Genographic Project's New GENO 2.0 DNA test

08/20/2012

12 Comments

 
Picture
Recently, the National Geographic's Genographic Project launched a new DNA test kit called GENO 2.0. It is an autosomal DNA test that covers very specific nuclear SNPs providing information about the history of our genes including a survey of our paternal line (Y chromosome), maternal line (mitochondrial DNA), and the deep ancestry written in the autosomes. It will link our DNA to the history of humankind as it started in Africa tens of thousands of years ago, all the way to the present time. I just ordered my own test, even though they won't be shipped until the end of October. This test will also compare genes between humans and apes, and even Neandertals, looking for surviving rare genetic links between our species and our closest relatives in the evolutionary tree.

National Geographic has a strong pro-evolution agenda, which continues to stimulates all sort of interesting thoughts in religious arenas about harmonizing the biblical creation account with evidence (particular genetic evidence) from science pointing to evolution (something that I have also speculated about in the past). Interestingly, just today, someone in a forum that does not like LDS beliefs mentioned me in a dissatisfied manner stating that "an LDS scientist speculates if those in the past were even human." Believe it or not, I don't think I am the first one that postulated that there were hominids more than 6,000 years ago, but I am flattered if someone would think so.

Here is a video by the Genographic Project introducing the new test.

12 Comments
 

Professor Alan Rogers' Lecture on Evolution at UofU

01/27/2011

3 Comments

 
The following are short notes from a lecture given by Dr. Alan Rogers, professor of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology at University of Utah's Department of Anthropology. The lecture was given on January 27, 2011 in the Gould Auditorium (Marriott Library) on the UofU campus.

EVOLUTION

Why skepticism?
- It is because of the concept of species changing?
- Or, changing into a new species?
- Can a species undergo significant changes?

Few people still doubt it based on micro-evolution examples such as resistance to penicillin and pesticides developed by bacteria and insects respectively.
However, what about new species?
- Doubling, tripling genomes (see the example with Primrose)
It is becoming harder and harder to argue that evolution is limited to only small changes.

Dr. Rogers used the example of the eye to discuss complex adaptation.
- lens vs. retina
- retina useless without lens
- how would selection favor a partial eye?

Charles Pritchard (1866)
- He was the first one to argue that the eye could not evolve.
Charles Darwin (1872)
- He was the first one to refuse Pritchard's argument. However this argument would last.
Weakness of Pritchard's argument:
- The claim is about plausibility. To refute such claim you need to invent a plausible story.
- There is no need for evidence. 
- There is no need for the story to be true.

Hypothetical steps in the evolution of the eye:
A. Eye spot - simple eye, but very sensitive to light from all directions
B. Eye cup - light prevented from extreme angles.
C1. Pin-hole camera eye - forms image, not much light, very dim.
C2. Primitive lens - secrete mucus (easy to produce), denser than H2O, will refract light, only sensitive to direct light found straight ahead of the eye.

Next: improvement of the eye --> Need a vertebrate eye.
Are the steps plausible?
- Yes, they are all found in living organisms today.
- Eye evolution is possible. Pritchard was incorrect.

How did the eye evolve?
- Darwin's prediction: retina evolved earlier then came the lenses --> we can test this hypothesis by looking at living animals.
- We all share common characteristics because we have inherited genes from common ancestors.
We need to start at the basis, the protein level. Opsins are light sensitive proteins. Every animal that sees does so because of the presence of opsins. Similar species have similar opsins.

When cells divide, DNA duplicates. Sometimes the machinery stutter and the DNA is duplicated twice. When you have two copies of the same gene, the new copy may provide new functionality. 

We need to observe what humans have in common with their closer relatives, the apes and old world monkeys. We have one opsin that adapted to dim light and three for color vision. Most mammals only have two for color and this is why they are colorblind. The reason humans, apes and monkeys have three for color is due to the fact that our common ancestor experienced a duplication in the DNA sequences thus resulting in one extra copy for that particularly opsin. 

Evidence of common descent in opsin: closely related species have similar opsin molecules. Humans have similar opsin proteins to insects and cephalopods. 

Crystallins: transparent proteins used in lens and cornea.
- If lenses evolved early, humans and insects should have similar crystallins. But they don't because the lens came later. Insects and cephalopods have very different crystallin proteins from humans.

What about eye morphology?
Vertebrates have eyes that work like cameras. All arthropods have compound eyes (including trilobites). Snails however have a great variety of eyes (they evolved in different varieties). Heteropod sea snail has eyes like slits, with a field vision of 180 degree wide, but just few degrees high. Eye scans are done with rapid movements up and down. 

3 Comments