A Query for All
Devils Advocaat
throughout the human genome.
I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
to why this is so.
Stuart
Satan.
Stuart
J. J. Lodder
That's the Manichaeist heresy,
so that's out, for true christans,
Jan
Burkhard
Can't be, since the one true Christian is Ray M., and he adheres to
it.
J. J. Lodder
I know. Satan has him in his clutches.
Being a true christian is one of the delusions
satan has placed in his mind,
(with god's permission of course)
Jan
Vend
So he will be the central character in the forthcoming Book of Ray?
Inez
Creationism isn't about explanations rational or otherwise. God is a
great big get-out-of-explanation-free card. He moves in mysterious
ways, his wonders to make ambiguous.
cassandra
Based on the replies so far, my impression is your question is too
vague. Please clarify what your "this" means. Assuming for the
moment your facts are correct, are you asking why there are 49 copies
instead of 50 or 48 or maybe even just 1? Or are you asking why
these copies are non-functional? Or are you asking why there are non-
functional copies of the cytochrome c gene instead of the cytochrome b
gene or any of the other thousands of genes? Or are you asking why
these copies are scattered instead of clumped together?
Richard Harter
That's simple enough, they are reserve copies. They aren't
functional because they have been deactivated. When they are
needed they are reactivated.
Devils Advocaat
Well now if my facts are not correct then that is the fault of the
author of the book "Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution
in Human DNA ", one Daniel J. Fairbanks. As to what I am asking about,
it is fairly simple, why are there so many non-functional copies of
this particular gene?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Why do you have 15 (or whatever) computers (portable telephones, or
whatever) that you don't use and will never use, and which quite
possibly are no longer usable? If you live in rural Idaho, why do you
have three or four partially wrecked cars on your lot? The human (like
almost every other genome), is a vast junkyard[1] with great quantities
of useless stuff that isn't thrown away because it doesn't do much harm
and sorting it all out would require a lot more effort than
inactivating it.
[1] Note Sydney Brenner's useful distinction between garbage, which is
potentially harmful and gets thrown away, and junk, which is useless
but not harmful apart from the space it occupies in our garages, and
just accumulates.
--
athel
Ron O
Cyt c is an important gene product for the cell. It is found in the
ox-phos pathway in the mitocohondria, but is nuclear encoded. Such a
common protein should be relatively highly transcribed into its RNA
mRNA. That just means that there should be a lot of copies of the
mRNA and its precurors floating around in the nucleus and cytoplasm.
There are virus and transposoable elements that encode the mechanism
to put RNA back into the DNA genome (reverse transcriptase and
transposase). By accident this mechanism picks up random bits of RNA
and stuffs them back into the genome at realtively random locations.
The more common the RNA transcript the more common the accidental
reinsertion. So you get pseudo genes scattered around the genome.
You can often tell that this has happened because the introns are
processed out of the RNA transcript before it is reinserted and often
the RNA has been modified by the addition of the poly A tail. This
just means that it isn't the result of a simple translocation of the
nuclear gene. Each insertion of a pseudo gene starts its own
history. Since there are multiple copies of the pseudo gene in the
genome they are subject to gene conversion (use of one copy to copy
over another replacing its sequence), but they tend to independently
evolve. What is of interest to evolutionary biology is that we can
share such pseudo genes with our close relatives (the chimps) and we
can determine when the reinsertion event occurred in the common
ancestor of both species. We can also tell that the pseudo gene is
nonfunctional because its sequence collects substitutions at the
neutral rate and they usually lack the 5 prime transcriptional
regulatory regions.
So we understand the mechanism by which these types of pseudo genes
occur and they also tell us about the evolutionary history of a
genome.
Ron Okimoto
Devils Advocaat
wrote:
Any appliance that I possess that no longer works, I recycle if
possible, or give it to someone who can cannibalize it for spare
parts.
> The human (like
> almost every other genome), is a vast junkyard[1] with great quantities
> of useless stuff that isn't thrown away because it doesn't do much harm
> and sorting it all out would require a lot more effort than
> inactivating it.
Which doesn't actually explain why its there in the first place.
Not wishing to be unkind by an analogy which compares idle human's
accumulated junk with the odds and ends in the human genome, isn't
quite the rational explanation I was looking for.
>
> [1] Note Sydney Brenner's useful distinction between garbage, which is
> potentially harmful and gets thrown away, and junk, which is useless
> but not harmful apart from the space it occupies in our garages, and
> just accumulates.
>
> --
> athel
I am not familiar with Sydney Brenner or his work.
Would you be so kind as to suggest any useful sources?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
> I am not familiar with Sydney Brenner or his work.
He is one of the most famous biologists of modern times. You could
start with the website of the Nobel Foundation.
> --
athel
Devils Advocaat
wrote:
> On 2010-10-03 17:59:25 +0200, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> said:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > I am not familiar with Sydney Brenner or his work.
>
> He is one of the most famous biologists of modern times. You could
> start with the website of the Nobel Foundation.
Thanks for the feedback, I will do that. :)
>
> > --
>
> athel
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
Since the most commonly-cited aspect of the Manichean heresy
was the belief that Satan is creative, this doesn't seem to
apply - only <Ctrl>c, <Ctrl>v was required, which isn't a
creative act.
>so that's out, for true christans,
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:
I find it interesting that so far, with 12 responses, not a
single design advocate has responded. Maybe they're all in
church...
Devils Advocaat
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
What all of them? All this time? :P
Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
>
> I find it interesting that so far, with 12 responses, not a
> single design advocate has responded. Maybe they're all in
> church...
You're forgetting that cdesign proponentsists are purely scientific in
their approach. Nothing religious about it.
--
athel
Mike Painter
Creationism:
Before The Fall they all worked and that's why man used to live a long time.
ID.
The Intelligent Designer was a half wit drop out from a third rate design
school. After stealing the idea of skin he started the "more is better"
idea, true only in computers.
Like early transister radios, sold on the basis of the number of transistors
he just soldered a few more on the board.
Evolution.
Not enough information available to answer the question, barely enough to
ask it.
Devils Advocaat
As my cat god would say to all those answers ...
ppbbbtt!!!! :P
Steven L.
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:raeha6lo42q2upi5q...@4ax.com:
I searched the Answers in Genesis website.
They don't mention this issue directly.
But they do have a general argument against vestigial structures: They
say that structures once thought to be vestigial, like the human
vermiform appendix, have been found to have useful functions after all.
(Yes, the appendix seems to play a role in the human immune system.)
Hence while something may *look* vestigial at first (like those
non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene), AIG is confident that
science will eventually find out that all those structures perform
useful functions after all.
Has anyone proven that those apparently non-functional copies of the
cytochrome c gene could be completely replaced with no effect on the
human species? IOW, they can no longer function the same way as the
functioning cytochrome c gene--but have they no value whatsoever?
-- Steven L.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net>:
Obviously we don't yet know, which is the perfect (and
typical) way they inject their god-of-the-gaps-type
argument.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>:
Ah, of course! How forgetful of me...
Actually, though, every Creationist is a design advocate;
the only difference between them and "official" ID
proponents is that the Creationists cite a deity as the
Designer, while ID proponents are mute on the subject. If,
that is, their <nudge, nudge; wink, wink> antics actually
constitute muteness.
IOW, the Creationists are at least honest about that
particular issue.
Steven L.
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j34ka61qj452fi6lf...@4ax.com:
How then do biologists define "vestigial"?
Is a vestigial structure something that lost its original function, or
something that lost all function?
The former makes more sense. But by that definition, many structures
are vestigial, from human fingernails to the teeth of many animals to
the wings of a penguin. They've all been adapted to different
functions.
-- Steven L.
Friar Broccoli
.
Seems to me the standard answer:
"Degeneration since the fall."
works just fine here.
For some reason the cell's copying machinery has difficulty with this
particular segment and so has duplicated it frequently. Presumably,
God fixed the problem at about the time of Noah, which is why it is
the same in all of us.
I think it is MUCH harder to explain why 8% of our genome is made from
identifiable fragments of retrovirus, almost all of which is shared
with chimps.
Kalkidas
"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9a1cd27e-f83d-4f37...@g18g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
> throughout the human genome.
>
> ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
> to why this is so.
Devolution.
Bob Casanova
Although I'm no biologist (and the dictionary is no help
when the subject is a technical one), I suspect the latter.
If the former, most structures would be classed as
vestigial, which would tend to make the term useless.
>The former makes more sense. But by that definition, many structures
>are vestigial, from human fingernails to the teeth of many animals to
>the wings of a penguin. They've all been adapted to different
>functions.
My point exactly. If (nearly) everything is in the same
class, of what use is the class designator?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
>Devolution.
Since evolution is non-directional this is a redundant (and
misleading) term.
cassandra
> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>
> news:j34ka61qj452fi6lf...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 16:10:54 +0000, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
>
> > >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> > >news:raeha6lo42q2upi5q...@4ax.com:
>
> > >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
This sounds very similar to the argument over junk DNA.
John S. Wilkins
While not-a-biologist-nor-do-I-play-one-on-TV, I distinguish
now-functional from then-functional adaptations, and map onto a 2x2
table, top row being what it's state is now, and vertical column being
when it evolved
Now Then
Now Adaptive Adapted
Then Exapted Vestigial
Something is only vestigial IMO when it evolved as an adaptation in the
past for a function it no longer has, but it persists due to
developmental entrenchment.
If something had a function once that it still has, then it is adapted
(the sense being, it is the result of past adaptation).
If something had a function that allowed another function to evolve for
now, such that the old function has lapsed, then it is an exaptation
(Gould and Lewontin's term).
If something evolved recently or is still evolving then it is
adapt*ive*.
Of course, things shade into each other.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Earle Jones
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
*
Nothing religious about it?
"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ
and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ."
--William Dembski, 'Intelligent Design', p 206
earle
*
Earle Jones
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
*
First, tell us how old you are.
earle
*
Ron O
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:57:45 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
>
> >news:9a1cd27e-f83d-4f37...@g18g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> >> There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
> >> throughout the human genome.
>
> >> I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
> >> ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
> >> to why this is so.
> >Devolution.
>
> Since evolution is non-directional this is a redundant (and
> misleading) term.
We should define IDiot savant. Pags and Kalk should qualify.
Ron Okimoto
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Of course. Wasn't the reference to cdesign proponentsists enough to
alert you to the idea that my comment might be sarcastic?
--
athel
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ron O
<roki...@cox.net>:
>On Oct 5, 12:37 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:57:45 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
>>
>> >"Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:9a1cd27e-f83d-4f37...@g18g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> >> There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
>> >> throughout the human genome.
>>
>> >> I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
>> >> ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
>> >> to why this is so.
>> >Devolution.
>>
>> Since evolution is non-directional this is a redundant (and
>> misleading) term.
>
>We should define IDiot savant. Pags and Kalk should qualify.
I have to defend Kalk on this; although sometimes delusional
he seems knowledgeable about, or at least somewhat
conversant with, some things. Tony doesn't; he merely spouts
bombast. And Kalk doesn't declare victory and run away after
each defeat.
John S. Wilkins
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:22:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ron O
> <roki...@cox.net>:
>
> >On Oct 5, 12:37 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:57:45 -0700, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
> >>
> >> >"Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:9a1cd27e-f83d-4f37...@g18g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
> >> >> throughout the human genome.
> >>
> >> >> I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
> >> >> ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
> >> >> to why this is so.
> >> >Devolution.
> >>
> >> Since evolution is non-directional this is a redundant (and
> >> misleading) term.
> >
> >We should define IDiot savant. Pags and Kalk should qualify.
>
> I have to defend Kalk on this; although sometimes delusional
> he seems knowledgeable about, or at least somewhat
> conversant with, some things. Tony doesn't; he merely spouts
> bombast. And Kalk doesn't declare victory and run away after
> each defeat.
Nashton, sure. Kalkidas no; I agree with Bob.
Desertphile
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
> throughout the human genome.
>
> I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
> ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
> to why this is so.
A: Each of the 49 gods created some humans.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Earle Jones
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:22:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ron O
> <roki...@cox.net>:
>
> >On Oct 5, 12:37 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:57:45 -0700, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
> >>
> >> >"Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:9a1cd27e-f83d-4f37...@g18g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
> >> >> throughout the human genome.
> >>
> >> >> I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
> >> >> ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
> >> >> to why this is so.
> >> >Devolution.
> >>
> >> Since evolution is non-directional this is a redundant (and
> >> misleading) term.
> >
> >We should define IDiot savant. Pags and Kalk should qualify.
>
> I have to defend Kalk on this; although sometimes delusional
> he seems knowledgeable about, or at least somewhat
> conversant with, some things. Tony doesn't; he merely spouts
> bombast. And Kalk doesn't declare victory and run away after
> each defeat.
