Aphid's Color Comes From a Fungus Gene 132
Iron Nose writes with an account from Byte Size Biology of horizontal gene transfer from a fungus to an insect. The author suspects that we will see lots more of this as we sequence more genomes. "The pea aphid is known for having two different colors, green and red, but until now it was not clear how the aphids got their color. Aphids feed on sap, and sap does not contain carotenoids, a common pigment synthesized by plants, fungi, and microbes, but not by animals. Carotenoids in the diet gives many animals, from insects to flamingos, their exterior color after they ingest it, but aphids do not seem to eat carotenoid-containing food. Nancy Moran and Tyler Jarvik from the University of Arizona looked at the recently sequenced genome of the pea aphid. They were surprised to find genes for synthesizing carotenoids; this is the first time carotenoid synthesizing genes have been found in animals. When the researchers looked for the most similar genes to the aphid carotenoid synthesizing genes, they found that they came from fungi, which means they somehow jumped between fungi and aphids, in a process known as horizontal gene transfer."
wiki (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
They state with authority the gene came from a fungi but they have not shown where they have observed this happening. The fact that the genes are identical does not mean they're of the same origin.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the genes are identical does not mean they're of the same origin.
I've got little knowledge on the topic but I'd guess it's a matter of numbers.
The larger the identical combination, the more probable is their common origin.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Carotenoids are colored compounds produced by plants, fungi, and microorganisms and are required in the diet of most animals for oxidation control or light detection. Pea aphids display a red-green color polymorphism, which influences their susceptibility to natural enemies, and the carotenoid torulene occurs only in red individuals. Unexpectedly, we found that the aphid genome itself encodes multiple enzymes for carotenoid biosynthesis. Phylogenetic analyses show that these aphid genes are derived from fungal genes, which have been integrated into the genome and duplicated. Red individuals have a 30-kilobase region, encoding a single carotenoid desaturase that is absent from green individuals. A mutation causing an amino acid replacement in this desaturase results in loss of torulene and of red body color. Thus, aphids are animals that make their own carotenoids.
That's the abstract from the in-text link, whatever a Phylogenetic analyses is...my guess:
Phase 1: Found genes......Phase 2: ???......Phase 3: Science! (good point mrmeval)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, they can't publish their entire paper in the abstract - the details cost you money, unfortunately. However, it's likely that the method they followed involved statistical comparisons of the nucleotide sequence for similarity. Initially, this seems to be pseudo-scientific, but there are a number of factors to consider: Eukaryotes(animals and fungi + others) make several modifications to the "raw" sequence before translation machinery can code protein from an mRNA template(exons, for example: http://en.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...they have not shown where they have observed this happening.
It's like paternity tests: you can't exactly get in a time machine and go observe it happening but when you calculate the probabilities based on reasonable assumptions they can come out pretty high.
Re:wiki (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that the genes are identical does not mean they're of the same origin.
Actually, if the genes are identical in terms of nucleotide sequence then it is absolutely irrefutable that they are of the same origin. Even genes that are evolutionarily conserved vary in sequence between members of the same genus, let alone organisms from completely different kingdoms of life.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the genes are identical does not mean they're of the same origin.
Actually, if the genes are identical in terms of nucleotide sequence then it is absolutely irrefutable that they are of the same origin.
It's indicative that they're the same, but not absolutely irrefutable. Any given sequence of DNA will be 25% identical to any other sequence, just because there are only four bases, while on the other end of the spectrum, even the DNA coding for something highly conserved, like cytochrome C, that exists in just about every eukaryote on the planet, isn't 100% identical across all eukaryotes.
As such, if you have a gene that's only a couple dozen bases long, it's fairly likely that if you find exactly the sa
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Horizontal gene transfer?? (Score:5, Funny)
Well fuck me sideways.
Re: (Score:2)
*slow clap*
I commend your creativity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
through what mechanism, I ask you..
