These are not deterministic changes. They are a different class of random mutation.
1 Like
I prefer to describe them as being the product of the mechanisms we see operating in organisms today. If you think there is guidance that is scientifically detectable, then I would be interested in what those scientific tests are.
No. I think it supports neutral or near neutral mutations happen and can happen randomly. Mutations ability to drive morphological change is a very different claim.
I think the majority of the difference is in splicing and gene expression. The total reason for these differences is unknown at this point. I do agree DNA plays a part in it.
Why is it different?
What do you think is driving a difference in splicing and gene expression? What is the mechanism?
There is not evidence tying random neutral changes to morphological change. Frankly this hypothesis does not make any sense.
Then what mechanism do you think is responsible for differences in gene splicing and gene expression between species?
I don’t know. This is in the discovery phase if you read the scientific literature. There is evidence that splicing errors are a cause of cancer so a thesis that says we can randomly walk though alternative splicing changes is tentative at best.
I do read the scientific literature, and the mechanism found in those papers is mutations. There are known mutations that change the pattern of gene expression. These mutations can happen at many different levels including (but not limited to) in the gene promoter, the transcription factor that binds to the promoter region, transposon insertion upstream of a gene, mutations in a microRNA that binds to the 3’ UTR of the mRNA, and enzymes that selective methylate the CpG islands adjacent to transcription start sites. There are tons of known mechanism, and they relate directly to DNA sequence.
So what were the mechanisms that caused the human chimp divergence?
So 50% of human alternative splicing is different then chimp splicing according to UT’s 2103 paper. You attribute this to multiple random accidents over 6 million years?
What were seeing between chimps and humans is what appears to be a highly deterministic change.
What do you even mean by deterministic? Who is the “we” to whom you are referring?
No specific reference to we. By deterministic I mean it looks like a planned event with planned changes if common descent is indeed the bridge between chimps and humans.
Mutations and natural selection. Neutral drift would also be a part of it.
I attribute them to random mutations, not accidents. A lot of splice variants are probably without function with only a limited number of them affecting morphology in any meaningful way. I think it is incorrect to believe that translation is 100% accurate.
Based on what?
How do they look planned?
Who is doing the planning? What makes it “look” planned?
2 Likes
Is there an answer to this question that you will accept? I mean this seriously, not sarcastically. It seems like a question that might lead to a “we can’t consider that kind of response in this venue” question.
1 Like
Specific genetic changes are creating specific morphological changes. This appears to be a very complex process that requires system knowledge and planning.
At least in my case, there absolutely are answers I would accept. If someone could show that there was a specific mutation that occurred as a result of a specific environmental stimulus then I would consider something along the lines of a planned mutation.
2 Likes
That’s exactly what random mutations would do.
How so?