|
Author
|
Topic: Resus macaque: evidence for non-random mutations
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. April 2007 05:09
Mutations are tacitly assumed to be independent of the environment, i.e. the location where the organisms operate.
There is, however, another but largely underscored environment which may determine the location of mutations: the DNA environment. I have argued, here and elsewhere, that mutations may be non-random with respect to position and nucleotide and it now seems the Resus macaques genome provides evidence for this stance (published in Science, April 13).
One of the focuses of this tour de force was the identification and origin of thousands of disease-associated mutations in humans. The researchers were able to track back 229 of such mutations in Rhesus, of which 97 were also present in chimp (shared). Another 48 were present only in chimp and human, while 84 were present in Rhesus and human only.
These data clearly indicate that mutations that are shared between primates may as well be of non-random character and give an illusion of common descent.
peter borger
edit (04-24-2007): the correct number of shared mutations = 229.
[ 24. April 2007, 04:20: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 17. April 2007 14:43
Hi Peter,
Its nice to see some fresh actual data. This site as well as the others I visit seem to quickly degrade into philosophical or political discussions -- not what I am interested in.
I am having some struggle interpreting your data, however. It seems that you are saying that common disease producing mutations have been identified as follows:
Rhesus and Chimp and Human = 200
Rhesus and Chimp, not Human = 97
Rhesus and Human, not Chimp = 84
Chimp and Human, not Rhesus = 48
Is this correct?
[ 17. April 2007, 20:15: Message edited by: Bruce Fast ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. April 2007 19:18
If we do not have common descent with the chimpanzee, with exactly what animal DO we share a common ancestry. No animal Peter? Were we created de novo?
"A past evolution is undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 19. April 2007 09:36
Bruce,
that's correct.
As a matter of fact. Science reported also on a gene (IGF1) that causes small dogs (April 6, 2007).
NOT TO MY SURPRISE it involved a single point mutations only present in small dog breeds:
"A single IGF1 single-nucleotide polymorphism haplotype is common to all small breeds and nearly absent from giant breeds, suggesting that the same causal sequence is a major contributor to body size in all small dogs"
and independent of common descent:
"Because our sample includes small breeds that are only distantly related and reproductively isolated, and because the extent of haplotype sharing at IGF1 is relatively small , the sequence variant probably predate the common origin of the breeds and likely evolved early in the history of dogs"
These two Science reports proof my point beyond any doubt.
John,
I start to become convinced: we are a de novo creation.
You better belief it,
best wishes,
peter
[ 19. April 2007, 09:38: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. April 2007 09:52
Not a chance Peter. It is professional suicide to make such an assumption. I hate to see you do that.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 19. April 2007 10:10
John,
maybe you consider my stance professional suicide but all new biological data point in that direction.
read up a bit in the molecular data and you will find:
1) genetic redundancy not associated with gene duplication, and not mutating faster than essential genes,
2) the sudden apperation of completely novel siRNA gene families in humans (but also in other primates, organisms in general), which cannot be detected in other primate genomes.
Together they form compelling evidence for a recent origin of life and de novo creation.
I do not see a way out for evolutionary biology.
If you do, please let me know. We write a Nature paper and win the Nobelprize for evolutionary biology (if there were one).
We will be the new gods of atheism.
[ 19. April 2007, 10:12: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. April 2007 13:32
Peter
Mutations never had anything to do with evolution anyway. The whole thing was planned from beginning to end and the end is now.
"A past evolution is undeniable,a present evoultion undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 19. April 2007 19:37
Hi Peter,
I have been considering your Rhesis data. It seems to me that a common descent interpretation of it is readily available.
Let us presume that at the point of the common ancestor of the Chimp and the Rhesus there were at more than 381 disease producing mutations (200 + 97 + 84). Lets say that at the common ancestor to the Chimp and Human(HCCA), there remained at leat 381 such mutations. As NDE theory would suggest, there should be a reasonable purging of deleterious point mutations. If from the HCCA, the Chimp purged
itself of 84 of these mutations, and Human purged itself of 97. That these numbers would be about balanced makes sence acording to the theory. If this is the case, then between the Chimp/Rhesus split and the Human/Chimp split, a fresh 48 qualifying mutations were picked up.
As for dogs, if the wolf (presumed common ancestor to all dogs) had the IGF1 allele that is common in small dogs, or if this mutation were an early phenomenon of dog breeding, then selection could very easily see this allele become predominant in small dog breeds, and rare in large dog breeds. If the gene is floating around in big dog breeds, then any breeder who pushed his stock for small dogs could see a rapid rise in this gene.
I don't see a compelling case in either of these examples to cause me to declare the death of common descent.
Bruce
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 19. April 2007 21:09
Bruce
I think such selective purging would be even more remarkable than Peter's selective formation. It is effectively impossible to select and propagate such mutations across the population with such small selective differences. It would be even more remote to purge away the other mutations.
See the genetic population equations reviewed by John Sanford in "Genomic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" and Walter ReMine's discussion of Haldane's dilemma.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. April 2007 07:42
Bruce,
You nicely summarize the Darwinian interpretation of these data, who must assume that the mutations were already in balancing selection. As selection is not relevant in evolution, why would balancing selection be? Selection on point mutations that are assiciated with disease? How?
My point is, that since common descent has been falsified beyond any doubt, the molecualr data we observe must have another explanation. My suggestion is common mechanism.
The death of common descent comes from novel genetic siRNA gene families that are unique to (and probably specify) species.
[ 20. April 2007, 07:44: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 20. April 2007 11:16
Peter, "common descent has been falsified beyond any doubt." This is a very strong statement. I find it puzzlingly strong especially in light of the kind of data you present to validate your position.
You just suggested that unique siRNA is proof that common descent is false. I could not see any way that unique siRNA could falsify common descent as I understand it. Therefore I think that we must examine exactly what the term "common descent" means.
It is my understanding that common descent means that my great, great ... grandfather was a different species -- a non-human ape. Further, his great, great ... grandfather was a single-celled organism. I do not presume that "common descent" discusses how the species boundary, or how new organs, develop, only that these are produced out of preexisting species. If, for instance a designer creates a new designer siRNA, and injects it into a the egg of a non-human ape, causing that ape to birth a human, then common descent is maintained.
The only way that common descent is not maintained is if the designer begins from scratch, and forms each new species out of component atoms. However, if that is what happened, why did the designer also encode hundreds of identicle disease producing mutations in both the Rhesus and the Human. If we were reconfigured from scratch, then the only conclusion we can draw from these disease producing mutations is that they are the reasoned intention of the designer.
We can debate whether natural selection is capable of purging a disease producing mutation from a genepool, or whether each purged gene is the intentional act of a designer. I, for one, am content that disease producing mutations are the true product of chance, and that unguided natural selection is a powerful enough force to periodically remove the disease from the gene pool.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. April 2007 13:52
We can be very certain that in the past many organisms gave birth to offspring that were distinctly and in one step quite different from themselves. That is what prompted Schindewolf to claim that we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed.
"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
Otto Schindewolf
Such creatures are apparently no longer extant. Phylogeny, exactly as ontogeny, has proven to be a self-regulating, self-terminating phenomenon. The only place for the de novo origin of life was in the very beginning or more likely beginnings. There and there alone it cannot be denied because most certainly it could never have occurred by chance. To postulate the de novo origin of any creature now alive is ridiculous, mystical, unscientific, and flies in the face of everything we presently know about the living world.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 21. April 2007 04:47
quote:
Bruce
I think such selective purging would be even more remarkable than Peter's selective formation. It is effectively impossible to select and propagate such mutations across the population with such small selective differences. It would be even more remote to purge away the other mutations.
Excuse my ignorance, I am a layman when it comes to science.
Why is it "remote" that non beneficial mutations might be purged from populations?
Or are you saying, it is remote that say, humans and resus macacques would purge mutation XYZ and chimps would not, particularly when this must have happened time and time again.
Or that one group would purge a mutation and not the other two?
Whereas we should expect that if two groups purged a mutation then the third probably should have as well?
Or if one group purged a mutation then the other two groups would be expected to as well?
[ 21. April 2007, 04:52: Message edited by: adhitthana ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 21. April 2007 19:22
I agree that selection of mutations has and had nothing to do with species formation but that is hardly lethal to common descent.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
adhitthana
Member
Member # 2020
|
posted 22. April 2007 03:17
quote:
One of the focuses of this tour de force was the identification and origin of thousands of disease-associated mutations in humans. The researchers were able to track back 200 mutations in rhesus, of which 97 were also present in chimp (shared). Another 48 were present only in chimp and human, while 84 were present in Rhesus and human only.
Hi Peter, so there were 248 mutations altogether?
200 in the rhesus macacque and another 48 shared by humans and chimps but not in the Rhesus macacque?
What is the relationship between the 97 and the 84?
Are many of them the same? If so how many?
If quite a few of the 84 are different from the 97 this puts a who different slant on things .
But if the content of the 84 mutations is much the same as the 97 then this data seems to fit with NDT.
From the data you have provided, chimps must share at least 13 mutations with rhesus macacques that humans do not have.
Do they only share these 13 or are there more that form part of the 97 which are not present in the 84?
I hope I have been clear here. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Am I right in saying the crux of your argument is that these 13 (or more possibly) point, in your opinion, to the possility they are the product of a non random mechanism?
[ 22. April 2007, 03:18: Message edited by: adhitthana ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic