Is 'changing genome architecture' necessary for phenotypic change?

[tas8831]

Short answer - NO.

Some Friday morning ramblings...

Many creationists seem to think (and many insist) that an alteration in phenotype REQUIRES some large number of mutations, or a new one for me - changes in 'genome architecture' or 'genome structure.'

I am still waiting for a scientific definition of "genome architecture" that is relevant to phenotype.

The often wacky assertions put forth by creationists on these issues exposes a general ignorance among the them regarding the relationship between genotype and phenotype, between mutations and changes in phenotype, etc.

The short answer for this is - there is generally no 1-to-1 relationship between mutation and phenotype, and in terms of morphology, there is probably very little if any 1-to-1 relationship between it and genes*..

A few haphazardly listed points about this:

1. They forget/never knew about regulatory sequence. The timing and extent of gene expression can alter morphology without requiring major changes in DNA or 'genome architecture', whatever is meant by that (yes, I know that is a real thing, but given how some creationists 'define' terms as they see fit, I see no reason to think that creationists use the ACTUAL definitions of such terms). Mutations involving regulatory regions can alter the timing/extent of expression.

2. They ignore/dismiss the fact that morphology among, say terrestrial vertebrates, are different via degrees, not 'kinds'. That is - our anatomy, in particular our gross morphology, differs from that of, say, a dog by degree, not kind. Our skeletons, for example, are basically the same in terms of numbers of bones and such - we differ primarily by the shapes of individual bones (which can be affected by what is mentioned above). Thus no "brand new genes" or "genome architecture changes" are needed for such variation. Which leads into

3. the notion that evolutionists think all genes are identical. Yes, a creationist actually wrote this. No, we don't think that at all. Obviously there are differences in genes or we would all be ONE thing. Duh.
I'm betting that creationists that think this way also believe that gene duplications do not add information... Oh well...

4. Which leads me to the muntjacs.
View attachment 31109

Allow me to demolish the "changes in genome architecture" argument:

Genomes of Placental Mammals
The variation in genome organization and size is striking. The Indian barking deer, Muntiacus , has only three pairs of chromosomes, whereas the black rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, has 67 pairs. Genome size varies from 1650 Mb in the Italian bat Miniopterus schreibersi to 5500 Mb in the South African aardvark, Orcyteropus afer. In short evolutionary time spans, these differences in genome size have little effect on embryological development, morphology, or physiology, as revealed by comparisons of the Indian muntjac, Muntiacus muntjac(2400 Mb), with its three pairs of chromosomes, and the Chinese muntjac, Muntiacus reevesi (2900 Mb), with its 23 pairs of chromosomes. Despite these different genome architectures and genome sizes, the species are morphologically similar and yield viable hybrids.​

That is, the 'architecture' and numbers of chromosomes and amount of DNA are less important than the genic content of the genomes in terms of viability, morphology, physiology, infertility, etc.


Another creationist argument bites the dust.





*I am referring to the insinuations/assertions that 'new genes' or 'changes in genome architecture' are needed to alter morphology.

 

[tas8831]

Funny that creationists cannot handle science. Even the ones pretending to have studied ti for decades. Such cowards.

 

[Neutral Name]

Short answer - NO.

Some Friday morning ramblings...

Many creationists seem to think (and many insist) that an alteration in phenotype REQUIRES some large number of mutations, or a new one for me - changes in 'genome architecture' or 'genome structure.'

I am still waiting for a scientific definition of "genome architecture" that is relevant to phenotype.

The often wacky assertions put forth by creationists on these issues exposes a general ignorance among the them regarding the relationship between genotype and phenotype, between mutations and changes in phenotype, etc.

The short answer for this is - there is generally no 1-to-1 relationship between mutation and phenotype, and in terms of morphology, there is probably very little if any 1-to-1 relationship between it and genes*..

A few haphazardly listed points about this:

1. They forget/never knew about regulatory sequence. The timing and extent of gene expression can alter morphology without requiring major changes in DNA or 'genome architecture', whatever is meant by that (yes, I know that is a real thing, but given how some creationists 'define' terms as they see fit, I see no reason to think that creationists use the ACTUAL definitions of such terms). Mutations involving regulatory regions can alter the timing/extent of expression.

2. They ignore/dismiss the fact that morphology among, say terrestrial vertebrates, are different via degrees, not 'kinds'. That is - our anatomy, in particular our gross morphology, differs from that of, say, a dog by degree, not kind. Our skeletons, for example, are basically the same in terms of numbers of bones and such - we differ primarily by the shapes of individual bones (which can be affected by what is mentioned above). Thus no "brand new genes" or "genome architecture changes" are needed for such variation. Which leads into

3. the notion that evolutionists think all genes are identical. Yes, a creationist actually wrote this. No, we don't think that at all. Obviously there are differences in genes or we would all be ONE thing. Duh.
I'm betting that creationists that think this way also believe that gene duplications do not add information... Oh well...

