RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,05:59   

Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 09 2011,01:47)
The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

Regarding the aphid study, they would point out that there is no new genetic material as the study indicates at this point:

"These results suggested an evolutionary scenario that several copies of cathepsin B genes were present in an ancestor of these social aphids, and one of them acquired a novel venom function in the soldier caste."

It is again a question of a latent gene that was not expressed until this point.


"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]