Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From The Scientist: Genome Reveals Clues to Giraffes’ “Blatantly Strange” Body Shape

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An updated giraffe genome, published March 17, 2021 in Science Advances, reveals new insights into how the species accommodates a “blatantly strange body architecture.” 

Author, Amanda Heidt writes…

With their long necks, giraffes are a poster child for evolutionary oddities, but scientists know very little about the genetic underpinnings of such an extreme adaptation. An updated giraffe genome, published March 17 in Science Advances, reveals new insights into how the species accommodates what Rasmus Heller, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen and an author on the new study, calls a “blatantly strange body architecture.” Giraffe’s bones grow faster than any other animal, for instance, and the blood pressure required to pump blood up its six-foot neck would be fatal to humans.

Unlocking giraffeness 

When the team probed the genome further, they identified almost 500 genes that are either unique to giraffes or contain variants found only in giraffes. 

giraffe, genetics & genomics, CRISPR, gene editing, genome, physiology, hypertension, bone growth, techniques, mouse model

A functional analysis of these genes showed that they are most often associated with growth and development, nervous and visual systems, circadian rhythms, and blood pressure regulation, all areas in which the giraffe differs from other ruminants. As a consequence of their tall stature, for example, giraffes must maintain a blood pressure that is roughly 2.5 times higher than that of humans in order to pump blood up to their brain. In addition, giraffes have sharp eyesight for scanning the horizon, and because their strange bodies make it difficult for them to stand quickly, they sleep lightly, often standing up and for only minutes at a time, likely a result of changes during evolution to genes that regulate circadian rhythms.

Within those hundreds of genes, FGFRL1 stood out. In addition to being the giraffe’s most divergent gene from other ruminants’, its seven amino acid substitutions are unique to giraffes. In humans, this gene appears to be involved in cardiovascular development and bone growth, leading the researchers to hypothesize that it might also play a role in the giraffe’s unique adaptations to a highly vertical life. 

The Scientist

Note that seven amino acid substitutions needed to form a unique, functional gene is highly unlikely to occur naturally. Consider the following quote from Michael Behe:

Any particular adaptive biochemical feature requiring the same mutational complexity as that needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria is forbiddingly unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes and fixed in the population of any class of large animals (such as, say, mammals), because of the much lower population sizes and longer generation times compared to that of malaria…. (By “the same mutational complexity” I mean requiring 2-3 point mutations [amino acid substitutions]…)

Evolution News–Behe

Repeatedly, further research in a given field tends to reveal greater evidence for intelligent design, not less.

Comments
Apparently, I would be ill-advised to hold my breath for an apology from Fred Hickson after demonstrating that he was wrong about 20 cm hydra. -QQuerius
June 11, 2022
June
06
Jun
11
11
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson, You're also ignoring the reference I gave you indicating that 20 cm long hydra have been observed. So, your hyperskepticism bites the dust. I think you owe me an "apparently you're right after all" acknowledgment. -QQuerius
June 9, 2022
June
06
Jun
9
09
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Re Evolution by Gene Duplication, never mind. I'm having a look via Google books.Fred Hickson
June 5, 2022
June
06
Jun
5
05
2022
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
Querius What is in Ohno's book that can't be found in his published papers? Re hydra, I live in a very dry region. There is no potential hydra habitat near me, so raw material is unavailable even if I saw a point in trying to reproduce your result. I'm not convinced that you achieved anything other than a favorable niche environment that allowed your hydra to flourish (not that wasn't an impressive thing for an eleven year old) so I shan't be reinventing your wheel. Thanks for info on the microscope. Unfortunately, I have complete loss of vision in one eye so it would be wasted on me.Fred Hickson
June 5, 2022
June
06
Jun
5
05
2022
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
New fossils found add to complexity in the evolution of the giraffe https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01565-7Fred Hickson
June 5, 2022
June
06
Jun
5
05
2022
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Lieutenant Commander Data @138, The abiogenesis problem is exactly why Darwinists have to separate origin of life considerations from evolution. There are those who are trying to extend evolution to all processes in the universe, even using the term, "evolution" for star formation, etc. as if there were some sort of natural selection involved. ET @140, Exactly right! Fred Hickson, Have you punted on 20 cm hydra, Susumu Ohno's Evolution by Gene Duplication, and your skepticism on my experimental results? Since you claim you still enjoy hydra, why not try my experiment for yourself? I also recommend getting a binocular dissection (aka inspection) microscope. Mine is an amazingly sweet B&L 10.5-45X ZOOM with circular-lighted stage. They're not cheap, but it all depends on one's priorities. -QQuerius
June 3, 2022
June
06
Jun
3
03
2022
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Transposition and HGT are not the same thing. Transposition is within the same organism and HGT is between two different organisms.ET
June 3, 2022
June
06
Jun
3
03
2022
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
I think you’ve got your lines crossed. I think Fred meant that Transposition & HGT are the same thing, so writing “Transposition” is a duplication of the HGT concept.
That's correct, Bob. Exactly what I meant.Fred Hickson
June 3, 2022
June
06
Jun
3
03
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Abiogenesis is the magical word . Duplication, HGT etc. have different meaning in the case of materialistic abiogenesis and totally different meaning in the case of intelligently designed life. Code in cell points out to ID abiogenesis hypothesis so all the darwinist struggle with duplications, HGT, mutation, selection is USELESS .Lieutenant Commander Data
June 3, 2022
June
06
Jun
3
03
2022
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
Querius @ 131 -
Fred Hickson @128,
Transposition is a synonym for HGT, so that’s a duplication.
No, it isn’t. Genome duplication is not a general description, but specifically means to massively increase the size of the genome. Look up Susumu Ohno’s 2R hypothesis.
I think you've got your lines crossed. I think Fred meant that Transposition & HGT are the same thing, so writing "Transposition" is a duplication of the HGT concept. FWIW, most of the processes in the list (from post 126) are ways that variation can be generated, so they form the variation that selection can start to act on. But one way that gene duplication speeds up adaptation is by providing copies, so mutation in one copy won't affect the function of the other copy.Bob O'H
June 3, 2022
June
06
Jun
3
03
2022
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
On endosymbiosis of Chlorella spcs. in H. viridis, here's some amazing work being done, extracting the algae, getting to grow independently and sequencing genomes to establish that endosymbiosis has arisen multiple times in green hydra. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328970700_Endosymbiotic_green_algae_in_European_Hydra_strains_show_quantitative_difference_on_morphological_and_isoenzyme_levelFred Hickson
June 3, 2022
June
06
Jun
3
03
2022
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
I see Ohno's book is 120$.Fred Hickson
June 2, 2022
June
06
Jun
2
02
2022
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson @132, 133, No, the hydra, were originally purchased through a biology supply used by the school district. And no, at the time I thought their tentacles were much thinner when elongated, which I described as similar to spider silk. As I said, this is all described in a venerable biology reference. If you want to duplicate my experiment, just follow my description. Since you don't do your own homework, it took me only a couple of minutes to find this website:
Hydra has a cylindrical, radially symmetric body from 2 to 20 mm in length. It is visible to the naked eyes when fully extended. Their tentacles may extend much longer – some species of green hydra may measure about 5 cm to 20 cm when extended. The body of a hydra may retract (while sensing a danger), making the organism appear shorter and rounded. https://rsscience.com/hydra/
However, the hydra I worked with weren't green (i.e. symbiotic with algae). Isn't it odd that hydra should be called "polyps" since that's simply their form as found in other organisms exhibiting alternation of generations? After all, we don't normally call sea jellies "medusa."
Re genome duplication, you’re talking about polyploidy, Querius.
I guess you didn't run across Dr. Ohno's book, Evolution by Gene Duplication, right? -QQuerius
June 2, 2022
June
06
Jun
2
02
2022
