Domestication Syndrome and "Lamarck, the scourge of neo-Darwinists" :)

[englishrick]

i loved both these Articals,,,,,,

i thought id post them up just in-case any1else might like to read them too,,,,,,,,i dont want this to turn into a : Celebrity Deathmatch or anything like my Reverced Backcross or Epigentics thread,,,so im gona leave it at this!,,,,,take care guys i hope you enjoy it,,,,,your understanding is more important than mine!,,n thats from the heart....think about it

first up :The Domestication Syndrome:,,,,,,ooooooo,,,,

indirect selection using DNA markers is usually included under biotechnology but does not involved transformation of plants by GE,,,,,,,,Genetic Modifications Brought about by Domestication Are, in Many Cases, Loss-of-Function Changes, Whereas Those Currently Brought about by Genetic Engineering Often Represent a Constitutive Gain of Function

The inheritance of domestication traits has been investigated numerous times since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws at the beginning of the 20th Century (for reviews, see Gottlieb, 1984; Hilu, 1983; Knight, 1948; Ladizinsky, 1985). Initially, the traits were analyzed as Mendelian traits because many of them display qualitative variation and discrete phenotypic segregation classes. More recently, these same traits have been analyzed by quantitative trait locus (QTL) approaches, which are more powerful because they allow a genome-wide analysis of influence on several traits at the same time (Lee, 1995; Tanksley, 1993). Such approaches have been applied to a limited number of crops, including maize (Doebley et al., 1990), common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., Koinange et al., 1996), tomato (Lycopersicon spp., Grandillo and Tanksley, 1996), rice (Oryza sativa L., Xiong et al., 1999), and pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br., Poncet et al., 1998, 2000].


The results of these genetic studies can be summarized as follows.,,, In spite of the geographically diverse distribution of the domestication centers, a remarkably similar set of traits can be identified that have been selected in widely different crops. These traits jointly make up the domestication syndrome (Hammer, 1984). They result from selection of spontaneous mutations that occurred in wild populations and were selected at various stages of growth of these wild plants (or animals), as well as after harvest (Harlan, 1992). Many traits selected under domestication, because they fit the needs or fancy of humans, are actually deleterious in the wild. As a consequence, fully domesticated crops may not survive in the wild without human intervention in planting and harvesting.


When considering individual traits, the domesticated state is often controlled by recessive alleles at one or, at most, two or three loci (Ladizinsky, 1985). The importance of these major genes was further confirmed by QTL analyses. So far, these analyses paint a remarkably similar picture of the inheritance of the domestication syndrome (Table 2) . The consensus genetic control involves, for many traits, a limited number of genes, several of which have a major effect (high R2). Furthermore, the joint involvement of these genes accounts for most of the phenotypic variation, suggesting a high heritability. Finally, many of the genes are located in a limited number of linkage groups, and, on these linkage groups, are sometimes closely, although not tightly, linked. This type of inheritance probably reflects conditions during domestication. Major genes controlling highly heritable traits would have facilitated progress from selection during the domestication process.

For the sake of this discussion, it is important to point out that many domestication genes represent a loss rather than a gain of function, as indicated by their recessiveness. There are, of course, many more mutations that convert a functional enzyme or structural protein into an inactive one, than there are mutations that give an enzyme or structural protein an entirely new function. There are some exceptions to this pattern, notably the Tb-1 domestication gene in maize, which has recently been characterized at the molecular level (Doebley et al., 1997). The Tb-1 allele of domesticated maize is dominant over the tb-1 allele of teosinte, the wild progenitor of maize, because of overexpression of the gene in maize in comparison with teosinte. Dominant mutations may have been easier to select in an outcrossing species such as maize.

[QUOTE-ISIS]
Lamarck, the scourge of neo-Darwinists

French naturalist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829) is credited with having invented the discipline of biology and also for being the first to propose a comprehensive theory of evolution: organisms evolve through natural means and not through special creation. The two main mechanisms in Lamarck’s theory of evolution were: ‘use and disuse’, use enhances and reinforces the development of the organs or tissues while disuse results in atrophy; and ‘inheritance of acquired characters’, transmitting to subsequent generations the tendency to develop certain new characteristic that the organism has acquired in its own development. Lamarck’s theory preceded Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection by more than 50 years [4] (see Lamarck the Mythical Precursor, ISIS scientific publication).

While Darwin invoked the inheritance of acquired characters as a subsidiary mechanism to the natural selection of random variations, his modern-day disciples, the neo-Darwinists, have strenuously opposed any taint of Lamarckism. They insist that genetic variations – changes in base sequence of DNA – arise by random mutations unrelated to the environment or their survival value, which are then subject to environmental selection; those mutants that survive, survive, while the rest die out [5] (see Why Lamarck Won’t Go Away, ISIS scientific publication). This belief is encapsulated in Francis Crick’s Central Dogma of molecular biology, which decreed that genetic information flows strictly one-way from DNA to RNA to protein (that determine the characteristics of the organism selected by the environment), and never in reverse. In their words, the environment can never pass information back to the genes, so acquired characters cannot be inherited.

Since the mid-1970s, if not before, molecular geneticists have been turning up evidence that increasingly contradicts the Central Dogma, and by the early 1980s, the new genetics of the ‘fluid genome’ had emerged [6] (see Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS publication). But apart from a few ‘heretics’, no one dared to say a word against the Central Dogma or the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution which depends on it.

Things have changed a lot since the human and other genomes were sequenced, and deposited in one freely accessible central database [7] (Death of the Central Dogma, SiS 24). The database is not much good for business, or drug discovery [8] (The human genome sellout, ISIS News 6), but turns out to be very good [7] “for research that exposes the poverty of the genetic determinism ideology that has led to the creation of the database in the first place.”

The 2004 series Life after the Central Dogma [9] (Science in Society 24) marked the end of genetic determinism, and documented why the new genetics demands a thoroughly ecological approach in our public health, environment, and social policies. Research findings since have strongly reinforced this message to policy makers. It now appears that the experience of individuals during critical periods of early development can influence not just their own lives as adults, but those of their children and children’s children.
[/QUOTE]

Have a good 1

 

[daddy fingaz]

rick bro u are one crazy cat! interesting read though, even though most of it went straight over my stoned head!!

 

[englishrick]

nahh D,,,,most of it is common sence,,,all you gotta do is aply it to an analagy,,,,i bet you would naturaly make good choices,,,,thats basicly all there is too it...not that i understand 100% myself

i do love the Fact that Lamarck invented the discipline of biology!!!!,,you know Lamarch published his book the year Darwin was born!

 

[englishrick]

this just says it all,,,,imo

Genetic Modifications Brought about by Domestication Are, in Many Cases, Loss-of-Function Changes, Whereas Those Currently Brought about by Genetic Engineering Often Represent a Constitutive Gain of Function


Research findings since have strongly reinforced this message to policy makers. It now appears that the experience of individuals during critical periods of early development can influence not just their own lives as adults, but those of their children and children’s children.

 

[oldbootz]

im no expert on this stuff but i have done a lot of reading. i have some opinions on this subject i'd lke to throw out there.

"Genetic Modifications Brought about by Domestication Are, in Many Cases, Loss-of-Function Changes"

Time and time again people have inbred their land race plants that they aquired from far away places, and they grow indoors or different climates. they are being subjected to numerous different environmental conditions like altitude, soil content, air content, natural weather conditions, latitude differences and therefore seasonal differences etc. but most of the time, this new habitat for the plants is much less complex, with the use of chemical fertilizers the plants no longer need to associate too much with microbial fungiand bacteria to get fed, the plants air is sometimes polluted with city fumes, and sometimes it has elevated CO2 levels either from a CO2 regulator or from humans living nearby. these changes will make the plant grow different than its parents did back in the natural place where the seeds were taken. these differences are most commonly overly healthy outwards appearance (due to the human influence), but with a lack of that oldschool land race feel and complex terpines. with one generation its a very slight change and every inbred generation after that will suffer from domestication as well as reduced vigor due to there being a smaller genetic pool being used and the prominence of recessive genes.

thats just my lurker opinion and based upon limited experience, wat you guys think?

 

[daddy fingaz]

I think il have to come back to this thread tomorrow!

 

[englishrick]

lack of that oldschool land race feel and complex terpines. ?

i 100% agree,,,,,,things dont feel oldchool anymore,,,jackH from sensi is a perect example of the loss of lanndrace feel,,,

im lookin to TomHill to bring back the oldchool,,

with one generation its a very slight change and every inbred generation after that will suffer from domestication as well as reduced vigor due to there being a smaller genetic pool being used and the prominence of recessive genes.

thats just my lurker opinion and based upon limited experience, wat you guys think?

id say your not mutch of a lurker with all them post in sutch a short time...bro..,,,only messin

id say,,,vigor is dependant on how different the mother and farther are geneticly,,,,,,,,,but im 100% with you again on ,,,with one generation its a very slight change and every inbred generation after that will suffer from domestication

nice post man,,,good to meet you, call me rick

 

[GreenintheThumb]

but im 100% with you again on ,,,with one generation its a very slight change and every inbred generation after that will suffer from domestication

All landraces are domesticated, stop posting.




The results/effects of plant domestication include:[citation needed]

* Higher germination rates
* Greater germination predictability
* More uniform timing of germination
* Increased size of reproductive organs
* Reduced complexity of reproductive organs
* Reduction of toxicity (humans select against self defense mechanisms)
* Change in biomass allocation (more in fruits, roots, or stems, depending on human preference)
* Change in life cycle (normally from perennial to annual for seed crops, and from annual to biennial for vegetable crops)

Yeah, sounds horrible

 

[englishrick]

thanks for adding some of the positive effects of domestication Green,,,i value all your imput,,,can you think of any negative aspects?

even tho i shy from your advise, i regard you with upmost respect,,,,

 

[englishrick]

All landraces are domesticated,

yep ,,i agree,,,,,,,human intervention is the only thing keepin our beloved traits alive nowadays

its amazing what sindromes arises in specific enviroments..

 

[GreenintheThumb]

thanks for adding some of the positive effects of domestication Green,,,i value all your imput,,,can you think of any negative aspects?

Potential gene loss due to poor selection. And I'm not too concerned that many of our crops have similar traits. After all we're mostly chimp. What can I say, I'd much rather grow Haze than feral hemp ditchweed.

 

[englishrick]

FROM THIS

TO THIS,,,,in 4.4 million-years

WHY?

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Low self esteem and evolution.

 

[englishrick]

evoloution didnt make them balooons,,,,,my girlfriend would say shes got a sindrome.....an shes got a degree in psycology and health science

 

[oldbootz]

yep ,,i agree,,,,,,,human intervention is the only thing keepin our beloved traits alive nowadays

its amazing what sindromes arises in specific enviroments..

All landraces started off in the wild, being molded by evolution. While MOST landraces are unfortunately human kept and only 1/10000000 of their gene pools are sitting in some beans at some profit makin seed bank that might throw them out if they get old and dont sell too well.

But there ARE some wild land races still out there, in my country and others like Nepal and Khazakstan. Be educated....

 

[englishrick]

some peeps say "the evoloution of THC was to combat increesing UV levels,," ......[if this is true],,, THC itself is must be 1more positive aspect involved in the domestication prosess

 

[oldbootz]

i would agree with you that high levels of THC are part of domestication, because humans will select for high THC phenotypes and inbreed those with eachother. But you can't say its due to UV-B anymore, maybe in the wild yes.

but in selecting for human desired traits, we often dont take notice of what traits the plants are losing as well as gaining, in the end creating weaker plants with higher THC and overall "healthy" outward apprearance?

 

[englishrick]

DARWIN SAID SOME GOOD STUFF,,,,,,BUT MAYBE IT WAS NOT 100% TRUE

Discovery in Ethiopia casts light on human origins


By Maggie Fox, Health
and Science EditorPosted 2009/10/01 at 12:52 pm

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1, 2009 (Reuters) —

The skeleton of an early human who lived 4.4 million years ago shows that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like ancestors, researchers reported on Thursday.


Instead, the missing link -- the common ancestor of both humans and modern apes -- was different from both, and apes have evolved just as much as humans have from that common ancestor, they said.

The researchers stressed that "Ardi" may now be the oldest known hominid, but she was not the missing link. "At 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it," said Tim White of the University of California Berkeley, who helped lead the research team.

They described the partial skeleton of a female representative of Ardipithecus ramidus. The hominid species lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia.

The 4-foot (1.2 meter) tall creature is a million years older than "Lucy" -- the skeleton of another species called Australopithecus afarensis that is one of the best-known pre-humans.

Genetics suggest that humans and our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, diverged 6 million to 7 million years ago, although some research suggests this may have happened 4 million years ago.

"Ardi" is clearly a human ancestor and her descendants did not grow up to be chimpanzees or other apes, the researchers report in the journal Science.

She had an ape-like head and opposable toes that allowed her to climb trees easily, but her hands, wrists and pelvis show she strode like a modern human and did not knuckle-walk like a chimp or a gorilla.

"People have sort of assumed that modern chimpanzees haven't evolved very much, that the last common ancestor was more or less like a chimpanzee and that it's been ... the human lineage ... that's done all the evolving," White said.

But "Ardi" is "even more primitive than a chimpanzee," White said.

So chimps and gorillas do not knuckle-walk because they are more primitive than humans -- they have evolved this characteristic that helps them live in their forest homes.

White, Berhane Asfaw of Rift Valley Research Service in Addis Ababa and a large team analyzed all the bones of Ardi and found she might have been more peace-loving than modern chimpanzees. She does not have the long, sharp canines that chimps use to fight, for instance.

And males and females have similar-sized teeth, suggesting more equality than seen among modern apes.

But her brain, while small, is positioned in a way more similar to that of Australopithecus and modern humans, suggesting more human-like visual and spatial perception.

(Editing by David Morgan)

Ardi,,

 

[oldbootz]

ahh that was cool !!! thanks rick !

 

[englishrick]

fun stuff eh? old boots,,,,

i dont think Darwin expected the "common ancester" to just as different from chimps,,,,, as we are from monkeys,,,,

i think this is a prime example of enviroment over selection,,,,,,,Lamarck Vs Darwin,,,

Humans are litrally a prarralel line to chimps,,,,,,,2 species developed from 1 source genome,,,2 lines removed from 1 another and subjected to different enviroments,......amazing stuff