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.
See #29.
So you still maintain that ERVs are primarily functionless in the face of the growing evidence that shows more and more ERVs are indeed functional, even vital to our survival? And as the Journal of Creation points out, the fact that so many ERVs are functional would seem to invalidate the evo-assumption that they got there via random insertions. Indeed, according to one recent study, ERVs aid transcription in over 1/5 of the human genome! Face it Allmendream, God made ERVs for a purpose...a purpose that we are only just beginning to understand.
I could see how putting “junk” and “selfish” in quotes might confuse an Evo. But I don’t think the author was trying to fool his readers as putting those words in quotes would not fool a Creationist or an IDer for a moment. We all know the basic faith assumptions behind the Evos claim that ERVs are best explained by common descent. Surely you are familiar with concept behind so-called “junk” DNA? Surely you are familiar with Dawkin’s book “The Selfish Gene”? This is standard stuff that virtually all orthodox neo-Darwinists believe with passion.
And while I have not conducted a thorough keyword search of Theobald’s “29+ Evidences” to see if he uses the actual words “junk” DNA, that is precisely what he’s talking about in the following section of the same:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#molecular_inefficiency
Still no explanation for the nested hierarchy of relation and divergence of ERV’s. Functional ERV’s doesn't give a creationist explanation for the data of similarity and divergence in nested hierarchies exactly as one would expect from common descent.
What do you mean make them look exactly like a viral genome? How do you know that God didn't create our genomes with ERVs built in? How do you know that they didn't start out there and then picked up the necessary genetic elements to escape the genome and move between cells and between organisms? Indeed, ERVs may explain how directed soma mutations are inserted into our germline cells (thus destroying the neo-Darwinian Wiesmann barrier). C’mon, Allmendream, put away your Darwinian idols for a while and learn to think outside your science-stopping materialist box for a change.
==Still no explanation for the nested hierarchy of relation and divergence of ERV’s.
I already explained this to you before. Nested hierarchies point to a common designer, not common descent.
This "Evo" wasn't "confused" by seeing those words in quotes. I just decided to see if the DI writer's claim of what Theobald meant was supported by what Theobald actually said. And lo, it wasn't. It's a common creationist tactic, to say that "when scientists say X, they must mean Y" and then to argue against Y, even though the scientist in question never actually said Y. The fact that other creationists and IDers agree with the assertion doesn't change its essential dishonesty.
And while I have not conducted a thorough keyword search of Theobald’s “29+ Evidences” to see if he uses the actual words “junk” DNA, that is precisely what he’s talking about in the following section of the same:
It wasn't hard to do the search: I just downloaded the PDF version and searched for the words "junk" and "selfish." They're not there. And the DI writer's contention was that those concepts applied to the ERV section, not the molecular inefficiency section. It'd be a lot easier to respect the DI writer's argument if he dealt with the words Theobald actually wrote, in the section he supposedly wrote them in.
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.
What seems odd to me is that this evidence should be used to support an evolution argument. It sounds much more like de-evolution! The entire evolutionary hypothesis requires us to believe that all changes trend toward greater complexity. Does this case not prove otherwise?
And this case also speaks very little about species change. It merely speaks to the adapatability of a particular species. A parallel example to this would be all the humans who have lost limbs due to accidents. Isn’t it amazing how many of these humans have survived and thrived? This must be evidence for evolution....
And what personal problems did you bring up anyway? Does it have anything to do with the memories being blacked out? And just what are you implying by that?
But since you can't stop talking about, I'll just let it look like my mistake if you'll quit.
How benevolent of you. And just who's mistake would it be anyway?
It has nothing to do with the question of FR identities.
Sure it does. That's what you made the issue about, that valkyry1 was formerly Running Wolf. Go back to post 149 and see for yourself.
I didn't accuse anyone of being a retread. I never made the accusation that valkyry1 was Running Wolf. I didn't make accusations of anyone sneaking back. That's your baby. I'm not doing your work for you. You're the one who wants to know; ask him yourself. I’m sure he will be truthful.
“Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said “Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths.” Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source”
Doesn’t it?
You'd never know it by reading posts on this forum.
You'd get the impression that the great god of Science is the end all and be all of human existence and meaning.
