[_ Old Earth _] Theist discussing genome sequencing

[Barbarian]

Genetica. 2006 Sep-Nov;128(1-3):333-46.Click here to read Links
Evolutionary chromosomal differentiation among four species of Conoderus Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera, Elateridae, Agrypninae, Conoderini) detected by standard staining, C-banding, silver nitrate impregnation, and CMA3/DA/DAPI staining.
Schneider MC, Almeida MC, Rosa SP, Costa C, Cella DM.

Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista-UNESP, Rio Claro, Av. 24-A, n 1515, CP 199, CEP 13506-900, Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil. marieb@rc.unesp.br

The speciose Brazilian Elateridae fauna is characterized by high karyotypic diversity, including one species (Chalcolepidius zonatus Eschscholtz, 1829) with the lowest diploid number within any Coleoptera order. Cytogenetic analysis of Conoderus dimidiatus Germar, 1839, C. scalaris (Germar, 1824,) C. ternarius Germar, 1839, and C. stigmosus Germar, 1839 by standard and differential staining was performed with the aim of establishing mechanisms of karyotypic differentiation in these species. Conoderus dimidiatus, C. scalaris, and C. ternarius have diploid numbers of 2n(male) = 17 and 2n(female) = 18, and a X0/XX sex determination system, similar to that encountered in the majority of Conoderini species. The karyotype of C. stigmosus was characterized by a diploid number of 2n = 16 and a neoXY/neoXX sex determination system that was highly differentiated from other species of the genus. Some features of the mitotic and meiotic chromosomes suggest an autosome/ancestral X chromosome fusion as the cause of the neoXY system origin in C. stigmosus. C-banding and silver impregnation techniques showed that the four Conoderus species possess similar chromosomal characteristics to those registered in most Polyphaga species, including pericentromeric C band and autosomal NORs. Triple staining techniques including CMA3/DA/DAPI also provided useful information for differentiating these Conoderus species. These techniques revealed unique GC-rich heterochromatin associated with NORs in C. scalaris and C. stigmosus and CMA3-heteromorphism in C. scalaris and C. ternarius.

 

[Barbarian]

Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;109(4):497-501.Click here to read Links
Chromosome evolution in fish: BrdU replication patterns demonstrate chromosome homeologies in two species of the genus Astyanax.
Daniel-Silva MF, Almeida-Toledo LF.

Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

A comparison of R-banding patterns obtained by 5-bromodeoxyuridine incorporation was made between the chromosomes of two fish species of the genus Astyanax (Characiformes: Tetragonopterinae), A. altiparanae with 2n = 50 chromosomes, and A. schubarti with 2n = 36 chromosomes. The two species present the highest and the lowest chromosome numbers found in this fish genus, respectively, for which the modal chromosome number is 50. R-band homeology was detected, involving eleven chromosomes of A. schubarti and seventeen chromosomes of A. altiparanae, indicating a close chromosomal relationship between the two species, in spite of their great difference in chromosome number. A chromosome fusion in the past history of the group was hypothesized as a possible cause of the discrepant chromosome numbers of the two species. Copyright 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.

It's one of the more common sorts of recombination in the evolution of new species.

 

[Barbarian]

Chromosome Res. 2002;10(8):669-83.Click here to read Links
The phylogeny of howler monkeys (Alouatta, Platyrrhini): reconstruction by multicolor cross-species chromosome painting.
de Oliveira EH, Neusser M, Figueiredo WB, Nagamachi C, Pieczarka JC, Sbalqueiro IJ, Wienberg J, Müller S.

Department Biologie II, Humangenetik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Richard-Wagner-Strasse 10, D-80333 Munich, Germany.

We performed multidirectional chromosome painting in a comparative cytogenetic study of the three howler monkey species Alouatta fusca, A. caraya and A. seniculus macconnelli (Atelinae, Platyrrhini) in order to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships within this genus. Comparative genome maps between these species were established by multicolor fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) employing human, Saguinus oedipus and Lagothrix lagothricha chromosome-specific probes. The three species included in this study and previously analyzed howler monkey species were subjected to a phylogenetic analysis on the basis of a data matrix comprised of 98 discrete molecular cytogenetic characters. The results revealed that howler monkeys represent the genus with the most extensive karyotype diversity within Platyrrhini so far analyzed with high levels of intraspecific chromosomal variability. Two different multiple sex chromosome systems were identified. The phylogenetic analysis indicated that Alouatta is a monophyletic clade which can be derived from a proposed ancestral Atelinae karyotype of 2n = 62 chromosomes by a chromosome fusion, a fission, a Y-autosomal translocation and a pericentric inversion. Following these suggestions, the genus Alouatta can be divided into two distinct species groups: the first includes A. caraya and A. belzebul, the second A. s. macconnelli, A. sara, A. s. arctoidea and A. fusca.

 

[John]

Is this showing a fusion between 2 separate species that share a common ancestor, or a chromosome fusing with other chromosomes already existing inside the animal(s)?

 

[Barbarian]

These are showing the difference in chromosome number for related species. In each case, the cause is shown to be a chromosome fusion.

Chromosome number is much less stable than actual DNA.

 

[John]

These are showing the difference in chromosome number for related species. In each case, the cause is shown to be a chromosome fusion.

Chromosome number is much less stable than actual DNA.

So why does the fusion of a chromosome = evidence of a ancestor?

 

[Barbarian]

If you have two organisms with very close to the same DNA, but a different number of chromosomes, that's a tip-off. If you then look and find that the one with 2 fewer chromosomes has one chromosome with the remains of an extra centromere and telemeres in the predicted places, then you've nailed it.

And that's what happened.

 

[freeway]

If you have two organisms with very close to the same DNA, but a different number of chromosomes, that's a tip-off. If you then look and find that the one with 2 fewer chromosomes has one chromosome with the remains of an extra centromere and telemeres in the predicted places, then you've nailed it.

And that's what happened.

I keep hearing about how close we are with the primates... if the DNA is close well it must be a common ancestor! I hear 94% then 97% and 96% man is like the ape... well what about this, that show the difference...

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

so I still see a common design by the creator... 8-)

 

[John]

^ I was gonna type something along those lines :

 

[freeway]

Just this year, we have witnessed the downfall of two ‘icons of evolution’. Not only has the idea of 99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps been abandoned, but also the myth of so-called ‘Junk DNA’ has been debunkedâ€â€see Astonishing DNA complexity uncovered and Astonishing DNA complexity Update. As has so often been observed since Darwin published his Origin of Species, evolutionary icons eventually collapse under the weight of the empirical data. Meanwhile the biblical creation model is continually vindicated as each new discovery reveals hitherto-unexpected layers of complexity in what has so obviously been createdâ€â€reflecting the hand of the Creator.

yea yea I cut it and pasted it.. but why try to rewrite it ... it sound so good like it is.. 8-) 8-) 8-)

did you guys get this memo....

 

[Jayls5]

Just this year, we have witnessed the downfall of two ‘icons of evolution’. Not only has the idea of 99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps been abandoned, but also the myth of so-called ‘Junk DNA’ has been debunkedâ€â€see Astonishing DNA complexity uncovered and Astonishing DNA complexity Update. As has so often been observed since Darwin published his Origin of Species, evolutionary icons eventually collapse under the weight of the empirical data. Meanwhile the biblical creation model is continually vindicated as each new discovery reveals hitherto-unexpected layers of complexity in what has so obviously been createdâ€â€reflecting the hand of the Creator.

yea yea I cut it and pasted it.. but why try to rewrite it ... it sound so good like it is.. 8-) 8-) 8-)

did you guys get this memo....

Wrong. The end.

 

[John]

Yes, wrong because Jayls5 said so. :smt120

Jayls5 is just a bit sore right now. Calm down buddy and take a pill :

 

[Barbarian]

Just this year, we have witnessed the downfall of two ‘icons of evolution’. Not only has the idea of 99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps been abandoned,

Depending on whether you're comparing DNA hybridization, gene matching or whatever, it's anywhere from 92 to 97. Less difference than exists within many species. The 95% figure is obtained by comparing indels. The sequencing of the chimpanzee genome allowed a more accurate figure. That's how science works.

but also the myth of so-called ‘Junk DNA’ has been debunked

The myth is the creationist story that scientists thought it did nothing. In fact, I had my molecular biology professor tell me that there was functional non-coding DNA in 1968. There is a lot of non-coding DNA that has no known function, but some of it does actually do things. Again, it was evolutionists who figured this out.

As has so often been observed since Darwin published his Origin of Species, evolutionary icons eventually collapse under the weight of the empirical data.

As new evidence surfaces, theories become more and more accurate. This probably seems like cheating to you, but it's the way science progresses.

Meanwhile the biblical creation model is continually vindicated as each new discovery reveals hitherto-unexpected layers of complexity in what has so obviously been createdâ€â€reflecting the hand of the Creator.

Sounds cool. What's the latest scientific discovery from creationists?

yea yea I cut it and pasted it.. but why try to rewrite it ...

Plagiarism is the national sport of creationists. We're used to it.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps?

Yep. That's what it means. But as you just learned, that's not all. The evidence of a chromosome fusion, complete with remains of centromere and telemers, confirms it. The predicted structures were right were they were supposed to be on the human #2 chromosome.

If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

Suppose there were just one million individuals in the species. Each of us has at least several mutations not present in our parents. That is several million changes in one generation. The remarkable thing is that we are so little different.

so I still see a common design by the creator...

So God designed the human #2 chromosome to look precisely like two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the relics of the telemeres and the no-longer functional second telemere?

To what purpose would a "designer" to that?

 

[freeway]

the Barbarian is upset..
Plagiarism is the national sport of creationists. We're used to it.

now this one takes the cake... every one here... everyone... cuts and paste... you included...

man when you can't prove or make us creationist fall in line with your world view.. you start things like this?!!..... I feel sorry for you.....and we where having a wonderful time... 8-) 8-)

 

[Barbarian]

now this one takes the cake... every one here... everyone... cuts and paste... you included...

You're required to give proper attribution to material you take from elsewhere. And it is indeed a problem with creationists. As you probably know, Ben Stein is in some legal trouble, because he plagiarized a video of a molecular biology sequence, and appropriated some John Lennon music without permission.

man when you can't prove or make us creationist fall in line with your world view.. you start things like this?!!.....

It might seem like a pointless thing to you, but it can get you in big trouble, legally and academically. If you do that in college, they can expel you and they might tell any other colleges to which you apply, what you did. Trust me, it's not a smart thing to do.

 

[John]

I do tend to cite my sources, but when i don't i have a reason and that is because i want the opposition to attack the question not the author.

 

[Barbarian]

Technically, it's a crime.

And academically, it could ruin your career. Don't do it.

 

[John]

Technically, it's a crime.

And academically, it could ruin your career. Don't do it.

Academically? HA I'm a Corporal lol !

 

[DavidLee]

Technically, it's a crime.

And academically, it could ruin your career. Don't do it.

Plagiarism is not a crime. I agree that it isn't a good idea, and could possibly ruin an academic career depending on the circumstances. If you are paid to write your own ideas and you plagiarize, you will eventually lose your job but you won't go to jail (or even be arrested).

 

[John]

But it is in the TOS of the board ( i just decided to read them : ) So i will in accordance with the rules cite sources every time i C&P them.