Can Manipulating Key Evolutionary Genes Cause a "Devolution"

[silkworm]

Okay, I feel that there is no such thing as deevolution. There's only evolution. Evolution occurs and it's tested. If it's adventagous then those who have evolved thrive and reproduce more. If it is disadventagous then those who have evolved struggle. If it's neutral, it's neutral. This concept of higher evolved and less evolved is generally not qualified, as are most concepts in the public mind about evolution, and are dramatized to something it's not. I mean, we do well because we're so generallized and intelligent. But does that mean we're more evolved than any of the marine animals that fit their environment so well that they have seemed to evolved for a certain "purpose"? We would do as poorly in their environments (without technology and just thrown in there as is) as they do in ours.

 

With that said, I wouldn't mind the upper body strength of any of the great apes.

[CharonY]

If it's adventagous then those who have evolved thrive and reproduce more. If it is disadventagous then those who have evolved struggle. If it's neutral, it's neutral.

 

I just wanted to point out that this is not evolution per se. What you describe there is mutation plus natural selection, a mechanism of evolution. Evolution cannot be ascribed to single entities (what you said with "thos who have evolved...") but only to complete populations.

As has been said before, evolution is the change of allele frequency in a population. Therefore the occurance of mutations (be it beneficial or otherwise) does not equal evolution. Only if these new alleles spread through the population do we observe evolution. As such there cannot be individuals in a population that have evolved and other that have not.

[Steph]

That doesn't seem to be the way that Milken is using it.

Yea... you're right... I stand corrected.

[Milken]

I've said this atleast 3-4 times. I'm in no way, shape or form, no matter what it appears to be, or look. Evolution is NOTsuppose to be directed, all the randomness eventually leads to things that "work", I call this moving forward. I swear I've stated this a zillion times. It's very much like Gould's example.

Also, I've made a . . . . mistake, I admit. I erroneously used deleterious for deletion. When I orignally used deletion, in defining the "coined" (yes I'm aware it's not scientifically defined) term de-evolution, it was intended to be for the deletion of base pairs(information in the genome, individual cell). Hypothetically, if an organism continues to get mutations that delete information, I call de-evolution. An organism with a smaller genome will not evolve vertically (to an organism requiring more information) by mutations that delete information.

It is finished, I'm not re-explaining this 100 more times. Feel free to disagree. To reiterate what I'll have to again anyway, Skye's post is very similar to my feelings or you could say the illusion of moving forward if you want. For some reason, no amount of verbage makes my point clear, and it's definitely my fault.

[CharonY]

Well, the problem is simply that your definition does not match the actual termini used to describe evolution. And they were in fact misleading.

There are for instance bacteria that have adapted to parasitic life-styles and in that process eliminated a lot of its own core genome (a more dramatic examples are probabl plastids and mitochondria). In your definition this would be accounted as "backward" or at least as de-evolution. However the process is clearly evolution and not the reversal of it.

As such your definitions are simply not suited or accurate enough to describe this. Sorry.

[DrZoidberg]

Well' date=' the problem is simply that your definition does not match the actual termini used to describe evolution. And they were in fact misleading.

There are for instance bacteria that have adapted to parasitic life-styles and in that process eliminated a lot of its own core genome (a more dramatic examples are probabl plastids and mitochondria). In your definition this would be accounted as "backward" or at least as de-evolution. However the process is clearly evolution and not the reversal of it.

As such your definitions are simply not suited or accurate enough to describe this. Sorry.[/quote']

 

Top post! Along the same lines as to what i mentioned waaaay back on this thread. Genetic evolution in any sense is the presence of DNA over time, whether new genes arise or old dissapear.

[Milken]

Well, the problem is simply that your definition does not match the actual termini used to describe evolution. And they were in fact misleading.

 

I agree, the illusion is misleading.

 

There are for instance bacteria that have adapted to parasitic life-styles and in that process eliminated a lot of its own core genome (a more dramatic examples are probabl plastids and mitochondria). In your definition this would be accounted as "backward" or at least as de-evolution. However the process is clearly evolution and not the reversal of it.

As such your definitions are simply not suited or accurate enough to describe this. Sorry.

 

I agree 100% that it's possible for information in a genome to be removed and provide an adaptation as we've observed in bacteria. Is this the norm, or the exception, especially for all species? The surmisation (<-- word check) is based on the accumalative, overall trend of mutations that remove information for the genome. The observation is not local, but global. If it were local, your analysis is perfect and the idea falsified.

Evolution as defined is undirected, without purpose, or goal. The accumalative overall trend at some point has to add information(novel function) in order for evolution to happen with the variety of species we have today. This is the assumed positive, "forward trend" of evolution. It had to have happened.

In my opinion, an accumalative, overall trend of removing informtion will NEVER result in the variety of species we have today. It's not possible because information is not being added (novell function). It's agreed, as I think I did earlier, it's possible to lose information and adpat. How does the prokaryote to eukaryote to multicell to softbody etc chain go without adding information? There'd only be bacteria here.

Understandibly those who think evolution is perfectly reasonalble and is as factual as gravity call all change evolution and de-evolution is "taking a shot" at the all explaining ToE. With all due respect to the omnipotent ToE, even my idea of, devolution falls into evolution because evolution does not specify a direction.

[Edtharan]

Hypothetically, if an organism continues to get mutations that delete information, I call de-evolution. An organism with a smaller genome will not evolve vertically (to an organism requiring more information) by mutations that delete information.

But if you understood all the posts that were made about this you would see that this is wrong. Looseing base paires does not equate to loosing infomation or complexity. Genes can influence other genes, and all sorts of other interelatedness can happen.

 

This menas that a gene that becomes redundent because some other gene took over the role or the need for it was removed would not be a loss of complexity even though there was a loss of base pairs. Infact the complexity of the organism can go up.

 

Mammals have (on average IIRC) less genes than reptiles, even though we are more complex. Reptile genes need to have more "conditions" in them to account for varing teperatures (some proteins will only work in certain teperature ranges and other will work out side them), mammals have more stability in their operating temperature and so do not need all this extra genes to handle this, and so it was lost/deleted (DNA is biologically expensive to maintain). Yet to have this stable temperature we need more complex metabolisms to maintain it (and the stability also allows for more complex organs like large brains).

 

So looseing DNA does not equate to being a less complex organism. The mammal genome could, even though it is smaller (less DNA base pairs) than reptile DNA, could be seen as more complex as it has maore interelatedness of its components.

[swansont]

Evolution as defined is undirected' date=' without purpose, or goal. The accumalative overall trend at some point has to add information(novel function) in order for evolution to happen with the variety of species we have today. This is the assumed positive, "forward trend" of evolution. It had to have happened.

[/quote']

 

And, using your definition of "information," what is the problem with this?

 

 

In my opinion' date=' an accumalative, overall trend of removing informtion will NEVER result in the variety of species we have today. It's not possible because information is not being added (novell function). It's agreed, as I think I did earlier, it's possible to lose information and adpat. How does the prokaryote to eukaryote to multicell to softbody etc chain go without adding information? There'd only be bacteria here.

[/quote']

 

Skye already explained that there would be a random walk in complexity, bounded at the low end. I though you agreed with that. Who is saying that evolution only results in or occurs from deletions?

[Halucigenia]

Who is saying that evolution only[/i'] results in or occurs from deletions?

Creationists do all the time, they say that variation causes a decrease in information, denying any additive mutation being beneficial, as they are all bad things, therefore (macro) evolution cannot occur. Another specious (excuse the pun) argument picked up on by Milken

[Milken]

But if you understood all the posts that were made about this you would see that this is wrong. Looseing base paires does not equate to loosing infomation or complexity. Genes can influence other genes' date=' and all sorts of other interelatedness can happen.

[/quote']

 

Loosing information(defined as base pairs) doesn't equate with loosing information = ). Maybe you mean function, we all should agree that a vast majority of observable mutations are negative, 1/100,000(Huxley's commonly accepted figure, only one is beneficial) or 1/1,000,000(Dawkins, only one is beneficial) both ofcourse are speculation.

 

You say the deletion of base pairs doesn't cause equate with a loss of information or complexity, we can pretend it doesn't and say some are neutral(which they are, supposedly). What I'm probaly ignorant of is the studies showing clear deletions of base pairs giving rise to novell function or producing vertical evolution to a higher taxaa.

[Milken]

Creationists do all the time, they say that variation causes a decrease in information, denying any additive mutation being beneficial, as they are all bad things, therefore (macro) evolution cannot occur. Another specious (excuse the pun) argument picked up on by Milken

 

Thank you for almost giving me a compliment = ). I'm not denying that additions exist, only stating that evolution can not occur as we know it without additions causing novell function.

