Preadaptations

alloytoo

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

21/21000 front loaded genes WOW!!!!!

1) The original front-loaded state had sufficient information that would bias evolutionary trajectories needed to evolve complex, multicellular organisms.

21/21000 WOW!!!!!!!
2) Front-loading assumes that life began with a consortium of different genomes that, as a communicating group, contained sufficient information needed to bias evolutionary trajectories needed to evolve complex, multi-cellular organisms.

21 GENES WOW!!!!!!!!!

Front-loaded evolution is the hypothesis that the genetic information required to produce all living species from a few forms or one was "front-loaded" into the first organism or organisms, and that the process of evolution has been the result of the successive activation of some of these genes and loss of others.

21 Genes, now that's a hell of a long shot! Definitely the simplest solution.

Do you support the FLE that this article supposedly (in your and Mike Gene's mind) support, or is it a lot of "anti-scientific smoke"?

Thanks for demonstrating your inherent dishonesty.

Might I suggest James Clavel's "King Rat"?
 
Last edited:

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
21/21000 front loaded genes WOW!!!!!



21/21000 WOW!!!!!!!


21 GENES WOW!!!!!!!!!



21 Genes, now that's a hell of a long shot! Definitely the simplest solution.

Do you support the FLE that this article supposedly (in your and Mike Gene's mind) support, or is it a lot of "anti-scientific smoke"?

Thanks for demonstrating your inherent dishonesty.

Might I suggest James Clavel's "King Rat"?

First of all, it is 31 (not 21) you lying dimwit. Secondly, you are reading too much into that number. Let me explain it so even people like you can understand it.
Here is the list of genes:
  1. Predicted GTPase, probable translation factor
  2. Phenylalanine-tRNA synthethase alpha subunit
  3. Ribosomal protein S12
  4. Ribosomal protein S7
  5. Ribosomal protein S2
  6. Ribosomal protein L11
  7. Ribosomal protein L1
  8. Ribosomal protein L3
  9. Ribosomal protein L22
  10. Ribosomal protein S3
  11. Ribosomal protein L14
  12. Ribosomal protein L5
  13. Ribosomal protein S13
  14. Ribosomal protein S8
  15. Ribosomal protein L6P/L9E
  16. Ribosomal protein S5
  17. Ribosomal protein S11
  18. Ribosomal protein L13
  19. Ribosomal protein S9
  20. Seryl-tRNA synthetase
  21. Ribosomal protein S15P/S13E
  22. Ribosomal protein S17
  23. Ribosomal protein L16/L10E
  24. Ribosomal protein L15
  25. Preprotein translocase subunit SecY
  26. DNA-directed RNA polymerase, alpha subunit
  27. Ribosomal protein L18
  28. Leucyl-tRNA synthetase
  29. Valyl-tRNA synthetase
  30. Ribosomal protein S4 and related proteins
  31. Metal-dependent proteases with chaperone activity

28 of the 31 genes code for ribosomal proteins and tRNA synthetases. Now consider the structures of clamp loaders and sliding clamps. They are 3-dimensionally superimposable in all organisms yet have little sequence similarity. No surprise they were not included into the list. Then there are carbonic anhydrases and cytosine deamninases. Present in bacteria and eukaryotes. Then the study considered HGT. The original list contained 36 genes, 5 were removed because they were considered to be the result of HGT.
But here is the kicker. To consider even 31 genes as "front-loaded" genes, is in fact acknowledging front-loading. Also, 28 of the genes are ribosomal genes, and you know what they say about the ribosomal machinery. Wow, a front-loading evolution with machines...
The study did not consider gene loss from the common ancestor as there is no way to really test for it. However, it is clear gene loss (as well as co-option) are in fact a major players in evolutionary trajectories. So what have you done? Shown that at least 31 (not 21 you lying dimwit) genes are candidates for front-loading, AND they are crucial parts of The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors.

Well done, are you a Front-Loaded Evolutionist now?
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
First of all, it is 31 (not 21) you lying dimwit.

Post 119:


I also quoted :

identified 31 genes that all the species possessed

A few typos at 9:20 at night and now I'm lying.

I don't have to impugn your character, it shines like the national guitar


Secondly, you are reading too much into that number.
Shown that at least 31 (not 21 you lying dimwit)

and you wonder why you don't get laid.


genes are candidates for front-loading, AND they are crucial parts of The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors.

