Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The problem, of course, is that the people who need to read this, won't. Reminds me of the people who attempt to explain complex historical and economic theory with analogies about 2 cows.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Analogies are not evidence
- Thread starter tas8831
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A poor analogy would be the use of non organic arguments and examples, and then applying it to organic evolution.ANALOGY:
Definition of analogyWhen I used to teach Biology 101, I would use the classic English Language analogy when introducing students to DNA and Genetics.
1a: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect
b: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY
2: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
3: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for
the creation of another form
Analogies are (or can be) good teaching tools to convey complex subjects to those who are unfamiliar with the subject matter, by making a comparison with that complex material and something more common and understandable.
It goes something like this - The Nucleotides are like letters, the Exons are like words, a Gene is like a sentence, a Genome is like a book, etc., at least that is how I approached it. This is all very simplistic (by design) , but it usually helps get the basic points across.
I was always sure to make it clear that this is pretty much where the analogy ends. I would explain that genes can be very different from sentences, that genomes, unlike books, contain lots of 'chapters' repeated over and over, or parts of them repeated, etc., but again, that the analogy was good enough to get the basics across.
It seems that many people never got that caution, and were apparently told, or it was implied, that the analogy is almost exactly a 1-to-1 directly applicable comparison. And many of those same folks read a book or more likely an internet essay about "genetic information", where direct analogies - just as inapplicable as the language analogies - are employed in which it is asserted that genes/genomes are exactly like computer code, and subject to the exact same constraints. This is why, for example, we see creationists - even on this forum, even today - claiming, for example that "rearranging the things that are already there is not new information". That claim is usually accompanied by something like "and you need new information to make a new part." I have even seem some intrepid anti-evolutionists provide specific (and wholly indefensible) numbers - one fellow claimed on another forum many years ago that 'we' needed at least 1 "brand new protein" to make a new body part, and that this required at least 333 mutations-worth of new information. I asked why, and how he knew this, but I never got a reply (of course). More recently, I had a rather well-known (at least on the internet) creationist declare that 'we' would need at least 1 million mutations to turn an ape pelvis into a human one. I asked for a list of 10 of these changes that were needed and how many mutations each would require and how he knew this. No answer, and it has been about 11 years... Anyway:
These language/computer code/ "information" constraints that are foisted upon evolution include (but are definitely not limited to):
1. You cannot just rearrange what is there and get anything new
2. You cannot just copy-paste what is already there and get anything new
3. You cannot screw up the code/word and expect something new or good to come of it
I first encountered the language analogy argument against evolution way back in the early 1990s, in the first creationism book I ever read. I don't remember the book, specifically but I later learned that the example in this book had made the rounds and was pretty common amongst creationists. It went something like this, and it basically encompasses the three constraints above:
Here is a simple sentence:
The dog ran fast.
Now let us 'evolve' it:
The dog ran fast. The dog ran fast.
The dog dog ran fast.
The ran dog fast.
The dig ran fast.
Isn't that CRAZY??? Those sentences don't make any sense! Obviously, this is not how evolution works. Because it DOESN'T work!
In reality, we see:
The dog ran fast. The dog ran fast.
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
Abstract
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1,2,3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number–variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.
The dog dog ran fast.
Common exon duplication in animals and its role in alternative splicing
Abstract
When searching the genomes of human, fly and worm for cases of exon duplication, we found that about 10% of all genes contain tandemly duplicated exons. In the course of the analyses, 2438 unannotated exons were identified that are not currently included in genome databases and that are likely to be functional. The vast majority of them are likely to be involved in mutually exclusive alternative splicing events. The common nature of recent exon duplication indicates that it might have a significant role in the fast evolution of eukaryotic genes. It also provides a general mechanism for the regulation of protein function.
The ran dog fast.
