ruin the ending for you.

Yeap, they have already done it. Cone-shaped teeth, mind you (like gators). Not just 'serrations on the beak'.

I wanted to hear your opinion before breaking the news to you.

Just one little step ahead, timbrx, and you'll be an evolutionist again! Welcome back!! ^__^

Edit: God wouldn't mind. He would want you to know the truth.


(Edited by wisp 3/6/2009 at 9:28 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:26 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:49 AM on March 6, 2009 :
BTW - what's a Triffid?  I never read the story.


A classic Sci-Fi movie, I've never read the book.  The one I read in third grade was about a triceratops hatching from a chicken egg.

The Day of the Triffids


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:00 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh - I might have read that too.  Seems vaguely familiar.  I remember some story about a dinosaur from an egg.  I was maybe in the 2nd or 3rd grade too.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:37 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apoapsis, thank you for setting me straight on that.

Please help me to understand a few things about that article.

1. This chicken tooth phenomenon was first noticed in the mouth of a mutant that died before hatching. So they "tweaked" the gene and repeated the phenomenon inside of an egg. I presume that this meant they suppressed production of a protein that suppresses development of teeth. Is this right?

2. So this demonstrates that the information exists in chicken genes to produce chicken teeth. But as chickens evolved this genetic ability was suppressed to favor the survival of chickens. Right?

3. Genetic information is neither gained nor lost. But rather it is re-interpreted. Is this right?

4. So hypothetically the information should still be locked within the genetic code that if "tweaked" properly would result in a pre-chicken (transitional?) animal? Or would the lines of code have to be shortened? Should every living thing be able to be traced back in this fashion to a common ancestor?


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:14 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:14 PM on March 7, 2009 :
apoapsis, thank you for setting me straight on that.

Please help me to understand a few things about that article.
 
I'm not a geneticist, but I'll try to answer.  If I get in too far I have friends I can ask.

1. This chicken tooth phenomenon was first noticed in the mouth of a mutant that died before hatching. So they "tweaked" the gene and repeated the phenomenon inside of an egg. I presume that this meant they suppressed production of a protein that suppresses development of teeth. Is this right?


My understanding is that there is a specific mutation where this shows up as one of the side effects.  Three years ago they did not have the skill to induce only the tooth growing effect.

2. So this demonstrates that the information exists in chicken genes to produce chicken teeth. But as chickens evolved this genetic ability was suppressed to favor the survival of chickens. Right?


Or that it didn't make any difference, but basically yes.

3. Genetic information is neither gained nor lost.


No, where did this come from?

But rather it is re-interpreted. Is this right?


Mutations have been well documented to take many forms, mutation of expression mechanisms would be only one.  There can be point mutations, copy mutations, deletion mutations, frame-shift mutations, etc.  Why would they not affect the information content?

4. So hypothetically the information should still be locked within the genetic code that if "tweaked" properly would result in a pre-chicken (transitional?) animal? Or would the lines of code have to be shortened? Should every living thing be able to be traced back in this fashion to a common ancestor?


Hypothetically, it could happen, but if a gene is not being expressed, it is not under selection, so errors could accumulate that would hinder the ability to reproduce the original.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:04 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx: So hypothetically the information should still be locked within the genetic code that if "tweaked" properly would result in a pre-chicken (transitional?) animal? Or would the lines of code have to be shortened? Should every living thing be able to be traced back in this fashion to a common ancestor?

Apoapsis Hypothetically, it could happen, but if a gene is not being expressed, it is not under selection, so errors could accumulate that would hinder the ability to reproduce the original.

Timbrx,  to add to what Apoapsis is saying, a lost trait that dissapeared along one genetic pathway may certainly reappear on another genetic pathway.  IMHO that is how it generally works.

Trichromatic vision which follows the same genetic pathway in most fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, was lost in mammals (presumedly because all the early mammals were nocturnal and there are advantages to having dichromatic vision in low-light environments).  When trichromatic vision reappeared in select marsupials and primates  it was on a different pathway.  In fact, trichromatic vision in old world primates does not appear on the same pathway as trichromatic vision in new-world primates.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/7/629.full
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:32 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Woah, fredguff!! That was VERY interesting!!!

Did you know that a woman was found, who presented tetrachromacy? Not only did she have cones with different pigmentation. She could actually interpret more colors (they tested her, of course).

They found her by finding colorblind males, and going after their mothers (they had theorized that it would be more likely to find tetrachromacy in women who have colorblind sons).

Here's the article (my memory sucks, and perhaps you had already made comments about this):
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=473

timbrx, are you a bit closer to accepting Evolution?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:51 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
3. Genetic information is neither gained nor lost.
But rather it is re-interpreted. Is this right?

I'm assuming that the information for teeth is already there and that the mutation effects the way that this information manifests itself in the structure. I'm thinking of the way in which the dinochicken article described the suppression of certain proteins resulting in a different structure.


apoapsis
Mutations have been well documented to take many forms, mutation of expression mechanisms would be only one.

Is this "expression mechanism" like the proteins or enzymes that cause something to happen or to not happen in a certain way?
apoapsis
There can be point mutations, copy mutations, deletion mutations, frame-shift mutations, etc.  Why would they not affect the information content?

I don't know if it would or wouldn't. I'm just observing that for the mutation to allow teeth to grow that the "genes for teeth" information is being "re-awakened" rather than being added.

As you know, one of our (creationists) primary arguments is that mutations, whether beneficial or not, result from a loss of or change in information rather than a gain in information. The original dinochicken article described a suppression of protein production (less information) resulting in the production of teeth, a tail, claws etc. However if it could be demonstrated that the reverse is true, that an increase in genetic information resulted in the loss of teeth in chickens, than our argument would be damaged. I'm not trying to help you damage the argument but it would be disingenuous of us (creationists) to not allow our arguments to be tested.

I'm of the opinion that if the chicken gene is still a complete chicken gene than the mutated chicken is still a chicken. But if "reverse engineering" evolution results in a functional animal with a shorter genetic sequence that looks kind of like a chicken than you might be on to something. That would prove that an increase in genetic material resulted in a chicken "evolving" from an almost chicken and I would have to go bury my head in the sand.

wisp
timbrx, are you a bit closer to accepting Evolution?


No, I can be quite stubborn. Besides, it would take more than a few interesting internet articles talking about hypothetical experiments to shatter my world view.  
However, I do believe that for my part this debate has been highly educational though I admit that the article fredguff posted went way over my head.
 
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:21 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, i don't want to pretend it didn't go over my head too. But beyond the obscure nomenclature... Ok, that sounded awful. 'Obscure nomenclature'...

Well, beyond those code names you get the point. You can tell when (not exactly a timeline, but a pinpoint on the evolutionary tree of mammals and primates) we lost trichromacy and when we regained it (before being humans).

This kind of things can be predicted, timbrx.

I don't know enough to predict how many types of cones do platypus and echidnas have, but i'm sure that others can.

Mammals lost trichromacy while turning into mammals. The ornithorhynchidae (platypus) and the echidna (spiny anteater) are borderline species between mammals and reptiles.

I wonder how many colors do they see. My guess is that they didn't lost trichromacy, for their ancestors were not (to my humble knowledge) nocturnal species.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:28 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 5:21 PM on March 7, 2009 :
As you know, one of our (creationists) primary arguments is that mutations, whether beneficial or not, result from a loss of or change in information rather than a gain in information.


Tell me how to measure a gain or loss of information.

I know how to do it from the viewpoint of information theory, but I want to know you do it.

Edit to fix tags

(Edited by Apoapsis 3/7/2009 at 11:12 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:08 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
I'm of the opinion that if the chicken gene is still a complete chicken gene than the mutated chicken is still a chicken. But if "reverse engineering" evolution results in a functional animal with a shorter genetic sequence that looks kind of like a chicken than you might be on to something. That would prove that an increase in genetic material resulted in a chicken "evolving" from an almost chicken and I would have to go bury my head in the sand.


OK, do you understand that mammals (which include humans) has a pretty middle-of-the-road genome size?



Wisp, is this image too big?

(Edited by Apoapsis 3/7/2009 at 11:35 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:09 PM on March 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The image is fine (and quite awesome!).

When the image is too big, horizontal scroll makes its appearance.

I never understood what is this things creationists have with information...

Do they really know about the information theory?

I'm not sure of what's the concept of 'information' they use, but i'm pretty sure that gene duplication + mutation = increased information by any standards.

It was you, right, Apoapsis, who equated an increase of information to a heavier zipped file?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:45 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apoapsis
OK, do you understand that mammals (which include humans) has a pretty middle-of-the-road genome size?

Yes, I did know that. Though if I'm reading that graphic illustration correctly I had no idea there was such a big difference.

I have understood "gain in information" to mean a lengthening of the DNA strand or extra chromosomes.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:38 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gene duplication is a very well documented mutation mechanism.  The two copies are free to diverge in function subsequent to that event.

Would you consider that addition of information?
Escape from adaptive conflict after duplication in an anthocyanin pathway gene


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:58 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure. Does gene duplication increase the over all length of the gene strand?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:16 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yup.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:29 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can't see it in your post, Apoapsis. I'll post your image.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:16 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks, the tags look OK, but I won't edit it or it might show up twice.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:27 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx, by this simple process you can add new functions. Like being able to see an extra color.

Once you have a gene (whatever your definition of 'gene' is) duplicated, one of the pair can drift away with no serious consequences.

If enough people had an extra gene for the red cone in the eye, any of them (normally just one of them) could mutate freely with no (big) risk of losing functionality. The other gene will keep making red cones. This new one can mutate and end up with yellow cones, eventually reaching tetrachromacy.

That's quite unlikely though, because humans live under decreased selective pressure. That's why colorblindness has reached .8% in American males (the coding for red and green cones is in the X chromosome, and women have two of them, which makes it less likely to have this affection),

Mutations are not rare. We're all mutants, actually.

Any person with blue eyes is a mutant (brown and green eyes are pretty much the same thing, while blue eyes are not).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:30 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well that sure looks like added information to me.
Does that type of gene mutation transcribe to the mRNA? If so, does it alter the protein production in that cell? Or do the  gene-specific ribosomes prevent translation? Or does the protein chain pick up an extra nucleotide and function differently as a result?







 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:41 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very good questions, you're rapidly exceeding my genetics ability.  That's excellent.  I'm going to have to get some help getting good answers.

One item I do know off the top of my head, the corn genome has been extremely hard to sequence because it has so many replicated genes.  If you didn't know, the "shotgun" method of genomic sequencing works by splitting the entire genome of an organism into small fragments, then sequencing the fragments and looking for overlaps, kind of like a big jigsaw puzzle.  The corn plant, even though it has a huge economic importance, has resisted this method because huge parts of it's genome consists of multiple copies of identical genes.   An idea I saw once said that this was because the human selection process over the centuries has selected the varieties with the most desirable characteristics, meaning that multiple copies of good genes that express themselves by say, generating more starch would be favored.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:43 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx,

OK, I'm struggling with this myself, but read the following article:
Sonic Hedgehog

Basically, a gene was discovered in fruitflys that controls body development.  When they searched for the equivalent in mammals, they found it had split into three homologous genes.  In fish, another vertebrate, they found three equivalent orthologous genes.  Nobel prize winning stuff.  

There's a detailed description of how the protein is processed, that way exceeds my ability to explain.

I wouldn't normally have expected to be trying to show anything with this level of detail.  The obvious evolutionary explanation is that a single gene underwent duplication mutations that allowed formation of three separate control genes.  As vertebrates diverged, the genes maintained similar functions, but collected enough differences to be distinct.

I hope this helps, I learned a lot finding it, which is a pleasure in itself.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:59 AM on March 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Well that sure looks like added information to me.
And that looks like honesty to me.
Does that type of gene mutation transcribe to the mRNA?
Yes. There's no reason why it shouldn't. There's no way for the mRNA to tell the difference between 'regular' and 'mutated' DNA that i know of.
If so, does it alter the protein production in that cell?
If the segment that has been duplicated does not consist of a number of nucleotides divisible by 3 it can cause frame-shift mutation. But when we say 'gene duplication' we usually mean entire genes.

That being the case, the normal function of the original gene is secured by the gene (any of the two) that doesn't mutate. But perhaps there's a possibility (i don't see how) that the function of the original gene can be impaired by the new mutated copy.

Now, if we're talking about a regular copy that has never mutated, then it would be very weird that the regular function could be compromised.

Or do the  gene-specific ribosomes prevent translation?
If the copied segment has not mutated, there's simply no reason to prevent translation.

Now, when it has already mutated (and it WILL mutate, eventually), i don't know.
Do ribosomes prevent translations of bad codes for any given protein? I had no idea.

Or does the protein chain pick up an extra nucleotide and function differently as a result?
Oh, you mean like a duplicated gene could end up creating double proteins? I had not thought about it. I imagined the duplicated gene containing the instruction to start-stop, so it would produce the same protein before mutating, and new versions afterwards.

Good questions, timbrx!
If there's a mechanism that prevents translation via mRNA, i'd like to know about it. Sounds strange to me, but i'm no geneticist.


(Edited by wisp 3/9/2009 at 10:13 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:54 AM on March 9, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks, you guys.

Yes, I honestly want to know how this works, so if you will please be patient with me it will help me to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the dinochicken would in fact be evidence for evolution.

1. Where does gene duplication occur? Is it a duplication of a gene along a DNA strand that occurs during cell division?

2.During the transcription phase where the cell "selects" the gene from which it makes an mRNA does it select the original AND the duplicate, or the original OR the duplicate? Or does it matter?



