Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Simple Gene Origination Calculation

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this month’s Nature Genetics, there is an article by Zhou, et. al., dealing with the generation of new genes in Drosophila melanogaster—the fruit fly. While only having access to the abstract, I nonetheless was struck by one of their findings: the rate of new functional gene generation. As finding number 6 in the abstract, the authors write: “the rate of the origin of new functional genes is estimated to be 5 to 11 genes per million years in the D. melanogaster subgroup.”

Noting that Drosophila melanogaster has 14,000 genes (a very low gene number), the simply calculation is this: 14,000 genes/8 new functional genes per million years= 1.75 billiion years for the formation of the fly genome. This, of course, assumes that somehow the fly is ‘alive, and reproducing’ the entire 1.75 billion years—-this, without the aid of a full-blown genome. If we apply this to the monkey/human difference which, IIRC, is about a 1000 genes, then using this same rate, it would take 200 million years for man to have evolved from the monkey. This published rate for new functional gene generation cannot be good news for Darwinists.

Here’s the link to the abstract.

Comments
This was covered in a commentary on the paper over at PT. (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/more-on-the-ori.html#comments) PaV is confusing various types of genetic change. There simply aren't thousands of genes that humans have and chimpanzees lack. Although PaV doesn't site a specific study, I suspect he is referring to the number of genes which aren't EXACTLY the same in humans and chips. Differences between two homologous gene sequence often arise from a single mutation event and usually ave no affect on an organism at all. By contrast the drosophila study is measuring the rate of gene origin through a specific mechanism. Creating an entire gene takes significantly longer than making a small change to an existing gene. By way of analogy PaV has found out the price of a gallon of water, filled up his car w/ 20 gallons of gas, and is now offering the clerk 2 dollars. This won't work, because the price of a gallon of water isn't the price of all other gallons of all liquids. I'm surprised that such a simple and obvious error which has been corrected else where is of much interest to anyone.matthew_ackerman
July 28, 2008
July
07
Jul
28
28
2008
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
PannenbergOmega:
Doesn’t this paper’s findings seems to support Darwinian theory?
The question is not ID vs. Darwin, the question is to what extent did the designer use the darwinian model -- or as Behe so aptly put it, where is the edge of evolution? There are two IDish things that glare out of this document. 1 - If this study establishes a base-line rate (which assumes no agency in the development of the fruitfly) then how did man get to be so genetically different from monkeys? 2 - The 11.9% De Novo genes, are these statistically reasonable, or are these scratch-marks from the designer's tools; ie, evidence of agency?bFast
July 28, 2008
July
07
Jul
28
28
2008
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
PO: Current Darwinian thought suggests that so-called 'gene conversion' is the process/mechanism by which speciation can occur, and, presumably, up to macroevolutionary changes. However, this mechanism presupposes that duplicated genes have no function, and are therefore free to neutrally evolve--something which is now being questioned since psuedogenes have been found to be involved in gene regulation. Again, without having access to the entire paper, the critical phrase seems to be 'new function': that is, the authors are not just talking about the rate of gene duplication, but the rate at which these new genes develop a new function. My 'simple' calculation based on this rate points out that the rate which they measure is entirely too slow to account for major taxonomic change---macroevolution.PaV
July 28, 2008
July
07
Jul
28
28
2008
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Doesn't this paper's findings seems to support Darwinian theory?PannenbergOmega
July 28, 2008
July
07
Jul
28
28
2008
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
Amazing coincidence, PaV. I was asking myself just a couple hours ago how many new functional genes come from duplicates of other genes and how many are de novo. (I think it was Michael Behe who criticized Kenneth Miller for overemphasizing the role of duplication. But if 44% percent of the new genes shared by Drosophila species arose by duplication, wouldn't the percentage for a single species be higher?) I still wonder exactly how de novo formation works. And what is a non-functional gene? Does that mean it doesn't yield a product, or does it mean that the product does not serve a function in the proteome? Does mutation sometimes turn non-functional genes into functional ones? Is there a geneticist in the house? F2XL, is your problem here that the abstract says indirectly that there are in fact non-coding regions in the genome that don't serve a function? After all, turning a functional non-gene region into a gene would stop that region from serving its prior function. Are you concerned that this does not jibe with genetic entropy? Didn't Dr. Dembski argue in "Searching Large Spaces" and other writings that even one de novo functional gene is very unlikely to be discovered by random search? Or did he say that base-pair sequences he specified as a target were very unlikely to be hit? The abstract seems to address formation of any new genes that do something, not just genes that do what the researchers had in mind before looking at the genome. Isn't this a much bigger target than Dr. Dembski considered?CEC09
July 28, 2008
July
07
Jul
28
28
2008
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
They make it sound so simple. I wonder how many dead flies had to die before the genome was fully functional. Jackanory.Steve Heath
July 27, 2008
July
07
Jul
27
27
2008
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
While I wish I could read the paper in it's entirety, I must admit that the conclusion they came to is a little disturbing... though it depends on what your prior philosophical commitments are on the origin of life as we know it today.F2XL
July 27, 2008
July
07
Jul
27
27
2008
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Heh, this should create a little PANDA-moanium.IRQ Conflict
July 27, 2008
July
07
Jul
27
27
2008
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
1 6 7 8

Leave a Reply