It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Not at all. Lets use the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 gene correlation with certain types of breast cancer as an example,
Mice and humans are not the same species. Why would one assume they have the same effect.
You want another example, how about the gene for lactose tolerance (the LCT gene). It can be dated to having mutated in a helpful manner to Humans to around the same time as we were domesticating cattle (and other species we milk).
Just because something is not simple, does not mean a theory is wrong.
What I feel you are missing here, is despite a high level of similarity the human genome is still very distinct from that of mice. Thus a single gene BRCA 1, will most likely be interacting with other genes in a different manner. Cell apoptosis (cell death) in the mouse, due to mucking about with BRCA genes is not that surprising. It just means that that gene holds a slightly different role in the mouse.
As for the LCT gene, you would be a IDer? Because its a natural mutation, and follows the path of migration of domestication quite nicely.
Of course a mutation on one species can have a completely different affect on a another, even if it's the same gene.
All you have to do is compare the human breast to a mouse breast to see they are vastly different.
If one gene mutation had the exact same effect on all species we'd have a very different evolutionary picture than we actually see today.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
You're comparing phenotypes. I'm talking about genotypes. That two relatively similar genotypes can give way to completely different phenotypes is the point being made. Or do you believe that phenotypes can be directly read from a genotype?
You do realize that mice are the single species, due to their apparent genetic similarity to humans, used by biotech labs to test for all sorts of monogenic diseases, right? So they can see how it might affect humans. Why might that be? research.jax.org...
Why do I bring this up? Because they segregate according to the traditional Mendelian principles of inheritance, which as we all know is the backbone of the modern synthesis, and natural selection. Hence this idea of genetic determinism that I don't agree with.
Most diseases are multifactorial which as you know means that multiple genes and/or other epigenetic factors contribute to their development. The environment, interactions between cells, and the organism etc all play a role. Quite simply - it's not only the genes. It's much more complex than that.
These interactions between cell>organism>environment which contribute to epigenetic factors governing evolution are largely left out of the synthesis though. Why?
Mutations on the genetic level affects phenotype.
Genes are essentially like blueprints. You change the blueprint, you change the final product.
That doesn't mean that every single genetic mutation affects mice in the same way it affects humans. That assumption is a nonsensical proposition. If they were strictly doing it because of similarities they'd use chimps instead of mice.
So you honestly do not believe that genes influence phenotype and that genetic mutations cannot influence an organism's morphology? I don't know what to say other than that is pretty much the way it is.
Please explain how they are left out? Last I checked the environment can cause genetic mutations, which can change morphology of an organism and influence it's adaptability to a certain environment. That is the cornerstone of modern synthesis. It isn't left out.
I am most likely more informed than most creationists on the science behind evolution, but part of my tertiary education is in Bioinformatics and Biochemistry (thus genomics and genetics). So please show me where youa re having issues with the part of evolution which is "change through mutation", because THAT is evolution in a simple statement.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
While this is evident to an extent, despite what you may think, phenotypes are not always impacted by genetic mutations.
Ah yes, the good ole blueprint metaphor. Well sorry to say genes are no longer being looked at in that way, thanks to a better understanding of what is actually happening on the molecular level, and overall.
How can something be a blueprint if it gives only a partial picture? You would never be able to look at an anonymous genotype and predict the phenotype that would come from it.
You have to remember too, that two completely different genotypes can still produce very similar if not almost identical phenotypes. So no, in this vein, changing the "blueprint" as you say does not necessarily change the end product.
They are doing it because of the similarity of genomes though. It's just easier to work with mice. This is the whole idea behind animal testing, which like you, I disagree with. To be clear though, I don't think that we can know what effect a particular gene will have on two different species of organisms. What I was trying to show, but may have failed, is that there are entire industries (biotech, big pharma) resting on the idea that certain genes when mutated will have the same affects across some species, of mammals anyway. This idea that we can cure cancer or obesity by identifying their genes and simply turning them on or off. Nope, it's not that simple, nor direct, I'm afraid.
The idea that genes are the blueprints containing all the instructions needed to create a complete organismal form with all its physical structures, physiological functions and behaviors is a fallacious one. As is the prevailing notion that evolution is driven by chance mutations. It's broader and more complex than that.
What molecular changes are you referring to that suggest genes don't affect the phenotype?
That statement reinforces my previous point that genetic mutations in different species affect the phenotype differently.
Obviously, you can't study an anonymous genome and know exactly how a mutation will affect it. The problem is you say anonymous, but that is an unrealistic concept because they are not anonymous.
Do you have examples of "completely different" genotypes producing "almost identical" phenotypes?
Then why is it geneticists can create a living organism from just the DNA? Of course it contains all of the instructions needed. If not, we couldn't have cloned a sheep along with various other species. No logical fallacies involved. Yes the mutations of the DNA are random, but we're talking about genotype affecting phenotype and that's direct evidence.
QED its still evolution.
You got very defensive over the IDer comment, which leads me to believe it hit home. You are welcome to your beliefs however be open about them. You came in here gunning at those who stood against 'the farce" part of the thread. WHy is that?
As I've pointed out, I've got a background in the sciences (PhD chemistry, Masters in bioinformatics), I understand this subject very well thanks.
Do you have examples of "completely different" genotypes producing "almost identical" phenotypes?
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
It's called convergent evolution, and there are very many examples. I'll provide a couple here for you:
The one on the left is American while the one on the right is African. Both survive in arid climates with very similar shapes and features, presumably to reduce water loss and predation.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Noinden
DOnly that you cease with the ad homs.
Blue print is a metaphor.
I'm well aware of convergent evolution, but we're talking about genotype similarity and you you didn't even mention the difference between these organisms. What is the percentage of DNA that these 2 and your other examples share in common?