Evolutionary history of exon shuffling
Abstract
Exon shuffling has been characterized as one of the major evolutionary forces shaping both the genome and the proteome of eukaryotes. This mechanism was particularly important in the creation of multidomain proteins during animal evolution, bringing a number of functional genetic novelties. Here, genome information from a variety of eukaryotic species was used to address several issues related to the evolutionary history of exon shuffling. By comparing all protein sequences within each species, we were able to characterize exon shuffling signatures throughout metazoans. Intron phase (the position of the intron regarding the codon) and exon symmetry (the pattern of flanking introns for a given exon or block of adjacent exons) were features used to evaluate exon shuffling. We confirmed previous observations that exon shuffling mediated by phase 1 introns (1-1 exon shuffling) is the predominant kind in multicellular animals. Evidence is provided that such pattern was achieved since the early steps of animal evolution, supported by a detectable presence of 1-1 shuffling units in Trichoplax adhaerens and a considerable prevalence of them in Nematostella vectensis. In contrast, Monosiga brevicollis, one of the closest relatives of metazoans, and Arabidopsis thaliana, showed no evidence of 1-1 exon or domain shuffling above what it would be expected by chance. Instead, exon shuffling events are less abundant and predominantly mediated by phase 0 introns (0-0 exon shuffling) in those non-metazoan species. Moreover, an intermediate pattern of 1-1 and 0-0 exon shuffling was observed for the placozoan T. adhaerens, a primitive animal. Finally, characterization of flanking intron phases around domain borders allowed us to identify a common set of symmetric 1-1 domains that have been shuffled throughout the metazoan lineage.
The dig ran fast.
Point Mutations with Positive Selection Were a Major Force during the Evolution of a Receptor-Kinase Resistance Gene Family of Rice
ABSTRACT
The rice (Oryza sativa) Xa26 gene, which confers resistance to bacterial blight disease and encodes a leucine-rich repeat (LRR) receptor kinase, resides at a locus clustered with tandem homologous genes. To investigate the evolution of this family, four haplotypes from the two subspecies of rice, indica and japonica, were analyzed. Comparative sequence analysis of 34 genes of 10 types of paralogs of the family revealed haplotype polymorphisms and pronounced paralog diversity. The orthologs in different haplotypes were more similar than the paralogs in the same haplotype. At least five types of paralogs were formed before the separation of indica and japonica subspecies. Only 7% of amino acid sites were detected to be under positive selection, which occurred in the extracytoplasmic domain. Approximately 74% of the positively selected sites were solvent-exposed amino acid residues of the LRR domain that have been proposed to be involved in pathogen recognition, and 73% of the hypervariable sites detected in the LRR domain were subject to positive selection. The family is formed by tandem duplication followed by diversification through recombination, deletion, and point mutation. Most variation among genes in the family is caused by point mutations and positive selection.
I also looked at a couple papers on the Titin gene, as I had remembered from some years ago a discussion on that on a forum, but I could not find the paper I had used before. I did, however, come across this figure - all the red blocks are identical or nearly identical Ig-like domains:
View attachment 52913
Largest protein we make. LOTS of what we are told is not 'new information' and just 'copies of what is already there' jammed together to make a gene that makes an important protein.
That handles both the language and 'information' "arguments via analogy", I believe, but there is one more 'information' issue that I would like to address - the claim that 'just changing what is already there does not create new information, therefore, no adaptive evolution can occur' or words to that effect.
This paper documents an insertion event (a mutation in which a large chunk of DNA is inserted in one event) within the promoter region of a gene which causes the gene to be over-transcribed, i.e., just more of the same protein is made. No 'new' protein, just "information" that makes more of it. And it confers an adaptive benefit:
A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that over-transcription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."
I'm sure the fallacy-mongers will be out in force (if they do not just ignore it all) and try to find ways to diminish or deny - I have presented the p450 many times, once had a creationist dismiss it because it did not produce a 'new limb'!!
That analogies are not evidence will be their burden to bear.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Sure, you could always limit on purpose the rhetorical tools at your disposal in order to hold yourself to some moral principle.
I never wanted to insinuate that you couldn't.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Then, there is the classic:
Me: Here is a sequence of DNA from the Human Genome Project. Tell me how much information it has?
IDC: What does it do?
Me: I win.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I know, but it makes me feel good.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I think we're hitting on why so many "debates" with creationists are mostly little more than trying to get them to answer questions. It's why they have lost in the arenas of science and court. While they can get away with ignoring questions here, they can't in science or court without serious consequences.
But like I keep reminding myself, this isn't really an issue anymore. No one is making any serious efforts to get creationism taught in public schools and the teaching of evolution is expanding across the country each year, even into the deep south. I don't know what the creationists will try next, or if they even will, but for now I'm content to declare victory.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It isn't about creation any more. After Kitzmiller vs. Dover they have changed their strategy from selling their BS as science to discrediting science (and other authorities) and they are successful with it. Every antivaxxer, every climate change denier, every the-dems-stole-the-election proponent is a win for them.I think we're hitting on why so many "debates" with creationists are mostly little more than trying to get them to answer questions. It's why they have lost in the arenas of science and court. While they can get away with ignoring questions here, they can't in science or court without serious consequences.
But like I keep reminding myself, this isn't really an issue anymore. No one is making any serious efforts to get creationism taught in public schools and the teaching of evolution is expanding across the country each year, even into the deep south. I don't know what the creationists will try next, or if they even will, but for now I'm content to declare victory.
Once people stop believing in reality, they can start believing in religions.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Well those things are, as far as I can tell, mostly tangentially associated with creationist organizations. Like you depict, it's all part of a larger, anti-science, anti-intellectualism mindset that's always been prominent in America.
But as far as the specific evolution vs. creationism battle, that's effectively over. Of course as you note, the larger war rages on on other fronts.
I might disagree with the OP.
Analogies could be evidence, ie, one thing is a model for another.
But whether one is cromulent & convincing or not is whole 'nother matter.
Analogies could be evidence, ie, one thing is a model for another.
But whether one is cromulent & convincing or not is whole 'nother matter.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
This thread is about fish, right?
They don't really need bicycles.
They don't really need bicycles.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Still not evidence.
I should point out that evidence is merely something offered
to support an argument. It generally falls far short of proof.
Good arguments often require multiple pieces of evidence,
which must play roles in a cogent argument.
Consider that in court, 2 sides each present evidence for
their argument. But only 1 side will win. The losing side
still had evidence...but perhaps it was weak (or their
argument was wrong).
One could present evidence that a pneumatic circuit would
behave a certain way based upon an analogous electrical
circuit's behavior. Analogs are useful in science & engineering,
either as evidence or simply to illustrate a concept.
Alas, bad analogies abound.
And they give good ones a bad name.
Last edited:
ANALOGY:
Definition of analogyWhen I used to teach Biology 101, I would use the classic English Language analogy when introducing students to DNA and Genetics.
1a: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect
b: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY
2: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
3: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for
the creation of another form
Analogies are (or can be) good teaching tools to convey complex subjects to those who are unfamiliar with the subject matter, by making a comparison with that complex material and something more common and understandable.
It goes something like this - The Nucleotides are like letters, the Exons are like words, a Gene is like a sentence, a Genome is like a book, etc., at least that is how I approached it. This is all very simplistic (by design) , but it usually helps get the basic points across.
I was always sure to make it clear that this is pretty much where the analogy ends. I would explain that genes can be very different from sentences, that genomes, unlike books, contain lots of 'chapters' repeated over and over, or parts of them repeated, etc., but again, that the analogy was good enough to get the basics across.
It seems that many people never got that caution, and were apparently told, or it was implied, that the analogy is almost exactly a 1-to-1 directly applicable comparison. And many of those same folks read a book or more likely an internet essay about "genetic information", where direct analogies - just as inapplicable as the language analogies - are employed in which it is asserted that genes/genomes are exactly like computer code, and subject to the exact same constraints. This is why, for example, we see creationists - even on this forum, even today - claiming, for example that "rearranging the things that are already there is not new information". That claim is usually accompanied by something like "and you need new information to make a new part." I have even seem some intrepid anti-evolutionists provide specific (and wholly indefensible) numbers - one fellow claimed on another forum many years ago that 'we' needed at least 1 "brand new protein" to make a new body part, and that this required at least 333 mutations-worth of new information. I asked why, and how he knew this, but I never got a reply (of course). More recently, I had a rather well-known (at least on the internet) creationist declare that 'we' would need at least 1 million mutations to turn an ape pelvis into a human one. I asked for a list of 10 of these changes that were needed and how many mutations each would require and how he knew this. No answer, and it has been about 11 years... Anyway:
These language/computer code/ "information" constraints that are foisted upon evolution include (but are definitely not limited to):
1. You cannot just rearrange what is there and get anything new
2. You cannot just copy-paste what is already there and get anything new
3. You cannot screw up the code/word and expect something new or good to come of it
I first encountered the language analogy argument against evolution way back in the early 1990s, in the first creationism book I ever read. I don't remember the book, specifically but I later learned that the example in this book had made the rounds and was pretty common amongst creationists. It went something like this, and it basically encompasses the three constraints above:
Here is a simple sentence:
The dog ran fast.
Now let us 'evolve' it:
The dog ran fast. The dog ran fast.
The dog dog ran fast.
The ran dog fast.
The dig ran fast.
Isn't that CRAZY??? Those sentences don't make any sense! Obviously, this is not how evolution works. Because it DOESN'T work!
In reality, we see:
The dog ran fast. The dog ran fast.
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
Abstract
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1,2,3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number–variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.
The dog dog ran fast.
Common exon duplication in animals and its role in alternative splicing
Abstract
When searching the genomes of human, fly and worm for cases of exon duplication, we found that about 10% of all genes contain tandemly duplicated exons. In the course of the analyses, 2438 unannotated exons were identified that are not currently included in genome databases and that are likely to be functional. The vast majority of them are likely to be involved in mutually exclusive alternative splicing events. The common nature of recent exon duplication indicates that it might have a significant role in the fast evolution of eukaryotic genes. It also provides a general mechanism for the regulation of protein function.
The ran dog fast.
Evolutionary history of exon shuffling
Abstract
Exon shuffling has been characterized as one of the major evolutionary forces shaping both the genome and the proteome of eukaryotes. This mechanism was particularly important in the creation of multidomain proteins during animal evolution, bringing a number of functional genetic novelties. Here, genome information from a variety of eukaryotic species was used to address several issues related to the evolutionary history of exon shuffling. By comparing all protein sequences within each species, we were able to characterize exon shuffling signatures throughout metazoans. Intron phase (the position of the intron regarding the codon) and exon symmetry (the pattern of flanking introns for a given exon or block of adjacent exons) were features used to evaluate exon shuffling. We confirmed previous observations that exon shuffling mediated by phase 1 introns (1-1 exon shuffling) is the predominant kind in multicellular animals. Evidence is provided that such pattern was achieved since the early steps of animal evolution, supported by a detectable presence of 1-1 shuffling units in Trichoplax adhaerens and a considerable prevalence of them in Nematostella vectensis. In contrast, Monosiga brevicollis, one of the closest relatives of metazoans, and Arabidopsis thaliana, showed no evidence of 1-1 exon or domain shuffling above what it would be expected by chance. Instead, exon shuffling events are less abundant and predominantly mediated by phase 0 introns (0-0 exon shuffling) in those non-metazoan species. Moreover, an intermediate pattern of 1-1 and 0-0 exon shuffling was observed for the placozoan T. adhaerens, a primitive animal. Finally, characterization of flanking intron phases around domain borders allowed us to identify a common set of symmetric 1-1 domains that have been shuffled throughout the metazoan lineage.
The dig ran fast.
Point Mutations with Positive Selection Were a Major Force during the Evolution of a Receptor-Kinase Resistance Gene Family of Rice
ABSTRACT
The rice (Oryza sativa) Xa26 gene, which confers resistance to bacterial blight disease and encodes a leucine-rich repeat (LRR) receptor kinase, resides at a locus clustered with tandem homologous genes. To investigate the evolution of this family, four haplotypes from the two subspecies of rice, indica and japonica, were analyzed. Comparative sequence analysis of 34 genes of 10 types of paralogs of the family revealed haplotype polymorphisms and pronounced paralog diversity. The orthologs in different haplotypes were more similar than the paralogs in the same haplotype. At least five types of paralogs were formed before the separation of indica and japonica subspecies. Only 7% of amino acid sites were detected to be under positive selection, which occurred in the extracytoplasmic domain. Approximately 74% of the positively selected sites were solvent-exposed amino acid residues of the LRR domain that have been proposed to be involved in pathogen recognition, and 73% of the hypervariable sites detected in the LRR domain were subject to positive selection. The family is formed by tandem duplication followed by diversification through recombination, deletion, and point mutation. Most variation among genes in the family is caused by point mutations and positive selection.
I also looked at a couple papers on the Titin gene, as I had remembered from some years ago a discussion on that on a forum, but I could not find the paper I had used before. I did, however, come across this figure - all the red blocks are identical or nearly identical Ig-like domains:
View attachment 52913
Largest protein we make. LOTS of what we are told is not 'new information' and just 'copies of what is already there' jammed together to make a gene that makes an important protein.
That handles both the language and 'information' "arguments via analogy", I believe, but there is one more 'information' issue that I would like to address - the claim that 'just changing what is already there does not create new information, therefore, no adaptive evolution can occur' or words to that effect.
This paper documents an insertion event (a mutation in which a large chunk of DNA is inserted in one event) within the promoter region of a gene which causes the gene to be over-transcribed, i.e., just more of the same protein is made. No 'new' protein, just "information" that makes more of it. And it confers an adaptive benefit:
A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that over-transcription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."
I'm sure the fallacy-mongers will be out in force (if they do not just ignore it all) and try to find ways to diminish or deny - I have presented the p450 many times, once had a creationist dismiss it because it did not produce a 'new limb'!!
That analogies are not evidence will be their burden to bear.
I read the human genome. I wanted to find out how it turned out. It's hard to find a good book these days.
I'd argue with that if it weren't for falling short of proof.
I'll treat that as detente.
Woohoo!
There is often conflation of evidence & proof.
Seldom does the former qualify as the latter.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I was hoping @Rise would respond, but I guess not.
ANALOGY:
Definition of analogyWhen I used to teach Biology 101, I would use the classic English Language analogy when introducing students to DNA and Genetics.
1a: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect
b: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY
2: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
3: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for
the creation of another form
Analogies are (or can be) good teaching tools to convey complex subjects to those who are unfamiliar with the subject matter, by making a comparison with that complex material and something more common and understandable.
It goes something like this - The Nucleotides are like letters, the Exons are like words, a Gene is like a sentence, a Genome is like a book, etc., at least that is how I approached it. This is all very simplistic (by design) , but it usually helps get the basic points across.
I was always sure to make it clear that this is pretty much where the analogy ends. I would explain that genes can be very different from sentences, that genomes, unlike books, contain lots of 'chapters' repeated over and over, or parts of them repeated, etc., but again, that the analogy was good enough to get the basics across.