Well done, are you a Front-Loaded Evolutionist now?

No.

Front-loaded evolution is the hypothesis that the genetic information required to produce all living species from a few forms or one was "front-loaded" into the first organism or organisms, and that the process of evolution has been the result of the successive activation of some of these genes and loss of others.

Cutting to the chase, bullock manure aside, Front-loading is the proposition that God did it up front, that he loaded the specific potential for our current bio-diversity (man in particular) into LUCA.

Any other proposition is evasively dishonest (so I expect plenty from you)

32 genes out of tens of thousand still doesn't cut it.

40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses

This smacks more of "special creation" than front-loading.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Cutting to the chase, bullock manure aside, Front-loading is the proposition that God did it up front, that he loaded the specific potential for our current bio-diversity (man in particular) into LUCA.

Any other proposition is evasively dishonest (so I expect plenty from you)

32 genes out of tens of thousand still doesn't cut it.



This smacks more of "special creation" than front-loading.
ROFL, and people wonder why your comprehension of biology and philosophy are non-existent.
If you don't like a teleological view if evolution, rather go read a few more of those noddy books, you know, the only type you are capable of understanding. Talking about anything scientific or philosophical with you is a huge waste of time. I am sure you will find someone that you can share your storybook knowledge with. Go to a comic book club or something :rolleyes:. Stop posting in forums where you sound totally clueless ;).
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
ROFL, and people wonder why your comprehension of biology and philosophy are non-existent.
If you don't like a teleological view if evolution, rather go read a few more of those noddy books, you know, the only type you are capable of understanding. Talking about anything scientific or philosophical with you is a huge waste of time. I am sure you will find someone that you can share your storybook knowledge with. Go to a comic book club or something :rolleyes:. Stop posting in forums where you sound totally clueless ;).

Oooh another foray in Prhonyism.

Stay on topic Prhony.

Front-loaded evolution is the hypothesis that the genetic information required to produce all living species from a few forms or one was "front-loaded" into the first organism or organisms, and that the process of evolution has been the result of the successive activation of some of these genes and loss of others.


How does front loading explain that 99.9% of the human genome isn't in the front load of 31/21000 genes?

Oh yeah and how do you reconcile your dismissal of HGT in this thread with your previous posting of the article I quoted.

Clearly you're not interested in honest discussion, otherwise you would have pointed it out to me earlier. Anyone else on the formum would have said:

"Oh look this article suggests what you're saying, but I disagree with it etc or whatever."

Instead, you rolled it out to support your FLE hobby horse.

Calls to character, really does.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
How does front loading explain that 99.9% of the human genome isn't in the front load of 31/21000 genes?
You are under the false impression that 100% of the genes must be there at the base. Not so.

Oh yeah and how do you reconcile your dismissal of HGT in this thread with your previous posting of the article I quoted.
No dismaissal, read again what I wrote and see if you can comprehend. Read it holistically...HGT is an evolutionary mechanism, so is co-option and so is gene loss as well as recombination. Random mutations play a minute roll.
Now unless you provide evidence for HGT, the most parsimonious explanation is accepted until new information comes. That is how science works.

Clearly you're not interested in honest discussion, otherwise you would have pointed it out to me earlier. Anyone else on the formum would have said:

"Oh look this article suggests what you're saying, but I disagree with it etc or whatever."

Instead, you rolled it out to support your FLE hobby horse.

Calls to character, really does.
Your lack of comprehension is no fault of my own. Afterall, you are only able to comprehend novels and comic books. Nothing special about it though, that is a skill you learn in grade 1. Some just outgrew their newfound comprehension skills and decided to apply it to more practical everyday applications... like science and biology. Enjoy your knowledge about storybooks, just keep it out of science and philosophy sections ;).
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
You are under the false impression that 100% of the genes must be there at the base. Not so.

Front-loaded evolution is the hypothesis that the genetic information required to produce all living species from a few forms or one was "front-loaded" into the first organism or organisms, and that the process of evolution has been the result of the successive activation of some of these genes and loss of others.

100% no, 70%? 60%? 50%?

Hell 20% might be suggest that.

0% hmmmmmmmmmm, strains the credibility somewhat.

No dismaissal, read again what I wrote and see if you can comprehend. Read it holistically...HGT is an evolutionary mechanism, so is co-option and so is gene loss as well as recombination. Random mutations play a minute roll.
Now unless you provide evidence for HGT, the most parsimonious explanation is accepted until new information comes. That is how science works.


0% of the human genome was apparent in Luca, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses
Random mutations play a minute roll.


ROTFOLOL

40-50% of the genome just materialized out of thin air? That's apparently how your science works.



Your lack of comprehension is no fault of my own. Afterall, you are only able to comprehend novels and comic books. Nothing special about it though, that is a skill you learn in grade 1. Some just outgrew their newfound comprehension skills and decided to apply it to more practical everyday applications... like science and biology. Enjoy your knowledge about storybooks, just keep it out of science and philosophy sections ;).

Oohhh more Prhonyism, delightful.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Front-loaded evolution is the hypothesis that the genetic information required to produce all living species from a few forms or one was "front-loaded" into the first organism or organisms, and that the process of evolution has been the result of the successive activation of some of these genes and loss of others.
Oh joy, you got this from this erronous skeptic wiki (without even referencing). I have told you in this thread what it is all about, here it is again:
1) The original front-loaded state had sufficient information that would bias evolutionary trajectories needed to evolve complex, multicellular organisms.
2) Front-loading assumes that life began with a consortium of different genomes that, as a communicating group, contained sufficient information needed to bias evolutionary trajectories needed to evolve complex, multi-cellular organisms.
3) Front-loading does NOT predict we should find genes that serve no apparent purpose until the new function (in this case multicellularity) arises.


40-50% of the genome just materialized out of thin air? That's apparently how your science works.
Ever heard of gene duplication, recombination etc...? Ever heard of induced mutation? Ever heard of controlled repair pathways that control the outcome of the repair process?
Thought not...
 
Last edited:

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
Oh joy, you got this from this erronous skeptic wiki (without even referencing).

Oh dear, I'm sorry, got it from Skepticwiki. Make sure you reference Mark Gene everytime.

I have told you in this thread what it is all about, here it is again:

We appear to have two competing definitions, one from Skeptic wiki and the other from Mark Gene.

1) The original front-loaded state had sufficient information that would bias evolutionary trajectories needed to evolve complex, multicellular organisms.

Who "Front loaded"?
& What is sufficent information?

2) Front-loading assumes that life began with a consortium of different genomes that, as a communicating group, contained sufficient information needed to bias evolutionary trajectories needed to evolve complex, multi-cellular organisms.

What does "Bias evolutionary Trajectories" mean? and who applies the bias.

Should, heaven forbid, no one applied the bias, then how does this distinuish from the well known fact that natural selection isn't random.

3) Front-loading does NOT predict we should find genes that serve no apparent purpose until the new function (in this case multicellularity) arises.

What's really the point then? if you're not going to lock and load, why call it FLE, why not call it Biased Evolution?


Random mutations play a minute roll.



Random mutations play a minute roll.

etc...? Ever heard of induced mutation?

Random mutations play a minute roll.

Ever heard of controlled repair pathways that control the outcome of the repair process?
Thought not...

Nope, but how does a "repair" create new genes? I'm curious.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Oh dear, I'm sorry, got it from Skepticwiki. Make sure you reference Mark Gene everytime.



We appear to have two competing definitions, one from Skeptic wiki and the other from Mark Gene.



Who "Front loaded"?
& What is sufficent information?



What does "Bias evolutionary Trajectories" mean? and who applies the bias.

Should, heaven forbid, no one applied the bias, then how does this distinuish from the well known fact that natural selection isn't random.



What's really the point then? if you're not going to lock and load, why call it FLE, why not call it Biased Evolution?


Random mutations play a minute roll.



Random mutations play a minute roll.



Random mutations play a minute roll.



Nope, but how does a "repair" create new genes? I'm curious.
Re post all these questions in the correct thread and they will be discussed ;).
 

cyghost

Executive Member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
6,394
Not even a mod yet and you seek to control. control. control. It won't change anything for you. You'd still have no evidence and you'd still be arguing from ignorance. You'd just be able to shut people with legit criticism down. That would be bad indeed.

