darkstarangel said:
Quaxar? Im not sure if we chatted about this last year, I remember the pony profile pic. Im the guy doing the molecular biology degree, if you remember? Oh well.
Might be. Not sure, my memory is pretty bad sometimes, especially when it comes to this sort of thing.
darkstarangel said:
Yes, in that unit we covered translocations & the lot. Translocations are the only accidental means of exchanging different chromosome segments but are pretty much deleterious or even fatal. As I mentioned before if even an organism can survive a translocation it cannot produce viable offspring because the translocated chromosomes will no longer be homologs to the conjugates haplotype. Random assortment in the gametes can also eliminate the translocations from being passed on.
And these jumping genes, the transposons & retrotransposons are regulated & directed. For example, if more of a gene product is needed a gene can be duplicated & spliced in a promotor or enhancer region. Genes dont just randomly fly all over the gene pool. And this isn't even including non-protein coding DNA. In chromosomes (or chromotids more specifically) The function of a gene is usually due to its position in the chromosome, even for bacteria. If you mess this up then you can screw its function entirely.
I think I just simply have to disagree with you there. Translocation does carry a higher risk of abnormalities in offspring but not necessarily all the time and it certainly doesn't kill off every possible child.
I'd also like to point you to <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation>Robertsonian translocation:
<quote=Wikipedia>Most people with Robertsonian translocations have only 45 chromosomes in each of their cells, yet all essential genetic material is present, and they appear normal.
Chances of abnormalities in children rise, naturally, but that isn't to say that there can't be healthy ones among them.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't each gene have its own promoter region in front of it that contains information where and when the gene is to be expressed?
That's like taking a book that is a collection of short-stories and rearranging the order of the stories. It doesn't matter if story A is at the beginning or in the middle because it can still be identified by its title and it is not necessarily connected chronologically to any other story in that book.
And completely unconnected with that, I'd just like to point you to a <url=http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf>5-page paper about the merged human chromosome 2 and that was done back in the early 90s.
darkstarangel said:
Also, I dont know what you expect for an answer from Balmong about what evidence means. Evidence is data that can be interpreted to support a theory or model. You have cited all the 'evidence' for the endosymbiotic theory but have ignored the data that conflicts with it. The mitochondrial/chloroplasts dont have what you would consider complete genomes. The DNA in these organisms code for parts the proteins they use. The rest is translated from the cells nuclear genome & transported to the organelles & it has differences in the universal genetic code, such as different start & stop codons to the nuclear genome. If the rest of the mitochondrial genome transfered to the nucleus as theorised then that means either the nuclear or introduced genome would have had to conveniently mutated all those codons to same sequence just by pure luck all in one shot. They also lack the peptidoglycan cell wall that bacteria contain.
It frustrates me when the general public are only given one sided information to support a premise rather than give all the data as a whole & let them make an educated decision. This is why the original poster asked why are there still people who dont believe evolution. This is why
I was asking what evidence he'd like because endosymbiontic theory and the like might not be what he was looking for but rather the good old "observance evidence" that seems to, in some people's minds, make the whole field of biology unreliable.
Might not have picked the best example with human cells since they're so far down the evolutionary tree that we've come a rather far way since the mitochondria entered. I don't really feel like researching and discussing the possible evolutionary steps of human cell organisms as I'd much rather spend that time on zoology and botany for my exam on friday but going back on the evolutionary tree quite a step let me just mention that we can literally take a Charophyta's (a type of green algae) chloroplast out and have it behave like a cyanobateria, although of course tose two not being completely the same anymore.
One-sided evidence and flat-out deception is exactly what a lot of YEC propagandists do for a living. I was merely presenting some evidence that would show a logical step from single cellular to complex multicellular. I didn't give a full pro/contra since I'm no lecturer of cellular or evolutionary biology (at least for the next decade or so) but a mere BSc student.
And, let me clarify that this is no attack but simply a remark concerning your original statement of being YEC and also the fact that this seems to be the general concensus among many of this believe, even if big genetic mutations are absolutely impossible (which I'd obviously disagree with) that would probably ruin a whole field of research but still not make a young-earth even a microbe's jump more likely or scientific. But I disgress, this isn't really part of any argument.