It seems that many people never got that caution, and were apparently told, or it was implied, that the analogy is almost exactly a 1-to-1 directly applicable comparison. And many of those same folks read a book or more likely an internet essay about "genetic information", where direct analogies - just as inapplicable as the language analogies - are employed in which it is asserted that genes/genomes are exactly like computer code, and subject to the exact same constraints. This is why, for example, we see creationists - even on this forum, even today - claiming, for example that "rearranging the things that are already there is not new information". That claim is usually accompanied by something like "and you need new information to make a new part." I have even seem some intrepid anti-evolutionists provide specific (and wholly indefensible) numbers - one fellow claimed on another forum many years ago that 'we' needed at least 1 "brand new protein" to make a new body part, and that this required at least 333 mutations-worth of new information. I asked why, and how he knew this, but I never got a reply (of course). More recently, I had a rather well-known (at least on the internet) creationist declare that 'we' would need at least 1 million mutations to turn an ape pelvis into a human one. I asked for a list of 10 of these changes that were needed and how many mutations each would require and how he knew this. No answer, and it has been about 11 years... Anyway:
These language/computer code/ "information" constraints that are foisted upon evolution include (but are definitely not limited to):
1. You cannot just rearrange what is there and get anything new
2. You cannot just copy-paste what is already there and get anything new
3. You cannot screw up the code/word and expect something new or good to come of it
I first encountered the language analogy argument against evolution way back in the early 1990s, in the first creationism book I ever read. I don't remember the book, specifically but I later learned that the example in this book had made the rounds and was pretty common amongst creationists. It went something like this, and it basically encompasses the three constraints above:
Here is a simple sentence:
The dog ran fast.
Now let us 'evolve' it:
The dog ran fast. The dog ran fast.
The dog dog ran fast.
The ran dog fast.
The dig ran fast.
Isn't that CRAZY??? Those sentences don't make any sense! Obviously, this is not how evolution works. Because it DOESN'T work!
In reality, we see:
The dog ran fast. The dog ran fast.
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
Abstract
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1,2,3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number–variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.
The dog dog ran fast.
Common exon duplication in animals and its role in alternative splicing
Abstract
When searching the genomes of human, fly and worm for cases of exon duplication, we found that about 10% of all genes contain tandemly duplicated exons. In the course of the analyses, 2438 unannotated exons were identified that are not currently included in genome databases and that are likely to be functional. The vast majority of them are likely to be involved in mutually exclusive alternative splicing events. The common nature of recent exon duplication indicates that it might have a significant role in the fast evolution of eukaryotic genes. It also provides a general mechanism for the regulation of protein function.
The ran dog fast.
Evolutionary history of exon shuffling
Abstract
Exon shuffling has been characterized as one of the major evolutionary forces shaping both the genome and the proteome of eukaryotes. This mechanism was particularly important in the creation of multidomain proteins during animal evolution, bringing a number of functional genetic novelties. Here, genome information from a variety of eukaryotic species was used to address several issues related to the evolutionary history of exon shuffling. By comparing all protein sequences within each species, we were able to characterize exon shuffling signatures throughout metazoans. Intron phase (the position of the intron regarding the codon) and exon symmetry (the pattern of flanking introns for a given exon or block of adjacent exons) were features used to evaluate exon shuffling. We confirmed previous observations that exon shuffling mediated by phase 1 introns (1-1 exon shuffling) is the predominant kind in multicellular animals. Evidence is provided that such pattern was achieved since the early steps of animal evolution, supported by a detectable presence of 1-1 shuffling units in Trichoplax adhaerens and a considerable prevalence of them in Nematostella vectensis. In contrast, Monosiga brevicollis, one of the closest relatives of metazoans, and Arabidopsis thaliana, showed no evidence of 1-1 exon or domain shuffling above what it would be expected by chance. Instead, exon shuffling events are less abundant and predominantly mediated by phase 0 introns (0-0 exon shuffling) in those non-metazoan species. Moreover, an intermediate pattern of 1-1 and 0-0 exon shuffling was observed for the placozoan T. adhaerens, a primitive animal. Finally, characterization of flanking intron phases around domain borders allowed us to identify a common set of symmetric 1-1 domains that have been shuffled throughout the metazoan lineage.
The dig ran fast.