Answer the questions as presented and stop telling people what to post and where to post.

Then I can stop playing mod phrony as well and we'll all be much more happier.


"Preadaptions" fit the questions as asked. Have at them me hearty.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
Re post all these questions in the correct thread and they will be discussed ;).

Point of order.

You're the one who derailed.

You asked for some indication that HGT could be substantively responsible for the shape of many of today's modern genomes. I gave you this quote:


and you veered off into FLE, and beautifully demonstrated your inherent dishonesty by loudly shouting that you had already cited the article I quoted.

(though granted my quotes were a little more pertinant)

I also asked you to stay on topic.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Actually, you were the one that said they were front-loaded genes. Well, are they front-loaded genes now? God did it for you now, front-loaded those genes? Mmmm.

I merely pointed out that the article suuported a FLE view (an incentive to discuss it in that thread, I'll spell it out for you next time since you can't read between the lines ;)).

So, you know where to discuss FLE and it is not here.

As to biased evolution?
If evolutionary trajectories repeatedly end up with the same result, it is biased. Simple.

Back to the purpose of this thread:
The purpose of this thread is to highlight several of these interesting findings. If anyone come across any interesting findings, post it here.

Interesting article:
Although Our Genetics Differ Significantly, We All Look Alike
Billion-year Revision Of Plant Evolution Timeline May Stem From Discovery Of Lignin In Seaweed

Related to preadaptations? You betya...
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
Actually, you were the one that said they were front-loaded genes. Well, are they front-loaded genes now? God did it for you now, front-loaded those genes? Mmmm.

I merely pointed out that the article suuported a FLE view (an incentive to discuss it in that thread, I'll spell it out for you next time since you can't read between the lines ;)).

So, you know where to discuss FLE and it is not here.

As to biased evolution?
If evolutionary trajectories repeatedly end up with the same result, it is biased. Simple.

Back to the purpose of this thread:
The purpose of this thread is to highlight several of these interesting findings. If anyone come across any interesting findings, post it here.

Interesting article:
Although Our Genetics Differ Significantly, We All Look Alike
Billion-year Revision Of Plant Evolution Timeline May Stem From Discovery Of Lignin In Seaweed

Related to preadaptations? You betya...

How's that for prediction Cyghost?

Hypothesis

Prediction

Proof.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,486
Actually, you were the one that said they were front-loaded genes. Well, are they front-loaded genes now? God did it for you now, front-loaded those genes? Mmmm.

I merely pointed out that the article suuported a FLE view (an incentive to discuss it in that thread, I'll spell it out for you next time since you can't read between the lines ;)).

So, you know where to discuss FLE and it is not here.

Don't bring it up then.

As to biased evolution?
If evolutionary trajectories repeatedly end up with the same result, it is biased. Simple.

It's biased at best by conditions as convergent evolution suggests.

Back to the purpose of this thread:
The purpose of this thread is to highlight several of these interesting findings. If anyone come across any interesting findings, post it here.

Interesting article:
Although Our Genetics Differ Significantly, We All Look Alike
Billion-year Revision Of Plant Evolution Timeline May Stem From Discovery Of Lignin In Seaweed

Related to preadaptations? You betya...

Do not use your reply to me to randomly introduce new items for your forum blogging.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Although Our Genetics Differ Significantly, We All Look Alike
ScienceDaily (Jan. 30, 2009) — The genetic variation within a species can be significant, but very little of that variation results in clear differences in morphology or other phenotypes. Much of the diversity remains hidden ‘under the surface’ in buffered form.
This has been revealed by research conducted by the University of Groningen, Wageningen University and Research Centre (both Netherlands) and the British research centre Rothamsted Research.

The researchers crossed two ecotypes of Arabidopsis and investigated the offspring for molecular and phenotypic differences, for example the number of proteins and metabolites that are formed and susceptibility to disease. It turned out that of the hundreds of thousands of differences in the DNA, only six ‘hotspots’ had major molecular and phenotypic effects.

Variation

The DNA of the two crossed ecotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana, a small plant that serves as a model organism in genetic research, differs on no fewer than 500,000 points, i.e. there is significant genetic variation. Of the offspring of the crossbreeding, 162 plants were investigated on 139 external characteristics (classic phenotypic traits such as the height of the plant, flowering time or resistance to disease) and 40,000 molecular traits. The latter category covers the products of the genes, i.e. the transcripts and proteins formed in the plant cell and the healthy or toxic compounds (metabolites) that these proteins generate in their turn. Many of these traits show substantial phenotypic variation.

Clusters

Research leader Prof. Ritsert Jansen: ‘You’d expect the mutations – the genetic causes of these phenotypic differences – to be evenly divided over the DNA, that they would be spread out over the whole genome, in a manner of speaking. This was clearly not the case in this experiment. We could point out exactly six areas in the genome where the genetic causes of thousands of differences were located. In other words, the genetic causes turned out to be clustered into six hotspots. The other 500,000 mutations in the genome only had a relatively very minor influence.’

Buffering

As described in the publication, this is a type of buffering – the 500,000 genetic differences do influence the activity of thousands of genes, but that diversity gradually diminishes the further you move away from the genetic source, the DNA; it is buffered. Eventually, only a small number of hotspots remain and these cause phenotypic differences at the highest levels, in metabolites and classic phenotypic traits. ‘The genetic variation is significantly present deep in the cell but is muffled more and more the further you move towards the outside’, Jansen explains.

Evolution

Although buffering has a muffling effect on the evolution of a species, it certainly does not hinder it. Jansen: ‘I’d say that it’s lucky there’s buffering. Just imagine if each of the 500,000 differences was immediately expressed in the next generation. From the point of view of the “robustness” of a species, it’s necessary that the offspring do not vary too dramatically. But if there’s a change in the environment that requires an evolutionary adaptation, then the necessary genetic variation is ready and waiting.’

Hotspots

The discovery means that life scientists should in particular examine the hotspots in the genome when searching for the causes of genetic disorders. In that regard the results of the current research agree with the results of Prof. Cisca Wijmenga of the University Medical Center Groningen, which was published in Nature Reviews Genetics in December. Her research revealed that only a limited number of hotspot genes are involved in the development of numerous immune-related diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, coeliac disease, Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Just like Arabidopsis, people differ from each other in millions of positions in their genome, but it’s the genotype in the hotspots that is the most relevant. ‘When it comes down to it, we are more similar to each other than the major differences in genome sequences suggest.’

Thanks to buffering, the necessary genetic variation is present to unfold to the needs of a given environment. Adaptation. No need for culling of weak genomes, the agents and mechanisms of change are present in living organisms to cope with future conditions. Seeing that natural selection does nothing and is myopic, it is striking to see these robust mechanisms being present in the genomes of organisms that prepare them for future adaptation... preadaptations.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
An Ancient Gene Network Is Co-opted for Teeth on Old and New Jaws
Would you look at this network.
Genes involved in this dental regulatory circuit include bmp2, bmp4, dlx2, eda, edar, pax9, pitx2, runx2, shh, and wnt7b
But these genes were present loooong before teeth were even on the scene.
dlx, pax9, pitx, runx, shh. Trichoplax anyone?
And yet they are crucial in the unfolding of the development of teeth in just about every organism that has it. Yep, play that tape of life again and we should get similar results...
 

Syrius 10

New Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
3
An Ancient Gene Network Is Co-opted for Teeth on Old and New Jaws
Would you look at this network.

But these genes were present loooong before teeth were even on the scene.
dlx, pax9, pitx, runx, shh. Trichoplax anyone?
And yet they are crucial in the unfolding of the development of teeth in just about every organism that has it. Yep, play that tape of life again and we should get similar results...

Hi there Phronesis,

Genomes and genetic codes. Perhaps mine is a cracked comment to place here in so scientific a discussion - but please your comment in any case.

I am a simple man re creationism and / vs evolution. Energy rising, to matter, to life, to mind, to god/ spirit. I struggle to find points to argue either side of the debate. Most arguments have a level of sanity somewhere.

If there are these examples of information within genetic codes in cells that do not require this (?) then is it possible that all cells have access to all genetic history - as in NOW - (ignoring the concept of past and future). Do you think that this "info" is stored "off-site", to be accessed at will - aparrently purely co-incidentally - or chaotic?

"Ignorance is Bliss"
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,747
/me likes all the examples of natural selection that phron is showing us.
 
Top