DNA strands move between organisms all the time.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
I knew it! (Score:4, Informative)
As an aside, many of our pseudogenes and other contents of “junk DNA” are thought to have been acquired by horizontal gene transfer.
The guy behind the genetically mutated guido, look at his hand. (I'm sorry you cannot un-see that)
On a more serious note, my roommate, a biology/pre-med major, found this article very interesting and said thanks.
Apparently horizontal gene transfer (or at least inserting useless bits of DNA) is not very hard to do in a lab environment and is very common in bacteria, viruses, and other single celled organisms. Here is another link I found from 08 that talks about bacteria (E.coli) if anyone wants a read http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/1/R4 [genomebiology.com] (full text). Whatever I'm no expert in this field, but I like this type of stuff.
Movies (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder how soon I'll see this used in a movie.
My bet is: Man becomes werewolf after eating many wolves.
Re: (Score:2)
District 9 [imdb.com]: African leader wants to eat a human mutating into an alien to gain his mutant-properties.
The way this works isn't explained, yet it's implied it's a voodoo-belief.
Re: (Score:2)
No that's classic cannabalism. Eat your enemies to gain their power. See the movie Ravenous or wikipedia cannabalism.
Re: (Score:1)
Is this the very first instance of the noun wikipedia being used as a verb, or is it the very first time I have seen it?
By the way, and movies aside, read The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. It has a brilliant explanation of the various evolutionary genetic processes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Awesome! I'm gonna be a dorito!
Nonono. You didn't get it.
You only get some genes, so you'll just be crispier. Or have a better taste.
Careful in your next visit to the zoo.
Re:Movies (Score:4, Funny)
You have never eaten Doritos, obviously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or have a better taste.
You have never eaten Doritos, obviously.
Or I don't share your fondness for human flesh.
Re: (Score:2)
You have never eaten MSG, obviously.
There, fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Betsey Dexter Dyer on color (Score:5, Interesting)
According to this hottie (see link) black and brown are natural colors produced by pigments; usually red, oranges and yellows are the carotenoids which animals get from foods, and blues and greens (in birds) come from microstructure rather than actual color. (Obviously a green caterpillar gets the color from the diet. A bit different for animals, since I've never seen a green cow.)
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/Science/Biology/Basics-of-Genetics/31316 [learnoutloud.com]
She also says that horizontal gene transfer is very common, and that 90% of our DNA is viral. The viruses we hear about are the ones that make us sick. The ones that have no ill effects we don't notice so much; these are also called viruses or jumping genes.
http://wheatoncollege.edu/quarterly/q2003fall/bacteria.html [wheatoncollege.edu]
Re:Betsey Dexter Dyer on color (Score:5, Interesting)
90% of our DNA is viral. The viruses we hear about are the ones that make us sick. The ones that have no ill effects we don't notice so much; these are also called viruses or jumping genes
This is why I wonder about sexual behaviour which doesn't lead to reproduction. Could our genes have found ways to propagate themselves without reproduction?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that Canine evolution is still on-going with dogs getting brighter and brighter possibly due to our genes being slowly transferred to them
lol really? Domesticated dogs smarter than wolves?
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of understanding humans, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#Intelligence_and_behavior [wikipedia.org]
http://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/are-dogs-smarter-than-wolves/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1952976 [npr.org]
In other ways perhaps not.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting! Thanks for the links.
Re: (Score:2)
In order for genetic material to persist it has to get into the germline cells - that is, sperm or egg - of the host. It's highly unlikely that 'just being around' humans would allow this to happen at all. Bacteria/fungal transfer is possible because, as an infecting pathogen, it can presumably get to where it is in close association with these germline cells - including, and probably limited to, the sexual orifices. So no, I seriously doubt dogs are getting smarter because they're picking up our genes.
Sayi
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you have solutions for those (a different form of circulation other than bood and lymphatic that isolates the germ cells; and a means of blocking all virus from germ cells), then please share with the world, since you will win an INSTANT nobel prize.
BTW, back in 77-81,
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I missed the part in your post about the viral vector - I thought you were suggesting some direct gene transfer human-dog which was bizarre.
It still seems a stretch to suggest that horizontal transfer from human to virus, then virus to dog could occur on anywhere the level required to produce an observable effect on canine intelligence. The vast majority of viruses are species-locked or species-limited and even if the virus can infect a host, the virus is further limited in which cells in the b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HIV and influenza can cross species barriers - but neither infects dogs! They are also severely limited on which host cells they can infect and neither makes it into the germline. But, the point you make about asymptomatic viruses is an interesting one - the potential there is certainly underinvestigated - purely because of the large signpost screaming 'infection!' that usually gets the attention. The other side is interesting too - endemic infections that, aside from their obvious pathology, aren't investi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to this hottie (see link)
Yes, that static-like sound you hear is the cacophony of Slashdotters furiously mashing mouse buttons all over the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, it's true that ERVs are not the only type of viral DNA that an individual may have in their cells.
Re: (Score:2)
> For example, well over 90% of American adults have had some form of herpes infection during their lives, such as chicken pox or herpes simplex.
> This becomes a permanent addition to the DNA in the infected portions of the body, but it is NOT passed down to offspring.
In most cases no. But in other cases see this: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1833268/herpes_virus_can_integrate_its_dna_into_human_chromosomes/index.html [redorbit.com]
Quote: "The USF team also confirmed preliminary results by other investigator
Re: (Score:2)
(Sorry reposting with corrections - lost a chunk due to forgetting how slashdot processes "plain old text")
> For example, well over 90% of American adults have had some form of herpes infection during their lives, such as chicken pox or herpes simplex.
> This becomes a permanent addition to the DNA in the infected portions of the body, but it is NOT passed down to offspring.
In most cases no. But in other cases see this: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1833268/herpes_virus_can_integrate_its_dna_int [redorbit.com]
More proof you Darwinist fools have it all wrong! (Score:1, Funny)
Find something your precious "evolution" can't explain and suddenly it's "horizontal evolution"? Can't you see the facts as clear as day? This is the Intelligent Designer porting features from one creature to another!
Re: (Score:2)
Well he's doing a shit job. Probably using ClearCase.
Kinda like mother nature doing dna tie dyes (Score:4, Funny)
Deadhead Aphids always like their fungus for the visual effect.
Just wait until... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nature's own GMO (Score:3, Insightful)
Nature is constantly performing billions of genetic engineering experiments, most of which don't work out. Sometimes there is a small evolutionary advantage. I don't worry about the "frankenfoods" taking over the world. Nature is constantly performing these experiments and the result is the the current highly optimized system we call "life on earth". Anything man creates just goes into the universal gene pool and has to compete with an already highly evolved system.
Re:Nature's own GMO (Score:5, Insightful)
To play devil's advocate here, a tiger represents millions of years of predatory evolution, yet we can still hunt it to extinction. Just because nature's been doing this a lot longer then we have doesn't mean its aims are the same as ours.
When you're talking about evolution on the scale of millions of years, there's a selective pressure not to kill everything else around you. GE crops have no such incentive, and could quite possibly be extremely hard on the soil. Planting crops without regard to the needs of the soil is what led to the dust bowl.
Of course, it's more than likely anything we create will be able to perform its intended function fairly well, but be utterly unable to cope with any other situation and quickly die out. I don't imagine we'd create anything highly adaptable, that's nature's thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that "selective pressure" is a competition designed to get rid of "less fit" genes, not to encourage them. However, as in the case of large animals, even "unfit" genes have a way of hanging around foreve
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't imagine we'd create anything highly adaptable, that's nature's thing.
Genetic tinkerers don't create anything in the "from scratch" sense. They copy complex and fully-formed genes from one life form to another.
It's like using a well-debugged library in a new application.
Re: (Score:2)
To play devil's advocate here, a tiger represents millions of years of predatory evolution, yet we can still hunt it to extinction. Just because nature's been doing this a lot longer then we have doesn't mean its aims are the same as ours.
When you're talking about evolution on the scale of millions of years, there's a selective pressure not to kill everything else around you. GE crops have no such incentive, and could quite possibly be extremely hard on the soil. Planting crops without regard to the needs of the soil is what led to the dust bowl.
Of course, it's more than likely anything we create will be able to perform its intended function fairly well, but be utterly unable to cope with any other situation and quickly die out. I don't imagine we'd create anything highly adaptable, that's nature's thing.
Like Corn/Maize... which can't propagate without human intervention. If we disappeared, the first generation of corn would overseed the soil, and each kernel would compete against all the others to grow, and result in each one starving out.
We don't need GMO to make plants that are "utterly unable to cope with any other situation".
Re: (Score:2)
Like Corn/Maize... which can't propagate without human intervention.
I've always felt that artificial selection should be considered genetic engineering. I don't know why it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Corn/Maize... which can't propagate without human intervention.
I've always felt that artificial selection should be considered genetic engineering. I don't know why it isn't.
Because genetic engineering means manipulating the genes directly. Artificial selection doesn't do that, it let's the "normal" natural processes to do al the actual gene manipulation. I guess the borderline case is analyzing the DNA and performing artificial selection based on genotype. On the "traditional" side of that is artifical selection based on phenotype, and on the genetic engineering side is manipulating the genome directly (as opposed to let any DNA altering things happen in the "natural" way).
Or
Re: (Score:2)
Civil engineers on occasion still dig trenches. (in German, I'd say "let a trench be dug," and it sounds fine, but in English it sounds like I'm being a pompous bitch.)
Just because it's not the "high brow" version, or bleeding edge version, doesn't mean it doesn't qualify.
Artificial selection is simply a tool of genetic engineering. And considering the differences between Maize and its closest cousin Teosintes; round-up ready crops are insignificantly different.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil engineers on occasion still dig trenches. (in German, I'd say "let a trench be dug," and it sounds fine, but in English it sounds like I'm being a pompous bitch.)
Just because it's not the "high brow" version, or bleeding edge version, doesn't mean it doesn't qualify.
Artificial selection is simply a tool of genetic engineering. And considering the differences between Maize and its closest cousin Teosintes; round-up ready crops are insignificantly different.
The results don't really matter, what matters is the methodology. Without the idea of genes and knowledge that genotype and phenotype are different, there can be no genetic engineering. Even with that knowledge, it won't be genetic engineering unless the knowledge is actively applied.
So I'll give you that genetic engineering pre-dates discovery of DNA. In Europe I guess genetic engineering was first practised when Mendelian genetics was applied into practical breeding. But I bet most artificial selection (i
Re: (Score:2)
While I understand that genotype and phenotype can be different, on a large statistical scale those phenotypical features that are governed by genotype become apparent, and can be selectively applied.
The idea that until we had Mendelian genetics we didn't practice "genetic engineering" in artificial selection is, in my opinion, a dim view; the same that purposes that people simply forgot that the Earth was round after the Greeks proved it.
They may not have understood the actual mechanism, but they still und
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't because there is a technical difference (randomly mixing thousands genes via controlled pollination vs. inserting one gene precisely) even if the end product is similar, indeed, I don't see how any GMO trait could not be achieved with sufficient time and breeding (although we might be talking on an evolutionary timescale here), but let's call a spade a spade, the reason so many people act like there's such a huge difference is mostly because genetic engineering is new and creepy and they don't unde
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't because there is a technical difference
It IS because there is a technical difference.
Re: (Score:2)
People act as if there is a rift between genetic engineering and breeding techniques. There's not, they're just different tools for different situations, and each have their uses.
I'd say the difference is pretty much like the difference between traditional windmill and an atomic power plant. There certainly is a rift, one has vastly more potential to do damage to the environment. (Of course, if you take into account population growth and all that, relying on old "safe" methods, may indirectly end up doing more damage than using newer, potentially more dangerous but otherwise superior methods, but that's beside the point when assessing the direct damage potential.)
The key thing with
Re: (Score:2)
Selective breeding techniques for plants used most of the last hundred years involve breaking up chromosomes with radiation to create new and completely untested genes, then taking any of the mutants that seem to have benefited from this and spreading their randomly-created genes far and wide throughout the species.
Genetic engineering takes long-existing genes of known function and carefully inserts them into a species to create a predictable effect.
And yet people who do the second are the ones who get port
Re: (Score:2)
Selective breeding techniques for plants used most of the last hundred years involve breaking up chromosomes with radiation to create new and completely untested genes, then taking any of the mutants that seem to have benefited from this and spreading their randomly-created genes far and wide throughout the species.
Genetic engineering takes long-existing genes of known function and carefully inserts them into a species to create a predictable effect.
The crucial difference can be read between the lines even in your text. Speed. Being able to engineer the genetic changes allows churning out new, functional genetic variations at far faster pace. I'd expect our capability to double per two years or so (as calculated in man-years to engineer a new genetic functionality, or amount of functional changes engineered per generation, or number of interacting genes possible to handle, or whatever is relevant to the field).
Also our ability to put these rapidly d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
AMEN. As one planning on going into this area, I think about genetic engineering a lot, and that was the first thing that came to my mind too. I love how the anti-GE guys out there rail against the 'dangers' of foreign DNA being inserted into plants yet are blissfully unaware that species get foreign DNA all the time. Humans are 3-8% viral DNA depending on who you ask, and we're more genetically similar to chimps than two unrelated types of corn are to each other. My worry is that, in typical crank fashi
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Perhaps with the little insicnificant difference that nature tests its "genetic engineering" thouroughly a couple of million years before releasing it to the public ...
Re: (Score:2)
You must be joking. Tell that to to people who are allergic to peanuts, or have celiac's and can't eat wheat, or had a drug interaction with a grapefruit, or died from eating a starfruit. Don't anthropomorphize nature. It doesn't care of how things turn out, it doesn't care if you have an anaphylactic reaction to kiwis or whatever, it just is. It just goes, and while it does so fantastically, it doesn't care what effects any given mutation will have. Giving it any traits beyond that is just magical thi
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, I'm joking. And while I was at it, I made up Superbugs [wikipedia.org] and Superweed [slashdot.org] as well. And let's not forget Monsanto's [wikipedia.org] activities [bangmfood.org] on that matter. A layman would think that if all's so good and well, a company like this wouldn't need all that lobbying and lawsuits.
Re: (Score:1)
Where I have a problem is when Monsanto comes in after the fact and says "Well, well, well...awfully good looking crops ya have there. Be a shame is something were to happen to them. Like say our dominant gene with a kill switch enabled in it were to cross pollinate with your current crop....a reeeeaaaal shame. G
Re:Nature's own GMO-- NOT! (Score:2)
This is an example of why I don't worry about man-made genetically modified organisms. It you have studied biology, you realize that nature is constantly shuffling DNA from one organism to another across species, genera, phyla and here across kingdoms.
And the above statement is precisely why I have begun to worry about genetically modified organisms.
The whole concept of safety in GMO is defined in terms of species and genus, and that these abstract categories humans use to think about biology are somehow intrinsic in reality. That genes can migrate so easily across these categories shows this is not the case. Species, genus, phylum, and kingdom turn out to be convenient fictions, like centrifugal force. These fictions are an inadequate framework for wo
Re: (Score:2)
The whole concept of safety in GMO is defined in terms of species and genus
Safety is assessed based on if it can be shown to cause health effects, even if it produces a new chemical that could cause those effects. The evidence to indicate that the vast majority of GMOs possess these health concerns is hugely underwhelming. I don't know where you get that taxonomy plays into it.
We need a much better understanding of really basic biological principals to replace the rigid classification hierarchy with a way of thinking about the flows of information, materials, and energy that are an ecosystem. Until we have that more realistic framework and can use it to guide research and applications, I find the concept of using GMO in the field rather disturbing. At a very basic level, scientists and engineers involved in GMO research and applications don't know what the f*ck they are doing.
And when will that be? What amount of knowledge will be sufficient to safely work with individual genes instead of mixing thousands of genes like we've been doing with selective breeding? Think about it,
Re: (Score:2)
Ack, forgot a part: Safety assessment for environmental damage- again, nothing hugely great to indicate that there's much worry there, although I have heard reports of cross pollination in wild populations of corn (by which I assume they mean corn relatives). Not sure just how prevalent it is or how accurate those reports were, but either way, the issue here isn't so much what harm they cause to the environment as the net harm. Farming is very bad for the environment, especially with our large population,
Re: (Score:2)
This is an example of why I don't worry about man-made genetically modified organisms. It you have studied biology, you realize that nature is constantly shuffling DNA from one organism to another across species, genera, phyla and here across kingdoms.
Nature is constantly performing billions of genetic engineering experiments, most of which don't work out. Sometimes there is a small evolutionary advantage. I don't worry about the "frankenfoods" taking over the world. Nature is constantly performing these experiments and the result is the the current highly optimized system we call "life on earth". Anything man creates just goes into the universal gene pool and has to compete with an already highly evolved system.
Yes, but if this "natural experimentation" hits something extraordinary, it may be a disaster for the current ecosystem. It doesn't happen much in nature, in fact it's very rare on human time-scales. But when we start to do it, it suddenly happens much more frequently, and therefore also changes that may ravage ecosystems happen much more frequently. Also, in nature, every change is "out there", even if they actually do nothing. Humans purposefully design changes that do something, and only "working" change
The reason is simple (Score:2)
meh, wotz up doc? (Score:2)
Doesn't explain why WW2 night fighter pilots didn't turn orange.
Re: (Score:1)
http://healthmad.com/health/carrot-addicts-may-turn-orange/ [healthmad.com]
On a related but different thought: I thought I could find it, but I remember a story where scientists modified beta carotene and it produced modified eyesight in some animals or humans. Can anyone help? I'd love to read that again, or was I just dreaming?
Re: (Score:2)
Whooooooooooooooooooosh!
Exhibit A (Score:2)
Myrmecos talks about this... (Score:2)
... in his Science Blog [scienceblogs.com].
Another challenge to dogma (Score:2)
Not so long ago, transposons (jumping genes) were thought to happen only in "lower" animals, not in humans. We now know that transposons are common in humans. They also said the same of copy number variations, or of DNA letters different from A/C/G/T.
The current dogma of genetics says that DNA homology between species is caused solely by evolutionary relationships. How long before we realize that this isn't true either?
I'm not an evolution denialist, but I do think the current scientific understanding of
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an evolution denialist, but I do think the current scientific understanding of evolution has a religious zeal.
The fact that this type of finding actually refutes most current hypotheses of evolution, yet people are attempting to use evolution to explain it, and the article is tagged "evolution", I would say that you made a bit of an understatement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that this type of finding actually refutes most current hypotheses of evolution,
Could you be more specific? Ie. which part of the theory of evolution does this refute?
Or you want a more specific question, in the context of the Theory of Evolution, how is getting new genes by horizontal gene transfer different from getting new genes by mutation?
It's more like horizontal gene transfer mechanisms save theory of evolution in the face of genes shared by different families. If eg. aphids and fungus had same gene, but horizontal gene transfer can be disproved, then it means that they got the
Re: (Score:2)
The current dogma of genetics says that DNA homology between species is caused solely by evolutionary relationships. How long before we realize that this isn't true either? I'm not an evolution denialist, but I do think the current scientific understanding of evolution has a religious zeal.
Frankly, I don't think you understand what you are talking about. The linked to article is an example where DNA homology isn't due to an "evolutionary relationship" (that is, recent common ancestry) but rather horizontal gene transfer. And this isn't the only example of this. We have many other examples of horizontal gene transfer by viruses for example. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus [wikipedia.org]. However, we do know that the vast majority of similarities in DNA are due to evolutionary relation
Re: (Score:2)
"However, we do know that the vast majority of similarities in DNA are due to evolutionary relationships because the genetic sequences when one graphs them by how different they are from each other form a tree, exactly as evolution would expect."
Actually, no. DNA homology has re-drawn the "evolution tree" considerably, as species that were thought to be related turned out not to be, while other "unrelated" species turned out to be related. After re-drawing the tree, scientists now say this "proves" that D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
30 to 40 years ago, the tree of evolution was missing an entire kingdom of archaea. When I took high school biology, they told us that archaea are "extremely rare bacteria" that only live in hot springs. We now know this is not true; archaea are ubiquitous, only scientists didn't know where to look. Biology teachers like to show microscope pictures as "proof" of whatever theory they teach, though it's interesting they spent hundreds of years unable to find archaea that live all over the place.
We are no l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are chimps that similar to humans? Scientists have measured only mitochondrial DNA before to claim "99.9% similarity" between organisms, and that because this is DNA, it is indisputable truth. But then, if we apply the same standard to Y chromosomes, then chimps and humans are only about 50-66% similar, depending on the metric used.
http://www.wi.mit.edu/news/archives/2010/dp_0113.html [mit.edu]
And as MIT says, the chimpanzee is only the second Y chromosome to be comprehensively analyzed. Are you going to say for s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Correlation fallacy, much? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correlation fallacy, much? (Score:5, Informative)
The transfer definitely did not go in the other direction, as the genes for the carotenoids would have had to travel back up the phylogenetic tree and down its other branches to all the other organisms containing carotenoids. The argument that the aphids evolved genes to express carotenoids in parallel to the part of the phylogenetic tree containing them does not fit into the current model for evolution, as a gene only evolves once, and any other organism containing that gene is descended from the organism that originally mutated to express that gene (this uses statistics and probabilities too!).
Anyway, in almost every science nothing is solidly proven, there are merely theories. Everyone objecting to the validity of this article has been doing too much statistics and not enough biology. You can rest assured the article went under much more intense scrutiny than comparison to a webcomic to get published in Science (no matter how awesome that webcomic is).
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I had to be reminded yesterday, that we can never ever directly observe causation anyway. All that we can observe, is correlation with as much other variables removed as possible. This is because physics at least demands the spacetime volumes to be different for two different (fermion-based) objects. (Pauli exclusion principle [wikipedia.org])
So observation alone still is not worth much more. Example: When I observe rain, I also observe that less people are outside. But that does not mean that people cause sunshine. :))
By
Re: (Score:2)
But, that's not what is happening here. The systems of genetic transfer and mutation are very well understood. There are extremely robust models that explain this exact process and how to detect that have withstood the test of time.
For an example, here's one from wikipedia:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I know this is bad etiquette, but 'looking at other aphids' means genome sequencing of other aphid species, which can clarify if the same gene / allele appears in other species' genome.
It would be a very very rare chance by which a highly similar gene / allele mutates and evolves independently in a fungus as well as an aphid.
The "tanning" gene ! (Score:1)
Since the caratenoid gene can make things as red as cooked lobsters, why don't scientists find a way to transfer that gene into those tanning-philes?
One treatment and you got free tanning for life !
Re: (Score:2, Funny)