4. Which leads me to the muntjacs.
View attachment 31109

View attachment 31111

Allow me to demolish the "changes in genome architecture" argument:

Genomes of Placental Mammals
The variation in genome organization and size is striking. The Indian barking deer, Muntiacus , has only three pairs of chromosomes, whereas the black rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, has 67 pairs. Genome size varies from 1650 Mb in the Italian bat Miniopterus schreibersi to 5500 Mb in the South African aardvark, Orcyteropus afer. In short evolutionary time spans, these differences in genome size have little effect on embryological development, morphology, or physiology, as revealed by comparisons of the Indian muntjac, Muntiacus muntjac(2400 Mb), with its three pairs of chromosomes, and the Chinese muntjac, Muntiacus reevesi (2900 Mb), with its 23 pairs of chromosomes. Despite these different genome architectures and genome sizes, the species are morphologically similar and yield viable hybrids.​

That is, the 'architecture' and numbers of chromosomes and amount of DNA are less important than the genic content of the genomes in terms of viability, morphology, physiology, infertility, etc.


Another creationist argument bites the dust.





*I am referring to the insinuations/assertions that 'new genes' or 'changes in genome architecture' are needed to alter morphology.

Without even getting deeply into genetics, I can say that in Japan strange changes in life forms were found as far away as 100 miles from Fukushima after the nuclear accident. I doubt that God did that. That is just one off the top of my head because I don't feel like researching anything right now.

On the other hand, I have argued that it would take a higher power for everything to be as perfect as it is. The sun is the perfect distance from the earth. So is the moon. DNA is amazing. So is the ability of life forms to become everything they develop to be from seeds or eggs. How could all of this be possible without a God?

So, to me, both are correct to an extent.

If I feel like being long winded later, I will come back.

 

[David T]

Short answer - NO.

Some Friday morning ramblings...

Many creationists seem to think (and many insist) that an alteration in phenotype REQUIRES some large number of mutations, or a new one for me - changes in 'genome architecture' or 'genome structure.'

I am still waiting for a scientific definition of "genome architecture" that is relevant to phenotype.

The often wacky assertions put forth by creationists on these issues exposes a general ignorance among the them regarding the relationship between genotype and phenotype, between mutations and changes in phenotype, etc.

The short answer for this is - there is generally no 1-to-1 relationship between mutation and phenotype, and in terms of morphology, there is probably very little if any 1-to-1 relationship between it and genes*..

A few haphazardly listed points about this:

1. They forget/never knew about regulatory sequence. The timing and extent of gene expression can alter morphology without requiring major changes in DNA or 'genome architecture', whatever is meant by that (yes, I know that is a real thing, but given how some creationists 'define' terms as they see fit, I see no reason to think that creationists use the ACTUAL definitions of such terms). Mutations involving regulatory regions can alter the timing/extent of expression.

2. They ignore/dismiss the fact that morphology among, say terrestrial vertebrates, are different via degrees, not 'kinds'. That is - our anatomy, in particular our gross morphology, differs from that of, say, a dog by degree, not kind. Our skeletons, for example, are basically the same in terms of numbers of bones and such - we differ primarily by the shapes of individual bones (which can be affected by what is mentioned above). Thus no "brand new genes" or "genome architecture changes" are needed for such variation. Which leads into

3. the notion that evolutionists think all genes are identical. Yes, a creationist actually wrote this. No, we don't think that at all. Obviously there are differences in genes or we would all be ONE thing. Duh.
I'm betting that creationists that think this way also believe that gene duplications do not add information... Oh well...

4. Which leads me to the muntjacs.
View attachment 31109

View attachment 31111

Allow me to demolish the "changes in genome architecture" argument:

Genomes of Placental Mammals
The variation in genome organization and size is striking. The Indian barking deer, Muntiacus , has only three pairs of chromosomes, whereas the black rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, has 67 pairs. Genome size varies from 1650 Mb in the Italian bat Miniopterus schreibersi to 5500 Mb in the South African aardvark, Orcyteropus afer. In short evolutionary time spans, these differences in genome size have little effect on embryological development, morphology, or physiology, as revealed by comparisons of the Indian muntjac, Muntiacus muntjac(2400 Mb), with its three pairs of chromosomes, and the Chinese muntjac, Muntiacus reevesi (2900 Mb), with its 23 pairs of chromosomes. Despite these different genome architectures and genome sizes, the species are morphologically similar and yield viable hybrids.​

That is, the 'architecture' and numbers of chromosomes and amount of DNA are less important than the genic content of the genomes in terms of viability, morphology, physiology, infertility, etc.


Another creationist argument bites the dust.





*I am referring to the insinuations/assertions that 'new genes' or 'changes in genome architecture' are needed to alter morphology.

Well there ya go talking to your close buddies in religion the idiots. Why are talking to the idiots? I mean is that the level you understand religion. Ever heard of thomas Merton? He is no idiot. Wait im sorry i forgot who i was talking to second..go back over there with the creationsts be nice they are the spec ed children of the faith you will fit right in.

 

[tas8831]

Well there ya go talking to your close buddies in religion the idiots. Why are talking to the idiots? I mean is that the level you understand religion.

I understand the arrogant religionists that try to argue against evolution are nearly are way out of their intellectual league, if that is what you mean.

Ever heard of thomas Merton?

Nope.

He is no idiot. Wait im sorry i forgot who i was talking to second..go back over there with the creationsts be nice they are the spec ed children of the faith you will fit right in.

Hmmm... I notice that, as is so often the case, you wrote nothing relevant to the topic.

 

[tas8831]

Without even getting deeply into genetics, I can say that in Japan strange changes in life forms were found as far away as 100 miles from Fukushima after the nuclear accident. I doubt that God did that.

Thats a start.

On the other hand, I have argued that it would take a higher power for everything to be as perfect as it is.

In these arguments, were you able to provide evidence? Or was it just a series of arguments from awe?

The sun is the perfect distance from the earth.

You do know that the distance changes throughout the year, yes?

So is the moon. DNA is amazing. So is the ability of life forms to become everything they develop to be from seeds or eggs. How could all of this be possible without a God?

That is not an argument. That is emotion.

So, to me, both are correct to an extent.

If I feel like being long winded later, I will come back.

Great.

 

[David T]

I understand the arrogant religionists that try to argue against evolution are nearly are way out of their intellectual league, if that is what you mean.
Nope.
Hmmm... I notice that, as is so often the case, you wrote nothing relevant to the topic.

In religion they are way way way out of their league in religion itself. So i dont bother arguing with big foot believers flat earth advocates and the alien abducted. Why because i know that has zero to do with anything especially science. You are wasting your breath on creationism. Wanna argue thomas merton!!! Come on tell me why merton is full of crap scientifically! Why you would get your intellectual crap beat out of ya thats why. You might start to appreciate merton actually! Peace. And btw smile and laugh merton would have.

 

[tas8831]

Most informative that a certain creationist dismissed this with a laughing smiley - doubtless, to cover the fact that he had no scientific response.

Short answer - NO.

Some Friday morning ramblings...

Many creationists seem to think (and many insist) that an alteration in phenotype REQUIRES some large number of mutations, or a new one for me - changes in 'genome architecture' or 'genome structure.'

I am still waiting for a scientific definition of "genome architecture" that is relevant to phenotype.

The often wacky assertions put forth by creationists on these issues exposes a general ignorance among the them regarding the relationship between genotype and phenotype, between mutations and changes in phenotype, etc.

The short answer for this is - there is generally no 1-to-1 relationship between mutation and phenotype, and in terms of morphology, there is probably very little if any 1-to-1 relationship between it and genes*..

A few haphazardly listed points about this:

1. They forget/never knew about regulatory sequence. The timing and extent of gene expression can alter morphology without requiring major changes in DNA or 'genome architecture', whatever is meant by that (yes, I know that is a real thing, but given how some creationists 'define' terms as they see fit, I see no reason to think that creationists use the ACTUAL definitions of such terms). Mutations involving regulatory regions can alter the timing/extent of expression.

2. They ignore/dismiss the fact that morphology among, say terrestrial vertebrates, are different via degrees, not 'kinds'. That is - our anatomy, in particular our gross morphology, differs from that of, say, a dog by degree, not kind. Our skeletons, for example, are basically the same in terms of numbers of bones and such - we differ primarily by the shapes of individual bones (which can be affected by what is mentioned above). Thus no "brand new genes" or "genome architecture changes" are needed for such variation. Which leads into

3. the notion that evolutionists think all genes are identical. Yes, a creationist actually wrote this. No, we don't think that at all. Obviously there are differences in genes or we would all be ONE thing. Duh.
I'm betting that creationists that think this way also believe that gene duplications do not add information... Oh well...

4. Which leads me to the muntjacs.
View attachment 31109

View attachment 31111

Allow me to demolish the "changes in genome architecture" argument:

Genomes of Placental Mammals
The variation in genome organization and size is striking. The Indian barking deer, Muntiacus , has only three pairs of chromosomes, whereas the black rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, has 67 pairs. Genome size varies from 1650 Mb in the Italian bat Miniopterus schreibersi to 5500 Mb in the South African aardvark, Orcyteropus afer. In short evolutionary time spans, these differences in genome size have little effect on embryological development, morphology, or physiology, as revealed by comparisons of the Indian muntjac, Muntiacus muntjac(2400 Mb), with its three pairs of chromosomes, and the Chinese muntjac, Muntiacus reevesi (2900 Mb), with its 23 pairs of chromosomes. Despite these different genome architectures and genome sizes, the species are morphologically similar and yield viable hybrids.​

That is, the 'architecture' and numbers of chromosomes and amount of DNA are less important than the genic content of the genomes in terms of viability, morphology, physiology, infertility, etc.


Another creationist argument bites the dust.





*I am referring to the insinuations/assertions that 'new genes' or 'changes in genome architecture' are needed to alter morphology.