Sorry my PC failed to copy the link. If you highlight and google the link it will get you to the paper.
So now it is circular reasoning? It’s a DICTIONARY! Are you seriously going to argue about a dictionary definition - - because YOU don’t get it?
Here it is, AGAIN:
What is the major difference between a Paralogous and an orthologous gene? "Orthologous and paralogous genes are two types of homologous genes , that is, genes that arise from a common DNA ancestral sequence. Orthologous genes diverged after a speciation event, while paralogous genes diverge from one another within a species.
So here is an example:
ORIGINAL gene sequence:
“GeorgeISaDummy” < This sequence is shared by fish and humans. The Tetrapod branch emerges, and it takes this original gene sequence with it.
Zebrafish are descended from the same fish that the Tetrapod descends from.
Modern day Zebrafish now have THIS version: GeorgeISverySkinny. As you can see the first terms are the same “GeorgeIS”… but then it changed.
Humans have this version: GregoryFLIESaDummy. Notice this version has the same ending. And scientists know that both strings govern the digestion of gummy bears.
SO: they compare the two, and they believe the ORIGINAL sequence was: GeorgeISjackTummy. << As you can see… it’s a guess… it’s close to what I said was the real common string.
But here are the important features:
They are Orthologue Genes, because they govern the same function, and they are detectably related to each other. But they are NOT identical. They aren’t even CLOSE to being identical. But they are orthoologues.
The paper says that 50% or the genes are identical. If they were dramatically different sequences how would you be able to use them to study mutational effects? Why don’t these genes exist in chickens and mice that are closer evolutionary relatives to humans?
That’s not what the diagram shows, is it? The fact that a gene might not be present in chickens doesn’t mean that it’s “not in birds”, and the fact that a gene might not be present in mice doesn’t mean that it’s “not in some mammals” (note the plural).
1 Like
I have already said this so I agree with you. We await more data.
If you agree with me, then you shouldn’t be going around saying things like “70 plus genes that are in Zebra Fish are not in birds and some mammals.”.
1 Like
Did you just try to PARAPHRASE again?
Nope… i no longer believe what you remember. You need to provide a quote or no deal.
1 Like
I agree. Thanks for the correction.
Among the orthologous genes, 47% of human genes have a one-to-one relationship with a zebrafish orthologue.
Do you think this means “47% of human genes were identical to a Zebrafish orthologue”?
1 Like
No not necessarily. Identical is unlikely given 300 plus million years of evolutionary separation. Again, thank for the correction.
After all this discussion, you still dont understand?
-
As soon as it says “Orthologous”, it means they are NOT identical.
-
The word ALSO assumes that any difference between the genes is due to genetic drift and natural selection on BOTH lineages.
-
Finally, if you INSIST that there is NO justification for Natural Selection … then the presumption of relatedness simply goes away.
The only way to disprove Evolution is to find genes that are ACTUALLY identical, rather than genes that are “perceived to be the same if we assume Evolution”.
Do you get this?
It’s actually much more probable that genes were lost twice than that they disappeared and re-appeared. Would you agree? Now, why is it so improbable for a gene to be lost twice that you think it disproves common descent? You will note, if you actually look at the numbers, that very few genes were lost twice but thousands were lost once. If genes are taking random hits, and a great many are lost once, is it really so improbable that a few would be lost twice? Have you ever considered that model?
1 Like
You are going to stand there, and say that the best explanation for the paper’s findings is that non-identical genes appeared in two different species, that happened to do the same thing… and so common descent is refuted?
A. The genes are not the same genes. They differ from each other.
and even more importantly!
B. The study sample was defined to be limited. The study nowhere, at any time, says that these genes (which are not the same) don’t exist in any other animals.
@John_Harshman, this feller is all yours…
A bit more than 300 millions years separate humans and zebrafish. More like 450 million years.
1 Like
they actually admit that it may be possible:
" An alternative explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is grossly incorrect"
so if we will find for instance about 100 ervs that are shared between human and a fish but not in chimp common descent will be false?
How is that any point in your favor? They discuss several alternative scenarios, none of which means those scenarios are equally well supported or plausible. As I have already explained to you before multiple times there will always be some other explanation possible. The fact that it’s POSSIBLE that the canonical phylogeny is wrong doesn’t mean it IS wrong.
It is customary in scientific papers to discuss a number of alternative explanations and then evaluate them by giving reasons for accepting or rejecting them.
Do I have to repeat the thing about some explanations being better than others? They happen to reject the hypothesis that the canonical primate phylogeny is wrong. Why do they do that? Well if you had read the sentence IMMEDIATELY following the one you quote you’d see why.
“This seems unlikely in light of the extensive molecular evolutionary data that have been collected over the last few years [5,25] that clearly place orangutan as the outgroup species to the human–chimpanzee–gorilla clade and Old World monkeys as an outgroup to the human/ape lineage.”
That’s an understatement, to put it mildly.
In the discussion they give several arguments that show why independent lineage-specific insertions is the best explanation for PTERV1. Have you even read it, or did you just dig up this paper because it happened to contain the words “inconsistent with the generally accepted phylogeny” and then you stopped reading further?
No, try reading and comprehending what you’re replying to again.
1 Like
This is not the same as saying “an entirely different explanation, replacing Evolutionary science and Common Descent, might be the correct interpretation.” < This is what you need to find in a peer-reviewed article…
… rather than a provocative statement by one Evolutionist about re-framing the small frame of how the primate branch of the animal kingdom evolved in the last 5 million years!
No… you almost got that right.
Since there are THOUSANDS of ERVs, it would be relatively easy to find ERVs that humans and chimps don’t share.
The “if” statement should be are there ANY ERVs that are identical between Fish and Humans, but not a single one can be found in Chimps. If there only a few, you do not have a pattern; you have an exception.
We can measure and observe those ERVs right now.
I don’t understand what you mean by this. Part of the retroviral life cycle is to insert into the human genome, so I don’t see how being part of the host genome changes our conclusions about their origin.
That would be a statistical test which includes models of incomplete lineage sorting. It isn’t as simple as throwing out a number. We also have other sources of phylogenetic signal in these insertions, such as the divergence of LTR’s.
Explain what? How does it fit into this discussion?