You have been getting your definition of evolution from creationists, Evolution simply states that there is variation from one generation to the next and that some variants have more offspring than others. That's it. There are thousands of people writing about the details, but nothing in biology implies a direction toward greater complexity.
In point of fact, amoebas have a longer genome than humans. There is no correlation between code complexity and what we generally think of as higher and lower organisms.
Stephen Gould wrote an entire book debunking the complexity myth.
Until contradicted by valkyry1, I maintain he is the same person as Running Wolf. It’s been a couple of days and your pings haven’t brought forth any denial.
If you want to know what my comment refers to, do a search on Running Wolf and look at his last few posts.
Again, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. While I will agree that the DI writer could have been clearer about who said what, it is also clear upon a closer reading that he is attributing “junk” and “selfish” to the “presumption behind (Theobald's) argument,” not Theobald himself. Furthermore, Theobald affirms the junkiness of ERVs by calling them “molecular remnants of past infections.” He also affirms that they selfishly replicate by inserting themselves in the hosts genome (selfish replication is replication that supposedly does not contribute to the reproductive success of the host, while at the same time preserving the ERV in the host's genome).
Evolution is change, and there is no specified direction nor is there a requirement for increasing complexity.
The devolution argument is brought in by creationists who see sin as causing devolution from an earlier perfect state. This is religion and has nothing to do with science.
And this case also speaks very little about species change. It merely speaks to the adapatability of a particular species. A parallel example to this would be all the humans who have lost limbs due to accidents. Isn’t it amazing how many of these humans have survived and thrived? This must be evidence for evolution....
Nonsense.
It is from a CalTech physics professor's website.
And I don't see what should be so surprising about that definition. That is something that all scientists should be aware of, and the general public as well.
Little Russian dolls don't explain it, neither does the fact that some ERV’s are functional, even if they were ALL functional, their location and divergence from viral sequence is exactly what one would expect from a germline viral infection in a common ancestor.
Yeah, that is kinda where I was coming from. I used to be a COBOL programmer, and when I first heard about the “language over a language” it made me think of some of the more sophisticated “control file driven” COBOL programs. Depending on what files were used as input in the JCL, the function of a COBOL program could vary wildly.
DNA is truly the most incredible thing ever discovered by man. Nothing else really comes close.
What can I say, I really did explain it to you. It's not my fault that your prior commitment to materialism prevents you from recognizing the obvious.
==The data is completely consistent with common descent.
Nope, the data is completely consistent with common design.
==For the data to be consistent with common design then why does ‘the design’ look so much like viral genomes that implanted into a common ancestor?
As I already explained, you are reading your evolutionary assumptions into the debate over ERVs when they are completely unwarranted. First, you are assuming that ERVs are remnants of random exogenous retrovirus insertions. The fact that they are proving to be not only functional, but in many cases crucial, suggests that they were created for a purpose. You keep ignoring the very real possibility that ERVs were incorporated into our genomes at the time of creation, and were designed to pick up the genetic elements necessary to leave the genome and move from cell to cell, and from organism to organism, just as bees were created to move from flower to flower.
==Little Russian dolls don't explain it
That was but my first, and simplest example demonstrating that humans (who are made in God's image) naturally create nested hierarchies. The command structure of the military is also a nested hierarchy. Computer programers routinely create modular nested hierarchies that can be swapped between programs. And finally, there is growing evidence that God designed our perceptual systems to naturally shape and structure our environment into nested hierarchies. Thus, the whole notion that nested hierarchies are best explained by Darwin's unintelligent natural selection god is a non-starter. If man is made in God's image, and man naturally creates nested hierarchies, then that is powerful evidence that God also created using nested hierarchies.
Even if ERV’s were “designed” into the genome it doesn't explain the pattern of similarity and divergence exactly as if they incorporated into the genome of a common ancestor.
You simply have no explanation for the pattern other than “Maybe God wanted it to look like that.”
Maybe God wanted the universe to look hundreds of millions of years old.
Maybe God wanted the earth to look millions of years old.
Maybe God made the entire universe last Thursday and put in false memories and a fake history.
Maybe God wanted to make Creationists look like a bunch of ignorant blowhards. Sure does seem to be a part of God's plan to confound them at every turn while the data for an ancient Earth and living systems related by common descent keeps accumulating.
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.