 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:09 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:09 PM on March 9, 2009 :
Thanks, you guys.

Yes, I honestly want to know how this works, so if you will please be patient with me it will help me to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the dinochicken would in fact be evidence for evolution.

1. Where does gene duplication occur? Is it a duplication of a gene along a DNA strand that occurs during cell division?


For it to be heritable, it needs to occur in a cell line producing a sperm or egg cell.


2.During the transcription phase where the cell "selects" the gene from which it makes an mRNA does it select the original AND the duplicate, or the original OR the duplicate? Or does it matter?


It does matter.  If the copy is not expressed, it is not under selection pressure, so mutations can happen in it with no effect.  If at some future time, another mutation causes it to be expressed, maybe it's an advantage, maybe not.

If both copies are expressed, that may be an advantage or disadvantage.  Many processes have feedback mechanisms, so having extra product around simply causes the production rate to be slowed with little effect to the organism.  But a mutation in either of the two wouldn't prevent the other from continuing normal production.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:44 PM on March 9, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

from original posted link
The dinochicken project instead has the goal of bringing back multiple dinosaur characteristics, such as a tail, teeth and forearms, by changing the levels of regulatory proteins that have evolved to suppress these characteristics in birds.


Apoapsis, I know that our mutual level of understanding is rudimentary in comparison to the researchers working on this experiment, but I find the whole concept fascinating. How do you think they will "change the levels of regulatory proteins"? Or rather where, in the gene or the ribosome?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:15 AM on March 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They've discovered that the BMP4/Msx1 pathway controls tooth development in mammals.

Why teeth form in  a single row

The same pathway has also been studied in chicken for bone growth.  Msx1 is a HOX gene, HOX genes are involved in embryonic development and are highly conserved.  That's where I'd expect them to be looking.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:49 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 06:16 AM on March 7, 2009 :

Do you think they could give me a prehensile tail?


A greater challenge I think, would be a prehensile brain. ;)




-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 08:08 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Uncalled for (timbrx is making some great questions, and showing a good understanding right now), and gratuitously cruel.

I think you had no reasons to post that, other than that you saw a good joke, and couldn't resist, out of arrogance.

In high school sometimes i remained silent after a question whose answer nobody knew but me.

It was a veeery hard thing to do, as i'm naturally arrogant.
I did that to keep my arrogance on check.

Edit: As a byproduct of my arrogance, i have a hard time avoiding references to myself.


(Edited by wisp 3/12/2009 at 10:40 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:37 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx,

This has a lot of discussion of the generation of teeth from a genetic viewpoint.
Molecular genetics of tooth agenesis


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:37 PM on March 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We couldn't give a decent reply to timbrx's questions in this thread.

Derwood, could you please address them?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:33 PM on April 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are these the ones?
Quote from timbrx at 1:14 PM on March 7, 2009 :

1. This chicken tooth phenomenon was first noticed in the mouth of a mutant that died before hatching. So they "tweaked" the gene and repeated the phenomenon inside of an egg. I presume that this meant they suppressed production of a protein that suppresses development of teeth. Is this right?

It seems they altered the levels of the protein.
This is actually quite interesting, for it showx that the usual mantra of "no new information" is moot - "new" informaiton need not be a necessity for the development of a unique trait, rather by altering the amount of a regulatory protein, via mutation, dupliction, etc., you can induce heritable phenotypic changes.

2. So this demonstrates that the information exists in chicken genes to produce chicken teeth. But as chickens evolved this genetic ability was suppressed to favor the survival of chickens. Right?

Not necessarily.  It is a mistake to assume that all evolutionary change is immediately adaptive or even selectable.
The hoatzin, an extant bird, still has teeth.  I don't know if the presence or absence of teeths would alter a chicken's diet much.

Pandas, for example, despite being set up for carnivory do pretty well eating bamboo.
3. Genetic information is neither gained nor lost. But rather it is re-interpreted. Is this right?

Define 'genetic information' first.

What this really means is that the concept of genetic information as applied to genomes needs to be defined in such a way as to reflect the reality of genome activity, as opposed to trying to analogize and shoehorn gene activity into concepts originally developed for electronic communuication.

What this means is that "information" in the proteome may not be a direct 'descendant' of the DNA sequence in the genome as such.
And thus, the 'no new information' argument really is irrelevant.

4. So hypothetically the information should still be locked within the genetic code that if "tweaked" properly would result in a pre-chicken (transitional?) animal?


The genetic code is the relatioship between triplets/codons and amino acids. It is possible to do what you indicate, but it is also possible that the "information" needed to produce a pre-bird was lost via deletion or obliterated via some other genetic activity.


Or would the lines of code have to be shortened? Should every living thing be able to be traced back in this fashion to a common ancestor?

What do you mean 'lines of code'?  You wouldn't happen to have a computer software background, would you?
Living things CAN in fact be traced back quite a ways. It gets difficult when we get to the 'root' of the tree of life, due to things like back mutations, homology, and horizontal gene transfer.  

Off till tomorrow.

(Edited by derwood 4/30/2009 at 2:23 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:22 PM on April 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I mean these two posts:

Quote from timbrx at 8:41 PM on March 8, 2009 :
Well that sure looks like added information to me.
Does that type of gene mutation transcribe to the mRNA? If so, does it alter the protein production in that cell? Or do the  gene-specific ribosomes prevent translation? Or does the protein chain pick up an extra nucleotide and function differently as a result?












Quote from timbrx at 8:09 PM on March 9, 2009 :
Thanks, you guys.

Yes, I honestly want to know how this works, so if you will please be patient with me it will help me to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the dinochicken would in fact be evidence for evolution.

1. Where does gene duplication occur? Is it a duplication of a gene along a DNA strand that occurs during cell division?

2.During the transcription phase where the cell "selects" the gene from which it makes an mRNA does it select the original AND the duplicate, or the original OR the duplicate? Or does it matter?









-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:00 PM on April 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well that sure looks like added information to me.

If a general definition of information, for discussion purposes, is the 'meaning' or the 'coded message' , then I could not disagree.  

Does that type of gene mutation transcribe to the mRNA?


All mutations in coding portions of genes are transcribed - transcription is simply the 'copying' of the DNA template by RNA polymerases, they just copy what it there.


If so, does it alter the protein production in that cell?

That depends.
If the mutation alters the amino acid coded for, it may or may not alter anything, depending on the properties of the 'new' amino acid.  Or, it may truncate the protein during translation, or it may alter the function of the protein.


Or do the  gene-specific ribosomes prevent translation?


As far as I kow, there are no gene-specific ribosomes.
Or does the protein chain pick up an extra nucleotide and function differently as a result?

A protein would not pick up a nucleotide, as proteins are chains of amino acids, whereas mRNA, DNA, tRNA, rRNA, etc. are made of nucleotides.  


Yes, I honestly want to know how this works, so if you will please be patient with me it will help me to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the dinochicken would in fact be evidence for evolution.

1. Where does gene duplication occur? Is it a duplication of a gene along a DNA strand that occurs during cell division?


Gene duplications are the result of replication issues prior to mitosis, yes.
During DNA replication, when most mutations occur, the polymerases can 'slip' and reconnect to the DNA strand, and simply pick up where they 'left off' - which could be back at the beginning of the gene they just copied - or past it.  This is how duplications, insertions, deletions, etc. occur.  The Human Genome Project in fact discovered evidence that ~50% of the human genome is the product of such duplication events, some consisting of the duplication of large chromosomal segments of several million BPs.


2.During the transcription phase where the cell "selects" the gene from which it makes an mRNA does it select the original AND the duplicate, or the original OR the duplicate? Or does it matter?

Recent studies have hinted that transcription just happens, pretty much all the time, for nearly the entire genome, meaning that there is little 'control' over the process as such.  The amounts of transription in any particular locus, however,  appear to be governed by a number of things, including but not limited to the presence and character of sequences of DNA called enhancers (which increase transcription, probably via keeping the double stranded DNA 'unzipped' allowing easier access to transcrition start sites by RNA polymerases) that lie on either side of a gene.

In the case of duplucated genes, the extent of transcription depends on where, specifically, the duplication took place.  If the duplication included the entire promotrer/enhancer region, then the duplicate is essentially 'on its own' and can be transcribed if other factors are in place.  If the duplication did not include the promoter, then the duplicate may or may not be transcribed at all, depending on where it was added, and so on.

These are good questions.  Unfortunately, genetics is 'sloppy' enough that simple answers are not always possible.

I have not read the entire article in question, so my answers are based on general genetics, and are not geared specifically to this particular topic.






(Edited by derwood 5/1/2009 at 08:22 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:16 AM on May 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks a lot!

Very informative and clear.
I hope timbrx gets to read it.

I was kinda amazed at the idea of gene specific ribosomes, and mutant transcript prevention...

They sounded like a nice healthy mechanism that would lead to the death of a species vis ΰ vis some minor environmental change.

They also sounded like hard to evolve (if evolvable at all) traits.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:30 PM on May 3, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.