Posted on 02/08/2002 5:40:18 AM PST by JediGirl
Scientists have discovered the first genetic evidence explaining how small mutations can cause big changes in an organism's body.
Until now there has been little proof that one genetic change can successfully lead to a whole new species.
A University of California study has shown how a mutation in a 'master gene' which controls others could lead to a major body change.
The study looked at a class of genes known as Hox, which switch on and off other genes during an organism's development as an embryo.
The San Diego team used brine shrimp to prove a simple mutation here suppressed 15% of the limb development in the animal's central body region.
This would have allowed its ancestors, which had limbs on every segment of its body to lose their hind legs and evolve into six-legged insects.
Professor William McGinnis, who led the study, claims it answers the question as to how evolution can introduce big changes into an animal's body shape and still generate a living animal.
He said: "Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn't be able to perpetuate itself.
"And until now, no one's been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome."
Story filed: 12:41 Friday 8th February 2002
You are reading this incorrectly. No shrimp of any kind were produced.
You brought this up before and I patiently explained to you that this is a different phenomenon.
The mutation we speak of in adult lactose intolerance is one that allows persistence of the enzyme when the normal enzyme is degraded in adults.
Why do you insist on bringing this up again, as if you are making a valid criticism?
Thanks. Sure enough the article says lactose tolerance and not intolerance.
Is my English that hard to read?
no little population of legless brine shrimp was produced? Rather what was achieved was a diminished glow in the modified shrimp embryos, or am I reading this incorrectly?
I am not Clinton, no means no. And embryo is used in the documentation.
As to the lactose intolerance issue, nothing of the sort was proven in the article where you presented that argument. What was determined from that article was ---
The researchers drew blood samples in order to study the DNA of a Finnish group of 196 lactose-intolerant adults of African, Asian and European descent. Each of them showed the genetic mutation for lactose intolerance in their DNA.
All else is speculation.
Very-very-very lame---but an ego booster for the dwarfs--midgets(pituitary-reality deprived)!
The Bible says God doesn't solicit or consider their asinine opinions--anal BM deprived viewpoints!
They should be laughed outta here!
A drosophila embryo is used in the documentation. Not a shrimp embryo.
It's very simple. I explained this to you before. I'll repeat it. This is background information which is not mentioned in the UCLA article or news release, and it's freely available to anyone interested. There is (1) a congenital lactose intolerance condition which prevents infants from being able to digest milk. This is the condition you keep bringing up.
Normally, the enzyme which allows lactose digestion is turned off as the child ages. But, in a subset of the world's population a mutation is present which allows this enzyme to persist into adulthood, making it possible to digest lactose as adults. This is not speculation. This is the condition (2) that the article refers to.
(1) and (2) are different conditions, each involving different etiologies.
I'm sorry, I thought that -- These were selected based on similarity to the mean luminosity with the anti-HA antibody in Artemia Ubx HA embryos along with The San Diego team used brine shrimp to prove a simple mutation here suppressed 15% of the limb development in the animal's central body region. meant that they caused this effect in brine shrimp not in flies. Are they attributing the effects in flies to shrimp?
This isn't word-parsing, AndrewC. Your post containing the supplemental information quote from the article demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the central parts of the paper. There is no excuse for this because news releases and multiple synopses have been presented on these threads over the last few days.
That is not what the lactose intolerance article shows. The population studied was of lactose intolerant individuals. The statement about lactose tolerance was therefore speculation.
So my statement that no legless shrimp were created, and the relevant fact that luminence was used to determine the effect establishes a clear misunderstanding of what was presented. What a dope I am.
The luminescence assays used to detect gene expression is not a flaw in these studies. I will look up the specific quotes you are quibbling about, but I'm finding unfounded criticisms of research methods a poor substitute for a criticism of the central thesis of the paper.
I'm off to play some tennis, but I'll return to this later.
That speaks volumes. I said nothing about flaws, I was stating what was "factual", after all, the top quark is a hump on a graph.
Surely you jest!
Surely the ICR website was hijacked by hackers, who wrote this as a joke. I mean, they couldn't possibly be serious about such stuff.... OOOOPS!
Oh, well. I wonder when ICR will be sponsoring a witch burning. Minions of the Devil, you know.
While they're at it, do you suppose ICR will come out foursquare against pool halls? As the lyrics of "We've Got Trouble" (The Music Man) tell us: "The game with the 15 numbered balls is the Devil's tool!"
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.