*
My theory: Kalkidas is 12 years old. Maybe 14.
earle
*
Kilmir
> There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
> throughout the human genome.
>
> I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
> ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
> to why this is so.
I was bored and just inserted random pieces of genetic code to mess
with geneticists.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net>:
Could be. If so, he's a fairly precocious 12 (or 14).
RedDog
> On Oct 3, 3:05 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
> > throughout the human genome.
>
> > I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
> > ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
> > to why this is so.
>
> ox-phos pathway in the mitocohondria, but is nuclear encoded. Such a
> common protein should be relatively highly transcribed into its RNA
> mRNA. That just means that there should be a lot of copies of the
> mRNA and its precurors floating around in the nucleus and cytoplasm.
> There are virus and transposoable elements that encode the mechanism
> to put RNA back into the DNA genome (reverse transcriptase and
> transposase). By accident this mechanism picks up random bits of RNA
> and stuffs them back into the genome at realtively random locations.
> The more common the RNA transcript the more common the accidental
> reinsertion. So you get pseudo genes scattered around the genome.
> You can often tell that this has happened because the introns are
> processed out of the RNA transcript before it is reinserted and often
> the RNA has been modified by the addition of the poly A tail. This
> just means that it isn't the result of a simple translocation of the
> nuclear gene. Each insertion of a pseudo gene starts its own
> history. Since there are multiple copies of the pseudo gene in the
> genome they are subject to gene conversion (use of one copy to copy
> over another replacing its sequence), but they tend to independently
> evolve. What is of interest to evolutionary biology is that we can
> share such pseudo genes with our close relatives (the chimps) and we
> can determine when the reinsertion event occurred in the common
> ancestor of both species. We can also tell that the pseudo gene is
> nonfunctional because its sequence collects substitutions at the
> neutral rate and they usually lack the 5 prime transcriptional
> regulatory regions.
>
> So we understand the mechanism by which these types of pseudo genes
> occur and they also tell us about the evolutionary history of a
> genome.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Ron, you rock, dude.
Richard Clayton
No, he just descends into "neener neener neener I'M NOT LISTENING" and
pretends that constitutes an argument. Plugging your ears and humming
loudly your opponent gets bored and leaves does not a victory make.
To his credit, though, he's one of the very few anti-science folks I've
encountered who has a sense of humor about, well, anything. I suspect
he's actually a reasonably pleasant person in real life, as long as you
stay away from his Angry Button topics like religion, carnivory, God,
science, talking to plants, masturbation, western civilization,
empiricism, technology, reality...
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Clayton
<richZIG.e....@gmail.com>:
Nope, but at least he's honest (after a fashion). Tony
isn't.
>To his credit, though, he's one of the very few anti-science folks I've
>encountered who has a sense of humor about, well, anything. I suspect
>he's actually a reasonably pleasant person in real life, as long as you
>stay away from his Angry Button topics like religion, carnivory, God,
>science, talking to plants, masturbation, western civilization,
>empiricism, technology, reality...
--
Bob C.
Richard Clayton
I still think Tony's a Loki troll. Imagine somebody nasty and clever,
deliberately constructing a usenet persona intended to lampoon
creationists as ignorant, arrogant, boorish, and always, always
conspicuously dishonest. Wouldn't that persona look an awful lot like
Pagano?
Bob Casanova
Sure. But now you're back to the perpetual problem regarding
loons vs. talented trolls, and the fact that it's nearly
impossible to tell the difference. I'd bet against Tony
being a troll based mostly on overall tone and long-term
persistence, but I suppose he *could* be a troll suffering
from extreme OCD.
William Morse
> There are 49 non-functional copies of the cytochrome c gene scattered
> throughout the human genome.
>
> I would like supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and (to
> ensure no bias) evolutionary theory to offer a rational explanation as
> to why this is so.
>
Perhaps the easiest analogy is to personal and business records - do you
keep an extra copy or two? This makes it easy to understand a mechanism
that would create extra copies. Now as to the number of copies, one
would expect that would be a function of the cellular economics of
maintaining multiple copies. And while we are on the subject of
economics, the rent is _too damn high_ :-)
Paul J Gans
Only in New York. You have no idea... ;-)
--
--- Paul J. Gans