Evolution?

[Naraoia]

Yes, in the discussion of sigma factors, my understanding was that we know sigma factors may affect the morphology (of something). But we do not know how.

As far as I remember, in that discussion I only ever said that I, personally, don't know if sigma factors have anything to do with morphology. Not sure what the other posters told you but I don't remember anything like your understanding concluded.

In the fruit fly example, the study is backwards (even it was the best we could do). We changed a gene to see what happened. That is easy. But when we see what changes have happened to a life and trying to figure out which gene mutation caused that, it may be very difficult, or not possible yet.

In the case of Antp, geneticists first had the mutants back in the pre-molecular revolution days of genetics. Since then, they managed to figure out exactly where the gene was and learn a great deal about what it does. (Just to put it in context: Drosophila has 10 000+ genes*)

So no, it's definitely not impossible to find particular genes tied to particular changes. I'm not saying it isn't difficult; in changes influenced by many genes (and often by environmental variables) it is hard to find culprits. But it's far from impossible, especially with the increasingly advanced technology and the growing mountains of genome data we have.

(Why haven't I thought of using the Interactive Fly as a source... it has a massive block of information on Antp, including history:

[...]Many of the earliest discovered mutations in Drosophila were dominant. This type of mutation is readily produced and easy to spot, since only one copy of the mutated gene is required in order to see a phenotypic effect. As early as 1949 dominant mutations had been found which converted antenna into the second leg [Image] (the mutant adult having no antenna, and two sets of second legs). The name Antennapedia (antenna-foot) was appropriately descriptive. Such homeotic transformations are exciting to contemplate, and serve as the basis of understanding of gene function in Drosophila (Abbott, 1986).

...and apparently lots of stuff on its functions and interactions.)

---
*I don't know the latest estimate, but all the more recent ones I've seen are well above 10k.

 

[Naraoia]

Thanks for the clarification. What you said is my understanding.
That is why I propose the term: nano-evolution. It is related to the change of genes, mutations, etc. It is the meaning of evolution a genetic scientist would give. From macro to micro, than now to nano. The scale also fits the content. If this term has not been used, I strongly recommend that genetic evolutionists consider that seriously.

Sorry, I still don't understand why this new "nano" thing would be useful. Microevolution already covers everything that happens to genes on the smaller (within-species) scale.

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry, I still don't understand why this new "nano" thing would be useful. Microevolution already covers everything that happens to genes on the smaller (within-species) scale.

And macro-evolution covers what happens genetically on a larger scale.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, but we are working on that and making good progress (starting with genome sequencing). What does this have to do with your differerntiation between eukaryotic evolution and prokaryotic evolution?

OK, here is my understanding:

prokaryotic "evolution" is mostly, if not limited to, genetic changes. That usually do not lead to morphological change. And it is NOT what the "micro-evolution" people usually referred to.

Basically, this is simply another version on the interpretation of OP. It does not give any answer.

 

[juvenissun]

Ahh the joys of google.

Yes, if I do not reply to your post, your life is, indeed, better off:

So, all these tests have n<400. What a wonderful achievement on gene therapy. It only says we do not know what would happen after we change any gene, even we have some idea on what it controls.

 

[pgp_protector]

OK, here is my understanding:

prokaryotic "evolution" is mostly, if not limited to, genetic changes. That usually do not lead to morphological change. And it is NOT what the "micro-evolution" people usually referred to.

Basically, this is simply another version on the interpretation of OP. It does not give any answer.

ALL Evolution is limited to Genetic Changes.

 

[pgp_protector]

.

 

[juvenissun]

In the case of Antp, geneticists first had the mutants back in the pre-molecular revolution days of genetics. Since then, they managed to figure out exactly where the gene was and learn a great deal about what it does. (Just to put it in context: Drosophila has 10 000+ genes*)

So no, it's definitely not impossible to find particular genes tied to particular changes. I'm not saying it isn't difficult;

This is my idea (guess): Any life feature is controlled by "a set of genes", instead by one gene. We may identify one gene or a few genes that "seemingly" control a life feature/function. But just like trying to open a key of 10 combinations. Get the major 5 digits will not quite work.

 

[Tomk80]

OK, here is my understanding:

prokaryotic "evolution" is mostly, if not limited to, genetic changes.

All evolution is genetic change. Evolutionary changes in morphology are caused by genetic changes as well.

That usually do not lead to morphological change.

Size difference. Nothing more. It just means you have to look closer. It doesn't mean that the process is somehow different in bacteria. It isn't.

And it is NOT what the "micro-evolution" people usually referred to.

It is what the "micro-evolution people" usually refer to. Heck, it is what the "macro-evolution people" usually refer to as well. Even in animals, macro-evolution (evolution above at or above the species level) often involves very little morphological change. But who am I kidding, we've been over that already as well. You just ignore that little factoid as much as you do all others.

Basically, this is simply another version on the interpretation of OP. It does not give any answer.

què?

 

[Tomk80]

This is my idea (guess): Any life feature is controlled by "a set of genes", instead by one gene. We may identify one gene or a few genes that "seemingly" control a life feature/function. But just like trying to open a key of 10 combinations. Get the major 5 digits will not quite work.

Given that we deciphered hox genes, you are quite wrong. We are getting a grip on gene complexes and how they work. It is hard, yes. But recent developments have shown convincingly that it is not impossible.

And this is irrelevant anyway. We don't need to know how genes work exactly to know that a change in those genes will lead to changes in the organism. And we don't need to know which genes control which features to conclude that genetic and morphological trees add up.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, I still don't understand why this new "nano" thing would be useful. Microevolution already covers everything that happens to genes on the smaller (within-species) scale.

But micro-evolution emphasizes morphological change. Isn't it? If the morphology does not change, then there is no evolution according to micro-evolution. For example, human has NOT evolved in the past 5000 years, according to micro-evolution. Right? But, geneticists would say, human is evolving all the time. On what basis? Here you go: nano-evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

But micro-evolution emphasizes morphological change. Isn't it?

Wrong

If the morphology does not change, then there is no evolution according to micro-evolution.

Wrong

For example, human has NOT evolved in the past 5000 years, according to micro-evolution. Right?

Wrong

But, geneticists would say, human is evolving all the time. On what basis? Here you go: nano-evolution.

On the basis that the allele frequency within the human species has changed over time. Micro-evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

ALL Evolution is limited to Genetic Changes.

So, if we could not study the genetic change of dinosaurs, then we can not say anything about the evolution of dinosaurs. Is that what you said? We have no way to study the genetics of Precambrian bacteria, so may be they did not evolve at all, according to what you said.

I suggest ALL genetic students must take the course of Paleontology.

 

[pgp_protector]

So, if we could not study the genetic change of dinosaurs, then we can not say anything about the evolution of dinosaurs. Is that what you said? We have no way to study the genetics of Precambrian bacteria, so may be they did not evolve at all, according to what you said.

I suggest ALL genetic students must take the course of Paleontology.

No I said "ALL Evolution is limited to Genetic Changes."
[self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor][self censor]

 

[juvenissun]

Given that we deciphered hox genes, you are quite wrong. We are getting a grip on gene complexes and how they work. It is hard, yes. But recent developments have shown convincingly that it is not impossible.

And this is irrelevant anyway. We don't need to know how genes work exactly to know that a change in those genes will lead to changes in the organism. And we don't need to know which genes control which features to conclude that genetic and morphological trees add up.

I did not reply many of your posts, because I do not know how. Your problem now, as I can see, is that the understanding of principle is not equal to the understanding of detail. You used statements of principle to argue against statements of details. It is not appropriate.

 

[Tomk80]

I did not reply many of your posts, because I do not know how. Your problem now, as I can see, is that the understanding of principle is not equal to the understanding of detail. You used statements of principle to argue against statements of details. It is not appropriate.

It is when the detail is irrelevant to the level of discussion. Which is the case here.

And quite frankly, your knowledge is too much below basic to merit any discussion on detail.

 

[Tomk80]

So, if we could not study the genetic change of dinosaurs, then we can not say anything about the evolution of dinosaurs. Is that what you said?

Wrong, because genetic changes are at the basis of morphologic changes. In other words, when we study the morphological changes in dinosaurs, we know that genetic changes were the underlying mechanism for them.

We have no way to study the genetics of Precambrian bacteria, so may be they did not evolve at all, according to what you said.

They evolve now, what reason could you possibly have to think they didn't then. They only started evolving when we invented genetics? Like some evil plot, where the bacterium is not evolving for billions of years, until someone invents the microscope. Oh ****, evolve fellas!

I suggest ALL genetic students must take the course of Paleontology.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a genetic students who is completely unaware of paleontology.

 

[TheGnome]

But micro-evolution emphasizes morphological change. Isn't it? If the morphology does not change, then there is no evolution according to micro-evolution. For example, human has NOT evolved in the past 5000 years, according to micro-evolution. Right? But, geneticists would say, human is evolving all the time. On what basis? Here you go: nano-evolution.

I never did get a good response to my post:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48982014&postcount=528

You're not going to respond to it as you hand-waived it away for your previous response.

Microevolution is evolution within a species. That's any evolution. Genes will always change the morphology of an organism, but sequences may not. Noncoding, nonregulatory sequences can evolve. Morphology can even change and have absolutely no different function. Microevolution encompasses all of these.

Macroevolution is simply that leap to a new species. Macroevolution is a result of microevolutionary changes.

Humans are not evolving into another species because of the inventions of the ship and the airplane. There is just too much mixing of genes. Populations evolve, however. Closed off human populations are evolving, after all, can't you tell the difference between a Japanese man and an English man? As a species, we're still not that much different from each other in terms of overall function, but sometimes you can find certain traits to particular groups of people. Most white Americans can digest lactose even until adulthood because they contain a lactase gene. I'm moderately lactose intolerant, but as it turns out, a small percentage of Italians can break down lactose, and I am mostly Italian by descent--explaining why I'm an exception to the majority. This answers the question that humans are "microevolving."

Many of these questions can be answered by opening a general biology textbook. This is ridiculous.

 

[Bombila]

TheGnome, it is ridiculous. Even reading and understanding some of the basic material presented to him in this thread alone, let alone several dozen others, would make juvenissun a more knowledgeable man. and salient points wouldn't go whooshing over his head as they do.

I cannot fathom arguing about something I hadn't a clue about without at least trying to get up to half speed. You will never see me arguing about astrophysics or chemistry because I know very little about either; I just read those threads, ask for clarification sometimes, and make an effort to learn something. It's free knowledge. people pay good money to learn these things.

 

[juvenissun]

No I said "ALL Evolution is limited to Genetic Changes."

So, you are saying: if a change can not be related to genetic change, then it is not an evolution.

I don't see how could I be wrong on that.

If I am right, then you (anyone) go ahead and try to relate the morphology change of dinosaur to their genetic change. I bet on your failure because you simply can not do it.