Posted on 11/21/2008 9:27:32 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Genetic Expression: Same Genes Can Produce Different Results
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Genes could be thought of as brick molds, used to construct materials for building the physical structures of living organisms. They carry the codes to help make proteins, which then make up different cells that are combined together to form mega-structures called tissues. New research has shed more light on how genes are used by cells to build the different tissues needed by complex living creatures.
Genes—which make up a very small fraction of DNA—were thought to be the central genetic features that drive cell function and embryonic development. New evidence shows that non-gene DNA is almost fully used in cells, and that there is coded information (but not genes) in the cell that manages which genes are expressed, when, and how often.1
In 2005, a landmark study found that certain very similar human and chimpanzee genes differ in sequence by an average of 4.4 percent.2 Evolutionary scientists believe that the percentage of shared gene sequences between chimps and people supports the hypothesis that they have a common biological ancestor.
But in a recent study published in the November 11, 2008, issue of Developmental Cell, researchers discovered that when different tissues within kidneys are formed in the womb, the dividing cells do not use different genes to produce the distinct building “bricks” that are needed for each kind of tissue!3 Lead author Eric Brunskill summarized that “almost all of the genes are expressed in the different parts but at varied levels.”4
Thus, the same genes were used to make quite different structures. As an example, bricks that come from the same mold may be similar or even identical, but they can be variously arranged to build a house, a patio, or a sidewalk. Likewise, even if certain genes are identical between two kinds of creatures—i.e., humans and chimps—it’s the expression and arrangement of those gene products that determine what tissues are produced.
Since different features can be built using the same genes, some of the similarities between chimp and human genes carry less relevance for an evolutionary interpretation of origins. The assumption that people are evolutionary relatives of chimps because they share similar genes is invalid for at least two reasons. First, even though research has found that a 4.4 percent average difference in sequence exists between the similar genes, there are in fact many distinct genes that humans have and chimps do not, and vice versa. Second, there is a large percentage of the two separate genomes that have not yet been correlated, and it is likely that significant non-gene sequence differences will become known—just as one recent study discovered.5
Even with the same or almost the same genes, many differences between apes and humans exist because the genes are “unpacked” differently during development. To make the story of human evolution plausible, its proponents need to demonstrate not only a natural mechanism that generates new complete genes from scratch, but another natural mechanism that generates the precise and effective gene unfolding programs that are known to produce distinct cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.
References
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 447: 799-816.
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature. 437 (7055): 77.
Brunskill, E. W. et al. 2008. Atlas of Gene Expression in the Developing Kidney at Microanatomic Resolution. Developmental Cell. 15 (5): 781-791.
Genetic Blueprint Revealed for Kidney Design and Formation. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center press release, November 10, 2008.
Perry, G. H. et al. 2008. Copy Number Variation and Evolution in Humans and Chimpanzees. Genome Research. 18 (11): 1703.
Of course there is. It's the same one there always is: "God made it that way." No evidence needed or offered.
I have to say, though, that I'm cheered by the number of different posters here stepping up to say what bull the original article is. Sometimes I feel sorry for you, Coyoteman, and js1138 for having to do all the work representing conservatives who get it about science.
That, my friend, is your argument based on your bias, not the facts.
Most of the other scientists have either been banned or left in disgust.
A good example is Radioastronomer, written up in FR's Finest, then banned after being baited by a creationist and responding forcefully.
Our kind doesn't seem to be much wanted around here.
Why do you drop the crying martyr act and tell them how you treated people at your own website, the one you are a moderator on.
All it is is a anti-freeper site, and the level of vitriol against freeprs got so nasty and low brow you had to hide the threads.
You speak as someone whose personal problems got you banned from a number of sites. You remember that, or was it blacked out?
Perhaps you could also provide a link to the alleged baiting.
Our kind doesn't seem to be much wanted around here.
Nope, just the behavior. Besides, the persecuted martyr stuff doesn't wear well considering the speed with which people who don't tow the evo line are banned from DC.
FR doesn't have statements about prohibiting the preaching of evolution like DC does about preaching the gospel.
For all the whining that evos do about what is and is not allowed on FR in the way of evo and scientific beliefs, they sure ooze hypocrisy because they are far less tolerant of other opinions that anyone on FR is.
How do you read that out of his comments?
Admin,
Can something be done to stop the relentless evolutionist hi-jacking of the GodGunsGuts threads?
But nothing in his statement justified the comment “You remember that, or was it blacked out?”
Just what kind of ASSumption are you making about him based on his post 144?
Don’t you know?
When someone disagrees with a leftist, or an atheist, or a secular humanist, there is obviously something mentally wrong with them.
This is what fascists/communists have done historically with their ideological enemies - painted them as insane (judged, of course, by “approved” psychologists),
and locked them up for their own good and that of society.
I’m not making assumptions. I’m stating a fact. Sneaking back used to be a violation of the forum rules.
That sure comes across loud and clear.
And they worry about creationists threatening *scientists* with imprisonment.
That's what I asked you about. You totally ignored that.
So you know he *snuck back* how?
A singular evolutionary pattern should always be subject to question and doubt especially when its supporting theories are so far from the tangible scientific axioms applied to heal the sick, fly the airplanes, and provide for nuclear power.
He was? When?
Ask him. I’m sure he will be truthful.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~runningwolf/
Funny. I don’t get any messages about *This account has been banned or suspended.*
So when was he banned again? You seem to think you have a pretty good handle on what he’s all about. You’re the one making the accusations. Why should I ask him about it? Why don’t YOU tell us?
BTW, if you’re talking about someone, you ought to be courtesy pinging them. Leastways, that’s what the evos constantly remind everyone of when non-evos don’t.
If he denies being Running wolf, I will apologise.
What brought that on and what was that all about?
Running Wolf was never banned. Follow the link. The account still shows active. His homepage comes up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.