Genetic Convergent Evolution: Stunning Gene Similarities Among Diverse Animals 164
Toe, The writes "It has long been understood that completely different animals can end up with very similar traits (convergent evolution), and even that genes can converge. But a new study shows an unbelievable level of convergence among entire groups of genes. The study shows that animals as diverse as bats and dolphins, which independently developed echolocation, converge in nearly 200 different genomic regions concentrated in several 'hearing genes.' The implications are rather deep, if you think about it, delving into interesting limitations on diversity or insights into the potential of DNA. And perhaps more importantly, this finding goes a long way toward explaining why almost aliens in the universe look surprisingly identical to humans (though still doesn't explain why they all speak English)."
Dolphins and Bats are Mammals (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to pooh-pooh this study, but dolphins and bats aren't as far apart as say, bats and moths. If a fish or reptile converged with a mammal that would be more "unbelievable". I think we're in "Oh, cool," territory more than "WHAT????"
Re:Dolphins and Bats are Mammals (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to pooh-pooh this study, but dolphins and bats aren't as far apart as say, bats and moths. If a fish or reptile converged with a mammal that would be more "unbelievable". I think we're in "Oh, cool," territory more than "WHAT????"
Well that's the point. they all start with some common underlying mamallian hearing genes and then they tweak them to develop echolocation.
My guess is that in addition to certain mutations being easy to evolve (for example a particular mutation might set a rate constant on a binding protein to a be in some useful range for a typical return signal time, to create a clock), that viruses could carry genetic material between species that would bind the dna in common regions and transfer the point mutations between species.
Re: (Score:3)
they all start with some common underlying mamallian hearing genes and then they tweak them to develop echolocation.
I guess that's less surprising a result to me than when things like koala thumbs happen. The front paws are kind of like our hands, except that the opposable split happened at the index finger so that they have two "thumbs". In the rear, the split happened at the same place, but then the two "thumbs" fused together, creating a new single "thumb" that is completely different from ours. If they had developed thumbs in the same way that we did, it would have surprised me less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right - that is my expectation... that any creature with basic mammal anatomy would adapt in a similar way to a similar stimulus. So, in your example, raccoons are in the same order as dogs, bears, seals, and weasels... and yet they have hands similar to primates. Meanwhile, koalas are a marsupial and yet they have a different adaptation for grasping. Then again, bats are closer relatives to us than either of them!
Re: (Score:2)
Crap I meant to say that koalas and possums are marsupials.
Re: (Score:3)
they all start with some common underlying mamallian hearing genes and then they tweak them to develop echolocation.
Actually, a lot of animals that aren't credited with using echolocation actually use a variation of it: Sounds from their own motion (such as footsteps) create echoes, which their hearing system processes into a map of nearby objects.
People, for instance, do this. That's why you can "feel" the nearness of walls and objects in the room (especially those near or immediately behind you) without
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's true except they independently developed this feature, meaning the common split point didn't have it at the genetic level.
Did these common genes develop from the same common genes, or completely different ones? As things break and re-arrange, some paths would be more common than others by the very mechanisms of reproduction.
It may be more like fin vs. arm, the "same stuff", where that is defined as the same genes with alteration, except in this case, the common ancestor genes had nothing to do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if dolphins and sharks show convergent DNA, that would be really cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the comparison of a squid eye, and a mammalian eye [squideyes.com]. This is a mollusc converging with mammals in an organ as complicated as the eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that's a really cool link. Now if they do a genetic analysis and find the DNA also converging, wouldn't that be something?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it is. The gene responsible is PAX-6 which is responsible for eye development in nearly ALL creatures. However, the convergence is functional, not based entirely on sequence similarity. This is no surprise because while gene sequence similarity indicates common protein structure, different sequences can have similar structures and similar functions. Moreover, it is often particular regions of genes that are important for function , not the entire thing. Mutations outside these functional hotspots c
Re: (Score:2)
What I've said all along (Score:5, Insightful)
I got my PhD in statistical genetics. Why should we equate genetic homology to evolutionary homology? All these studies that speak of a hypothetical Adam or Eve assume that the same mutations could not have arisen independently in different parts of the world.
You got out of bed with the wrong leg today (Score:2)
Re:intelligent design (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This also relates to ID in another way: it forces some people to reconsider the theories which so many consider to be authoritarian law.
Mind you, I have my own favorite commonly held evolutionary variant, to which this is no surprise at all.
But I really do favor letting creationists and ID'ers have a place at the scientific podium, because nothing drives science forward so mercilessly fast as losing a debate to a creationist.
And yes, I do also believe God made the universe and Earth and walked among us. But
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what you or the article are talking about and I have no idea what the significance of this experiment was or what conclusions can be drawn from it or even what conclusions the author himself may or may not have made. Any chance you could explain any of this to a software/hardware guy like me with zero knowledge of Biology/Genetics? Maybe a software analogy would work.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Underlying genetic evolution is the notion that genes pick up random mutations over time. Most of these have no effect on function, so you can estimate how long ago two species diverged by counting how many differences are in the genome. These guys had the clever idea of taking species that we think diverged a long time ago, but that have a similar trait (ie, echolocation), with the hypothesis that the genes controlling that might be more similar, even in these very different animals, than the genes for d
Re: (Score:2)
And she's got one HUUUUUGE vagina.
Amirite?
Re: (Score:3)
Not at all. We interbred with Neanderthals and still retain many of their genes. I suspect that as species diverge this sort of thing happens a lot. The chicken or the egg analogy is flawed, as there were likely hundreds of eggs all over the world that hatched into what we would now consider a chicken at around the same time. They inter-bred with non-chickens and passed on their genes that eventually became dominant due to evolutionary pressures.
There was no genetic Adam and Eve. "Humans" slowly came to be
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I thought they had decided there really was a "mitochondrial Eve".
Re:What I've said all along (Score:5, Informative)
/sigh [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it a genetically proven fact that all human women share the same common female ancestor?
Which part of the Misconceptions list disproves that notion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Does any of that mean we don't all share a common female ancestor?
Re: (Score:2)
Could you explain what argument from ignorance has to do with this? I can only guess (as you've chosen not to be explicit) that you're implying that the argument for Mito. Eve's existence is one from ignorance, but I don't see why you'd think that.
I'd also appreciate you expanding on
Mitochondrial Eve is not a fixed individual, had a mother, was not the only woman of her time
Because I still can't see why any of that suggests Mitochondrial Eve didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it a genetically proven fact that all human women share the same mother?
nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today
Does any of that mean we don't all share a common female ancestor?
A false dilemma may take the form: If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Sounds like it could be a fascinating field.
Re: (Score:2)
English (Score:3)
It simply proves that through a process of survival of the fittest, English is evolving at the expense of weaker languages into the perfect language. :-)
Eventually all you will have is English, and all the programming languages derived from it.
Bob.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe one day we'll all be named Bob.
I'm one step ahead of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The word for a guy, you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when French was the standard second language across much of Europe. Finance, law, business, diplomacy were all conducted in French. The aristocracy spoke French. The university students were taught in French.
I'm not trying to say English is better but I would be interested to hear your views on why English took over from French when French had such a lead and "some internal fitness" has nothing to do with it.
Thanks,
Bob.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to say English is better but I would be interested to hear your views on why English took over from French when French had such a lead and "some internal fitness" has nothing to do with it.
Because the English picked up the baton from the French! And the language got a free ride. I don't think it impossible for some parallel universe to have the French-speaking États-Unis d'Amérique dominating the world, perhaps with a small English-speaking minority in the state of Charliana. If the fitness of the language were an issue, it would have been a draw since both these languages are perfectly substitutable in whatever role you might need them.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, it's really pretty simple. English took over because of WWI and WWII: the French lost in WWII and were taken over by the Germans. The English took a beating too, but finally between the Americans and the Russians, Germany lost and America and Russia were the two big powers. America's language was English, so when they in concert with the British became the main powers for the western-aligned nations, English became the lingua de franca just like French was long before. Meanwhile, Russian became the
Re: (Score:2)
Spanish is a crappy language because it's far too wordy and inefficient. I takes 3 times as many syllables to express the same thought as in English.
The primary strength of English is its versatility and its adaptability. It has a far larger vocabulary than any other language, mainly because it so readily adopts new words from other languages.
English is also a fairly easy language for others to learn at a basic level; there's no idiotic sense of gender like most other Indo-European languages, all the basi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the effect on how you see the world or your attitude in certain situations
You know, people have been trying to prove one form of linguistic relativity or another for a century or longer, and they've failed at it, sometimes quite spectacularly. In real world, it's extremely difficult to separate cultural and linguistic background (although the two are not completely interlinked in principle), and if you *really* wanted to do a study on this, you'd probably have to do something like taking a few hundred identical twins, letting each of any pair grow up in a household differing from
Re: (Score:2)
Is not about in particular english or german (in fact, most germanic languages should fit, english is one exception), nor a particular country (maybe his TED talk [ted.com] clears a bit some of the concepts, in countries where there are several languages but the same culture have that differences between the speakers of each language), is about a language feature, and how basis in the language change how you see and understand the world. In mandarin chinese you don't go forward and backward in time, but up and down,
Re: (Score:2)
In mandarin chinese you don't go forward and backward in time, but up and down, for some australian language you don't have your subjective left/right/forward/back, but absolute north/south/east/west (and time goes east to west, as the sun). And that change of view implies changes on attitudes, behaviour or even abilities (like better caring about the future or ever knowing where are the cardinal points, unless you go to tricky test situations).
Again, I won't be happy until there is a consensus in the linguistic community that these claims are in any way rooted in reality. A quack economist fumbling with languages ought not to be your primary source for all matters linguistic and cognitive.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have mistaken wealth and power with fitness. I expect that in a century, your Great Grand Children will greet one anther with a cheery "Ni Hao!"
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually all you will have is English, and all the programming languages derived from it.
Bob.
Realize the truth: The programming languages are the ones you will all have to learn. English is easier to represent in machine speak... Look at Japanese, Simplified now goes from left to right, top to bottom -- instead of top to bottom right to left. Why? It's easier for machines to process languages if they've got common features.
Before End: For all features in $LANGUAGE if ( $FEATURE is ambiguous or [ parse difficulty > $COGNITVE_LOAD average ] ) remove it from $LANGUAGE.
Your language will mer
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're wrong. This is, in fact, exactly what is meant by "survival of the fittest," and exactly what Darwin meant by it. He said that organisms that were selected by evolution were those best suited for surviving in their immediate environment. And in this case, cooperative humans were the best suited for survival - ergo, they survived and flou
Explains SciFi Shows?? (Score:3)
And perhaps more importantly, this finding goes a long way toward explaining why almost aliens in the universe look surprisingly identical to humans
I know this is tongue in cheek humor, but -- NO, IT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING OF THE SORT! DNA is chemical in origin and so goes, different chemical compositions of different planets would give rise to vastly different DNA compositions resulting in life nothing like our own.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, chill. From a story-maker's perspective, ANY sort of evidence for convergent evolution is all they need to justify aliens being bipedal and have faces and things.
Secondly, why do you even assume that alien life would have DNA? It's just one method of storing build instructions. There are probably others.
Finally, and this is the main thrust of the story here, even though DNA is "chemical in origin" that doesn't make one damn bit of difference to, say, aerodynamics. If an ecosystem develops flight throu
Re: (Score:2)
DNA is chemical in origin and so goes, different chemical compositions of different planets would give rise to vastly different DNA compositions resulting in life nothing like our own.
No.
.25% of a whole bunch of others. What you're suggesting would mean that because we know that, we can say that the environment we live in
You're suggesting that we are a product solely of availability of resources. While that is true only in the widest possible understanding, a simple review of compositions shows it doesn't hold for what you're suggesting.
The chemical composition of the human body: 65% Oxygen, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, 3% Nitrogen, 1.4% Calcium, 1.1% Phosphorous...then less than
Re: (Score:2)
>Our DNA is the way it is because that is the simplest, most stable way those molecules could form that produced the end result they did.
Not at all. More than likely it (or more likely its precursors) was simply one of the first self-replicating molecule to get firmly established on our planet, and out-competed all others for raw materials. All subsequent evolution then had to build upon a foundation of already-evolved functionality and available organic resources.
Evolution is an exercise in making the
Re: (Score:2)
Chemistry and biochemistry are simply much more complex than throwing the right proportions of elements into a pot; and it often doesn't matter what concentrations of what are even in the pot. A great example, vanadium in Ascidia gemmata can reach 10 million times the conce
Why smartphones look alike (Score:2)
"And perhaps more importantly, this finding goes a long way toward explaining why almost aliens in the universe look surprisingly identical to humans"
Since we're going off-tangent here, I'd say this finding goes a long way toward explaining why a Galaxy S looks surprisingly identical to an iPhone. Similar function, similar form. If you want a device with a touch screen and you want it in the sleekest form factor, with few hardware buttons and maximum screen real estate, you will come up with an iPhone. Or a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually xeno-biology is fascinating. You could base information encoding structures and chemistries in endless ways, and it's possible to imagine the DNA role being taken by all kinds of other carbon based structures (include complex sugars.) This all speaks to organic chemistry like our own. There's no reason that far more exotic chemistries that don't live in liquid water or require fatty acids couldn't exist, even complexes of other states of matter (plasma, or the thin skin of a neutron star where neut
They all speak English (Score:3)
They all speak English because they've been watching all our old shows that have been beamed into space for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
And amazingly they all have a Cuban accent - "you got some 'splaining to do!"
Noise (Score:2)
Our old show have become non distinguishable from noise within a few to a few hundred AU. Some narrowband concentrated general signal might have gotten within a light year. maybe. The only signal we know for sure would be audible afetr 1 light year, were the few sent from arecibo S band, and a few others. In the whole history of mankind , we are talking about 1 hour or 2 worth of transmission time (and they were narrow band, high power radio signals intentionally sen
almost aliens (Score:2)
why almost aliens in the universe look surprisingly identical to humans
And just what are "Almost Aliens"? All I can think of is that they are aliens that claim to have been born in Hawaii.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We come from.... France.
Horizontal gene transfer (Score:1)
Could this have anything to do with horizontal gene transfer ?
Re: (Score:2)
For 1, maybe even 3 or 5 genes, not 200.
Re: (Score:2)
Escherichia coli can transfer as many as 20% of it's 5000 or so genes.
Do you have any reason besides pulling it out of your ass for the reasoning behind you post?
Huh? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely, and I have multiple degrees in biochemistry and molecular biology. You do get totally different sequences which end up coding for the same protein structures, but like you seem to understand there are strict physical limits on what structures can actually perform a particular function, so especially for complex functions involving hundreds of coding sequences you might expect significant convergence.
Also what is that T, "theorist?"
Isn't this what you would expect from a Creator? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't this what you would expect from a Creator (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"If there is a Creator of life, then we would expect to see the blueprints used for more than one construction site"
I could put together an argument that says the exact opposite.
"Alternatively, however, if we are all actors in a play that no one wrote, then randomness would be expected to create more genetic diversity."
Only if you are clueless about evolutionary theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's consider sex (always a good thing to consider). Genesis in the Bible says that God created two sexes, male and female. Now, if there is no Creator with a building plan, then we might expect to see more variety in the area of reproduction among us higher animal types rather than the standard male/female stuff we are so used to.
Then consider it. The most common form of reproduction in the world is asexual. Hermaphroditism is also quite common. It is also not uncommon for species to flip sexes depending on environmental queues, even in multicellular species as complex as fish and amphibians. Hell, there are species of fish in which the male is absorbed into the female and becomes a new set of gonads for her! Even the more familiar male/female dynamics are not clearcut. Many species have neuters. Others have evolved complex behavior
Re: (Score:2)
Some reptiles (lizards) are suspected of changing genders, but it has not been directly observed. Parthenogenesis has been observed in some species of (female) lizards. While all confirmed parthenogenesis with lizards result in females there are some rather bizarre relationships with some of the species that are known to do this. That is there seems to be multiple linkages between several closely related species. In each lineage the genetic diversity is small and almost all of the lines are females.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not. Almost all mammals (which is what humans are) reproduce sexually. Among the 'higher animals' that we were discussing, most reproduce sexually, for unknown reasons. It could be argued that sexual reproduction is the means by which a Creator created both us and the biblical animals upon which scripture refers to for for food, transportation, comfort, fear, etc. OTOH, all prokaryotes reproduce asexually but we were not talkin
Re: (Score:2)
By "intelligent design" you seem to be saying 'perfect design.' Perfect design would imply a perfect world without disease, deformity, and dysfunction which would be a world that Jesus did not seek during his time here. For example, Jesus healed many ill people but only as an illustrative example of the power of God and obviously not with the intent to c
Comes down to the programing. (Score:3)
To perform the analysis, the team had to sift through millions of letters of genetic code using a computer program developed
to calculate the probability of convergent changes occurring by chance, so they could reliably identify ‘odd-man-out’ genes.
I was following a different train of thought; trying to support it came across this:
"In the traditional approach, the dynamic programming based pair-wise alignment is used for measuring the similarity between two sequences.
