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

To: dschapin
This is because partially coding for a new protein would not provide any benefit to the organism and thus would not be supported by natural selection.

Food for thought: Many genes can code for multiple protein products through a process called alternative splicing. Some of these alternative splicing products are abbreviated versions of a longer protein coded for by the same gene. Considering this, would you still hold to the statement above?

230 posted on 06/19/2007 12:52:23 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: ahayes

I would have to study alternative splicings more thoroughly before I could give a good answer to your question. However, my initial impression would be that an alternative splicing is just a copy of the original which left out part of the protein coding. I don’t believe that this contradicts what I was saying since (If I correctly understand what you are talking about) no new information has been developed instead a part of an existing protein string has been copied incompletely. This still does not show that natural selection would favor a mutation which produces a new sequence of bases which partially codes for a new protein. Since the partially coded protein cannot yet convey any benefit on the organism.


255 posted on 06/21/2007 4:17:31 PM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies ]

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