|
Author
|
Topic: Another gene level example where random mutation doesn't add up.
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 19. August 2006 12:03
This article summarises a study which shows an unexpected mutational difference between chimps and humans. Molecular clock theory certainly does not support this mutation. I really think that this is a good example for PB's work.
Reading the following, it is clear that this discovery is challenging the RM+NS view of the discoverers.
quote:
That one gene didn't exist until 300 million years ago and is present only in mammals and birds, not fish or animals without backbones.
But then it didn't change much at all. There are only two differences in that one gene between a chimp and a chicken, Haussler said.
But there are 18 differences in that one gene between human and chimp and they all seemed to occur in the development of man, he said.
Andrew Clark, a Cornell University professor molecular biology who was not part of Haussler's team, said that if true, the change in genes would be fastest and most dramatic in humans and would be "terrifically exciting."
However, the gene changed so fast that Clark said that he has a hard time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It's not part of normal evolution, he said. Haussler attributed the dramatic change to the stress of man getting out of trees and walking on two feet.
I must say, one frustrating thing about this report is that it does not bibleographically refrence the study being reported on. I hate that!
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 20. August 2006 18:25
I really would love it if one of the biologists on this site would figure out which gene is being discussed in this article. The gene needs a name.
However,
Let's see, according to this gene, chimpanzees are much more tightly related to chickens than they are to humans.
If a gene has only three mutations between a chicken and a chimp, this gene is extremely resistant to mutation, almost as resistant as the Hystone H1. Yet the gene doesn't exist in fish, but exists both in birds and in mammals, therefore its migration from "gene existing at all" to "mutationally resistant gene" is quite short. My understanding is that highly mutation resistant genes become so because they produce a multitude of protein variants, therefore any change in the gene produces catastrophic results somewhere. For this gene to suddenly take on 18 mutations in the last few million years really makes no NDE sense.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 20. August 2006 22:26
Hmmm, I guess I should read articles just a bit more carefully. It seems that the gene is the HAR1F gene. The study was authored by David Haussler, and published in Nature in August, probably August 10th.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic