The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[El_Machinae]

No, I would guess not. But you can't tell that a creature has 'uber' DNA from its fossils, anyway.

I think the 'uber animals' is how people explain the diversity of creatures after the Flood (many types of bears, dogs, elephants, etc.) I guess I used a similar argument when talking about mitochondria, that Eve had 'uber mitochondria' and all of our mitochondria was a degraded subset of hers.

TLC: I just thought of something. We could disprove my 'uber mtDNA' theory by comparing the mitochondrial Eve DNA with our current mtDNA. If there was minimal degredation (ie, her's had proteins that are junk DNA in ours), it would disprove that line of attack

 

[The Last Conformist]

Oop, another type of 'information loss' could be the stamping out of an allele from a population. For this case, I'm thinking about what happens if humans inbreed for too long.

To use the same label for this as for your previous definition would be blackest obfuscation.

Goodness no, because 'junk DNA' that's gained could later mutate into functional DNA.

This would make the information content of a genome path-dependent, since a functional sequence can arise directly (counting as information gain once) or by mutation form a previously added junk sequence (counting as information gain twice). This is beyond silly, and useless to boot.

 

[The Last Conformist]

TLC: I just thought of something. We could disprove my 'uber mtDNA' theory by comparing the mitochondrial Eve DNA with our current mtDNA. If there was minimal degredation (ie, her's had proteins that are junk DNA in ours), it would disprove that line of attack

Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. To some extent we can reconstruct her mtDNA sequence, but any part of it that's lost or degraded in all modern people is out of reach.

 

[El_Machinae]

This would make the information content of a genome path-dependent, since a functional sequence can arise directly (counting as information gain once) or by mutation form a previously added junk sequence (counting as information gain twice). This is beyond silly, and useless to boot.

I disagree. I can recognize that getting a whole new 'useful' gene outta nowhere is 'better' than getting junk DNA out of nowhere. But getting junk DNA means that it's possible to mutate into a 'useful' gene.

I might be wrong, but I think the 'yip' sequence is one that was reverse transcribed through our genome, and that sometimes it mutates into something useful.

edit: oop, it might not be. There's a sequence in our DNA that looks like a bit of reverse transcriptase that's been incorporated into our genome and reproduced. I'll look for the name.

I'm afraid. To some extent we can reconstruct her mtDNA sequence,

We only have part of her sequence? Then isn't it awfully prideful to say that she's who we descended from?

 

[El_Machinae]

To use the same label for this as for your previous definition would be blackest obfuscation.

Can you please provide definitions then, instead of saying that my definitions are useless?

What do you call the loss of alleles involved with inbreeding (with regards to the information)?

What do you call the loss of function in the mutation of the gene that turned off lactase?

 

[Che Guava]

That's actually not true. Grizzlies and polar bears are not considered different species because they cannot produce fertile offspring - they can - but because they're in normal circumstances reproductively isolated from one another.

Linky

dang! Caught by the exception in the species rule: reproductive isolation! Ah well, I'm sure this still applies to lots of other species with more 'extreme' habitat needs...

Came across an article on-line about the ascent of the domestic dog. It's pretty long (but reaaally interesting!), so I jsut took out a few sections that deal with te genetics of breeds.

Our dogs are derived from gray wolves, which not only also have 78 chromosomes but, more to the point, can still breed with dogs, making them members of the same species. Some 12,000 years ago, judging from archeological remains, these gray wolves loped into the lives of our hunter-gatherer forebears and then, over the millennia, gave rise to all the fantastic dog shapes and sizes that populate the planet today

[...]

These days, you'd imagine that molecular biology could ride in on its white charger and sort out the mess in a twinkling. Think again, says evolutionary geneticist Rodney Honeycutt, of Texas A&M. Five years ago his lab began to try to figure out the relationships between 28 canine breeds by comparing their DNA. Distantly related breeds, the researchers reasoned, would have the most dissimilar DNA, and closely related breeds, the most similar. And so they selected bits of DNA from each dog and compared the sequences of their building blocks--the nucleotides A, C, T, and G. "It was a mess," reports Honeycutt. "We couldn't even group individuals of a breed together." Only one breed, the maremma, stood out from the rest. You couldn't even tell a dog breed like a springer spaniel from a wolf.

link!

Sounds like dog breeding is a messy affair, But the most intersting part of the particle is that a researcher was able to create a kind of domestic dog, in about 20 generations, from a silver fox.....

 

[The Last Conformist]

I disagree. I can recognize that getting a whole new 'useful' gene outta nowhere is 'better' than getting junk DNA out of nowhere. But getting junk DNA means that it's possible to mutate into a 'useful' gene.

Let's say that A's represent useful DNA and J's represent junk. Look at this two scenarios:

i) AJJA -> AJJAA
ii) AJJA -> AJJAJ -> AJJAA

By your definition, there is a greater "information gain" in (ii) than in (i). How on earth is this not silly?

We only have part of her sequence? Then isn't it awfully prideful to say that she's who we descended from?

It's been said that questions don't need to make sense, only answers. I'm afraid this is a counterexample.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's a sequence in our DNA that looks like a bit of reverse transcriptase that's been incorporated into our genome and reproduced

I might have been thinking of "Lines"

Non-LTR retroposons
Also called retroposons. Again, have the pol and gag-related gene, but now also lack the LTRs,

Example: LINEs (Long interspersed elements)


LINEs are one of the most ancient and successful inventions in eukaryotic genomes.

In humans, are about 6 kb long, harbour an internal polymerase II promoter and encode two open reading frames (ORFs).

Upon translation, a LINE RNA assembles with its own encoded proteins and moves to the nucleus, where an endonuclease activity makes a single-stranded nick and the reverse transcriptase uses the nicked DNA to prime reverse transcription from the 3' end of the LINE RNA.

Reverse transcription frequently fails to proceed to the 5' end, resulting in many truncated, nonfunctional insertions.

Most LINE-derived repeats are short, with an average size of 900 bp for all LINE1 copies, and a median size of 1,070 bp for copies of the currently active LINE1 element (L1Hs).

The LINE machinery is believed to be responsible for most reverse transcription in the genome, including the retrotransposition of the non-autonomous SINEs and the creation of processed pseudogenes

Three distantly related LINE families are found in the human genome: LINE1, LINE2 and LINE3.

Only LINE1 is still active.

Lecture notes

 

[Che Guava]

Can you please provide definitions then, instead of saying that my definitions are useless?

What do you call the loss of alleles involved with inbreeding (with regards to the information)?

Inbreeding depression, IIRC. Deleterious genes occur in all of us but areusually covered up because we have duplicate copies. They are always around, they just show up on both chromosomes more when there is a smaller gene pool.

What do you call the loss of function in the mutation of the gene that turned off lactase?

A null or loss of function mutation, I beleive. Not losing information, just changing it so that it is no longer useful (at least until a use can be found...!)

 

[The Last Conformist]

Can you please provide definitions then, instead of saying that my definitions are useless?

What do you call the loss of alleles involved with inbreeding (with regards to the information)?

What do you call the loss of function in the mutation of the gene that turned off lactase?

Hey, it's not me saying there is a such thing as a useful definition of genetic information.

 

[El_Machinae]

By your definition, there is a greater "information gain" in (ii) than in (i). How on earth is this not silly?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that both examples are types of information gain. And that both stages of (ii) are types of information gain. The reverse would be true, too.

AAJJ -> AJJJ would be information loss
AAJJ -> AAJ would be information loss too

 

[The Last Conformist]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that both examples are types of information gain. And that both stages of (ii) are types of information gain.

Then you need specify the magnitudes of different kinds of losses and gains. Your original definition seemed to imply that all changes were counted equal.

 

[El_Machinae]

No I don't and no I didn't. I was just stating what was meant when someone said gained or lost. I was providing types of instances. What a person means about magnitudes or value can be pulled from context. For example, most of us are pretty sure what Diablo meant by 'information gain', he meant mutating junk DNA to become useful. I doubt he knew about LINEs.

It's like if you provided definitions about moving forward or backwards, and then I asked for data regarding data or velocity.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

People, people, people:

I have the answer to the ark problem. It wasn't a miracle at all. Noah just had access to incredible technology that has since been lost. What happened was that he had robotic, self-piloted helicopters that were able to pick up all the animals, plants, and microbes and then return them after the flood. And he had perfectly made habitats for everything; fresh-water aquariums, tiger cages, you name it, complete with all the food and energy and waste disposal. And he had a shrinking ray that made all these millions of habitats fit on the ark.

Voila!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

In other words, this thread should be hibernated instead of spammed, seeing as all the creationists are gone.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm certainly not spamming.

I'm sitting on my thumbs waiting for someone to refute my statement that it's easier to get poodles from wolves than it is to get wolves from poodles.

And maybe waiting to see if poodle DNA is (or is not) a subset of wolf DNA.

 

[Che Guava]

I'm sitting on my thumbs waiting for someone to refute my statement that it's easier to get poodles from wolves than it is to get wolves from poodles.

I don't think anyone here refutes that. Given the narrow genetic slice that purebred poodle have, I don't think you could make much besides variations of poodles....

And maybe waiting to see if poodle DNA is (or is not) a subset of wolf DNA.

take a look at the article I posted about the dog/wolf genome: I would say yes.

 

[warpus]

I'm certainly not spamming.

I'm sitting on my thumbs waiting for someone to refute my statement that it's easier to get poodles from wolves than it is to get wolves from poodles.

And maybe waiting to see if poodle DNA is (or is not) a subset of wolf DNA.

It isn't - new information would have been introduced to poodle genetic code - although you could say that it's 'based' on wolf dna.

As for the first question - we've already gotten poodles from wolves - so although this would be very hard to repeat - I'd have to say that it's easier to get poodles from wolves - since it's happened - and whereas a poodle has never evolved into a wolf.

 

[sanabas]

I'm certainly not spamming.

I'm sitting on my thumbs waiting for someone to refute my statement that it's easier to get poodles from wolves than it is to get wolves from poodles.

I'd be guessing that the main reason it is easier is because the wolf population would have more variation than the poodle population. Start with a population of poodles, and I don't think it would be that tough to get a predator to fill a similar niche as wolves do now. The problem you'd have with getting very close to wolves would be any recessive genes poodles might have. Would be like starting with a population of blue-eyed redheads and trying to breed someone tall, dark & handsome. Tall & handsome might be ok, but dark would be tough to get.

And maybe waiting to see if poodle DNA is (or is not) a subset of wolf DNA.

I'd suspect it's close, but not quite.

 

[Che Guava]

I'd be guessing that the main reason it is easier is because the wolf population would have more variation than the poodle population. Start with a population of poodles, and I don't think it would be that tough to get a predator to fill a similar niche as wolves do now. The problem you'd have with getting very close to wolves would be any recessive genes poodles might have. Would be like starting with a population of blue-eyed redheads and trying to breed someone tall, dark & handsome. Tall & handsome might be ok, but dark would be tough to get.

Exactly. Breeds like poodles have had thier gene pool intentionally limited so that you only get certain alleles showing up. Wolves, being wild, have a broad range of aleles that are dominated by the 'wolf' traits, being the ones most useful to a dog in the wild.

I'd suspect it's close, but not quite.

They are the same species, so I would say yes.