Actually, it had to be from just one.
No, there are no examples of complex coming from simple.
So you're on track.
Why?
The world is filled with complex things coming from simpler things.
Is than an example?
OK, that's fine. We can try using those 3.
So, there is some DNA that all 3 share, yes? Let's call that strand A. Then there is DNA that chimps and humans share, but is excluded from gorillas, yes? Let's call that strand B. Finally, the gorilla, chimp, and human have additional DNA that is unique to that species, yes? Let's call those strands G, C, and H (for gorilla, chimp, and human respectively).
So, could we describe our 3 sample species as:
gorilla = AG
chimp = ABC
human = ABH
Does that work?
You would use the same strand for all comparisons, one from each species. What differs is the base sequence of those strands. So at any one position in those strands two species may or may not match. For example:
OK, maybe "strand" was a poor choice of words. Maybe it would be better to use a more generic term such as "sets". Therefore, in your above example, position 34 (if I counted correctly) is common to all 3 species so it would go into one set. However at position 35, the chimp has a unique base, so it would go into a different set.
With that said, I wasn't thinking the sets would be created at the base level. After all, doesn't each organism have a unique sequence? I was thinking we were comparing species, not organisms. As such, it seems we would need to use a higher level comparison to create sets of similarities and differences.
(edit) FYI, I leave for vacation on Wednesday and I don't know what my Internet access will be like. I expected this thread was going to die before now, but if it continues, the discussion may have to wait until I get back.
Also of note, only a tiny fraction (~2%) of the human genome is made up of codons. The vast majority is not translated into protein.
Those are actually codons.
It is actually helpful to categorize these differences with reference to codons since synonymous and non-synonymous mutations have different implications for the theory of evolution.
If there is just one base difference in 3 billion bases, that would still be a unique genome.
If it's part of what makes a gorilla a gorilla (as biologists distinguish the species from chimps & humans), then let's include it. If not, let's exclude it.
It's more than just these 2 isn't it? There's quite a long list of mutation mechanisms, though it seems they can be grouped into 3 categories: substitution, gain, and loss.
So are there differences due to synonomous mutations of the genome of gorillas and chimps that are considered part of what distinguishes those 2 species?
Well, yes, but your tree doesn't show a branch for Koko.
It shows a branch for gorillas, so I assume biologists have some way of identifying the population of gorillas as unique compared to the population of chimps.
That's what I'm after. I was going to write it out this way:
U->AP---------->AG
U->AP->ABQ->ABC
U->AP->ABQ->ABH
In addition to the sets I noted earlier (A,B,G,C,H), I've added U (universal ancestor), P (vertex of the first branch), and Q (vertex of the second branch).
Mutations found in one species but not in another are considered a way of identifying one population from another. These are most often differences that exist in a large percentage of the population.
Not sure where you have the branches, or if you have any branches at all. Also, I don't know what those letters are supposed to represent.
I don't think I follow. I think of a mutation as a change in a sequence, which implies a change from some baseline.
So where are you starting from? You pick Koko the gorilla and sequence her DNA. Then you pick some other organism and sequence its DNA. Do you decide this organism is a gorilla before or after you sequence its DNA?
I was showing the 3 lines of descent for your tree: the populations of gorillas (line 1 = L1), chimps (line 2 = L2), and humans (line 3 = L3). At Generation 0 there is only one population, denoted as U:
That's correct. The baseline in this case is the common ancestor.
It is not as if one lineage branches off and stops evolving.
We usually already know which individuals belong to which species.
That would be three separate blades of grass, not a tree.
I don't understand your question.
Are you asking for an example?
Okay:
- the simpler seed that becomes a more complex tree.
- any chemical reaction that takes simple atoms or molecules and produces more complex compounds as output
- you started out as a single cell. I guess you agree that you have become more complex since then...
So we literally have billions of examples of "simple things" becoming "more complex" over time, without the need of any kind of supernatural intervention.
Instead, physical processes make this happen.
OK, but it seems you're saying you don't actually have physical DNA evidence for the common ancestor. You're just assuming the common DNA came from the common ancestor.
Sure. I didn't mean to imply it would. For example, my "G" code for the gorilla line is meant to imply whatever is unique about the gorilla, changing or not. So, "G" can change over time. The only part I was saying would remain constant is the "A" set, which was inherited by all 3 species from their common ancestor.
OK, that's a new wrinkle. So you're selecting populations based on their morphology. I knew that was the practice at one time, but I thought it was fading away in favor of DNA identification.
Thanks for the diagram. What are the letters representing, and why did you choose those specific letters? Why isn't AP or ABP the common ancestor? Why does ABQ become AG?No. I guess you're still not understanding my symbols. I'm using it simply to overcome the limitations of CF - as a means for communicating with simple text. I would much rather draw it ... the picture in my head looks like a subway map. Anyway ...
Anywhere the same letter appears, it is meant to indicate identity. So, the U in L1, L2, and L3 is identical. In other words, at that time, there is only 1 line - 1 population - 1 species. At that point L1, L2, and L3 are indentical. The same is true of AP. So, from U to AP there is 1 line.
After AP it diverges into 2 lines (AG and ABQ). Then ABQ splits again into ABC and ABH so the tree finishes with 3 lines. Is that more clear or will I have to mail you a picture?
how about drawing it in paint, then uploading it in a zip folder?No. I guess you're still not understanding my symbols. I'm using it simply to overcome the limitations of CF - as a means for communicating with simple text. I would much rather draw it ... the picture in my head looks like a subway map. Anyway ...
Ok. But 1 and 3 are no more complex than the original design or pattern. When I was a single cell, the entire
amount of information or coding needed was in that cell. Not one cell in my body can repeat that task.
#2 has potential because I've forgotten much of my chemistry due to lack of use.
Can anyone give a chemical example of increased complexity?
When I was a single cell, the entire
amount of information or coding needed was in that cell.
Can anyone give a chemical example of increased complexity?
If you want a term with less baggage, you could use the term "consensus sequence" which is the base that is found in the majority of species at a specific position.
Humans and chimps may not have inherited A because it could have changed between the time of the gorilla branching off and chimps branching off.
We are selecting them based on who they mate with.
Thanks for the diagram. What are the letters representing, and why did you choose those specific letters?
Why isn't AP or ABP the common ancestor?
Why does ABQ become AG?
Well, all 3 species supposedly inherited something from their ancestor didn't they? Whatever DNA they were supposed to have inherited, I'm calling it "A".
The letters represent what can possibly be inherited by a descendent.
Well, those are the most recent ancestors. U is a distance ancestor. Then things change over time, and at the point of divergence the most recent ancestor is AP (or ABP).
Remember I noted 3 general groups of mutation processes: substitution, gain, and loss. So, the gorilla inherits A from its ancestors. B is lost. Q changes into G via substitution and/or gain.
That is always going to be a retroactive conclusion because the amount of DNA that you inherit from the common ancestor decreases with time.
The problem is that B is going to be millions of mutations, so I don't see how they could all be lost with such precision. I would only expect a very tiny minority of B to be lost to indels because they are much more likely to happen elsewhere in the genome.
how about drawing it in paint, then uploading it in a zip folder?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?