[FreeThinker]

Loosing information(defined as base pairs) doesn't equate with loosing information = ). Maybe you mean function' date=' we all should agree that a vast majority of observable mutations are negative, 1/100,000(Huxley's commonly accepted figure, only one is beneficial) or 1/1,000,000(Dawkins, only one is beneficial) both ofcourse are speculation.

 

You say the deletion of base pairs doesn't cause equate with a loss of information or complexity, we can pretend it doesn't and say some are neutral(which they are, supposedly). What I'm probaly ignorant of is the studies showing clear deletions of base pairs giving rise to novell function or producing vertical evolution to a higher taxaa.[/quote']

 

A deletion of base pair would most likely have a negative effect on the organisms if the nucleotides deleted were not codons (three or multiples of three). But if an codon was deleted it might have a possitive effect on the organims. Most mutations are negative, but given the ammount of time on earth, numbers like 1/100,000 or 1/1,000,000 are suffient to give us enough positive mutations to account for the diversity of life we observe.

 

By the way, deletion mutations are not the only mutations possible and others such as Subsitutions have a greater chance of producing positive changes in the organism.

 

Beneficial mutations have been observed in the lab and in the wild. I think you need to get to know the subject better before trying to argue against it.

[Milken]

Skye already explained that there would be a random walk in complexity' date=' bounded at the low end. I though you agreed with that. Who is saying that evolution [i']only[/i] results in or occurs from deletions?

 

 

Yes sir, I definitely do agree. I use trend as an observation of what has already happened. It has no "power". The random walk in complexity produced a forward trend. Sorry, I feel like a philospher.

 

Once again I apologize for my misleading phrases, stated more clearly in the responce to Hal.

[swansont]

Creationists do all the time, they say that variation causes a decrease in information, denying any additive mutation being beneficial, as they are all bad things, therefore (macro) evolution cannot occur. Another specious (excuse the pun) argument picked up on by Milken

 

True; I was assuming the reference would be some competent authority. Anyone who turns to creationists to gain an understanding of biology has a tenacious grip on reality, and is actively lubricating their hands.

[Dark Photon]

1) no such thing as devolution, any form of change in a generl species is evolution regardless of if it had already been there before. FOR EXAMPLE:

 

a) all these girraffe have short necks, they need to compete for food, the ones with taller necks can eat teh ones on top as well as bottom, so the ones with shorter necks die out, all these girrafee have long necks.

b) several millions of years later, all of the trees are no longer avalible, there are bushes at ground level, mutated short neck girrafe can get to these as well as the long necks, only they have smaller bodies so need less of this food, if there is a food shortage, they will survive. many many years later eveltually they all have small necks.

 

so there for instead of evolving from short to long then back to short, they actually evolved from short to long THEN AGAIN to short.

 

2) Gene Modification is alot more difficult than people give credit for, hang in there biochemists.

 

3) that family in turkey could have these conditions because of many factors, they might be unlucky to have a rare ressesive genetic defect, but i think it may be enviromental

[Halucigenia]

In my opinion, an accumalative, overall trend of removing informtion will NEVER result in the variety of species we have today.

 

But additive mutations could?

 

I'm not denying that additions exist, only stating that evolution can not occur as we know it without additions causing novell function.

 

OK so what’s the problem then?

 

You define de-evolution as :-

Hypothetically, if an organism continues to get mutations that delete information, I call de-evolution. [/Quote] AND

IF all surviving species had an overall trend of deleterious (in error meaning deletive) mutations' date=' the trend is backward, hence de-evolution. [/quote']

 

Then I see NO problem, de-evolution just does not exist, this is NOT what we see. As has been stated there is a random walk in complexity, in the long term trending towards greater complexity, with random walks towards less complex. So there is not any reason to assume that there is an overall trend of deletive mutations. Are you insisting that there is an overall trend of deletive mutations, is this what you are proposing? It’s not quite clear.

 

It is quite clear (to me at least) that evolution takes place via all types of mutation whether they are deletive, additive, substitutive (deletions, insertions, translocations or whatever).

What is not clear to me is how an organism could continue to get only deletive mutations (even if they are in a random walk towards less complexity), as all mutations essentially occur randomly, this would be like tossing a coin and getting all heads and no tails. Unless of, course, you are proposing a mechanism for this bias?

 

Also, remember, it is only the beneficial or neutral mutations that survive, no matter how many are deleterious, whether it’s 1/100,000 or 1/1,000,000, it just does not matter, it only has to happen that once and get passed on, for evolution to occur.