This method does not work well in a large data set."
http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/465/chp%253A10.1007%252F3-540-45554-X_47/000.png [springer.com]
Paywall, the above is all there is. Text mining techniques were used in the research.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-45554-X_47 [springer.com]
Hoang Kiem and Do Phuc (snicker, he said...).
Proof of Creation!! (Score:4, Interesting)
They were all very intelligently designed by the Great Programmer. There's even code reuse.
Re: (Score:2)
But did the Great Programmer use Agile or Waterfall?
Until we can know, this will be the source of great sectarian divides and shrill accusations of heresy
interstellar hybrids (Score:2)
Simple convergent evolution explains why Vulcans, Betazoids, and Klingons (sometimes) look so much like humans, but this genetic analysis explains* why hybrids such as Spock, Deanna Troi, and B'Elanna Torres are genetically possible.
*ignoring ST:TNG "The Chase"
If by 'Stunning' (Score:2)
you mean 'predicted', then yes.
So few think it through (Score:2)
So close... (Score:2)
You're almost there with talking about cards, but you've got the wrong one. It's actually down to aliens learning English from American Express application forms. It's all documented in So long and thanks for all the fish.
Re:Random (letter) selection (Score:4, Insightful)
Only it's entirely credible. That is entire premise of a peer-reviewed publication.
You know your argument is worthless when it hinges entirely on nitpicking common expressions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so you retract your implication that my three words were the -only- argument I have for it, which you knew via your psychic powers, and now state only that I consider it "supportive" of it, correct?
In fact, given the broadness of how one might interpret those three words, I suggest that the sole reason you formed the interpretation you did, and the objection you did, is -you yourself- find it "supportive", and now are denying your own evaluation of your own brain, and projecting who has an issue onto
Re: (Score:2)
We may as well go all the way with your slippery-slope, and stipulate that by your terms, the human body must be immortal, because by your criteria any death would equally be a "design flaw".
But your premise is entirely erroneous. It is never suggested that this is the design intent (in fact, to be explicit regarding one ID scenario, it says we were made "good", not "perfect"--"perfect" being reserved for a future potentiality). Secondly, we have inevitable secondary consequences to such a "design objecti
Re: (Score:2)
The are no "design flaws" or "design objectives" of any kind, because there is no design.
Susceptibility to deleterious mutations does reduce fitness. Some species, such as humans and rats are quite susceptible somatic cell mutations, leading to a variety of cancers. Others, such as sharks, do not have this particular genetic weakness. On the other hand, death after reproduction has no effect on individual fitness whatsoever, although it could increase the fitness of the species as a whole by reducing resou
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough.
It might be useful for me to clarify my stance on a few things in reference to your comments here, now that this has become an actual discussion beyond my 3-word quip we started with.
There are a lot of different viewpoints under the general term "ID" (which I take to mean as scoping to exactly what it says, no more, no less--design by an intelligence, how and "who" being independent questions that are largely philosophical rather than scientific, at least at this point).
I do not question that a
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: Genetic Fallacy
Which, somewhat ironically given the thread, is in the domain of types of invalid logical inference, not genetics.
No (Score:3)
Epigenetics does in general not change or mutate genes(*).
At least the most common examples for epigenetics are cases where a gene's activity has been increased or decreased, which can be explained by molecules attaching to the DNA. The study is talking about evolution, hence mutation, and not about epigenetics.
(*)Of course, someday someone will find a rare example where epigenetics actually changes the mutation rates of genes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, there've been bats since the early Eocene around 52 million years ago, and since the ancestor of cetaceans came from land around 30 million years ago (and had no reason for echolocation), the trait was developed as they evolved into ocean going creatures while bats were happily echo locating the whole while. Sorry, interesting hypothesis... how did you account for echo locating genes getting back from cetacean to land dwelling animals?
Re: (Score:2)
A whale and a bat breed?... that is just sick beyond imagining.
Re: (Score:2)
A whale and a bat breed?... that is just sick beyond imagining.
Not according to rule 34.
Re: (Score:2)
The junk is fast becoming an area of serious study. the fact that it doesn't encode protein seems to belie the fact that it controls morphology, gene expression, and in fact looks to be fractal in nature and incredibly information rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" devolved and evolved to all the animals.."
Should be:
"evolved to all the animals.."
devolved?, sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
First, there is no such thing as "devolution."
Secondly, it doesn't fit the evidence in the least. Show me evidence of multicellular life preceding the development of unicellular life, and we'll talk.
Third, horizontal gene transfer is more common than you seem to think.