Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution's “Molecular Clock”: Not So Dependable After All?
PLOS (Public Library of Science) ^ | 8/17/04 | Staff

Posted on 08/25/2004 10:14:24 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

DNA mutates, and it's a good thing it does. If it didn't, there could only be one kind of life, not the millions there are today, and species could not adapt to new challenges. This is because mutations in genes—the coding portion of DNA—are the raw material for evolution. However, genes make up a surprisingly small fraction of our DNA. If the genome were a cookbook, its 30,000-odd genetic recipes would be scattered among millions of pages of apparently meaningless nonsense.

Mutations affect all DNA, not just the genes, and this provides population geneticists with a veritable toolbox of methods useful, for example, in DNA profiling. Importantly, all these methods rely on the idea of a “molecular clock,” the notion that mutations rain down on noncoding DNA like a fine drizzle, so constantly that genetic similarity is a good measure of evolutionary time. Thus, if orangutans diverged from humans twice as long ago as did chimpanzees, on any given piece of DNA we would find twice as many differences between the orangutan sequence and the human sequence as between humans and chimps. The mutations are marking time.

If the molecular clock works, scientists can do wonderful things like estimating how long ago it was that the common ancestor of all humans lived, or when birds evolved from dinosaurs. The clock assumes that mutations occur independently of each other and at a constant rate. By analyzing thousands of noncoding DNA sequences scattered throughout the human genome, Edward Vowles and William Amos have found that the clock is anything but constant. Instead, a mutation in one spot in the genome affects the chance of getting another mutation nearby.

Not all noncoding DNA is made up of benign tracts of random letters. Some sequences appear to be more difficult to copy than others, and these trouble spots can give rise to alphabetic stuttering. DNA is made up of four component chemical units, called nucleotides, which are often referred to by their initial letters: A, C, G, and T. Stuttering occurs when the same pairs or triplets of letters occur together, for example ACACAC. Such regions are called microsatellites, and instead of mutating by swapping one letter for another, as most nucleotides do, these sequences evolve mainly by gaining and losing triplets or pairs like “AC.”

In this study, Vowles and Amos used the published sequence of the human genome to track down and compare thousands upon thousands of microsatellites. If the molecular clock ran smoothly, they would expect to find no similarity at all between the DNA sequences surrounding any pair of unrelated microsatellites. To their surprise, they found the complete reverse, with entirely unrelated microsatellites showing widespread and obvious similarities in their flanking DNA. This meant that mutations near microsatellites were not random, but favored certain letters in certain positions. Just as a new shipwreck will attract its own special community of marine life, so microsatellites appear gradually to change the surrounding DNA towards a common pattern. The result is convergent evolution, an unusual state of affairs where, as time goes by, DNA sequences become more similar, not less.

As yet, the exact mechanisms remain unclear, though it probably has something to do with how comfortably different combinations of letters sit next to each other. In English, “U” always follows “Q” and “B” never follows “V.” Similar rules may apply to DNA, albeit on a much subtler level. For example, if a microsatellite contains alternating As and Cs, the flanking regions also tend to have As at alternate positions, in phase with the As in the microsatellite. It is as if the DNA prefers the pattern in the microsatellite to extend into the flanking DNA, rather than abruptly stopping at the end of the microsatellite.

These findings suggest that it may be wise to take the notion of a molecular clock at face value. With a perfect clock, two or three identical mutations would be highly unlikely, but we now know that this may be possible near microsatellites. Vowles and Amos estimate that as much as 30% of the genome may show evidence of convergent evolution, simply because microsatellites are so common. These mutation biases probably exist to a lesser extent in most sequences. Once scientists understand more fully how and where these biases operate, they may be able to estimate more accurately the risk of any given mutation occurring, be it one that causes human disease or makes a virus more virulent. These findings represent yet another windfall from the Human Genome Project, and act as a powerful reminder that unexpected results always lurk around the corner as we delve deeper into the secret world of the genome.


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dna; evolution; genome; intelligentdesign; molecularclock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-352 next last
So now we have the “punctuated equilibria” theory, which postulates that the fossil clock fluctuates wildly (long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid periods of evolution) and a wildly fluctuating molecular clock. Does anybody know what time it is? Course, problems with the molecular clocks *have* been reported before:

Erratic overdispersion of three molecular clocks: GPDH, SOD, and XDH

1 posted on 08/25/2004 10:14:26 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Back to the old drawing board I guess...


2 posted on 08/25/2004 10:16:22 AM PDT by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper; MacDorcha; Elsie; AndrewC; bondserv

Ping


3 posted on 08/25/2004 10:17:06 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Science continues to self-correct with further information. Evolution remains the sole reasonable explanation of speciation, and is refined.


4 posted on 08/25/2004 10:21:13 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"So now we have the “punctuated equilibria” theory, which postulates that the fossil clock fluctuates wildly (long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid periods of evolution) and a wildly fluctuating molecular clock."

These two hypotheses are NOT contradictory, and in fact tend to support one another. I would surmise that a variation in the "tick time" of the molecular/DNA clock is what controls "punctuated equilibrium".

