Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Convergent Evolution: Stunning Gene Similarities Among Diverse Animals
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)."
I'm pretty sure all life has the Periodic Table of Elements in common. I'm a genius.
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????"
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
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.
''We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible,'' explains Dr Joe Parker, from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences and first author on the paper.
Yes, truly IncreDible.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
That's easy; you need at least some level of English to get your green card.
And we all know that the illegal aliens speak Spanish, not English.
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.
They all speak English because they've been watching all our old shows that have been beamed into space for decades.
I beg to differ Spanish is taking over putos.
It makes sense that the echo location was developed in a deep sea creature before the lines separated genetically and the trait remained genetically suppressed in the creatures until it was needed in a later stage of evolution.
I don't think the trait developed independently.
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.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
My understanding of the slashdot summary is that what you are saying is exactly the point of the study or at least the point that the author of the slashdot blurb wanted to make. No idea why someone labelled this with "intelligent design" as that means no evolution at all.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Speaks volume to the notion of inter specie cross breeding than just co-incidence does it not?
Could this have anything to do with horizontal gene transfer ?
These tendencies could have been hidden in junk DNA and therefore the real convergence could be that random mutations which activate strands of junk DNA can enable the same latent characteristics in many species that are not linearly related by evolution. And where did the junk DNA come from in the first place? Check out the diversity and utter wierdness of precambrian life forms. It seems clear that complex lifeforms like animals and plants likely arose when two or more of these precambrian lifeforms, living in some kind of symbiosis, actually combined their DNA into longer chains. After that one creature's DNA evolved into brains and nerves, another's DNA into the digestive system, and so on.
Look at the face of an ant for instance, there is a distinct nose shape in that face even though there are no nostrils and insects breathe through their abdomens. The eyeballs we use to see with are the ball sockets on insect feelers which wave smelling organs through the air. The insect eyes are our temples which, interestingly enough, are still light sensitive in humans. Any migraine suffer who needs to cover their eyes to feel relief will have noticed that they must also cover their temples to gain full relief.
Also, we know that genetic material CAN be transferred by viruses in some instances. But we don't know the full gamut of circumstances in which it can happen or whether there is a random element to such transfer that becomes statistically significant over millions of years or evolution.
I'm not sure I understand why this is surprising to the researchers ... I mean, if the independent evolution of certain abilities in diverse species happens, doesn't it make sense that it would be expressed in the genetic code in the same ways ? And isn't it true that many collections of genes tend to be responsible for the manifestation of physiological attribute rather than just a few ? So doesn't it make sense that complex physiological abilities like echo location would require a lot of genetic commonalities to manifest in different species?
Put another way echolocation requires specialization of vocal, aural and cerebral apparatuses in order to work ... so knowing that several genetic sequences are usually responsible for narrow physiological attribute manifestations, why would we expect only a handful of common gene sequences?
IANAT
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.
Maybe the genes didn't mutate but were somehow forced into commonality by similar ancestral proto-ecolocation behavior.
"If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
If there is a Creator of life, then we would expect to see the blueprints used for more than one construction site...perhaps even more than one planet. Alternatively, however, if we are all actors in a play that no one wrote, then randomness would be expected to create more genetic diversity.
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.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
We know that genes are transferred across species by microorganisms or viruses. Is it so unlikely that the code for a new trait (say, an organ) could be transferred this way? In the rare case that it finds a suitable environment, the trait might be of advantage and persist. This is still evolution by natural selection, only that inheritance is more complex than Mendel and Darwin thought. It's not just Mommy's genes and Daddy's genes.
It is natural that they shared some genes, for they are created by the same creator.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
I hope you will believe in the good news:
believenot.com
Then the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to no creator. The genes that code for intelligence in corvid birds and chimpanzees are different. The genes that code for wings in birds, bats, insects, and pterasaurs are completely different. The genes that code for white fur and similar looking white filaments in plants are way off. Wouldn't a creator just reuse white fur on cotton plants? The genetic diversity across the seven kingdoms and the millions of species is vast, with genetic convergence the extremely rare exception, not the rule (hence why this is newsworthy). Sorry, your own argument points to there being no creator.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
"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 Galaxy S.
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
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
Hoang Kiem and Do Phuc (snicker, he said...).
They were all very intelligently designed by the Great Programmer. There's even code reuse.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
You can of course water down the "intelligent design" claims until they don't mean that much anymore, but originally the term was used in contrast to natural evolution (including natural selection). "intelligent design" implies that someone had a specific design in mind when he/she/it started designing. Such a property however has not even been postulated in the religious books as far as I can recall. Therefore, what you really want to call such an argument is called "directed evolution", not "ID".
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
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 one variant of evolution is HOW I think He made life on Earth.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
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"
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
ID started off way back in 1987 as nothing more than a word processor search&replace term for creationism, and no scientific content has ever been added. Want to annoy an ID proponent? Ask them what the theory is. Seriously. They never bothered to come up with one. They even went to court and admitted that science would have to be redefined in order for ID to be scientific, and the same definition would allow astrology.
Watering down ID is the same as watering down water. No, I take that back. Watering down ID is like watering down homeopathy.
Oh, so that's why Anonymous uses the V for Vendetta masks: so that outsiders can't tell one "guy" from another "guy".
This finding is more likely to be proof that all earth life evolved from an alien settlement marooned here. The aliens (and some of their food source plants/animals) devolved and evolved to all the animals and plants on the earth, which is why most species will have many genes in common. (Think Galapagos)
The only alternative I can think of is viral transmission. Dolphin gets flu with and flu virus adds dolphin genes, flu travels interspecies and bats catch it, and capture some of the genes from flu virus.
Both of those explanations are more inherently probable than convergent evolution as speculated. Wow, work out THAT improbability, then multiply by 50!
It shows a common designer is anything. That is God. A very little difference in percentage is actually very huge difference in outcome.
> The genes that code for intelligence in corvid birds and chimpanzees are different.
Citation needed. Genes that code for intelligence in animals are largely unknown at the time of this writing. Let me know if you can prove otherwise. Peer-reviewed scientific papers only, please!
> The genes that code for wings in birds, bats, insects, and pterasaurs are completely different.
Which insects? Which birds? Which bats? Citation needed. Which genes? Have scientists sequenced complete pterosaurs genes? No. I'm not even aware of any partial gene sequence of pterosaurs. If you prove otherwise, let me know. Peer-reviewed scientific papers only, please!
> The genes that code for white fur and similar looking white filaments in plants are way off.
White fur in which animal? For several well-studied mammals, like cats, dogs, and rabbits, these genes are already known---melatocortonin receptor (MC?R genes) among others in the pathway.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23996627
White filaments in plants: Be specific, which plants?
You sound like you know a lot, but you don't.
I'm a Bible-thumping Christian,* but I think Douglas Adams was on to something when the God in the Hitchhiker universe declared himself so openly that faith was no longer required, and instantly disappeared in a puff of logic.
Now, I'm not saying Adams was literally correct, but a God that asks us to have faith and a God that is so visible that faith is not required seems like an odd juxtaposition.
*Don't assume my reading of the Bible lines up exactly with any particular liberal or conservative reading of the Bible.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What does this say for SNPs? Which are the basis for human origins studies and things like the NatGeo Geno 2.0 project, etc.
Best comment
You might have told this in jest but...
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 sent for a distant galaxy if i remember correctly... M31 ?). Your basic TV ? By pluto it is non distinguishable to background noise.
Basically, unless your hypothetical aliens were already deep within the center of our solar system, they would not hear our TV shows.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Why? Because the almighty God lacks imagination or intelligence enough to invent different ways of achieving something? Lacking time, perhaps, and rushing to deliver birds before missing a milestone and being reprimanded by His boss?
Applying formal logic to God is pretty much the same than about superheroes.
you mean 'predicted', then yes.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
a God that asks us to have faith and a God that is so visible that faith is not required seems like an odd juxtaposition.
It's not that He is visible to the point of not needing faith. Obviously that is not the case. Rather, there is ample evidence of His work to base that faith on.
Take the comment below about the "Great Programmer": the genetic *code* is just that -- digital bits that are lined up in a specific order and INTERPRETED by another entity according to a set of rules. We see that in our own language and we immediately accept it as the product of an intelligent mind. But when we see that in our cells we eschew this interpretation because of the implications. That is evidence, even if we don't like it.
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. For example, there is no need for separate male and female sexes. One individual could carry both male and female reproduction equipment and use either depending on the need, yet that is very rare and uncommon. Or, we could reproduce asexually but, again, that is very rare. Well, of course all of the mitochondria in your body have reproduced asexually, but I digress. The point here is that both the Bible and our observations point to at least the possibility of a plan by a master builder.
Almost, but not quite there, I presume... Well, almost all aliens look like us, *and* speak english, because the B5 casting director made *sure* they could speak "engrish".. although I was never quite sure about Londo...;-)
An interesting topic once again turns into a pissing contest between the creationists and the anti-creationists.
Forgive me if I feel obligated to point out that neither camp is impartial enough to be trusted to talk intelligently about the subject at hand, much less make the truly fascinating and mysterious discoveries more accessible to the lay public.
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 behavioral patterns which create de facto sexes.
The point here is that both the Bible and our observations point to at least the possibility of a plan by a master builder.
Your bible talks about two sexes because humans generally have two sexes(and this is not even universal). It's an attempt to explain sexual dimorphism with no knowledge of genetics or evolution. In short, your bible IS an observation, not a second source of information useful for corroboration. It is just a non sequitur to assert otherwise.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Letting ID'ers/creationists have a place at the podium doesn't push science forward, it just means scientists have to waste time learning how to debate, and debates are never long enough to really get into a topic in enough depth to push it forward scientifically. If they want to contribute to science then they need to learn how to practice science, and have enough integrity to admit when they are wrong. Many creationist debaters will happily re-use arguments even after they have been shown to be factually wrong. They simply aren't interested in pushing science forward, they are only interested in defending their religious beliefs from scientific facts that they view as conflicting with their beliefs. If they were genuinely interested in the science then it would be different.
Creedo's response is good, but I would like to add a likely reason asexual reproduction is not favoured in complex life is explained by Muller's ratchet. Why two sexes is favoured is likely to be because that is more optimal for survival than greater numbers of sexes. And why there is differentiation between sexes may be explained by specialisation of the roles being more optimal for survival than an unspecialised hermaphrodite.
If there is a master builder, can you ask him why the laryngeal nerve loops around the aorta rather than connecting directly to the larynx in mammals, this is especially ridiculous in giraffes where this circuitous route makes it 15 feet longer than it needs to be. There are many many other examples of bad "design" in humans and other animals that just wouldn't be there if we really were intelligently designed.
The reason for this is evolution. We were all taught that evolution was BP changing, when fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution is based on virus cutting DNA from one mammal, and then injecting it into another. So, what carries those virus around? The biggest carriers are mosquitoes. So, when Bill gates was talking originally about getting rid of all mosquitoes, he was talking about bringing evolution to a crawl, rather than the relatively fast pace that it moves at.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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. There apparently are males born often enough to keep the genetic mixing going... what is not clear is where the males are coming from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Reptiles
"The most common form of reproduction in the world is asexual."
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 talking about 'all life forms.'
"There are many many other examples of bad "design" in humans and other animals that just wouldn't be there if we really were intelligently designed."
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 create perfection and eliminate all human suffering. Why not? Moreover, those sick people that were healed ultimately aged, became ill, and died as they are obviously no longer with us today. Jesus pointed to hungry people lacking food and asked for others to share with them but he did not do a 'shazam' and create an abundance of food for all people for all time. Apparently, if this world is God's creation, then all are supposed to suffer and die in it and all have a choice to make...either with God or not. Of course, if you choose 'without' you will still suffer and die. But...where would the choice for us be if there was nothing but perfection, harmony, and abundance?