Do molecular biologists deal with evolution on a daily basis?
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I would have thought that they deal with the consequences of evolution every day, but that is a different thing.
Some of their investigations will be otherwise quite independent of evolution: they will be trying to determine the precise mechanisms by which metabolism progresses, or the way in which genes are activated. It is only if they investigate how metabolism has changed over time, or how gene expression has changed that evolution will actively enter their work.
But I used to sell double glazing, so what do I know?
Some of their investigations will be otherwise quite independent of evolution: they will be trying to determine the precise mechanisms by which metabolism progresses, or the way in which genes are activated. It is only if they investigate how metabolism has changed over time, or how gene expression has changed that evolution will actively enter their work.
But I used to sell double glazing, so what do I know?
Evolution is a myth. Just look at Ophiolite.
Nicely put. I would like to modify this statement a bit insofar as we use the theory of evolution as a basic framework for many analyses. For instance, if you analyse the function of a specific protein one nowadays usually also takes a look at the sequence (if available). Sequence similarity analyses of course only make sense if there is a phylogenetic context derived from evolution. And molecular biologists that deal with phylogeny, do that all the time.
Of course there are also analyses, which are completely restricted to a certain chemical reaction/system. This amount of reductionism (in my opinion) tends to be more of a biochemical work than a molecular biological one. But the borders are blurred in this areas, of course. I often like to state (in lectures, that is) that one of the main differences between biology and chemistry is context, either in a evolutionary or at least in a physiological sense.
However, only certain areas in the field of molecular biology really further evolutionary theories directly (e.g. use of molecular clocks).
So one could state that we tend to deal with evolution on a daily basis (some more, some less), but not necessarily with the theory of evolution.
Ohiolite, you are a question mark? You sure are crooked
...
Well lets say your in the biotech industry and you insert a protein producing gene into a host organism, over time that host organism will evolve to not produce your inserted gene.
It depends on what you mean by “deal with”.
Actually, I don’t believe it is a simple question at all. But if you must treat it as such, I hope you bet on ‘no’ because, on balance, that’s the answer (in my opinion).
I agree with these two statements:
Molecular biology routinely involves experiments that investigate aspects of cellular division, replication of DNA, expression of genes, gene regulation, DNA repair mechanisms, protein function, biochemical pathways, and much more. These are all integral components/mechanisms that underlie evolution of organisms, and (as stated) the theory of evolution provides an elegant framework in which to understand and investigate these cellular processes. So in that respect that answer to your question is (sort of) yes.
But only a subset of molecular biology research is asking direct questions about the mechanisms of evolution. The majority of studies would be asking questions about the present-day physiology of organisms (irrespective of how that physiology evolved over time). So in that respect that answer to your question is (sort of) no.
On balance I say no because (I’m guessing) the majority of molecular biologists aren’t interested in evolution per se, they just want to find answers to their physiology question of interest, such as a cure for a disease.
Hercules said:
I think this is precisely the point. If it is meant in a broad sense it would be "yes". Every sequence BLAST search or other sequence alignments deal with evolution, in a way. Many technical aspects thus involve the direct application of evolutionary theories.
But if you mean whether (all) molecular biologists directly research mechanisms of evolution, the answer is pretty much "no".
Too busy/tired to give a full fledged response. But by skimming it he/she sounds to me to be more of a biochemist than molecular biologist to me (again with the blurry border caveat). While what is said (at least what I read) appears not to be wrong, but it is in part overly reductionistic. However, the answers given deal more with the question whether evolutionary theory pertain to the analysis of cellular functions directly, rather whether evolution plays a role in the work of a molecular biologist.
From that and a few other phrase I would guess he/she might be a grad student?
From that and a few other phrase I would guess he/she might be a grad student?
Last edited:
The theory of evolution does not describe the history of life. That is a sort of famous problem with it - the actual events are left unknown, while profound conclusions are drawn about their basic or abstract nature. That makes people suspicious.
On the contrary, it places considerable restrictions on how cells operate. It forbids the continued existence of operational features both expensive and useless, for example. That is often a very useful focusing of approach when researching an operational feature.
Some people use it for exactly that. No one has to - but it has come in handy.
It is difficult to use, appears to be the major problem - not that it hasn't proven enlightening in the past, and promising for the future.
Those algorithms just drop from the sky, do they ?
I doubt that. There are plenty of futile cycles, for one thing. Only that which inhibits survival would be eliminated [obviously]
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It discourages. (I am also in something of a semantic quagmire to understand how, without stretching meaning, an operational feature can be useless.)
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I understand that the appendix does make a useful contribution to our functioning. The vestigial concept has been debunked for it. I mention that in passing with no great commitment to it being right or wrong, but I'm almost never wrong when a casual thought like that occurs to me, especially this late at night, so you might as well just accept it.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I thought I made it clear I was too lackadaisical to be bothered finding out.
Zahid, A. (2004) "The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ." J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 14:256-258.
The appendix has often been seen more as a nuisance rather than an important part of the human anatomy. Early misconceptions have led to the indiscriminate removal of the appendix from the body. Long thought to be an evolutionary remnant of little significance to normal physiology, the appendix has more recently been identified as an important component of mammalian mucosal immune function, particularly B-lymphocyte-mediated immune responses and extrathymically derived T-lymphocytes. This structure helps in the proper movement and removal of waste matter in the digestive system, contains lymphatic vessels that regulate pathogens, and lastly, might even produce early defences that prevent deadly diseases. The appendix is one of the guardians of the internal environment of the body from the hostile external environment.
You owe me three and a quarter minutes of my life. Couldn't you have done that?
Zahid, A. (2004) "The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ." J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 14:256-258.
The appendix has often been seen more as a nuisance rather than an important part of the human anatomy. Early misconceptions have led to the indiscriminate removal of the appendix from the body. Long thought to be an evolutionary remnant of little significance to normal physiology, the appendix has more recently been identified as an important component of mammalian mucosal immune function, particularly B-lymphocyte-mediated immune responses and extrathymically derived T-lymphocytes. This structure helps in the proper movement and removal of waste matter in the digestive system, contains lymphatic vessels that regulate pathogens, and lastly, might even produce early defences that prevent deadly diseases. The appendix is one of the guardians of the internal environment of the body from the hostile external environment.
You owe me three and a quarter minutes of my life. Couldn't you have done that?
So after removing the appendix, people become immunologically vulnerable? Hmm, I have heard some weird news that doctors only remove it when absolutely necessary [like they used to when people presented with appendicitis ]. I've also heard it said that it acts as a reservoir for microflora when people have diarrhoea [much like diverticulitis, one presumes]. But, like I said, if after removing it, nothing changes, its pretty much vestigeal.
Thanks I'll take a closer look at it sometime.
]. I've also heard it said that it acts as a reservoir for microflora when people have diarrhoea [much like diverticulitis, one presumes]. But, like I said, if after removing it, nothing changes, its pretty much vestigeal.Thanks I'll take a closer look at it sometime.