Thread: From Genetics To The Organism

I have a question concerning how the genes make up the physiology of multicelled organisms.

While in embryonic stage, most species cover various evolutionary phases in their physiology. They actually fast forward to their actual evolutional heritage. From fish, to reptile, to tailed mammal, to practically hairless and tailless human.

From this i can make up, that genes do not on themselves make up physiology. Neiter do all the genes combined have an effect on physiology. I can make up however that the sequence of genes that are active at the time, are those from that particular evolutionary phase.

So our genetics would not make up our system. And we can't investigate every illness, because the genetic activation sequence is unknown. Some proteins can interact, which they should not, or premature antibodies can be created in an organism from a shifting phase in it's creation.

Am i making any sense whatsoever?

I'm just hinting; Should geneticists investigate the embryonic activation sequence order of genes? This offcourse in every singular tissue of the body. And what can we find if we do?

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Am i making any sense whatsoever?

Not much (to me) ...

All those things you mention are directed by the genome (plus some epigenetic and environmental effects). How else would a frog become a frog and not an antelope? And although there is some similarity during development to earlier organisms, that is just because some genes have been "repurposed" to create novel structures.

I'm just hinting; Should geneticists investigate the embryonic activation sequence order of genes?

They do. This is a major area of research.

Hi Zwolver,It's quaint how multiple organisms undergo similar developmental processes at the embryonic stage, e.g. how humans temporarily have tails, it is very telling of our common descent. However the spatio temporal gene expression patterns responsible for the developmental programme are themselves under the control of master gene regulators - most notably the Hox genes. As to why organisms have not eradicated the now vestigial developmemtal phenotypes e.g. tail in humans - my hunch is that any mutation or suite of mutations capable of transforming developmental processes so drastically is more likely to be detrimental than beneficial. A bit like ttuning a piano, any large change is likely to make things go awry than to refine conditions in a helpful way. Perhaps such vestigial developmental phases will be lost over time, who knows...Best wishes, Tri

Originally Posted by Strange

All those things you mention are directed by the genome (plus some epigenetic and environmental effects). How else would a frog become a frog and not an antelope? And although there is some similarity during development to earlier organisms, that is just because some genes have been "repurposed" to create novel structures.

Yes it is. Though their individual sequences does not explain how it an organism grows, or functions.

Though i'm not sure what you mean by "novel structures"

Secondly, i didn't know it was already a branch of research. I haven't really looked for it thoroughly.

I wonder if the body actually learns while it grows. In a sense of what is viable to life, and what is not. And it's just guided by genes, not totally controlled. Any articles about this somewhere you can redirect me to?

Thanks for the information, as it is really important for biology students to know about the genetics and organism. we can learn today with internet as distant learning is the main facility offered through universities.

flexible learning options

Spam?