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.
ID generally argues that the genetic code LOOKS engineered, and often compare genetic coding with computer coding.
The simple fact is that when humans play with the genetic code, as in the creation of genetically engineered food crops, the first thing they do is violate common descent. Genomes engineered by humans are easily distinguished by their violations of nested hierarchy.
Where?
My point is that genoms , even if engineered by an intelligent agency, look like they are produced by incremental modification and descent.
Hmmmm. Seems like science to me.
Limb Loss In Lizards: Evidence For Rapid EvolutionSmall skink lizards, Lerista, demonstrate extensive changes in body shape over geologically brief periods. Several species of these skinks have rapidly evolved an elongate, limbless body form.
Skinks are a common sight in Australia and many species have limbs that are either reduced or missing entirely. According to the lead author of this study, Adam Skinner of The University of Adelaide, "It is believed that skinks are loosing their limbs because they spend most of their lives swimming through sand or soil; limbs are not only unnecessary for this, but may actually be a hindrance".
Skinner and his colleagues performed a genetic analysis of the lizards to investigate the pattern and rate of limb reduction, finding that evolution of a snake-like body form has occurred not only repeatedly but also very rapidly and without any evidence of reversals. Skinner said, "At the highest rate, complete loss of limbs is estimated to have occurred within 3.6 million years". Compared to similarly dramatic evolutionary changes in other animals, this is blisteringly fast.
[snip]
Considering the so-called Cambrian Explosion occupied at least ten times this duration.
Which may be true, but not necessarily so; and if it is, it still doesn't mean we all came from a single organism.
Creative writer: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, Alice in WonderlandEvolutionist: "Why, sometimes I've seen evidence for as many as six things, formerly thought impossible, before breakfast."
Creationist: "Why, sometimes I've declared as many as six of those sciencey things impossible before breakfast."
The idea that everything is related by descent has its limits. Single celled organisms don’t have species as we usually think of species. Microbes exchange DNA in what amounts to promiscuity.
But multi-celled organisms, including both plants and animals, appear to be related by descent. I’m not aware of any engineered product that doesn’t have borrowings from outside the line of descent.
If he was around today, there would probably be people who’d want Thomas Paine banned if he showed up on a crevo thread.
Good, now if the evo-cultists would practice what they preach...and not be so defensive when other ideas are put forth.
Evo-cultists, as you call them, do practice what they preach. If they didn’t the creationists and anti-evolutionists would have no research findings to mine for apparent contradictions.
The situation in biology is no diferent from that in physics. At the cutting edge there are always arguments and disagreements. It doesn’t make the earth flat when physicsists argue about m-theory
NO they don't. If that were the truth, we'd see some recent serious convincing peer review of evolution/origins. But we don't.
We'd also have an explanation as to how one would be able to tell if a so-called peer review of evolution was submitted by an evolutionist or a creationist if their name was not attached to their peer review.But again, we don't.
How would YOU tell?
In his "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" on TalkOrigins, Douglas Theobald claims that "Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent." The presumption behind his argument is that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are functionless stretches of "junk" DNA that persist because they are "selfish"
I just downloaded the document in question, and neither the word "junk" nor the word "selfish" appears in it, nor does the section on ERVs say anything about their function. So not only is the Discovery Institute writer claiming Theobald is saying something he doesn't actually say, he goes so far as to put words in quotes that Theobald doesn't even use. Misleading and dishonest--a DI twofer!
Actually, many of the signers of the Discover Institute statement questioning evolution are members in good standing of the mainstream scientific community and publish peer-reviewed articles on evolution.
People aren’t expelled for their personal beliefs. They get expelled for failure to do good science.
And good science doesn’t include arguing that because we don’t know how something works, the explanation must be supernatural.
Oddly enough, that was one of Newton’s great blunders, arguing that because his theory of gravity couldn’t explain the stability of the solar system, God must be tweaking the orbits. The assumptions you make about areas of ignorance and uncertainty have implications for research. That is why, after two hundred years, the intelligent design movement has yet to publish a research program or make any specific suggestions for research.
The scientists themselves aren't pathetic. The number of them that have signed the Dissent document, compared to the number of partcipants in Project Steve, is pathetic.
I also hear alot about science not being consensus. I see this is true only when it concerns anything but the cult of evolution.
Try to follow your own argument. You told me to get a clue from the fact that only a few people here are "on my side." Will you get a clue from how paltry your list really is?
My advice to you two is to ignore him. All he does is go around trying to get people he disagrees with banned. He has even been known to tap unsuspecting FReepers to do his dirty work for him. I should know, I caught him trying to do this to me in another thread—GGG
Why are you avoiding answering the question about what you meant about remembering something or was it *blacked out*?
Why aren’t you addressing the fact that Running Wolf was never banned? How can someone who wasn’t banned to begin with *sneak back*?
Why do you keep changing the subject?
Next time I fail to courtesy ping someone I’m talking about, can I count on you to NOT remind me of the fact?
A new study has identified a gene associated with hair production in present-day lizards and chickens, which may trace its origins back more than 300 million years ago.
While lizards and chickens are not hairy, their claws contain proteins nearly identical to those found in the human hair shaft, fingernails and toenails, on the surface of the tongue and within the thymus gland.
Since the last common ancestor of mammals, birds and lizards lived before the first true dinosaurs emerged, both dinosaurs and humans appear to have inherited the genes responsible for human hair and animal claws.
The structure of our hair and nails may add to the evidence that we are distantly related to dinosaurs and many other creatures, both extinct and living.
Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.....
Of course it is. Secular fanatics who love big government force for indoctrination of other people's children are liars. They need to lie a few more times each day to perpetuate their shell game.
Many of these lunatic fringe secularists are hardline leftists when it comes to full scale government indoctrination of school children as long as long as the forced indoctrination matches the post nineteen sixties destructive Democrat elite's party line.
A circle of left wing back slappers who sing the praises of each other.
If you read any of their posts on Free Republic, these loud mouthed hyper-secular humanistic evoluionists talk about themselves...tooooo often, while most men who are not insecure, do not have to talk about themselves repeatedly and find convenient (but silly) ways to remind themselves of how qualified they are.
Because I regret bringing up someone's personal problem and wish to stop talking about it. But since you can't stop talking about, I'll just let it look like my mistake if you'll quit.
It has nothing to do with the question of FR identities.
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.