My own take on the subject is that in times of increased stress, the rate of DNA change increases.

5 posted on 08/25/2004 10:22:30 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
DNA mutates, and it's a good thing it does.

Don't disagree, you'll be banished to the cornfield. (Apologies to Rod Serling)

6 posted on 08/25/2004 10:28:09 AM PDT by Old Professer (If they win, it will be because we've become too soft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
I would surmise that a variation in the "tick time" of the molecular/DNA clock is what controls "punctuated equilibrium".

That's a good theory to have if you're interested in defending an existing theory which is apparently flawed.

On the other hand, if you want to look dispassionately at the evidence and engage in science based on that, then such "surmizing" seems contra-indicated.

7 posted on 08/25/2004 10:34:42 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Purposeful mutations good. Random mutations bad.

Researchers find clues about how antibodies specialize

From the article:

"The AID-RPA interaction must be regulated to bring about the specificity of the mutation," Chaudhuri says. "If this regulation is impaired for some reason, then the B cell would incur a lot of random mutations and that might lead to tumors."

8 posted on 08/25/2004 10:35:27 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Is it unreasonable to believe in God?


9 posted on 08/25/2004 10:36:17 AM PDT by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

“U” always follows “Q” and “B” never follows “V.”

I guess this guy never went to a musical revue. (Some may claim the gay gene derived from just such a pairing).


10 posted on 08/25/2004 10:39:52 AM PDT by Socratic (Yes, there is method in the madness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"Vowles and Amos estimate that as much as 30% of the genome may show evidence of convergent evolution, simply because microsatellites are so common."

So genes are converging 30% of the time, that wreaks havoc on the idea that there is enough time for the divergent species we see.

Mantra: Long ago and far away we had 99% divergent evolution, despite what we see today.

This also brings incite to the idea that married people begin to look more alike. (-|;|Þ "Americans are just a bunch of cowboys".

11 posted on 08/25/2004 10:40:49 AM PDT by bondserv (Alignment is critical! †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Socratic

“B” never follows “V.”

Can I just slink away in shame before the barrage starts? Please?


12 posted on 08/25/2004 10:43:00 AM PDT by Socratic (Yes, there is method in the madness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: delapaz
In English,... “B” never follows “V.”

For techies who do programming, this is most certainly not true. :-)

13 posted on 08/25/2004 10:45:06 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: delapaz
Well, we are told that these 30,000 genes are smart little buggers and mutate all over the place. We are never told how they got so smart. We are never told how it all began. God is implied if not acknowledged.
14 posted on 08/25/2004 10:45:10 AM PDT by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
So now we have the “punctuated equilibria” theory, which postulates that the fossil clock fluctuates wildly (long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid periods of evolution)

That's not what the article says, try again.

and a wildly fluctuating molecular clock.

That's not what it says either.

Does anybody know what time it is?

Yes, but you might need some assistance.

Course, problems with the molecular clocks *have* been reported before:

...and are well known. That doesn't make them useless, however, as you and other creationists often try to imply. Why don't you leave science to people who know something about it?

15 posted on 08/25/2004 10:48:56 AM PDT by Ichneumon ("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delapaz
Back to the old drawing board I guess...

No need.

16 posted on 08/25/2004 10:49:22 AM PDT by Ichneumon ("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Thus, if orangutans diverged from humans twice as long ago as did chimpanzees, on any given piece of DNA we would find twice as many differences between the orangutan sequence and the human sequence as between humans and chimps.

Thanks for the ping.

That statement is false, unless the "on any given piece of DNA" is changed to indicate DNA which would not be "adjusted".

17 posted on 08/25/2004 10:49:47 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"On the other hand, if you want to look dispassionately at the evidence and engage in science based on that, then such "surmizing" seems contra-indicated."

I'm a scientist---I do that for a living. Based on thirty years of experience in science, I have yet to see any scientific evidence that contradicts evolution (and I include all the "evidence" that shows up on the evolution/creationism threads here).

DNA is a chemical system (I'm a chemist). Chemical systems are influenced by the environment in which they happen. Stress changes the chemical environment within living systems--therefore, the rate at which DNA changes SHOULD change. I have long felt that the idea of a "constant" molecular clock was not valid (based on chemical considerations). The best one can do is develop an AVERAGE rate of change of DNA change based on kinetic rates in systems we have evidence for today. I also expect that they will find (when enough evidence has been collected), that the "clock tick rate" will vary from one species to another.

18 posted on 08/25/2004 10:50:17 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
That's a good theory to have if you're interested in defending an existing theory which is apparently flawed.

It's only "apparently flawed" to creationists, because they frantically grasp onto articles like this and misunderstand them and their consequences.

On the other hand, if you want to look dispassionately at the evidence and engage in science based on that, then such "surmizing" seems contra-indicated.

...because...?

19 posted on 08/25/2004 10:51:22 AM PDT by Ichneumon ("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Purposeful mutations good. Random mutations bad.

...and you've misunderstood/misrepresented *that* article, too.

20 posted on 08/25/2004 10:52:12 AM PDT by Ichneumon ("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-352 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson