Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bee genome changes dramatically through life

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Pollinating BeeRemember old-fashioned, unalterable DNA? It was interesting stuff. So now this:

“A study of chemical tags on histone proteins hints at how the same genome can yield very different animals:

The bee genome has a superpower. Not only can the exact same DNA sequence yield three types of insect—worker, drone, and queen—that look and behave very differently, but, in the case of workers, it dictates different sets of behaviors.

A key to the genome’s versatility seems to be epigenetic changes—chemical tags that, when added or removed from DNA, change the activity of a gene. Previous studies had shown distinct patterns of tags known as methyl groups on the genomes of bees performing different roles within their hives.Shawna Williams, “As Bees Specialize, So Does Their DNA Packaging” at The Scientist

One wonders what the tax-funded textbooks are still saying about DNA…

See also: Evolution is evolving? [It had better be.] The conference seems to be dedicated to the extended evolutionary synthesis, which it contrasts with the “modern synthesis”

and

Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Comments
I don't see anything wrong with using our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to make inferences about whatever is being investigated. Even if humans are the only known source of complex specified information, those criticizing ID have a plethora of causes to call upon and yet cannot dial up one to counter ID's claims. Nature doesn't get a pass just because humans could not have been the intelligent agency that produced the CSI observed in biological organisms.ET
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
PeterA
Where is that extrapolation written in? I haven’t seen it. Can you point to it?
Archbishop Usher. The Annales of the Old Testament. From the Beginning if the World Given the knowledge and beliefs of the day, it was certainly a valiant attempt, involving a huge amount of research. But, ultimately, completely wrong. I’m surprised that you have never heard about it.R J Sawyer
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
I understand the reasoning that the only concrete, "observable" creation of complex function is by humans. Based on that, can we judge things of unknown origin, which were certainly not created by humans, and extrapolate that they were also designed? (It's actually an inference, but whatever.) But if we reject that inference and assume that such apparent complexities must have arisen undirected from chemical reactions, from what are we extrapolating? If there was any indication that such things happen, ever, then I might be right there with you. We can go with the inference that (to oversimplify) things that exhibit characteristics of what humans design, except a gazillion times more complicated, are also designed. I can see how that might seem odd. But it's something, and it's based on something. Or we can extrapolate that things happened by themselves, based on... I don't know. I've never heard or read what this determination is based on. There's door number three, deciding that it's entirely unknown. But the design inference, for all that it doesn't explain, is pretty solid and makes a lot more sense than an extrapolation from nothing. Isn't some observation of something better than no observation of nothing?OldAndrew
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
R J Sawyer:
my problem with the “complex functional specified information is solely the product of conscious design “ argument is that we are drawing this conclusion from a single example, human.
That is a single source and not a single example.
It is always dangerous to extrapolate from a single example.
That is your opinion and it isn't a single example
I also have difficulties with trying to figure out what is meant by “complex functional specified information”.
That is your problem and it's personal. You use CSI every day. An education would cure that.
For example, can a water molecule be said to have complex functional specified information?
No, why would it be?ET
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
R J Sawyer @ 167: Where is that extrapolation written in? I haven’t seen it. Can you point to it? Thanks. However, I was interested in another case that is written in famous documents. Can you recall it? Thanks.PeterA
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
PeterA
BTW, do you recall any famous extrapolation that turned out to be very wrong?
Extrapolating from characters in the bible to estimate the age of the earth comes to mind.R J Sawyer
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
R J Sawyer
Just as, in isolation, there is nothing functional about insulin, haemoglobin or a hand.
You lost me when you compared the functionality of water molecules to that of a severed hand. When we think of hands, we almost always think of functional hands attached to functional arms. If you can find an isolated hand, I'm certain that at some point it was attached to a body. Something doesn't add up when you reason by pointing out that isolated hands aren't functional. It's also a "glass-half-empty" perspective. Hands are amazing and functional! Yeah, but once they come off they're useless.OldAndrew
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
PeterA @157: “But the guy seems to ignore my advices.” Well, you ignored my questions @152. Why? Didn’t see or skipped them intentionally? BTW, what you call “advice” is just your personal opinion. I surely respect it, but don’t have to accept it. Do you understand this?jawa
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
R J Sawyer @ 160: “It is always dangerous to extrapolate from a single example.” I agree. BTW, do you recall any famous extrapolation that turned out to be very wrong? I mean really really famous.PeterA
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
R J Sawyer, Did you look in the information contained in the comments @129 and @142 to see if gpuccio talks about complex functional specified information and other topics you disagree with him on? If you haven’t done that yet, I suggest you give it a try. It shouldn’t hurt you.PeterA
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
R J Sawyer
R J Sawyer: I guess the big question is whether or not it is functional. Obviously, if we are just looking at the water molecule in isolation, there is nothing functional about its different states. Just as, in isolation, there is nothing functional about insulin, haemoglobin or a hand. The quality of “function ” is based on how something impacts and interacts with something else.
The eye has function because it serves the cat. The eye is a subservient part of a whole (the cat). The eye has function because it is functional to the cat. However, if everything is just blind particles in motion — if materialism is true — then there are no 'wholes' (like e.g. a cat) in any meaningful way. Wouldn't you agree? If so, would you also agree that, under materialism, 'function' does not exist?Origenes
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Amblyrhynchus,
In general, this approach looks like the classic creationist tactic of over-specifying the target (by looking at what exists now and presuming it’s the only way a given function could be encoded)
I've seen this perplexing argument used from time to time. Boiled down, it finds fault with drawing conclusions based on observation rather than on imagination. 'Look at what exists' as long as it paints the picture we want to see. But when we don't like where the evidence points, don't look at what exists. I thought that looking at what exists was the whole point. Think about the door you're opening.OldAndrew
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Petera@159, my problem with the "complex functional specified information is solely the product of conscious design " argument is that we are drawing this conclusion from a single example, human. It is always dangerous to extrapolate from a single example. I also have difficulties with trying to figure out what is meant by "complex functional specified information". For example, can a water molecule be said to have complex functional specified information? it can be water, steam or ice, depending on temperature and pressure. This ability is clearly specified by its molecular and atomic structure and the forces governing it. And, given the nature of these atomic and subatomic physics, I would argue that it is also complex. It definitely isn't simple by any stretch of the imagination. I guess the big question is whether or not it is functional. Obviously, if we are just looking at the water molecule in isolation, there is nothing functional about its different states. Just as, in isolation, there is nothing functional about insulin, haemoglobin or a hand. The quality of "function " is based on how something impacts and interacts with something else. Both frozen water (snow) and vaporous water (clouds) reflect solar radiation preventing the overheating of the earth. Clearly functional with respect to the ecosphere. And liquid water is the medium required for all of life to function. Again, clearly functional. Obviously, many would argue that physical laws and atoms are the result of conscious design, but I am pretty sure that is not what GP means when he talks about specified functional complexity.R J Sawyer
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
R J Sawyer, No doubt that gpuccio is on the winning side of this scientific discussion. Every new biology-related discovery just confirms it. It’s practically obvious. Complex functional specified information is solely the product of conscious design. gpuccio explains each evidence very clearly. However, many folks don’t see it that way. Which raises an interesting question: why? I don’t know. It’s mysterious. That’s why I like to see how people see it so different.PeterA
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Thanks Peter. GP and I often agree on most things but differ on what conclusions can be drawn from them. And he has always been civil about it. I have never understood why some people get so emotional about it, on both sides of the debate. Life is too short to get mad about things like this.R J Sawyer
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
R J Sawyer, I agree with you on that. I’ve told him that a few times. But the guy seems to ignore my advices. It seems ridiculous to waste so much time on such irrelevant issues as who said what. Who cares? Specially in this thread where such a fascinating topic is discussed. BTW, I’m glad you engaged in the discussion with gpuccio. I’m learning from what is transpiring from it. Thanks.PeterA
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
jawa, your seem to be obsessed with everything Amblyrhynchus says. Your comment at 145 borders on stalking. If you don't like the way that Ambly interacts with others may I suggest that you simply ignore him.R J Sawyer
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Actually, to make things more pathetic, the allegedly published book -mentioned at least twice- is on a related topic. Hmm...jawa
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Note a few interesting things: The guy seems very active in this site at least since May. On September 14 he claimed not having seen the highly interesting chromatin topology discussion which News had started July 23 and stayed in the top 5 popular posts list for a while, attracted over 3K visits and more than 200 comments. Hmm... doesn’t it make you wonder?jawa
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Well, most probably you didn’t. What else is new?jawa
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
Peter @149: Did you read it well? Did you understand it well?jawa
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
The effect of maternal care on gene expression and DNA methylation in a subsocial bee
Our study offers unique insights into the effects of maternal care on offspring development and explores understudied questions about the role of DNA methylation in transcriptional regulation in invertebrate taxa. Further exploration of the candidate genes we identified may help to explain the genetic underpinnings of social behaviors in C. calcarata and provide insight into how these genes are regulated in response to environmental stimuli.
 OLV
September 20, 2018
September
09
Sep
20
20
2018
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
Actin proteins assemble to protect the genome
The assembly of polymerized actin with motor proteins at DNA breaks in the nucleus supports the mobility and repair of DNA. This finding reveals a layer of regulation that helps to preserve genome integrity.
OLV
September 19, 2018
September
09
Sep
19
19
2018
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
jawa @145: there you go again with your off-topic comments. Chill out, buddy! Note gpuccio has posted excellent comments here in this discussion thread, while still maintaining his own very informative discussion on the amazing transcription regulation, which he called a miracle of engineering. BTW, both threads are now in the top 5 popular list! Time to enjoy and learn from these fascinating discussions.PeterA
September 19, 2018
September
09
Sep
19
19
2018
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Amblyrhynchus,
Well, I had though the PeterA, PaoloV, OLV and Jawa
I was surprised that no one else had said anything until now. As soon as those four accounts appeared I thought it was rather obvious that they were sock puppets of Dionisio.goodusername
September 19, 2018
September
09
Sep
19
19
2018
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
So I suspect these are all accounts created with the aim of simulating active discussion on some of the very long posts they tend to appear under. I don’t think I’ll spend much time engaging with these characters int he future.
Most of the ID blogs I used to read, like Telic Thoughts, have shut down. Uncommon Descent is about the only one left. Sadly we have very limited options.random.dent
September 19, 2018
September
09
Sep
19
19
2018
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Now that you’ve arrived to such a brilliant conclusion, let’s get back to work.
Sorry, I'm not going to engage with you or any of your accounts. Partly because they way you have behaved is very rude, but also because it suggests a less-than-healthy obsession with this site. Not something I want to encourage.Amblyrhynchus
September 19, 2018
September
09
Sep
19
19
2018
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
This is interesting: after an elaborate conspiracy theory with a thick plot that could be a bestseller in fiction books, we look back and see this: #18 Amblyrhynchus September 14, 2018 at 6:52 pm
"I hadn’t seen the thread. I actually have a paper focusing on chromatin state in review just now."
[was he referring to the highly interesting "Chromatin topology" discussion thread started by News?] #106 Amblyrhynchus September 17, 2018 at 4:20 pm
This paper has been accepted for publication, so I’m not very keen to provide details that would “out” my real life name. But in general, I was thinking about two things. The origin of genes and the evolution of long-range enhancers.
[was he referring to the paper he mentioned @18 ?] #137  Amblyrhynchus September 18, 2018 at 2:37 pm
“I’ll let you know if I have time to look in more detail.”
[was he referring to gpuccio's comment @129 ?] Here's a sample of Amblyrhynchus' contributions in this website: May AmblyrhynchusMay 28, 2018 at 2:30 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 12:30 am AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 12:38 am AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 3:27 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 3:36 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 3:42 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 8:01 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 8:45 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 10:08 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 10:32 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 10:45 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 29, 2018 at 11:47 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 12:29 am AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 1:04 am AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 1:59 am AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 2:32 am AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 3:44 am AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 5:21 am AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 1:51 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 2:05 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 4:39 pm AmblyrhynchusMay 30, 2018 at 4:40 pm June AmblyrhynchusJune 4, 2018 at 3:15 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 5, 2018 at 8:39 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 6, 2018 at 9:24 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 22, 2018 at 11:02 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 23, 2018 at 3:07 am AmblyrhynchusJune 23, 2018 at 5:28 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 24, 2018 at 6:28 am AmblyrhynchusJune 24, 2018 at 2:57 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 20, 2018 at 2:12 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 20, 2018 at 2:47 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 20, 2018 at 3:30 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 20, 2018 at 3:30 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 20, 2018 at 3:55 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 20, 2018 at 4:27 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 20, 2018 at 5:29 pm AmblyrhynchusJune 21, 2018 at 3:50 pm July AmblyrhynchusJuly 18, 2018 at 8:14 pm AmblyrhynchusJuly 18, 2018 at 9:50 pm AmblyrhynchusJuly 19, 2018 at 5:10 pm
************************************************************** Chromatin Topology: the New (and Latest) Functional Complexity
Posted July 23, 2018, has been visited 3,271 times, has 241 comments posted Was for quite some time at the top 5 popular posts. Last comment posted Sep 11.
**************************************************************  
August AmblyrhynchusAugust 4, 2018 at 6:45 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 5, 2018 at 3:22 am AmblyrhynchusAugust 5, 2018 at 3:18 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 6, 2018 at 2:38 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 6, 2018 at 6:07 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 7, 2018 at 3:33 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 7, 2018 at 3:54 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 7, 2018 at 4:07 pm Amblyrhynchus August 14, 2018 at 8:41 pm Amblyrhynchus August 15, 2018 at 5:09 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 15, 2018 at 6:40 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 15, 2018 at 9:16 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 15, 2018 at 10:03 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 15, 2018 at 10:07 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 16, 2018 at 2:42 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 16, 2018 at 3:04 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 16, 2018 at 3:29 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 16, 2018 at 3:36 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 16, 2018 at 3:51 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 16, 2018 at 4:35 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 16, 2018 at 6:13 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 21, 2018 at 3:19 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 21, 2018 at 3:32 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 21, 2018 at 5:18 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 22, 2018 at 3:30 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 22, 2018 at 5:08 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 22, 2018 at 5:33 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 22, 2018 at 8:32 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 22, 2018 at 9:12 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 22, 2018 at 9:48 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 22, 2018 at 10:03 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 22, 2018 at 10:26 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 23, 2018 at 3:49 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 23, 2018 at 4:50 pm Amblyrhynchus August 26, 2018 at 5:08 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 26, 2018 at 5:15 pm Amblyrhynchus August 26, 2018 at 5:35 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 29, 2018 at 8:19 pm AmblyrhynchusAugust 29, 2018 at 9:55 pm   September: AmblyrhynchusSeptember 10, 2018 at 8:34 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 13, 2018 at 6:30 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 13, 2018 at 9:42 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 14, 2018 at 1:31 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 14, 2018 at 6:17 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 14, 2018 at 6:52 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 15, 2018 at 7:47 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 15, 2018 at 9:12 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 1:21 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 1:42 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 2:04 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 2:28 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 4:20 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 5:19 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 5:42 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 17, 2018 at 6:22 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 18, 2018 at 2:41 am AmblyrhynchusSeptember 18, 2018 at 2:37 pm AmblyrhynchusSeptember 18, 2018 at 4:09 pm  jawa
September 19, 2018
September
09
Sep
19
19
2018
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
OLV: Yes, we had some interesting discussion about lncRNAs there! :)gpuccio
September 19, 2018
September
09
Sep
19
19
2018
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
The following thread contains interesting comments by gpuccio, though he did not write the OP: Breaking: A “junk DNA” jumping gene is critical for embryo cell developmentOLV
September 19, 2018
September
09
Sep
19
19
2018
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 7

Leave a Reply