RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam (footprints)

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 - 16:01:30 EDT

David said:
"Another aspect is the idea that the bad version has the good version as a precursor. Maybe that is a faulty hypothesis. I'd have to ask whats the pathway? Is there a reverse pathway? Are we sure the bad didn't come first, producing the good due to some event? Can we rule that out? "

From what I understand, yes, definitely, no doubt, it can be ruled out (ruled-out that a functional gene would follow a non-functioning version of the same type).

The non-working gene is like a decapitated version of the working one in some cases.

It is like seeing the rubble of the twin towers after 911. We can be sure that the mess followed the real structure- not coming before it. Before the towers were completely built, there was a construction framework, etc., but there's a huge difference in structure between one that is in the process of being developed vs. one that got destroyed. I'm not a biology expert, but that's my understanding from my general reading on the subject.

________________________________
From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:43 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam (footprints)

All,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:

I think it is irrelevant if there is another use for the retarded genes in humans (supposedly there's 1,000's of them). The question is, why do we have it now, and where did it come from? If the gene is fully functioning in lower life-forms, and our copy is hacked-up, then obviously the bad version came from the good one.

This is only true the gene is assumed to not arise independently in more than one organism. If the probability is high enough (1 in 10^30???) that the gene will be generated (due to a very common mutation?) then the older organisms might not be ancestors. If the probability is moderate to low (say 1 in 10^300) then chances are the origin took place only once and was passed on. Thus it is reasonable to infer the earlier organism is an ancestor of the later organism. (Please note early versus later requires fossil record of some sort, which is part of what Don was trying to point out).

The entire field is based on the concept that these codings are very unlikely to be produced more than once. In other words, the probability is deemed to be too low. It is _all_ an inference from probability.

-Dave C

PS
Another aspect is the idea that the bad version has the good version as a precursor. Maybe that is a faulty hypothesis. I'd have to ask whats the pathway? Is there a reverse pathway? Are we sure the bad didn't come first, producing the good due to some event? Can we rule that out?

Things don't seem so terribly obvious to me.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:01:30 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 26 2009 - 16:02:06 EDT