Sometimes it happens, during evolution, that a species loses a trait but the gene that codes for it still remains. In these cases it is a pseudogene, meaning a gene whose effect has been neutralized by some mutation. Researchers found such a gene in mammals that stopped chewing their food and consequently lost the enamel coating that protects the teeth of a creature
By Noam Levitan and Yonat Ashhar
Sometimes it happens, during evolution, that a species loses a trait but the gene that codes for it still remains. In these cases it is a pseudogene, meaning a gene whose effect has been neutralized by some mutation. Researchers found such a gene in mammals that stopped chewing their food and consequently lost the enamel coating that protects the teeth of a creature
during Evolution New features and structures appear and sometimes existing features and structures are lost. Most of the buildings do not disappear without a trace, but leave behind traces that point to the evolutionary history. In humans, for example, one can find the coccyx, a small remnant of the magnificent tail of our ancient primate ancestors. In other animals you can find different remains, such as the remains of the hip pelvis inside the body of whales or the degenerated eyes of the blind rat or cave fish.
Even when examining the genome one can find remnants of the ancient traits. Genes that functioned in the past and encoded the creation of active proteins sometimes become redundant and accumulate mutations that prevent them from functioning and producing a normal protein. Such defective genes are called pseudogenes. In primates (with the exception of primates), for example, the gene essential for the production of vitamin C is defective, meaning it is a pseudogene, so our body is unable to produce vitamin C and we must obtain it from an external source.
Mark Springer (Springer) from the University of California and his colleagues published in the online journal PLoS Genetics a study that showed the connection between the disappearance of enamel in mammals, as seen in the fossil record, and the accumulation of mutations in the gene involved in the formation of enamel.
Enamel, the durable covering covering the tooth, is the hardest substance in the body of humans and other vertebrates. Since the enamel is hard and durable it fossilizes easily and in many cases is the only fossilized remains of ancient species. The genes involved in the creation of enamel are known to science, so it is an excellent candidate for research aimed at finding a connection between fossil findings and genes.
All early mammals and most modern mammals had enamel coated teeth. However, there are mammalian lineages that have lost it during evolution. Some of these lineages – the anteaters, pangolins (scaly mammals that feed on termites and ants) and minke whales – have completely lost their teeth, while others – sloths, armadillos, pygmy warblers and chimpanzees – have lost only their enamel layer.
In each of the lineages, the loss of enamel appears to have occurred after they transitioned to a diet that does not require hard teeth. For example, the fossil finds testify to the transition of the ancestors of the baleen whales from maniacs with teeth and no baleen, to animals with both teeth and baleen in their mouths, until finally the teeth disappeared altogether and only the billets used to filter food from the water remained.
All toothless or enamelless mammals evolved from enameled mammals and fossils, such as the mink whale fossils mentioned above, do show tooth loss during evolution. Following these data, and as predicted by the theory of evolution, the researchers hypothesized that the gene for enamel is still present in all toothless or enamel-deficient mammals, but it includes mutations that have made it inactive, meaning it exists as a pseudogene.
In order to test this, Springer and his colleagues mapped the nucleotide sequence of one of the genes responsible for the production of enamel in 49 different mammal species, including all groups of toothless or enamel mammals. As they expected, they discovered that the gene is normal, that is, without harmful mutations in all mammals with teeth, but has different mutations that create a defective sequence that does not code for the creation of a normal protein in each of the enamel deficiencies tested.
These findings point to the connection between the changes that occur in genes during evolution, which can be seen in modern creatures, and between structural changes observed in the fossil record. Moreover, as soon as a gene becomes a pseudogene (and assuming that the loss of its activity is not harmful to the organism) mutations tend to accumulate in it at a constant rate. This way it is possible to estimate how long ago the enamel loss occurred. On the basis of the pseudogene, Springer and his colleagues can predict where - that is, in rocks of what age - paleontologists should look for fossils of the toothed ancestors of the studied toothless and enamelless mammals, if no such fossils have yet been discovered.
The article was published in the December issue of "Galileo" magazine
33 תגובות
Adam Russo:
Great movie!
I will definitely use it in the future.
I would, however, change a few things:
In the first part:
The theory of evolution is not limited to only living things.
This is a mathematical result of the existence of several conditions that do exist in life and therefore there is evolution in life, but these conditions also exist in certain artificial environments and this is the basis ofThe evolutionary calculation which we use in solving various problems.
Why do I bother to mention this? Because evolution may also be responsible forThe formation of the first living cell.
It will exist wherever there are replicators subject to changes that are not necessarily destructive, therefore it is very possible that it existed in different chemical structures even before the formation of life as we know it.
In fact, I am not familiar with a non-evolutionary scientific theory that explains the formation of life in the first place.
Such evolutionary theories of course exist, although we will probably never know how life really began.
In the second part:
A slide appears that talks about a clear division of the species.
It is desirable to point out in this context the existence of mini ring.
For the example of the ink stain - as a step between randomness and evolution - I would bring a still intermediate example:
When you pour rain from the sky randomly, it nevertheless organizes itself into channels and streams.
In fact, in tiny Anfin, it also happens in the inkblot, but let's say that there it is so small that my religion can't notice it, so it has to be enlarged to the dimensions of rain and stream channels.
Father, is the video you saw called "Evolution or Bilvolution" by any chance?
If so, look for the five reaction videos I made "Evolution or bi-evolution - the truth". I got angry a few times there, and there were parts where I could have invested more. But it turned out nice overall. YOUTUBE, of course.
Thanks. I seen. I came upon one of the lies - "No evidence of intersex species was found" and I stopped looking, the song in the background is also annoying, a Dossy song with an American accent.
Avi,
If you really want to see the movie - the "Mitel" link is missing the equal sign between the letter v and the movie's code
I imagined but I couldn't see him. Something in the link is wrong, I was jumped straight to a page with many movie titles.
P.S. I am preparing a series of articles today following the affair of the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education.
It's strange that the amazing movie looks suspiciously like a movie by philanthropists and creationists. Reminds me a bit of the Havrot channel or the chief scientist at the Ministry of Education
A slightly better movie can be seen here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/evolution_in_5_minutes.php
An amazing film highly recommended on the subject of evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v hlW19msWaa0
Israel:
Stop with the general moral preaching and talk to the point.
If you find a mistake in what I said - point it out and otherwise just shut up.
I hear the opinion of others.
I actually hear a lot more opinions from others than you do.
The amount of books I've read is probably tens of times more than the amount of books you've read or will ever read and I read only to get the opinion of others.
In many of the books I read I also learned and in some of them I found things that I do not agree with.
In any case - even here on the site I read the words of others as long as they don't prove that they are just broken chatter that repeats the same things over and over again (even then I read their words but I don't re-read them every time).
I have no interest in showing people how right I am always. I am only interested in bringing the truth and justice to light and exposing the depths of fraud and lies.
Caltech:
really?
Aren't I forced to finance the "Idleness and Art" community and serve in the army to protect them without them doing so?
I'm not forced to pay taxes so that all the municipalities have free meals and charge extra money every time someone is born, gets married or dies?
I am not forced not to use public transport on Shabbat?
Don't I have to pay the fines to the kosher enforcement institutions that the restaurants and food manufacturers have to pay?
Do you know that in 1966 a deaf woman who was widowed before she had children was forced to be raped by her married brother-in-law only because according to a backward set of laws written hundreds of years ago no deaf woman is authorized to undergo a halitsa ceremony (and why do we even need such a stupid law of yabum and halitsa?)?
These are just some of the acts of coercion that the crazy religion forces on me through the law. Of course, this is dwarfed by the fact that in the name of religion, people in Israel also kill gays (which is a private case of the application of the religious law that commands the murder of gays and Shabbat violators).
In other words, contrary to the lie you are trying to sell, my argument is only to get you and your friends out of your stranglehold.
Michael.
Without knowing you according to my feeling you are an older person for your age.
Have you ever thought maybe you are wrong? With all the extensive knowledge you have. Maybe you are missing something?
I'm not saying yes, I'm just saying that in my opinion you need to hear more and not just show people how right you always are. And even if you're right, it doesn't prevent you from hearing the opinions of the other.
M. Y. Al-
No one is trying to force anything on you. All in all, trying to have a debate from which something can be learned.
The Talmud in all its branches developed the debate method and perfected it. The goal is to try and see the usual things in a different light from a new perspective to reach new understandings.
The goals of your argument is to force your mind to show that you are winning and only you are right.
With this approach you are just spinning around the tail and not getting anywhere positive.
my son:
Unfortunately I haven't recovered yet but these companies are just annoying.
They repeat and tell you that there is no conflict between science and religion and excuse the lie by saying that the holy books use incorrect language on purpose and that those who do not understand this are ignorant.
Of course, the contradiction is not only between religion and science - if it were so, I would not be interested in the subject because everyone is allowed to be an idiot.
The problem is that the contradiction is between religion and democracy, the rule of law, burden sharing and human rights and that the "believers" do not only believe in nonsense from the field of science but also in their right to impose their religion on me.
To exterminate - to exterminate
I meant everything else!
Now try to read everything again, slowly, slowly.
(It might help you to also read the comment this comment came from.)
you made me laugh
Which of the errors did you mean "intentionally" - to make her laugh, to be, to destroy, or the biggest error of all?
Awareness is the opposite of knowing and containing knowledge, and since this site contains a lot of knowledge it is not based on awareness. The assertion that knowledge that is in someone else's possession and not in your possession is ignorance, stems from stupidity.
There is no contradiction between intention and evil: many blow the horn of evil and intend very much.
And finally, writing in a vague manner does not make your words wise, but only arrogant: what do you mean by "these cases", "the sources" and in general, everything you wrote here?
Hello guys, have a good week.
As a religious person who occasionally checks how the mutations are doing in the world, I would like to perhaps update you -
I enter the website mainly to keep up to date with the latest research in the natural sciences.
The fact that I can in the process also "chat" with infantile mutants whose soup has cooled - as far as I'm concerned, it's just a small bonus.
And by the way - a. This site is also based on ignorance, it tries to sell you that there is nothing in the world except what you can achieve with your mind, if you are not ignorant you will know that it is not like that.
B. The TV and the Internet have never been "the shofar of evil", you see, when a person blows the shofar he has to mean it, the problem in these cases is not the shofar, it's the shofar.
third. If she tried to exterminate the ignorance, she would understand what the sources are and what they are for.
d. In the end you are right, the theological/faith plane moves on a completely different plane from the material/scientific plane and if it happens that in one of the planes concepts from the corresponding plane are used - then it is only by borrowing so that the eye can be drawn.
That's what makes all the clashes here especially funny.
And to the gentleman - a "spelling" error - on purpose!
Michael - I see that you have returned to militancy - well done
It seems to me that religious people enter science websites mainly to increase the
their faith - and there is a fundamental contradiction between religion and science,
The power of religion is built on ignorance, obfuscation by brainwashing, and the miraculous ability
To twist in front of the truth "everything is already written in the Torah" - just yesterday there was television and the Internet
The mouthpiece of evil - and with a complete ban on use even today?
Quotes from all kinds of sources I know
Who wrote them and what were they for?
In any case, it's a waste of energy because it's parallel lines
And even though we live on the ball the lines will not meet
Israel:
I do not examine opinions according to their oldness but according to their correctness. You should do the same.
Beyond that - in your case I was talking about your reactions and not about religion. Your responses try to deny science for religious reasons so that you are the one who shows that religion opposes science no matter what.
Michael.
You have outdated views. You are so sure that religion opposes science no matter what.
I, on the other hand, do not think so. In addition, as I said, I am interested in religion and also in science. I'm not religious. I think about getting closer to Judaism and I do it by asking the so-called "difficult" questions between the Torah and science.
Israel:
True, this is not the place to ask questions about religion, so it was clear to me without checking that you didn't ask questions about religion here.
I didn't ask you why you don't ask questions about religion here.
You are the one who suggested that from your comments it could be concluded that you are interested in both religion and science.
And how can we conclude that you are "interested in religion"? Only if you ask questions about religion! That is why I found it appropriate to say that you did not ask questions about religion (and I hoped that you would understand from this that your suggestion that we conclude that you are only "interested in religion" has nothing to rely on).
All the things you said in the religious context were things that support religion and oppose science.
That's why - as I explained in my previous comments - your words are the words of Mechabat and if you claim that you are not religious then you are not only Mechabat but also a hypocrite.
Michael
Because this is not the place to ask questions about religion. I ask this in the appropriate places.
And here I ask what I am interested in knowing about science.
I don't understand where there is a problem here?
Israel:
I didn't say you were religious.
You may be a non-religious rabbi (one of the worst types of hypocrisy).
You did not ask any question about religion here. Expressing opposition to science and support for religious ideas.
Michael.
What is the connection? The first thing is that I never said I was religious because I am not.
Secondly, do you infer from my questions that I am religious? Maybe I'm interested in Judaism as well as science?
Israel:
is it important when did you say
What matters is whether you are religious or not.
If you are religious - then your above question is meant to throw sand in your eyes.
If you are not religious, then all your responses that are clearly from the Hebrew Bible are meant to throw sand in your eyes.
To my father.
When did I say I was religious?
my son:
When I was a student many years ago, we asked our professor of anthropology and dental morphology a similar question.
His answer was, because human teeth, apart from chewing, also play an extremely important role in speech and pronunciation, and considering that speech as verbal communication is of paramount importance to the human race, he does not think that man is developing in the direction of missing teeth.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that humans have genes for not having teeth, and it is possible to see in the human race a genetic tendency to the disappearance of wisdom teeth.
What about the 90% of the genetic garbage, you can probably find in it all the evolution that humans went through even before they left the sea.
I asked my father
If I'm wrong the food we eat passes
Change to softer food
(Just for the sake of the holocaust, I talked to my mother about my type
the food she ate as a child)
And what's more, at least on the face of it, it seems that there is today
more dental problems especially for young people,
You think we as a race go through a similar process
Conspiracy…
I don't know much about biology, but isn't there a "trick" here to program the genes from disease-causing to pseudogenes?
Shalom Israel. How are you religious and writing on Shabbat?
Lol
refreshed
Don't open to Satan here
Now a religion versus science and evolution debate will develop here.