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Re genome duplication, you're talking about polyploidy, Querius.Fred Hickson
June 2, 2022
June
06
Jun
2
02
2022
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
If you had any interest in hydra, you’d be making your own tank as I described and trying it for yourself. But you didn’t even consider this. Ask yourself why.
If I didn't have any interest I wouldn't have bothered asking for clarification. As a kid, prolly 9 or 10, I recall looking at pondlife, and once coming across a hydra polyp attached to a plant stem. Prior to that moment I had no idea such things existed. I was content to just watch it for a while then go home and tell my parents about it They weren't much interested. Anyway, you seem to be telling me your super-hydra became only ten times more massive by elongating without thickening. The mystery deepens. Perhaps you discovered a strain of mutants. I'm sorry my curiosity has made you uncomfortable. Happy to drop it if you prefer.Fred Hickson
June 2, 2022
June
06
Jun
2
02
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson @128,
Transposition is a synonym for HGT, so that’s a duplication.
No, it isn't. Genome duplication is not a general description, but specifically means to massively increase the size of the genome. Look up Susumu Ohno's 2R hypothesis. It's also known as Genome Multiplication or Whole Genome Duplication. -QQuerius
June 2, 2022
June
06
Jun
2
02
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson @127,
Querius, I’m still struggling to process the idea that Hydra vulgaris polyps grew a thousand times larger in your care than elsewhere ever. They’re a well-studied organism with some fascinating features. But you, uniquely, achieving this result?
1. First of all, you might want to check your math. 30 mm is 3 cm. 20 – 25 cm is only a factor of seven or eight in length. I’d imagine their mass remained about the same because their tentacles became extremely thin, almost like glistening spider silk when illuminated with a flashlight against the black paper behind the tank. 2. Hydra have been obviously poorly documented due to sloppy science books written by careless authors. 3. No, I did NOT write that I uniquely achieved this result. I wrote that this information was noted in a venerable biology reference book, but apparently forgotten. Otherwise, as a high school sophomore, I would have attempted to have my results published with photographic evidence. Your skepticism is typical of the orthodoxy that crushes all curiosity and the spirit of scientific inquiry among students. The rotting carcass of biology is a giant Latin vocabulary test entombed in multiple choice tests without the delights of natural history or direct observation. If you had any interest in hydra, you’d be making your own tank as I described and trying it for yourself. But you didn’t even consider this. Ask yourself why. -QQuerius
June 2, 2022
June
06
Jun
2
02
2022
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Natural selection doesn't act at all. Evos don't even understand the concepts they try to defend. And according "Waiting for TWO Mutations", gene duplication is not a blind watchmaker mechanism. The duplicated gene needs a new binding site. And then it takes specific mutations to get a functional change to the protein.ET
June 2, 2022
June
06
Jun
2
02
2022
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
This has already been done. They are • Transposition • Horizontal gene transfer • Epigenetics • Symbiogenesis • Genome duplication Any one of these are orders of magnitude more effective and speedier than incremental random mutation and filtering.
An odd list. Transposition is a synonym for HGT, so that's a duplication. The only controversial item is epigenetics, as epigenetic heritability does not last over more than a few generations. Selection acts on all products of change.Fred Hickson
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Querius, I'm still struggling to process the idea that Hydra vulgaris polyps grew a thousand times larger in your care than elsewhere ever. They're a well-studied organism with some fascinating features. But you, uniquely, achieving this result?Fred Hickson
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson,
30 mm seems about as big as they get according to any source I’ve looked at. Increasing that from 1? to 10? is a thousand-fold increase in mass. This would be fascinating news to biologists.
Yep, and that’s about the size of a Petrie dish as observed by researchers lacking any initiative or curiosity, and mindlessly copied by textbook authors solely motivated by money. But it’s not news! It’s a forgotten observation apparently recorded in a venerable biology reference book. Otherwise, I would have published my observations as a high school sophomore despite a disinterested biology teacher.
Of course, the big next step is to be the first to propose a better mechanism for what we observe.
This has already been done. They are • Transposition • Horizontal gene transfer • Epigenetics • Symbiogenesis • Genome duplication Any one of these are orders of magnitude more effective and speedier than incremental random mutation and filtering. -QQuerius
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Hickson, do you recall, how i asked you, what makes Darwinists so trustworthy ? (You replied with something about loaded question ... And no, i don't beat my wife ... it is somewhat disturbing that 'beating a wife' was the first thing you thought of ) I put this question, because i think it is a very relevant question ... Because Darwinists seem to be always wrong ... you know: "...current concepts are reviewed..." "...uprooting current thinking...." "...latest findings contradict the current dogma...." “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” "... in contrast to the decades-long dogma ..." “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex than thought ….” Today, another one was published, and sounds pretty serious:
Study suggests that most of our evolutionary trees could be wrong Scientists say convergent evolution is much more common than previously thought https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/study-suggests-that-most-of-our-evolutionary-trees-could-be-wrong/
Most of our evolutionary trees could be wrong ????? So Hickson, seriously, what makes Darwinists so trustworthy ?martin_r
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Genes to proteins via transcription and translation. Error detection and correction throughout the process. But that is moot as most nucleotide changes do not have any effect on the protein. Proteins can usually handle amino acid changes. When the substitution does alter the protein, it results in a loss of function. Caveat- opsin genes are miraculously tunable to react to different wavelengths of light. So, realizing this, evolutionists have switched to the "same genes used differently" approach. Meaning it is all about how, when and where those genes are expressed, that produced the bulk of the diversity of life, ie those "endless forms most beautiful". Except that has completely fallen on its face, too. Now they just wash, rinse and repeat.ET
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Querius
a self-organization ratchet through random occurrences filtered through [random] environmental [variables]
That's right. Random mutations supposedly have to become fixed in niches which are also changing due to random effects. Every new feature creates random changes in food-supply, competition, conditions for offspring to survive, temperature, humidity, geographic spaces - as well as disease and disasters.Silver Asiatic
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
These are popular-level videos from the DI and failed attempts to refute them. Whale Evolution: Good Evidence for Darwin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_oYftA2ow Whale Evolution: A Rebuttal (PZ Myers and others responded to the first one) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ErLGxrSdw0 Whale Evolution: A Further Rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCM1MjEFvqE The bottom line is similar to Behe's analysis and the ID work done in several areas - there's not enough time for the mutations required.Silver Asiatic
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
chuck:
Worse, it is misleading insofar as natural selection is not a “blind, material, unintelligent natural cause.”
And yet that is how evolutionary biologists describe it.ET
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
CD
natural selection is not a “blind, material, unintelligent natural cause.”
You could be right that natural selection is not a cause of anything. That's a philosophical distinction. But evolution is blind, unguided and unintelligent. That's not controversial.
As the term suggests, natural selection is highly selective and biased towards organisms that demonstrate superior fitness vis a vis their ecological niche.
There is no selector in natural selection - so it's not highly selective. "Fitness for their niche" is incoherent given that organisms themselves create the niche. It's like saying they have "fitness for survival". An interesting area for research is "maladaption" (as below "prevalent in evolution") - which contradicts the idea that selection is biased towards fitness and just proves to me that much of the evolution-industry is a scam at worst and a joke at best.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6691215/ Evolutionary biologists tend to approach the study of the natural world within a framework of adaptation, inspired perhaps by the power of natural selection to produce fitness advantages that drive population persistence and biological diversity. In contrast, evolution has rarely been studied through the lens of adaptation's complement, maladaptation. This contrast is surprising because maladaptation is a prevalent feature of evolution: population trait values are rarely distributed optimally; local populations often have lower fitness than imported ones; populations decline; and local and global extinctions are common. Yet we lack a general framework for understanding maladaptation; for instance in terms of distribution, severity, and dynamics. Similar uncertainties apply to the causes of maladaptation.
Silver Asiatic
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Again, the non-random element of natural selection nis just that not all variants have the same chance of being eliminated. That Fred ignores that fact shows that he cannot discuss this intelligently.
Of course, the big next step is to be the first to propose a better mechanism for what we observe.
Better than what? You can't propose a testable mechanism capable of producing the transformations required.ET
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Umm, chuck- there isn't any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing whales from populations of terrestrial mammals.ET
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
SA/101 states:
The most significant work that ID has done has been to show that whale morphology shows evidence of intelligent design and that blind, material, unintelligent natural causes could not be the explanation of the origin of whales.
Whales are apparently now part of the conversation, and the quoted statement is indicative of extravagant claims for ID that when scrutinized, show that there is "no there there." Given that whales are one of the best documented and understood examples of vertebrate evolution, statements like "ID.....shows that blind, material, unintelligent natural causes could not be the explanation of the origin of whales," say absolutely nothing about natural selection. Worse, it is misleading insofar as natural selection is not a "blind, material, unintelligent natural cause." The phrase is a potpourri of redundancy, apparently for rhetorical effect. As the term suggests, natural selection is highly selective and biased towards organisms that demonstrate superior fitness vis a vis their ecological niche. We can directly trace whale evolution from its divergence from a common ancestor with hippos ~56 mya. (See e.g., https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/) Where is this "most significant work" ID has done re whale morphology, peer reviewed or otherwise? Where is this great body of ID work on whales? Likewise, where is all the disproof of natural selection as the mechanism of whale evolution?chuckdarwin
June 1, 2022
June
06
Jun
1
01
2022
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply