Posted on 06/04/2004 8:08:18 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
Yes, it means more looking, but it also means the repudiation of the theory that makes it "unexpected".
It is not often that the audience at a scientific meeting gasps in amazement during a talk. But that is what happened recently when researchers revealed that they had deleted huge chunks of the genome of mice without it making any discernable difference to the animals.
Eh, well. I more or less agree with you on that.. =) I'm mainly just wondering if it is randomly possible.
I actually haven't the slightest problem with the idea of as-yet-unexplained scientific phenomena. If I did, I would probably invent some supernatural fantasy to explain them.
Also, it would signify that scientific progress had already come to an end - there being nothing left to discover - and I certainly don't believe that.
If it were, there would be quite a few "PO'ed" scientists. BLASTing proteins or genome sequences would be a "fruitless" endeavor.
Theory didn't make it unexpected; prejudice alone did. High-temperature superconductors didn't overthrow the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory of superconductivity, but boy, howdy, was that ever a shock. It's revelations like that that make being a scientist worthwhile.
Well, see, here's the deal:
Let's say you have two closely related species. Oh, I dunno, say a horse and a zebra. Now, presumably, there is some subset of useless genetic material (according to our current understanding) that was bequethed to both by their closest immediate ancestor but which has no reason to be conserved.
OK, one would then expect that those regions would diverge at whatever rate random mutations take place. However, it seems unreasonable that this would happen instantly. Therefore, there would be some reason to expect that some percentage of those regions would remain common between the two, though diminishing over time.
So, I guess that's my question: could some percentage of conserved regions be due to random circumstance - i.e., they just haven't had enough time to mutate apart.
Now, obviously the problem is that we're talking about vast spans of time and multiple intervening species and two long-divergent branches of the phylogenetic tree when comparing, say, man and mouse. So, like I said, I more or less agree with you that random chance would not conserve much of anything.
So, leaving apart some unidentified yet crucial function (the route being explored by this research above) my next question would be: what processes might impact either the longitudinal or the temporal uniformity of genomic mutation. The answer likely rests in that (if those conserved regions in fact have no function).
The article has a quote which addresses your question.
Haussler's team recently described "ultra-conserved regions" in mammals. The level of conservation was even higher than that for many genes. "What's most mysterious is that we don't know any molecular mechanism that would demand conservation like this," Haussler says.
We are not "talking" about superconductivity, we are "talking" about RMNS and evolution. Physics makes sense apart from superconductivity, but "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".
Well, I am certainly looking forward to the explanation whenever it is arrived at by whomever. He or she may well win a Nobel Prize! (When they stop giving those out, then I'll know science has reached its endpoint..) That's virtually guaranteed if some novel molecular mechanism is waiting to get discovered.
Get the analogy straight: "Nothing in superconductivity makes sense except in light of the BCS theory". The discovery of High-Tc superconductors didn't overthrow the BCS theory, and this discovery doesn't overthrow the theory of evolution. It took me 30 seconds to outline a hypothesis, consistent with evolution, wherein such conserved regions could arise. Reconciling High-Tc superconductors with the BCS theory took a decade.
Sure did, a biological toolkit.
Forgot the map.
Such things exist. I even told you where to read up on them.
As I see it, a 21st Century view of evolution has to include the following features:
• Major evolutionary change to the genome occurs by the amplification and rearrangement of pre-existing modules. Old genomic systems are disassembled and new genomic systems are assembled by natural genetic engineering functions that operate via non-random molecular processes.
• Major alterations in the content and distribution of repetitive DNA elements results in a reformatting of the genome to function in novel ways --without major alterations of protein coding sequences. These reformattings would be particularly important in adaptive radiations within taxonomic groups that use the same basic materials to make a wide variety of morphologically distinct species (e.g. birds and mammals).
• Large-scale genome-wide reorganizations occur rapidly (potentially within a single generation) following activation of natural genetic engineering systems in response to a major evolutionary challenge. The cellular regulation of natural genetic engineering automatically imposes a punctuated tempo on the process of evolutionary change.
• Targeting of natural genetic engineering processes by cellular control networks to particular regions of the genome enhances the probability of generating useful new multi-locus systems. (Exactly how far the computational capacity of cells can influence complex genome rearrangements needs to be investigated. This area also holds promise for powerful new biotechnologies.)
• Natural selection following genome reorganization eliminates the misfits whose new genetic structures are non-functional. In this sense, natural selection plays an essentially negative role, as postulated by many early thinkers about evolution (e.g. 53). Once organisms with functional new genomes appear, however, natural selection may play a positive role in fine-tuning novel genetic systems by the kind of micro-evolutionary processes currently studied in the laboratory.
I already know about "toolkits". Programmers use them. The above was from Dr James Shapiro.
Probably true, but the "toolkit", "map" and organism contain information. Looks more and more like Dr. Shapiro is right.
I don't see anything wrong--or even particularly controversial--in what you posted above, although it might be somewhat overstated. You aren't--ah--becoming an evolutionist, are you, by any chance?
I've posted Dr. Shapiro for many years now. I haven't changed. I think that Darwinian evolution is untenable/wrong. Intelligent Design is literal interpretation of the Bible to evolutionists here and no other viewpoints exist to them. So...
Exactly. Of course, if they understood it, they wouldn't be trolls, would they?
Didn't PatrickHenry explain this in a previous crevo discussion?
Well, gosh, but in that case you might want to read through the stuff he writes before you post it:
Natural selection following genome reorganization eliminates the misfits whose new genetic structures are non-functional. In this sense, natural selection plays an essentially negative role, as postulated by many early thinkers about evolution (e.g. 53).
Gee, whom could he be talking about? Sounds to me like Darwinism is an integral part of Shapiro's ideas. So the mutations that take place aren't limited to mere replacements of individual base pairs. Too bad! It wouldn't have bothered Charles Darwin one bit. Remember that he was as ignorant of genetics as Jesus was; his theory couldn't have been predicated upon the details of how mutations occur. The changes that the toolkits provide are still small changes in the sense that Darwin meant: they won't change a butterfly into a cow in one throw, or even into anything other than a somewhat different-looking butterfly.
Intelligent Design is literal interpretation of the Bible
Oh, dear! It appears your jailers are making you parade around with your underpants on your head, for the whole world to see. How humiliating to be forced to show what nobody was supposed to see!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.