Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
wild to cultivated changes?
While I was working out in the greenhouse i may have answered one of my own
questions/assumptions: Because the gene group responsible for 'making flowers' is a gene group that has been in the 'gene pool' for millions of years and copied itself into may various organisms, it has moved around and changed alot. The various gene components have separated from each other, crossed onto different chromosomes, developed mutations, etc. So the group may still work to 'make flowers' in all the species that make flowers. However, comparing the templates of, say, an oak tree and a petunia even the discerning viewer would not recognize a common gene structure that was responsible for this task? The genes to 'make flowers' are still there but they don't look the same from template to template? I think one big mystery is that they continue to do the same thing even though they have changed so much. Is this right? Or is too simple? Still there has to be something to the idea that the gene group responsible for making flowers in all species that makes flowers has common features across the spectrum of species templates? I've got a headache. "Al" wrote in message om... When you are looking a gene map, you are looking at a template for making an individual that has been copied, (added to and slightly rearranged and altered) from every individual ancestor from which it has descended? So it seems that across species, genera and families of organisms, the groups of genes that do something which helps the individual pass those genes would have a common look and function across the broad spectrum of creatures they create? These are questions? :-) Have a group of genes been found in plants that are only found in plants which produce flowers? Have a group of genes been found in orchids that are not found in any other flowering plants? Wouldn't such a finding indicate that the gene group is responsible for something that happens in flowering plants but not in other plants, or in orchids but not in other flowering plants? How do they find genes? Is it possible (yet) for a trained botanist/geneticist to look at a bunch of genes and tell if it is a gymnosperm or an angiosperm? That identifying structure he/she is looking for being a thing common to all angiosperms but that is not present in gymnosperms? Did the flowering organ in plants develop in many different unrelated species of non-flowering plants, and therefore maybe be relatively uneasy to compare and identify in other flowering plant's genes? I am sure gene groups that do the same thing in different animals are moved all over the place in the various species they construct and may not even stay together on the same chromosome even if they perform the same function, so it follows that the relatedness of species and individuals has something to do with where known gene groups are located in the templates when compared to each other? I would guess that the genes of plants would travel through time and species the same way they travel through the genes of the animal kingdom. A group of genes that performs a specific function in any organism descended from a previous ancestor would be found in some form in all species that, like the hox box gene that determines the development of appendages in fetus. Can genes that 'make a flower' or "make a fused reproductive organ called a column" be located by comparing and contrasting genes from many species? I think there is a common question in all of these questions. There certainly seems to be a set of assumptions which I do not even know to be correct. I am genetically incapable of writing tight concise short sentences. The same gene responsible for this behavioral trait is what makes my... well, never mind... Al Rob Halgren wrote in message ... Take your time to assimilate. We'll still be here and happy to help. But please don't slander yourself again like that. It is NOT futile. Way back, many many years ago, when I was teaching, I would rebuke any student who made such a remark, encouraging them to have more confidence. You can learn and understand anything you wish, if you are honestly trying. If, in such a circumstance, you don't understand something I have said, the fault is mine; not yours. That is my philosophy too. Glad to see there are other people who actually care about teaching out there. If you didn't understand me, it was because I didn't use the right words. There are exceptions for people who just don't listen, but you can't teach them anything they don't already know anyway. Rob |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
34,000 wild and cultivated plants | Gardening | |||
PHOTO OF THE WEEK, Cultivated Iris | Gardening | |||
Wild V Cultivated | United Kingdom | |||
Where are department store orchids cultivated? | Orchids | |||
wild to cultivated changes? | Orchids |