Point Mutations with Positive Selection Were a Major Force during the Evolution of a Receptor-Kinase Resistance Gene Family of Rice
ABSTRACT
The rice (Oryza sativa) Xa26 gene, which confers resistance to bacterial blight disease and encodes a leucine-rich repeat (LRR) receptor kinase, resides at a locus clustered with tandem homologous genes. To investigate the evolution of this family, four haplotypes from the two subspecies of rice, indica and japonica, were analyzed. Comparative sequence analysis of 34 genes of 10 types of paralogs of the family revealed haplotype polymorphisms and pronounced paralog diversity. The orthologs in different haplotypes were more similar than the paralogs in the same haplotype. At least five types of paralogs were formed before the separation of indica and japonica subspecies. Only 7% of amino acid sites were detected to be under positive selection, which occurred in the extracytoplasmic domain. Approximately 74% of the positively selected sites were solvent-exposed amino acid residues of the LRR domain that have been proposed to be involved in pathogen recognition, and 73% of the hypervariable sites detected in the LRR domain were subject to positive selection. The family is formed by tandem duplication followed by diversification through recombination, deletion, and point mutation. Most variation among genes in the family is caused by point mutations and positive selection.
I also looked at a couple papers on the Titin gene, as I had remembered from some years ago a discussion on that on a forum, but I could not find the paper I had used before. I did, however, come across this figure - all the red blocks are identical or nearly identical Ig-like domains:
View attachment 52913
Largest protein we make. LOTS of what we are told is not 'new information' and just 'copies of what is already there' jammed together to make a gene that makes an important protein.
That handles both the language and 'information' "arguments via analogy", I believe, but there is one more 'information' issue that I would like to address - the claim that 'just changing what is already there does not create new information, therefore, no adaptive evolution can occur' or words to that effect.
This paper documents an insertion event (a mutation in which a large chunk of DNA is inserted in one event) within the promoter region of a gene which causes the gene to be over-transcribed, i.e., just more of the same protein is made. No 'new' protein, just "information" that makes more of it. And it confers an adaptive benefit:
A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that over-transcription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."
I'm sure the fallacy-mongers will be out in force (if they do not just ignore it all) and try to find ways to diminish or deny - I have presented the p450 many times, once had a creationist dismiss it because it did not produce a 'new limb'!!
That analogies are not evidence will be their burden to bear.
gnostic
The Lost One
Verse writings, such as poems, hymns and scriptures, often use analogies, and often in the forms of similes or metaphors, that were never meant to be taken literally.
And yet some fundamentalist Christians can’t help themselves, therefore they often misunderstood and misrepresented analogies for what they are.
Taking some passages literally often lead to misunderstanding of what messages the authors are trying to convey.
For instance...
“2 Peter 3:8” said:
...what I have highlighted in red in 2 Peter 3:8, are 2 similes, because it use words “is like” and “are like” are demonstration of analogies being use, where two unlike things “one day” and “a thousand years” were used to mean time is fleeting,
But for literalists, they take the meaning as literals, and some creationist literalists tried to apply obvious similes to the creative days in Genesis 1. This lead to more errors in reading Genesis creation, a creation story that already woefully understood, misuse.
Genesis authors, whoever they might be, wrote the 6-day creation and 1-day of rest, was written for the purpose of Exodus, where it signifies the need for sabbath - a day of rest.
But if those silly literalists are going to apply Peter’s verse to Genesis, literally, then wouldn’t that mean they would have to apply Peter’s verse to Exodus’ sabbath, so that each day, including sabbath, should literally mean “a thousand years”.
I don’t see how creationists can apply Peter’s verse literally to Genesis chapters, and not apply to everywhere else in the Bible, including the Exodus’ sabbath, or the time between Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. Shouldn’t those days be really thousands of years?
It is demonstration of poor biblical scholarship when literalists are incapable of understanding of the use of literary tools of analogy, simile or metaphor.
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Brilliant insights.
Like what?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The watchmaker argument.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is silly for creationists to try that one. But it is all they have.