LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  October 2004

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE October 2004

Subject:

Re: Fewer human genes than believed

From:

"José F. Morales" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:25:24 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (230 lines)

>see below for  my responses .
>
>Best,
>
>Michael
>On Oct 23, 2004, at 5:52 AM, Josť F. Morales wrote:
>
>>>My understanding of evolutionary theory is that only actual genes and
>>>not recombinations can be selected for; thus the genes that are
>>>recombined to give rise to the immune system's immense variability are
>>>selected for as  a whole, not combinations by combination.
>>
>>While this is not my area, i don't think this is
>>true.  At least somatically, there is something
>>called "clonal selection" .  This selection is
>>not on a species evolution, level but rather by a
>>selection process in a single organism.
>but we are talking about evolution, at least evolutionary psychology is

OK. I THINK I UNDERSTAND.  YOU BROUGHT
RECOMBINATIONS INTO THE DISCUSSION PERHAPS
BECAUSE I TALKED ABOUT ALTERNATIVE SPLICING.  I'M
NOT SURE WHY OTHERWISE.  ANYHOW, IN TERMS OF
ALTERNATIVE SPLICING, THAT IS INDEED SELECTED FOR
IN A SPECIES EVOLUTIONARY MANNER.  THIS IS AS
OPPOSED TO THE IMMUNE SYSTEM RECOMBINATION.  THE
RESULTS OF GENOMIC RECOMBINATIONS OCCURRING IN
MEIOSIS CAN ALSO BE SELECTED FOR.  THAT IS ONE OF
THE MECHANISMS WHEREBY NOVELTY IS GENERATED.

>>Even so, the machinery to enable recombination in
>>the immune system IS selected for on a species
>>level.
>Exactly, but not each individual recombinant, so you can't arrive at
>more evolutionary adoptations that way

SO I GUESS WE HAVE TO PROPOSE WHETHER BRAIN
DEVELOPMENTS ARE THE RESULT OF A)
MUTATION-->SELECTION --> ADAPTATION B) NEUTRAL C)
SPANDRALS (SP?) ALA GOULD.   I WOULD SUSPECT
MOSTLY A AND A LITTLE B AND C.

AS FOR THE MECHANISM WHEREBY THE ADAPTATIONS
ARISE, THERE ARE MANY WAYS MUTATION CAN ARISE,
RECOMBINATION BEING ONLY ONE.   I SEE NO REASON
WHY THE DNA THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE GENERATION OF
NEURAL STRUCTURES SHOULD BE SPECIAL AND NOT BE
SUBJECT TO MUTATION -SELECTION -ADAPTATION.

THEREFORE I DON'T SEE A BIOLOGICALLY BASED
ARGUMENT TO INSIST THAT MOST EXISTENT NEURAL FORM
DOES NOT ARISE FROM MUTATION -SELECTION
-ADAPTATION.

>>
>>>The hypothesis of Evolutionary Psychology is that there are many
>>>different
>>>adaptations that lead to cognitive or affective outcomes; while the
>>>outcomes are expected to vary widely  according to environmental
>>>circumstances,
>>
>>Most polymorphisms in the genome arise from
>>random drift not selection.  Maybe the EP crew
>>thinks that these adaptations arise in pre-homo
>>sapiens.
>
>Random drift is not an adaptation; an adaptation is a genetic change of
>whatever orginin that increases fitness enough to be inherited in
>larger numbers in subsequent generations. The EP crew argues quite
>specifically that most "mental" adaptations arose after the chimp-human
>split

PROBABLY SOME DID AND SOME DIDN'T.  I SEE NO
REASON WHY AT LEAST SOME IF NOT MOST "MENTAL"
ADAPTATIONS ARISE  VIA MUTATION -SELECTION
-ADAPTATION.

>>
>>>each of the adaptations must correspond in some
>>>manner to a specific gene or genes that can
>>>reliably be inherited individually.
>>
>>Clearly novel features of the brain arise due to
>>natural selection that involves the genetic
>>level.  I would say its probably not one to one
>>gene<->brain feature.  Any brain feature is
>>probably under multi-genic control.  I would be
>>quite surprised if anyone on this list would
>>think that that novel brain features arise
>>WITHOUT the involvement of genes.
>well I certainly do. Our brains both have the feature, incorporated in
>neurophysiology of being able to read and write and type English. No
>human brain a thousand years ago had quite this feature. It arrived by
>culture, not genes. Of course SOME genetic endowment, but perhaps only
>a very general one must underlie tiis capapbility.

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT NOVEL BRAIN STRUCTURES
ARISE FROM INTERACTIONS HUMANS HAD AMONGST EACH
OTHER?  I GUESS YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM BEING
NON-DARWINIAN.  OK.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED HOWEVER IN HEARING YOUR
DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM HOW A
NOVEL NEURAL STRUCTURE COMES INTO BEING BY VIRTUE
OF CULTURE.  I MUST ADMIT I FIND THAT UNLIKELY.
I'M ALL EARS.

>>
>>>A trait that is only the result of a
>>>recombination out of many possible
>>>recombinations could hardly be reliably
>>>inherited, and therefore could never have been
>>>selected evolutionarily.
>>
>>I'm not sure I know what you mean.  you mentioned
>>recombination in regards to immune system  --->
>>then we switched to brain ---> then we went back
>>to recombination.    I would comment that the
>>mechanism of recombination is inherited, the
>>starting material of recombination is inherited,
>>and the various results of recombination are also
>>inherited.  What gets selected for is another
>>matter.
>You were the one who originally brought up recombination, I thought.

I DON'T THINK SO UNLESS YOU THINK THAT
ALTERNATIVE SPLICING IS RELATED TO RECOMBINATION.


>We know it works for immunity, but the point is specific immunities cannot
>be inherited, only the general capacity.

I DON'T THINK THE IMMUNE SYSTEM IS EXACTLY
PERTINENT TO THE DISCUSSION OF GENOMIC EVOLUTION.


>Likewise, if some sort of
>recombination were responsible for mental functions, the individual
>functions could not be inherited, but EP claims they are, by the
>hundreds certainly, or even by the hundreds of thousands, according to
>Phil.
>>
>>>Supporters of EP definitely would have some explaining to do if the
>>>number of genes has been correctly counted as only 25,000 or fewer,
>>>especially considering that it is presumably still the case that 98%
>>>of our genes are shared with chimps.
>>
>>That assumes total number of genes directly
>>correlates with number of traits.  Probably not
>>true.  Especially because of alternative splicing
>>and post-translational modification to name a few.
>But that's recombinatation, isn't it, which I was just discussing? See
>above.
>>
>>>That would leave only 500 or so to account for
>>>anatomical and physiological differences as well
>>>as all the "modules" in our much more complex
>>>brains.
>>
>>As I said, this comment bears a big assumption
>>that is not justified. Therefore, one cannot use
>>it as evidence in proof against someone's views.
>>Unless they are equally holders of an unjustified
>>assumption.  Any proof of that?
>Ignoring my entire argument, you repeat yours. I think a s "splicing"
>or other forms of recombination are concerned, I've made a case that
>you haven't refuted.

OK HERE YOU SAY IT PLAINLY SAYING THAT SPLICING
IS RECOMBINATION.  IT ISN'T.  ITS PRECISELY
SELECTED FOR.  EVERY GENE HAS ALTERNATIVE SPICE
FORMS THAT ARE TEMPORALLY AND TISSUE SPECIFIC.
THAT IS ONE WAY THE COMPLEXITY OF THE GENOME IS
INCREASED WITHOUT INCREASING THE GENE COUNT.
EACH GENE COMES IN PARTS CALLED EXONS THAT ARE
MIXED AND MATCHED IN VARIOUS WAYS TO GENERATE
VARIOUS TRANSCRIPTS WITH SLIGHTLY AND SOME TIMES
WIDELY DIVERGING FUNCTIONS.  KINDA LIKE MANY FROM
ONE.

>I have since learned that for some reason , when
>genome students count genes, the count only protein-coding ones. There
>may be RNA coding genes not counted that affect development.

THEY ARE USUALLY COUNTED IN WHAT I READ.

>the
>problem is that different specialties may have different definitions of
>genes.

CERTAINLY THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION OF PRECISE
DEFINITIONS, BUT NOT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
VERSIONS OF WHAT A GENE IS.

>Certainly in the sense used on the basis of selection, a gene
>need not be protein coding.

SURE SMALL RNA'S, RIBOSOMAL RNA'S LOTS OF
DIFFERENT RNAS.  THEY STILL ARE SELECTED FOR THO.

>Ow much of a miscount this might lead to, I
>don't know.

ACTUALLY, THE MISCOUNT COMES FROM THE PRECISE SET
OF CHARACTERISTICS THAT ALL GENES HAVE THAT
VARIES GREATLY.  IE. GC RATIO, SPLICE SITE
JUNCTIONS, TRANSCRIPTION START AND STOP SITES,
ETC.

>But I suspect that it may prove to be a significant
>difference. Take faces. They have pretty much uniform protein content,
>but different structure resulting from heritable developmental
>sequences (e.g.,. some bones or fat deposits grow proportionately more
>in some people than in others, and this must be inheritable, accounting
>for facial resemblances between close relatives).  If brain
>developmental timing affects functions, which is certainly plausible,
>then maybe EPers would have a way out.

I GUESS MY MAIN POINT IS THAT WHILE I DON'T
ENDORSE THE EP SOCIAL AGENDA, I DON'T THINK THAT
IS JUSTIFIABLE TO SAY CATEGORICALLY THAT BRAIN
STRUCTURES DON'T ARISE FROM INTERACTIONS OF
SPECIFIC SETS OF GENES AND THEIR GENE PRODUCTS.



--
|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||O|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||
Jose Morales Ph.D.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager