GULOP - A Test of Common Descent

L-gulonolactone oxidase pseudogene (GULOP)

This gene provides solid evidence for common descent over all proposed alternatives. In this video, I explain how.

References:
- Ha, M., Graham, F., D'Souza, C., Muller, W., Igdoura, S. and Schellhorn, H. (2004)
- Inai, Y., Ohta. Y., and Nishikimi, M. (2003)
- Lebedev, J., Belonovitch, O., Zybrova, N., Khil, P., Kurdyukov, S., Vinogradova, T., Hunsmann, G. and Sverdlov, E. (2000)
- Nishikimi, M., Fukuyama, R., Minoshima, S., Shimizu, N. and Yagi, K. (1994)
- Nishikimi, M., Kawai, T., and Yagi, K. (1992)
- Nishikimi, M. and Yagi, K. (1991)
- Ohta, Y. and Nishikimi, M. (1999)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/197x/stone-i-orthomol_psych-1972-v1-n2...

ERV videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

Another GULO video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0Ic03c6f8

Category:

Education

Tags:

• GULO
• GULOP
• Evolution
• Common
• Descent
• Creation
• Creationism
• Vitamin
• Ascorbic
• Acid
• L-gulonolactone
• Oxidase
• Pseudogene

[Howie47]

If any one wants to read the paper, "Axing Darwin's tree;

The tree of life is an iconic image, but it could be time to fell it

Graham Lawton" Just goggle it. with quotes like "In 1999, Doolittle made the

provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree"

(Science , vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says.  Not even mammals form a TOL it proclaims.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "Not even mammals form a TOL it proclaims."

Well, based on the quotes you provided and the abstract of the paper, I can see no such proclamation. All the abstract claims is that (once again) bacteria and archaea don't form a tree, and that therefore there is no "universal" TOL. Can you provide a quote from the article in "Science" that directly shoots down the idea of a mammalian nested hierarchy? I'd be very surprised if you can, despite your claim that the article proclaims this.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 It seems to me that the animal tree of life is holding up pretty darn well when the only anomalous cases you can find are viral inserts and transposable elements (genes that cause the cell to make extra copies that it inserts over and over again). Pointing to cases of twigs rejoining (close relatives hybridizing) is also equally unimpressive when discussing the solid structure of the branches of the animal tree of life.

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist HGT is found in all forms of life. HGT of course is a "place holder" term. As HGT is only observed in single celled life. "More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and

plants isn't exactly tree-like either. "There are problems even in that little corner,"

says Dupré. Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking

their axes to the remaining branches." HGT is also responsible for anti-bacteria resistance. Not mutations!

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist Your obviously in denial. Or maybe your assignment is to keep the old paradigm alive until a new can be formulated? Any one can Goggle "Axing The Tree of Life" and read the "PDF". Where several senior evo scientist are quoted as saying the TOL including mammals is out dated. There is a cadre of scientist trying to prop up the TOL & the old paradigm it supports. Mostly hard core atheist. What happens to the careers of those who support the out dated but politically correct?

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "SO! DNA does not form a TOL pattern."

Not in bacteria or archaea, though the frequency of observed horizontal gene transfer in these organisms makes it so that this fact doesn't lend any support to separate origins for these groups.

If you are willing to accept common descent of all animal life and a separate origin of bacteria and archaea, then I'll be happy to end the discussion on that note. This video is only about the animal tree of life.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "Why would it have to create a nested hierarchy if one already existed?"

Because the mutations to GULOP that make it non-functional ALSO form a nested hierarchy, so a common disease that was able to mutate DNA would have to create a VERY specific and incredibly unlikely pattern in an entire group of animals.

If the creationist model has multiple trees, and humans aren't in the same tree as fish, then it is a false model.

The guinea pig mutations are different than the primate ones..

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "So inheritance, doesn't bring about any morphological change?"

Who said that? Not me. When did I mention morphology? This whole video is about genetics, with a pinch of biochemistry.

Genes can't be lost by simple inheritance, but can be turned off or on. This doesn't actually change the code, though. The code remains intact and is passed on unchanged, merely blocked temporarily by other molecules.

Miller's case is a mutation. I was just correcting you that it wasn't just genes.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "Genes that code for specific systems like. echolocation, can be found in very dissimilar creators. Whales, bats, shrews, birds "gene named Preston carries a similar sequence". That's a whole allot of convergent evo."

In each case, you'll find that the genes are more similar between an echolocator and it's non-echolocating cousins than it is between divergent echolocators. In other words, it still forms a nested hierarchy rather than being more similar because of similar use.

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist SO! DNA does not form a TOL pattern. Just as other highly esteemed biologist are admitting. Their alternatives are many more abio-genesis instances, or seeding from outer space. Of course I.D. is the most rational. But materialist won't allow that.

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist Why would it have to create a nested hierarchy if one already existed? The Creationist model also employs hierarchy. Just not a single tree. A forest of trees set on a mountain. With man's tree at the top. If all these animals including the guinea pig have your CULOP gene. Why couldn't these be the result of a common cause that only effected this common genome? Inheritting this gene doesn't pan out. Because there is a qinny pig-primate gap.

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist (Genetic heritage can both be directed and predicted.) So inheritance, doesn't bring about any morphological change? Please. Genes can become dormant or activated. Even totally lost. Now you finally start getting specific with your def. of mutation. (it can only happen inside a specific gene)? So Millers to joined chromosomes, ain't mutations? I said I didn't understand YOUR slant on it.

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist Not the whole truth. While it does mention horizontal gene transferee in single celled life. It also talks about such genes sets found widely distributed across all life. Many times life that isn't supposed to be closely related. Like the tool sets. Genes that code for specific systems like. echolocation, can be found in very dissimilar creators. Whales, bats, shrews, birds "gene named Preston carries a similar sequence". That's a whole allot of convergent evo.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "Please! If there is huge gapes in the morphology then there is huge gapes in the corresponding DNA!"

Yeah. So what? Since all of the ancestors of living organisms are dead, then why should we still have all their DNA? The only thing that has any relevance here is that the DNA of living organisms forms a pattern of similarity and difference exactly like that in a tree of ancestral relationships - an otherwise VERY unlikely pattern. It's the same in populations, species, genera, etc.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "So explain again why a common ailment or other cause couldn't have disabled these genes through out the primates."

Name one disease or other known cause capable of doing anything remotely like this, and I'll consider it. Keep in mind that it must be able to create a nested hierarchy of mutational differences.

I can't understand the sentence fragments in the rest of your post.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 How can "genetic heritage" cause genetic changes that are not mutational? How are "genetic heritage" changes not undirected? If you are simply referring to inheritance, then this is not a genetic change at all - the offspring inherit parental genes, which do not change at all unless a mutation occurs. I understand genetics very well, through several courses and genetics labs I've worked in, as well as outside reading. You were the one who admitted you didn't understand genetics.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "The criticism of the Article was not that it wasn't true. Is that what your saying?"

As I said before, the article was misleading and sensationalist. It is true that bacteria and archaea don't form a tree pattern, and therefore you can't make a single tree for all of life. However, the way it was presented makes people like you think that NO life forms a tree of life pattern. This is simply untrue. The animal kingdom forms a single tree without the issues of bacteria or archaea.

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 If you continue on with the quote from the "New Scientist" article, as you do in your video, you find that the evidence that the tree of life concept doesn't work comes from bacteria and archaea, which are known to undergo horizontal gene transfer. No one is questioning the idea that in animals, a tree is still by far the best way to represent the genetic relationships.

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist LOL, I mean "gaps".

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist Please! If there is huge gapes in the morphology then there is huge gapes in the corresponding DNA!

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist So explain again why a common ailment or other cause couldn't have disabled these genes through out the primates. Or in some cases even partially. As even some humans or races have natural immunity. The fact that guinea pigs also have this genes and similar genome to man. But a huge evolutionary gap between man, with the missing CULOP carrying intermediaries. Would support the idea. None of which necessarily supports your TOL idea.

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist Changes in the Chromosome and genes can be directed by the mechanisms of Genetic Heritage. To call that "mutation" is mudding the waters. Mutation is commonly understood to mean undirected changes. Caused by copying errors, disease, pollution, or induced in the lab. by radiation, etc. Maybe it's you who don't understand genetics and should stop posting until you do?!

[Howie47]

@EvoBiologist The criticism of the Article was not that it wasn't true. Is that what your saying? It was that the way it was presented could be used by creationist.

[Howie47]

@"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says

Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in

Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But

today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.

Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be

discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says

Bapteste."

[EvoBiologist]

@Howie47 "So if a "change" is directed. In your book it is still a mutation?"

Sure. Genetic engineers intentionally create specific new mutations all the time.

My claim in the video was not that God isn't involved in the diversity of life. My argument is simply that life is related by common ancestry. If you want to believe that God constantly directs mutations so that life evolves the way He wants it to, then be my guest. I have no serious beef with theistic evolution, only creationism.