• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

First genetic evidence of macroevolution found.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm
--------------------------------------------------------

EMBARGOED UNTIL February 6, 2002, 11 a.m. Pacific Time (2 p.m. ET)

Comment: William McGinnis (858) 822-0458
              Matthew Ronshaugen (858) 822-0461

Media Contact: Kim McDonald (858) 534-7572

Graphic and image of Artemia
Credit: Matthew Ronshaugen, UCSD



FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES
IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTION


mchox.1.jpg


Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.”

The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox, that act as master switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development. Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while its crustacean counterpart from Artemia only represses 15%—would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects.

mchox2.jpg


“This kind of gene is one that turns on and off lots of other genes in order to make complex structures,” says Ronshaugen, a graduate student working in William McGinnis’ laboratory and the first author of the paper. “What we’ve done is to show that this change alters the way it turns on and off other genes. That’s due to the change in the way the protein produced by this gene functions.”

“The change in the mutated protein allows it to turn off other genes,” says William McGinnis, who discovered with two other scientists in 1983 that the same Hox genes in fruit flies that control the placement of the head, thorax and abdomen during development are a generalized feature of all animals, including humans. “Before the evolution of insects, the Ubx protein didn't turn off genes required for leg formation. And during the early evolution of insects, this gene and the protein it encoded changed so that they now turned off those genes required to make legs, essentially removing those legs from what would be the abdomen in insects.”

The UCSD team’s demonstration of how a mutation in the Ubx gene and changes in the corresponding Ubx protein can lead to such a major change in body design undercuts a primary argument creationists have used against the theory of evolution in debates and biology textbooks. Their specific objection to the idea of macroevolutionary change in animals is summed up in a disclaimer that the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee voted in November, 1999 to include in that state’s biology textbooks:

“The word evolution may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may evolve into gray moths). This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing into another, such as reptiles and birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory.”

“The creationists’ argument rests in part on the fact that animals have two sets of chromosomes and that in order to get big changes, you’d need to mutate the same genes in both sets of chromosomes,” explains McGinnis. “It’s incredibly unlikely that you would get mutations in the same gene in two chromosomes in a single organism. But in our particular case, the kind of mutation that’s in this gene is a so-called dominant mutation, so you only need to mutate one of the chromosomes to get a big change in body plan.”

The discovery of this general mechanism for producing major leaps in evolutionary change has other implications for scientists. It may provide biologists with insights into the roles of other regulatory genes involved in more evolutionarily recent changes in body designs. In addition, the discovery in the UCSD study, which was financed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, of how this particular Hox gene regulates limb development also may have an application in improving the understanding human disease and genetic deformities.

“If you compare this gene to many other related genes, you can see that they share certain regions in their sequences, which suggests that their function might be regulated like this gene,” says Ronshaugen. “This may establish how, not only this gene, but relatives of this gene in many, many different organisms actually work. A lot of these genes are involved in the development of cancers and many different genetic abnormalities, such as syndactyly and polydactyly, and they may explain how some of these conditions came to be.”
 

lithium.

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2002
4,662
4
nowhere
✟30,036.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Project 86
Nice try but this isn't evidence for Macroevolution at all.

I'd agree with that. Quoting from the first paragraph:

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

What we have here is evidence of a mechanism for macroevolutionary change. While this is by no means proof that evolution is true, it certainly helps fill a major gap in our knowledge of how evolution might have worked.
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,992
267
48
Minnesota
Visit site
✟28,302.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Then almost everything in science is bad sceince to them"

Well I like a lot of science. Evolution gives no real benefit to science. Not even medically. In fact it has hurt medical reseach in the past. If I didn't have to get to bed I would give examples how evolution assumptions made scientists overlook things they shouldn't have. There are large numbers of creation scientists with REAL degrees out there and there always have been. Evolution is just looking at the same evidence as creationists look at and coming to some largly diffrent conclusions.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Project 86
If I didn't have to get to bed I would give examples how evolution assumptions made scientists overlook things they shouldn't have.

This I gotta see. Please post your examples, please.

There are large numbers of creation scientists with REAL degrees out there and there always have been.

REAL degrees in what? Law?

Evolution is just looking at the same evidence as creationists look at and coming to some largly diffrent conclusions.

Please give examples of some evidence that creationists look at to support their theory. Last I heard there wasn't any.
 
Upvote 0
Gee, I can't wait until Project 86 wakes up and backs up his/her claims. I'm sure it will come as quite a surprise to HIV researchers or folks at the Center for Disease Control that they have been duped all this time.

If only they had read their bibles before writing those satanic doctoral theses....
 
Upvote 0

MSBS

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2002
1,860
103
California
✟18,091.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by Project 86
"Then almost everything in science is bad sceince to them"

Well I like a lot of science. Evolution gives no real benefit to science. Not even medically. In fact it has hurt medical reseach in the past. If I didn't have to get to bed I would give examples how evolution assumptions made scientists overlook things they shouldn't have. There are large numbers of creation scientists with REAL degrees out there and there always have been. Evolution is just looking at the same evidence as creationists look at and coming to some largly diffrent conclusions.

BS pure and simple. Evolution is a huge benefit to science, including medicine.

Never hurt medical research.

I challenege you to post your examples.

Evolution is looking at the evidence and comming to conclusions, the data shows what the data shows, and you wishing really hard to the contrary impacts it not at all.



And besides all of this stupid arguing, evolution says nothing about God or Christianity. Nothing. Zero. Why, then, are you so afraid of it? Why have you made it into this great boogey man that gets blamed for every thing known to man?
 
Upvote 0

MSBS

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2002
1,860
103
California
✟18,091.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by Doubting Thomas II
Gee, I can't wait until Project 86 wakes up and backs up his/her claims. I'm sure it will come as quite a surprise to HIV researchers or folks at the Center for Disease Control that they have been duped all this time.

If only they had read their bibles before writing those satanic doctoral theses....

Not to mention me, as I've been using mechanisms of evolution in the lab every day (specifically those behind horizontal gene transfer in bacteria). The same kind of stuff that they have used to produce enzymes and drugs for biomedical research as well as pharmaceutical manufacturing.....you know, that stuff that doesn't really happen and we are all lying about because evolution research has never helped anybody. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0