Can gene amplification affect the size of an animal or human being?

Yes this would be possible.

Here are some more ways mutations can occur:

(These occur primarily in microorganisms)

Microorganisms are everywhere in nature, and their level of diversity is simply astonishing. They can live in some of the hottest temperatures on Earth, and some of the coldest ones too. They can live in environments without oxygen, without many nutrients, and places that are too toxic for humans. If all of the microorganisms on Earth were wiped out, humans could not survive...but if humans were wiped out, microorganisms would be just fine.

There are many ways microorganisms can exchange genetic material with one another.

Some ways include:

1. transformation- this is a process by which a microorganism will take DNA that it finds in the environment and bring it inside its cell. This DNA can then be incorporated into its genome and these new genes can used for its benefit. (The "naked DNA" in the environment could be there several different ways. One would be if another microorganism's cell membrane ruptured and leaked its DNA out)

2. conjugation- this is process by which a microorganism can exchange genetic material with another microorganism nearby. What happens is that one will grow a long rod like structure called a "sex pili" that attaches to another microorganism nearby. Then genetic material can be transferred between the two organisms! Here is a cool picture of it http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/16cm...onjugation.jpg

This process usually occurs between organisms of the same species, but it has been shown to happen in different species.

3. transduction- this a process by which a virus will transfer genetic material from one organism to another. (I will talk about viruses in one of my next posts cause they have been a huge factor in creating new genetic variability in all living creatures. Even humans)

(Another cool science fact: people always think that we get the oxygen that we breathe from plants. This is true. But, do we get it from anywhere else? Yes! Turns out that only ~50% of the oxygen in the air comes from plants...the other 50% comes from microorganisms that also can perform photosynthesis. These photosynthetic microorganisms are often found beneath the ocean surface where they can use certain wavelengths of light to do this!)

Beware, If you make it through this post you will find something very very interesting about the human genome that most people do not know...

There is one last thing I want to talk about with regards to creating mutations in an organisms genome and that is viruses. Without a doubt, viruses have been a big player in creating genetic diversity in the living world.

(Background: a virus is not composed of 'cells' as other organisms are. They are primary made up of a protein shell called a "capsid", and inside this shell is its genetic material. Their genetic material can be DNA or it can be RNA instead. Viruses can only replicate inside of another organisms cells called a "host". For this reason, many people do not consider them living creatures. Many of them are very small, even much smaller than a bacterial cell)

Okay so I previously mentioned how viruses can facilitate gene transfer in microorganisms and other living beings. Well there are other types of viruses which can do something different. These viruses can take their entire genome and insert it into their host's genome. This is what happens with famous human viruses such as HIV and Herpes, and it is the reason why once you get them, you cannot ever get rid of them! Here is a video of HIV replication and how it integrates into your DNA (you can skip to ~2:45 if you don't want to watch the whole thing, but you should at least see how this virus inserts its genome into yours to understand what comes next in this post) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO8MP...eature=related

Once this virus does this, then when your DNA is expressed, the virus DNA also is, and new viruses form. They then leave your cell and infect other cells. But the viral DNA still remains in the host DNA!

Thus new genetic variability has been created.

Now how does this specific example I brought up relate to humans? Turns out that ~8% of the human genome is composed of these viral DNA sequences that integrated into our ancestors DNA at various points in time, thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years ago! (they are commonly called human endogenous retroviruses) They have been there for so long that these sequences do not actually produce viruses anymore since they have undergone enough mutations to keep them from actually functioning. Also, these sequences can jump to other regions in our DNA just like the other "jumping gene" example I mentioned in another post.

Even though many of these sequences no longer are expressed (some of these regions are what some people call "junk DNA"), parts of these viral sequences do get expressed and yield only parts of these viruses such as proteins, or enzymes.

Now comes the big question: Have humans been able to take these sequences and use the information that they encode (which has been mutated over time), for their benefit? YES! This is a very new topic in its infancy since genome sequencing is pretty new, but researchers have already found ways that these have been used. One new way found is that one of these sequences from these viruses have evolved to form a protein which helps certain cells stick to other cells during the formation of the placenta during pregnancy!

Speaking of controlling theory, a friend of mine visited the Museum of Natural History yesterday and sent me this humorous picture:



We found it funny because if you have to put up a sign in the Museum of Natural History saying there is no controversy, there obviously is one . DUCY?

And to preempt the argument that the MoNH put up that sign because there is a grassroots controversy but it needs to be clarified that there's no scientific controversy, you haven't talked to a lot of scientists in any field other than biology. Also, I have some friends in the field of molecular biology and they report that Darwinism is much more dogmatic than evidenced (they don't believe in it, but they feel tremendous pressure to shut up about it).

Picture isn't there (or is it just my computer?)

No he tried to link a picture from his own email account, it's not you.

Obviously there is controversy and obviously those controversies should be taught in schools. But I'm talking about genuine, real controversy... I'm talking about controversy such as punctuated equilibrium vs “phyletic gradualism.” Controversy which supporters of either side can answer the question "what would you do with $x in grant money?" Ask a creationist the same question and they will tell you "ummmmm.... give it to the church?" because there is nothing else they could do with it--no research to be done and no tests to be run, at all.

although I agree with the first part of your post, the second part is just absurd.

No the second part is fact.

Building churches, expeditions, private missionary, creating non-profit organizations to feed poor, to name a few.

This is what you would do with grant money to fund scientific research? You didn't even read the tread stop trolling.

Jib, would it be too much of a pain in the ass for you to move Razz's evolution posts to a new thread? It's a shame all this stuff is hidden in a thread as a hijack.

Maybe call the thread: Evolution for RGT Dummies?

probably not tonight, but I think that would be a good idea

FYP

No, its fact. (try googling the definition of the word) The same question has been asked in courtrooms over and over again and the creationists always say the same thing: "duuuuurrrrrrr."

Would you care to provide an explanation of what type of "creationist research" you would do with grant money?

Scientific research such as determining the date of wood on supposed findings of Noah's Arc? There are many other different studies and different kinds of research that grant money can be used for religiously.

The topic is creationism how are you not banned yet.

Ya and along the discussion you stated this:
pretty ignorant statement.

.

"duuuuuuuuur"

So you can prove that it is a fact that if you asked a creationist (by definition that would be me) and that I would always say "give it to the church?"

Oh I forgot, you must be a literalist as well. By "give it to the church" you see, I did not mean take the money, walk to the church, and hand it to them. By "give it to the church" I meant "We have no research at all, whatsoever to do and have no idea what to do with this money." I believe these are called figures of speech and they do not work so well with "literalists" who take everything in the bible literal except for contradictions.

Jib please don't mess with this thread.

Why would you have a problem with this? The guy has basically written an evolution primer and it would be nice if it got the full attention it deserves. Given that it has nothing to do with where the garden of eden is, why would you object?