Ultraconserved Phenotype
Link to: original blogpost - comments
Categories : Intelligent Design
Editor : DaveScot
published: mercredi 13 décembre 2006 22:32:13
Between 160 and 240 million years of cumulative divergence between two tiny worms resulted in the genomic divergence by sequence comparison you’d expect over that time yet virtually no phenotype divergence. Once you’re a nemotode you’re always a nematode? Who would have predicted that…
Caenorhabditis comparative genomics [18 November 2003]
Analysis of the sequence revealed that major evolutionary changes in genomes do not necessarily lead to gross physical changes in the adapted organism. “C. elegans and C. briggsae diverged 80 to 120 million years ago, somewhat longer ago than human and mouse,” Stein wrote in an E-mail to us. “By several measures, the two nematode genomes are very much scrambled relative to each other - far more than human and mouse are. Yet while human and mouse are extremely different in ecological niche, behavior, and anatomy, the two nematode species occupy identical niches, have similar behavior, and are indistinguishable except to experts.
posted by Antoine Vekris at 1:51 AM
2 Comments:
@ DaveScot: "...has been ultraconserved despite 200my [years] of random mutation [and natural selection] in two different species..."
That sounds better this way; but then this isn't helpful for ID, isn't it?
You seem to forget half of the framework each time you are discussing biology.
DaveScot
The fact that you are unable to understand how RM+NS interacts doesn't mean that they don't cooperate, neither that you always consider them separately.
It is obvious that there is no obligation for any phenotypical changes, whatever the genetic rearrangements are. (Please, use something more informative and extended than the Wikipedia pages to learn about the subjects you are discussing about).
Another point you didn't mentioned, but RobertC did, is that the rearrangements concern non-coding regions.
Your answer(?) bringing up a second question, with no connexion with the subject but rather the way A. Coghlan expressed the originality of the results:
"Avril Coghlan at Trinity College Dublin told The Scientist, “ What was astounding about the C. briggsae–C. elegans comparison is that of all the conserved regions that could be found between the two species, only one third lie inside coding regions of genes."
A doubt remains if the citation is not complete; are the 2/3 remaining "inside coding regions of genes"?:
"This raises the question of what are the other two thirds of conserved regions that lie in introns and intergenic sequences?” In addition, among 60,775 intron orthologues in the two nematode species, 6579 were species-specific introns, suggesting a rate of evolution of intron–exon structure that is greater between the two nematode species than between humans and mice." ### (emphasis mine)
:-) Nope, not "inside coding regions of genes".
So, two Caenorhabditis species, with important homologies in "coding regions of genes" and otherwise scrambled genomes present the same phenotype. That's interesting, but really, I don't see how that could be a pro-ID observation, that's just a supplementary support for the usual evolution of species theory.
Jehu's observation fails to consider what/where the differences are : rearrangements and non coding regions changes. The same with tribune7.
About the modifications I presented in my first commentary to this post, it isn't a quotation (I'm able to use the blockquote tag when necessary), it's a correction of a wrong sentence, yours.
And you are warning me about what exactly? Make yourself explicit: Banishment, Moderation, SomethingElse?
Post a Comment
<< Home