Preadaptations

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Last edited:

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
Origin of success? Origin of function? Origin of selectable attributes? Natural selection did-it-and-predicted-it? Do you really believe that? If not, then a believer in chance?

:rolleyes:Sigh:rolleyes:, and we were doing so well.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
:rolleyes:Sigh:rolleyes:, and we were doing so well.
And so it ends, pretentious drivel.... Run Forrest run ;).

More preadaptations then. More about toolkits for eye development in animals with no eyes.
Six3 and Six6 activity is modulated by members of the groucho family.
Six3 and Six6 are two genes required for the specification and proliferation of the eye field in vertebrate embryos, suggesting that they might be the functional counterparts of the Drosophila gene sine oculis (so). Phylogenetic and functional analysis have however challenged this idea, raising the possibility that the molecular network in which Six3 and Six6 act may be different from that described for SO. To address this, we have performed yeast two-hybrid screens, using either Six3 or Six6 as a bait. In this paper, we report the results of the latter screen that led to the identification of TLE1 (a transcriptional repressor of the groucho family) and AES (a potential dominant negative form of TLE proteins) as cofactors for both SIX6 and SIX3. Biochemical and mutational analysis shows that the Six domain of both SIX3 and SIX6 strongly interact with the QD domain of TLE1 and AES, but that SIX3 also interacts with TLE proteins via the WDR domain. Tle1 and Aes are expressed in the developing eye of medaka fish (Oryzias latipes) embryos, overlapping with the distribution of both Six3 and Six6. Gain-of-function studies in medaka show a clear synergistic activity between SIX3/SIX6 and TLE1, which, on its own, can expand the eye field. Conversely, AES alone decreases the eye size and abrogates the phenotypic consequences of SIX3/6 over-expression. These data indicate that both Tle1 and Aes participate in the molecular network that control eye development and are consistent with the view that both Six3 and Six6 act in combination with either Tle1 and/or Aes.


And toolkits for forebrain neuronal development?
The LIM-homeobox gene Islet-1 is required for the development of restricted forebrain cholinergic neurons.

Forebrain cholinergic neurons modulate complex mammalian behaviors such as reward-related learning and cognitive functions. Although their dysfunction is implicated in various psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases, the factors governing cholinergic neuron differentiation and diversity are mostly unknown. We tested the role of the LIM-homeobox gene Isl1 in the development of forebrain cholinergic neurons by conditionally deleting Isl1 using a Six3-cre transgene. A depletion of cholinergic interneurons in the dorsal and ventral striatum, and cholinergic projection neurons in the nucleus basalis is observed and is ascribed to an early and persistent defect in cholinergic neuron differentiation. Notably, cholinergic innervation to the neocortex is abolished, whereas that to the hippocampus is unaltered. The unique pattern of cholinergic hypoinnervation encountered is supported by the presence of cholinergic projection neurons in the medial septum, the magnocellular preoptic area, and the substantia innominata. Together, these results demonstrate the requirement for Isl1 in the development of restricted telencephalic cholinergic neurons and link the development of cholinergic neurons in anatomically disparate sites to Isl1 function.
Some of these sequences present in bacteria and archaea, biasing evolutionary directions to a fe end-points.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
And so it ends, pretentious drivel.... Run Forrest run ;).

Helps if you watch the movie.

"***** happens"



More preadaptations then. More about toolkits for eye development in animals with no eyes.
Six3 and Six6 activity is modulated by members of the groucho family.



And toolkits for forebrain neuronal development?
The LIM-homeobox gene Islet-1 is required for the development of restricted forebrain cholinergic neurons.


Some of these sequences present in bacteria and archaea, biasing evolutionary directions to a fe end-points.

Kindly refrain from blogging in your replies to me.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
Run run run...

And there we rest our case, lest we become like Marvin.


Bah, you just don't like examples of preadaptations and viciously oppose to even discuss them or read up what is being posted. At least it is obvious why...

Quote examples of alledged preadaptations all you like, create you own post, don't introduce them willy nilly to replies to other people.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
And there we rest our case, lest we become like Marvin.
And the cleverly crafted evasion continues...

Quote examples of alledged preadaptations all you like, create you own post, don't introduce them willy nilly to replies to other people.
you just hate to discuss science. Posting them highlights it every time, and everytime you squirm like this, it just proves my point...
Neither you, nor any of your lackeys are ever interested in discussing ACTUAL science.
Keep it up, you guys are the best arguments against converting people into believing all our actions in the greater scheme of things are pointless.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
you just hate to discuss science. Posting them highlights it every time, and everytime you squirm like this, it just proves my point...
Neither you, nor any of your lackeys are ever interested in discussing ACTUAL science.
Keep it up, you guys are the best arguments against converting people into believing all our actions in the greater scheme of things are pointless.

