How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze? • Hacker News Board

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#11

Post by caprese » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 8:23 AM UTC

bitL wrote: post #9

taneq wrote: post #6

From the headline I'd immediately guess many groups of fish were living in above-zero waters adjacent to sub-zero waters containing food. Eventually some of them experienced a random mutation which made them slightly less freezy and earned them free food! The account of the actual sequence of mutations required was really interesting, though. It's good to see an article go into that kind of detail!

Maybe the mutation wasn't really random? I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we find that the "90% unused brain capacity" is actually doing some long-term adaptation computations and then uses various signals to put that information into reproductive cells...

We are seeing external adaptive pressures that diminish natural selection as an absolute, such as in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4333222/

Its nice that science is able to adapt to new information.

Natural selection needed to be an absolute to counter state-religion based spontaneous creation.

But its now not an absolute, with worthwhile investigation of how life experience can make its way into zygotes.

Maybe one day we can even prove spontaneous creation, and learn the process for that.

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#12

Post by jplayer01 » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 8:25 AM UTC

bitL wrote: post #9

taneq wrote: post #6

From the headline I'd immediately guess many groups of fish were living in above-zero waters adjacent to sub-zero waters containing food. Eventually some of them experienced a random mutation which made them slightly less freezy and earned them free food! The account of the actual sequence of mutations required was really interesting, though. It's good to see an article go into that kind of detail!

Maybe the mutation wasn't really random? I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we find that the "90% unused brain capacity" is actually doing some long-term adaptation computations and then uses various signals to put that information into reproductive cells...

> various signals to put that information into reproductive cells

This idea isn't that far-fetched, when considering something like this is possible https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181022085844.h...

> "90% unused brain capacity"

However, the myth of the 90% unused brain capacity is a myth. Different parts of the brain are always active depending on the environment and the tasks being undertaken at any given moment, due to the brain's structure as a sort of parallel processing machine with specialized areas (speech, visual processing, auditory processing, etc.).

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#13

Post by caprese » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 8:26 AM UTC

Drakim wrote: post #10

bitL wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the mutation wasn't really random? I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we find that the "90% unused brain capacity" is actually doing some long-term adaptation computations and then uses various signals to put that information into reproductive cells...

The "90% unused brain capacity" is a myth. Furthermore, the brain doesn't control evolution though "thinking", it's powered by natural selection outside the body.

cited by 555 other papers suggesting RNA changes from life experience -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4333222/

so people are working on reproducing this and understanding this process more, to say more clearly: scientists are actively researching how evolution can happen without natural selection

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#14

Post by thaumasiotes » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 8:33 AM UTC

caprese wrote: post #13

Drakim wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "90% unused brain capacity" is a myth. Furthermore, the brain doesn't control evolution though "thinking", it's powered by natural selection outside the body.

cited by 555 other papers suggesting RNA changes from life experience - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4333222/ so people are working on reproducing this and understanding this process more, to say more clearly: scientists are actively researching how evolution can happen without natural selection

> how evolution can happen without natural selection

This sounds incoherent. What does "natural selection" mean to you?

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#15

Post by taneq » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:00 AM UTC

bitL wrote: post #9

taneq wrote: post #6

From the headline I'd immediately guess many groups of fish were living in above-zero waters adjacent to sub-zero waters containing food. Eventually some of them experienced a random mutation which made them slightly less freezy and earned them free food! The account of the actual sequence of mutations required was really interesting, though. It's good to see an article go into that kind of detail!

Maybe the mutation wasn't really random? I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we find that the "90% unused brain capacity" is actually doing some long-term adaptation computations and then uses various signals to put that information into reproductive cells...

I don't believe (from what we know currently) that there's any mechanism for the brain to change our genetics, but hey, we may find out someday that it does something like that.

Even if not, I'd be completely unsurprised to find out that some of the "random mistakes" or "junk DNA" that we have floating around in our bodies actually reacts in some obscure way to different environmental influences to tweak our gene expression and whatnot.

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#16

Post by Vinnl » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:01 AM UTC

Not really relevant, but too much of a fun fact for me not to share: the partner's name is "DeVries", which I'm guessing has a Dutch origin, and literally translates to "TheFreeze".

(I suspect its etymological origin is more related to Frysia, though.)

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#17

Post by hycaria » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:13 AM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #5

Interesting article about some of the mechanics of DNA and evolution. But I wanted to call out a confusing use of the increasingly ambiguous word “partner” here: “There, she and her partner, Arthur DeVries, studied the notothens”. What sort of partner? Research partner, clearly. Oh, but with some googling you can find that they are married, so also romantic/life partner. I appreciate the sentiment behind the takeoff…

I directly understood it as both romantic and work partner.

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#18

Post by Simon_says » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:32 AM UTC

dmckeon wrote: post #7

skywhopper wrote: post #5

Interesting article about some of the mechanics of DNA and evolution. But I wanted to call out a confusing use of the increasingly ambiguous word “partner” here: “There, she and her partner, Arthur DeVries, studied the notothens”. What sort of partner? Research partner, clearly. Oh, but with some googling you can find that they are married, so also romantic/life partner. I appreciate the sentiment behind the takeoff…

Why? This is science reporting, not tabloid journalism. We don’t need to know the marital status, gender preference, dietary restrictions, previous relationships, etc. Good writing about science is plenty. And “spouse” is a fine word if needed.

I agree with you, but then why bring it up at all?

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#19

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:35 AM UTC

jplayer01 wrote: post #12

bitL wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the mutation wasn't really random? I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we find that the "90% unused brain capacity" is actually doing some long-term adaptation computations and then uses various signals to put that information into reproductive cells...

> various signals to put that information into reproductive cells This idea isn't that far-fetched, when considering something like this is possible https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181022085844.h... > "90% unused brain capacity" However, the myth of the 90% unused brain capacity is a myth. Different parts of the brain are always active depending on the environment and the tasks being undertaken at any g…

[deleted]

Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?

#20

Post by fifnir » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 9:54 AM UTC

caprese wrote: post #13

Drakim wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "90% unused brain capacity" is a myth. Furthermore, the brain doesn't control evolution though "thinking", it's powered by natural selection outside the body.

cited by 555 other papers suggesting RNA changes from life experience - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4333222/ so people are working on reproducing this and understanding this process more, to say more clearly: scientists are actively researching how evolution can happen without natural selection

Epigenetic research isn't going against evolution, it's refining some details.

We are discovering some nonmendelian dynamics of inheritance, but being epigenetic they are only about how the organism can differentially use its genetic library.