Testes gene may be what makes us human

News in Science ^ | Wednesday, 19 February  2003 | Bob Beale

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Is this an adult thread?

[Junior]

Ping.

[Redcloak]

A good question. How did the first male with... How shall I put this? ...toxic 'nads pass along his unique genetic makeup? This sounds like more than a little over-analysis of the data.

[Junior]

You think we should invite LBB? After all, this is about a duplicated gene taking on a whole new role -- in other words, "an increase in information" -- something LBB said was impossible. Of course, two gets you three the creos will either ignore this thread or try to pooh-pooh the research.

[PatrickHenry]

A Haiku (form 5-7-5):

Scientist launches probe,
Discovers humanoid globes,
Evolution's joy.

[whattajoke]

Testes, testes... one, two, three?

[Aracelis]

two gets you three the creos will either ignore this thread or try to pooh-pooh the research.

You didn't actually think they would seriously consider evidence...did you?

[taxcontrol]

It now seems that genetic codes can change markedly over time as well: single genes can be duplicated, deleted, switched on or off, moved to different locations, fused with parts of other genes (as in the case of Tre2), or be pressed into service in new roles.

---

God's lego set

[PatrickHenry]

There once was an ape named Paul,
Who was born with a mutated ball,
With his simian mate,
They sealed our fate,
Because that was the start of it all.

[JimRed]

Well, this settles it. There is no God or higher being. We just simply evolved.

Simply evolved? There's nothing simple about it! God started it rolling and directed it to his wishes.

Oops, sorry; I don't wanna start another 300 post battle!

[whattajoke]

in other genetic news...

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993355

I didn't think deserved its own thread, but found it fascinating nonetheless.

[Billthedrill]

Well, it's settled then. Me and my goldfish are never gonna have kids...(sob!)...

[PatrickHenry]

I didn't think deserved its own thread ...

You exercised good judgment. But I agree, it is interesting.

[Ichneumon]

Hmmmmm. So if a gene mismatch is fatal, how would such a gene be passed on from the first person who had it?

Well, first, the article doesn't say that a gene mismatch would necessarily be "fatal". You're right in pointing out that if if a mismatch were actually "fatal", it couldn't be passed on at all from the first individual to acquire the mutation, and the mutation would die out.

But that's not what the article is saying.

It's not even really saying that it *is* incompatible (fully or partially) -- the article has a lot of "may"s in it which clearly indicate there are a lot of unanswered issues and questions which will have to be researched. Right now, the "it may have been responsible for a species incompatibility" is only a hypothesis to be further tested.

But there are a lot of ways for such reproductive incompatibilities to arise and carry on, for example:

1. The incompatibility may be only partial. A 95% reproductive failure rate, for example, would still allow a population of individuals with the "new" mutation to become established, albeit slowly, and after it hit some small critical mass there would be a strong selective pressure to mate only within "ones own kind", because those would be the matings most likely to successfully produce offspring. Note that in the article it hints that the incompatibility may cause cancer -- but most cancer-causing genes give only a statistical increase (sometimes a large one) of getting cancer at some point, not a certainty.

2. The new gene may not have caused an incompatibility all on its own, giving it time to spread through part of the population. Then, a later separate mutation among one of the "new gened" descendants might have produced a combination that was able to reproduce with other "new gened" individuals, but not "old gened" ones. This would not be a problem because at that point there would be a substantial subpopulation with the new gene with which to mate.

And so on.

[Ichneumon]

The article said hominoids, not hominids. The term "hominoid" comprises the apes as well as the hominids.

Right. Another article on this finding (at BBC News) says that "gorillas, chimps and orangutans" (and other "higher primates") have this gene as well.

[templar]

Think he's looking for grant money ....

A good chance of it. Or he's already making his living on it and needs to provide some kind of justification. Or maybe not, who really knows besides him.

[r9etb]

What the article says is: Its sudden emergence - and its association with the testes - may have meant that individuals who had the gene could not reproduce with those who did not.

The question is: how did the mutation spread, if it was confined to a single individual? And if it appeared simultaneously in several individuals, how did that happen?

The sole point here being: I think this guy's seriously over-selling his theory.

[templar]

Right now, the "it may have been responsible for a species incompatibility" is only a hypothesis to be further tested.

How would one test this hypothesis?

[Dinsdale]

Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Nope, you got some readin to do.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

"I think this guy's seriously over-selling his theory."

In post # 14 I kinda said the same thing and I wonder why these science writers have to take these great "leaps-of-faith" and stretch the information? Of course, the Global Warming movement, is reported in the same biased "it could happen" mentality.