No, it's simple manners, don't use your replies to others to blog.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
No, it's simple manners, don't use your replies to others to blog.
You're boring and you don't answer questions posed to you (constant evasion). I did not think you would mind bad manners since you set such a lovely example. Going to answer questions? Besides, these replies keep you on track, since you so dearly like to meander off on your musings about story books you have "conquered".
 
Last edited:

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
That old tree of life gets uprooted so often it is not even funny. So much for the predictive value of evolutionary science. This time it hits an interesting turn.
Concatenated Analysis Sheds Light on Early Metazoan Evolution and Fuels a Modern ‘‘Urmetazoon’’ Hypothesis


This time that interesting little animal with only four cell types but also genetic tool kits for eyes, ears, nerves, bone formation and body plans gets placed at the based of the metazoan tree. See figure:
10.1371_journal.pbio.1000020.g002-M.jpg

For those who struggle to come to grips with the word parsimony and parsimonious:
Parsimony, likelihood (with morphological characters removed), and mixed Bayesian analysis of the smaller concatenated matrix using a variety of approaches, weighting schemes, and models is generally consistent with the view that Bilateria and diploblasts (Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa, and Cnidaria) are sister groups.

From the article:
Following one of the basic principles in evolutionary biology that complex life forms derive from more primitive ancestors, it has long been believed that the higher animals, the Bilateria, arose from simpler (diploblastic) organisms such as the cnidarians (corals, polyps, and jellyfishes). A large number of studies, using different datasets and different methods, have tried to determine the most ancestral animal group as well as the ancestor of the higher animals. Here, we use ‘‘total evidence’’ analysis, which incorporates all available data (including morphology, genome, and gene expression data) and come to a surprising conclusion. The Bilateria and Cnidaria (together with the other diploblastic animals) are in fact sister groups: that is, they evolved in parallel from a very simple common ancestor. We conclude that the higher animals (Bilateria) and lower animals (diploblasts), probably separated very early, at the very beginning of metazoan animal evolution and independently evolved their complex body plans, including body axes, nervous system, sensory organs, and other characteristics. The striking similarities in several complex characters (such as the eyes) resulted from both lineages using the same basic genetic tool kit, which was already present in the common ancestor. The study identifies Placozoa as the most basal diploblast group and thus a living fossil genome that nicely demonstrates, not only that complex genetic tool kits arise before morphological complexity, but also that these kits may form similar morphological structures in parallel.

More:
According to the placula hypothesis, we suggest that the placula already had the genetic capability and basic building blocks to build a nervous system, and that from here, the final build-up of the nervous system developed via independent, but parallel, pathways in diploblasts and Bilateria. The genome of the placozoan Trichoplax adhaerens indeed delivers some notable evidence that the genetic inventory may precede morphological manifestation of organs [23]. For example, the placozoan genome harbors representatives of all major genes that are involved in neurogenesis in higher animals, whereas placozoans show not the slightest morphological hint of nerve or sensory cells.

Genetic tool kits present for the development of neurological organs before they evolve...
Play the tape of life again and it should unfold in a similar fashion.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
You're boring


Oh dear, I'm boring, I'm cut to the quick.

...you don't answer questions posed to you (constant evasion).

You sir(s), are (a) liar(s). That fact that you do not understand the answers (and hence frequently repeat yourself (a sign of senility?) is not my problem.


I did not think you would mind bad manners since you set such a lovely example.

Again, your failure to understand the english language is not an insult, it's an established matter of fact.


meander off on your musing about story books you have "conquered".

Never heard of Achebe, Of Brontë or Hardy?

'nuff said.

"Conquered"? oh I see, your relationship with culture is limited to the remainders of supper overlong in the fridge.

none the less, since you're so obsessed with staying on blogic...

In Our Genes, Old Fossils Take On New Roles

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 1, 2008; A03


"The past is never dead. It's not even past."

-- William Faulkner



Over the past 15 years, scientists have been comparing the inherited genetic material -- the genomes -- of dozens of organisms, acquiring a life history of life itself. What they're finding would impress even novelist William Faulkner, the great chronicler of how the past never really goes away.

It turns out that about 8 percent of the human genome is made up of viruses that once attacked our ancestors. The viruses lost. What remains are the molecular equivalents of mounted trophies, insects preserved in genomic amber, DNA fossils.

The thousands of human endogenous retroviruses, or HERVs, sketch a history of rough times during the 550 million years of vertebrate evolution. The best-preserved one, HERV-K113, probably arrived less than 200,000 years ago, long after human beings and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.

But these retroviruses are more than just curiosities. They are some of the most important enemies we ever had. They helped mold the immune system that is one of the evolutionary marvels of life on Earth.

In the past two years, a laboratory in France and another in the United States independently reconstructed a functioning HERV-K retrovirus from pieces found in the human genome. This summer, both showed that the gene sequences of some of those viruses bear the characteristic fingerprints of APOBEC3, a human enzyme that mutated them into submission.

"It is fascinating there is this fossil record in the genomes of modern organisms, and that we are able to see it, analyze it and reconstruct it," said Paul D. Bieniasz, a virologist at the Rockefeller University and the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York, who leads the American lab.

Retroviruses differ from ordinary viruses in that they stitch themselves into the genes of the animals they infect. They become permanent residents of their hosts. Conventional viruses, such as the ones that cause measles, influenza and colds, don't do that.

At the moment, the world is in the middle of a huge retrovirus epidemic: AIDS. Its virus, HIV, attacks cells of the immune system, principally lymphocytes, and stitches itself into them. Once there, HIV is reborn constantly as the cells grow and divide (which is one reason there is no cure for the infection). The AIDS virus dies only when the host does.

HERVs, however, go one better.

HERVs attack the "germline" cells that make sperm and eggs. HERVs become a part of the host's inherited genome. Unlike HIV, they outlive the organism they infect, because they are passed on to the host's offspring and the offspring's offspring. (This is what makes them endogenous, or "born-within.")

All of the thousands of endogenous retroviruses in the human genome appear to be crippled and inactivated by mutations that occurred after their initial, successful invasion. They aren't able to be transcribed from the host DNA to replicate and infect another cell. Many are mere fragments. Most reside in stretches of chromosomes between genes where they aren't disturbing anything.

But parts of a few HERVs have been incorporated into human genes, taking on new roles.

For example, a protein called syncytin, which helps cells fuse together in the placenta, is actually the envelope gene from a HERV. A study published in January found that tissue from women with preeclampsia or intrauterine growth restriction -- two conditions that threaten fetal health -- had abnormally low amounts of syncytin.

Other studies have found that proteins derived from HERV genes -- or antibodies against the proteins -- are common in testicular tumors, breast cancer tissue and melanomas.

Whether the HERVs' reawakening there causes cancer, or is an effect of it, or is neither, isn't known. Nevertheless, "there is quite a bit that suggests there is some clinical significance to these HERVs," said Ravi Subramanian, a molecular biologist at Tufts University who is studying them in breast tumors.

In other species, endogenous retroviruses have evolved into tools for self-defense against their cousins, the retroviruses prowling the outside world (exogenous retroviruses).

For example, mice and chickens make proteins for the envelope, or outer shell, of several remnant retroviruses in their genomes. Once made, those proteins migrate to the surface of the animal cells and attach to receptors that are used by invading retroviruses as initial docking sites. With the receptors occupied, infection can't occur.

In sheep, researchers are discovering an especially interesting story.

Sheep today sometimes develop lung or nasal tumors caused by circulating retroviruses. Ancestors of those viruses began creeping into the genome even before sheep and goats diverged from each other more than 5 million years ago.

A team led by Massimo Palmarini of the University of Glasgow Veterinary School studied two of those endogenous retroviruses. They found that wild species (such as bighorn and Dall sheep) had versions of the two retroviruses that differed slightly from the versions carried by domesticated species. The retroviral genes in those animals contained a mutation that impeded infection by the cancer-causing viruses.

In a paper published in November, the researchers argued that when people began rounding up wild sheep 9,000 years ago, the newly confined herds probably suffered epidemics of the cancer-causing viruses. Only those animals whose endogenous viruses had by chance mutated into the protective form survived.

Today, thanks to natural selection and intentional breeding, all domesticated sheep carry the "updated" versions.

Suggests that our survival as a species may be reliant on "borrowed" genes. That the orginal "Human program needed a "patch"...........

"That's not a bug, that's a feature!"
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
You sir(s), are (a) liar(s). That fact that you do not understand the answers (and hence frequently repeat yourself (a sign of senility?) is not my problem.
You only have to look in this thread and this one how many time I have to repeat the questions for you to
1) Keep on topic
2) Actually get an attempt at answer from you.

Still not a single attempt at the questions posed here. What's wrong, comprehension skills not sharpening up in class as much as you hoped for?

Never heard of Achebe, Of Brontë or Hardy?

'nuff said.
Not really relevant to the particular topics you introduced them? I suggest you make your own thread to discuss these gems...



none the less, since you're so obsessed with staying on blogic...



Suggests that our survival as a species may be reliant on "borrowed" genes. That the orginal "Human program needed a "patch"...........
Interesting article. Agents using natural selection and intentional breeding to design optimal animals. Sounds like evolution. Not a bad design ;).
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
You only have to look in this thread and this one how many time I have to repeat the questions for you to
1) Keep on topic
2) Actually get an attempt at answer from you.

Still not a single attempt at the questions posed here. What's wrong, comprehension skills not sharpening up in class as much as you hoped for?

Oh I presume most of your questions were retorical, since most of the time you seem to be talking to yourself (muttering inanely mostly :rolleyes:)

Questions A through Z.

Unless otherwise stated, "I don't know."

There we go, all fixed.

Luckily your status as a liar doesn't hinge on me answering every single rude and retorical question you've ever asked. (Phew).

Not really relevant to the particular topics you introduced them? I suggest you make your own thread to discuss these gems...

Off the cuff remarks (mostly not addressed to you anyway), perhaps you have issues surrounding literature.

Wuthering Heights has been made into a movie, that may be easier for you.

Have you ever read a novel?



Interesting article. Agents using natural selection and intentional breeding to design optimal animals. Sounds like evolution. Not a bad design ;).

:rolleyes:

Shepherds herding goats & Sheep together conciously knew they were going to manipulate the creature's ERV's.

Still slightly more credible than the mental intentions of singular cells.

Point being of course that the so called preadaptions are not the be all and end all of complex evolved creatures.

Orgel's Second Law: "Evolution is smarter than you are"
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Oh I presume most of your questions were retorical, since most of the time you seem to be talking to yourself (muttering inanely mostly :rolleyes:)

Questions A through Z.

Unless otherwise stated, "I don't know."

There we go, all fixed.

Luckily your status as a liar doesn't hinge on me answering every single rude and retorical question you've ever asked. (Phew).
Oh, it is pretty clear they were not rhetorical.


Point being of course that the so called preadaptions are not the be all and end all of complex evolved creatures.
And the point here is to point out the massive amount of genetic tools for body plans, neurological structures, bone formation etc. where present way before these structure even evolved...
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
And the point here is to point out the massive amount of genetic tools for body plans, neurological structures, bone formation etc. where present way before these structure even evolved...

And some of it wasn't.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
Uhm, make a point please.

You're making a vast assumption because it's the simplest solution, when reasonable evidence suggests that it might not always be the case.

Might I suggest Clifford Simak, he has a lovely pastorial style which I'd love to emulate.

In his city sequence the dogs discuss the original of robots, visa viz their usefulness to dogs.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
You're making a vast assumption because it's the simplest solution, when reasonable evidence suggests that it might not always be the case.
Uhm, lay out your case in a peer-reviewed journal (like these guys) or say why the most parsomonious explanation for data is not accurate. Otherwise, go blow your anti-scientific smoke somewhere else.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
Uhm, lay out your case in a peer-reviewed journal (like these guys) or say why the most parsomonious explanation for data is not accurate.

So closed minded.

It appears that there are 31 core genes which range across the domains of life. 21/21000 doesn't seem statistically important

Surprisingly, HGT also turns out to be the rule rather than the exception in the third great domain of life, the eukaryotes. For a start, it is increasingly accepted that the eukaryotes originated by the fusion of two prokaryotes, one bacterial and the other archaeal, forming this part of the tree into a ring rather than a branch (Nature, vol 41, p 152).

it is becoming increasingly apparent that HGT plays an unexpectedly big role in animals too. As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 17023).

Other cases of HGT in multicellular organisms are coming in thick and fast. HGT has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows. The most likely agents of this genetic shuffling are viruses, which constantly cut and paste DNA from one genome into another, often across great taxonomic distances. In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions (New Scientist, 27 August 2008, p 38). The same is probably true of the genomes of other big animals. "The number of horizontal transfers in animals is not as high as in microbes, but it can be evolutionarily significant,"

In an ambitious study, a team led by Peer Bork of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, examined 191 sequenced genomes from all three domains of life - bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes (complex organisms with their genetic material packaged in a nucleus) - and identified 31 genes that all the species possessed and which showed no signs of ever having been horizontally transferred. They then generated a tree by comparing the sequences of these "core" genes in everything from E. coli to elephants. The result was the closest thing yet to the perfect tree, Bork claimed (Science, vol 311, p 1283).

Other researchers begged to differ. Among them were Tal Dagan and William Martin at the Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany, who pointed out that in numerical terms a core of 31 genes is almost insignificant, representing just 1 per cent of a typical bacterial genome and more like 0.1 per cent of an animal's. That hardly constitutes a mighty oak or even a feeble sapling - more like a tiny twig completely buried by a giant web. Dagan dubbed Bork's result "the tree of 1 per cent" and argued that the study inadvertently provided some of the best evidence yet that the tree-of-life concept was redundant (Genome Biology, vol 7, p 118).
otherwise, go blow your anti-scientific smoke somewhere else.

Thankyou For Smoking

Perhaps novels are too much, try a movie.
 
Last edited:

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
ROFL, already discussed here. Thanks for playing and inadvertently pointing to an article that supports Front-Loading. It is just the most parsimonious interpretation of the data. Occam must cut you deep Mr dimwit. ROFL, you are asking to be mocked...
 
Top