;-)
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.
==the author is not reporting correctly.
Actually, you are not reporting correctly:
“One of the study’s more unexpected discoveries is overlapping gene expression between the kidney’s different structures, according to Eric Brunskill, PhD, the study’s lead author. Most of the thousands of genes involved in making a mammalian kidney are expressed at some level in every compartment. Previously it had been thought each kidney compartment would have unique genes driving its development, and those genes would not be expressed in the cells of other structures. This is not the case, as the research team found only a small number of genes expressed exclusively in specific kidney structures.”
So mutations are caused by... Satan?
In all honesty, did you read it for understanding or just react. It takes time and effort to get close to truth. The author is simply saying that WE DON'T KNOW IT ALL YET! and asking the evolutionist to demonstrate it.
I understand the discussion on global warming is closed, maybe you would enjoy the that better.
This could be the explanation for homosexuality. Everyone has heterosexual genes but the homosexuals don’t get theirs expressed. I predict the gays will call it the “fabulous repressor”.
Creation "science" is a lie from start to finish. It was only developed when the Supreme Court removed creationism from science classes.
Creationists then invented creation "science" in a dishonest effort to fool school boards, parents, and the courts, and to continue teaching religion as science.
Creation "science" in fact works opposite to real science. It has its conclusions firmly established by scripture and revelation, and misrepresents, distorts, or ignores the data as needed to make it fit those conclusions. That's not honest either.
Sorry, I can't respect that kind of dishonesty.
again OLD news.
The author is trying to make this multitasking as something new.
The author is poorly reporting science.
Actually, it is YOU who are poorly reporting science. So far you are 0 for 1. Care to point out another so-called error?
There, fixed it:
Evolution “science” is a lie from start to finish.
Your materialist co-religionists invented evolution “science” in a dishonest effort to fool school boards, parents, and the courts, and to continue teaching religion as science.
Evolution “science” in fact works opposite to real science. It has its conclusions firmly established by Darwinist scripture and revelation, and misrepresents, distorts, or ignores the data as needed to make it fit those conclusions. That’s not honest either.
Sorry, I can’t respect that kind of dishonesty.
They already did. A great deal is already known about this. Essentially new genes are not created from scratch but by combining and gradually altering parts of old genes. The various mechanisms that can produce these alterations are known. By comparing the coding of genes from various species one can often determine the exact series of alterations that produced a new gene.
but another natural mechanism that generates the precise and effective gene unfolding programs that are known to produce distinct cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. “
Epigenetics, the study of the signals that turn genes on and off, is a major focus of research right now. Since species gradually evolve, the mechanisms producing these signals only have to evolve gradually also.
;-)
I believe creation science came about as a rebuttal to atheistic science. The current trend in our schools and universities is to encourage those in the scientific community to abdicate their religious beliefs because these beliefs are “unscientific” and cannot coexist within a “true” scientist.
There would be no need to espouse creation science if there were more objective science taught and less “science religion” in the academic communities. The main issue is that these same scientists are making assertions about hypotheses that are unprovable and calling it a Theory.
The battle field is the hearts and minds of our children in school. If their religion is tacitly condemned by the teachers and school administrations, I would consider this a mild form of religious persecution - something our country’s fore-fathers would quickly condemn.
Kind of amusing that cretin science always turns to materialist science when it thinks it provideds an advantage.
GGG should go back to his strong suit, promoting anal sex.
“GGG should go back to his strong suit, promoting....”
What are you - ten years old? Geesh.
I’m not the moderator here but I would qualify that last statement about GGG as an ad-hominem attack...
Science, by its very nature, needs to be atheistic- science describes the material world and therefore cannot consider the supernatural.
Science is not equipped to deal with the supernatural or metaphysical. Attacking science for failing to follow the religious tenets of a certain sect or denomination wholly misses the point of what science is meant to do.
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.
Mechanisms (yes, more than one) of DNA shuffling and alteration have been known for decades. The natural mechanisms that allow for the generation of new genes from scratch, likewise, have been known for decades, and are known collectively as "evolution."
Everything the author of this piece put forward is fully supported by evolutionary theory. What he did not do is present a null hypothesis. If I were truly in doubt as to whether evolutionary theory could account for the diversity of species, I would have to come up with a hypothesis and a null hypothesis.
For instance: I hypothesize that the Biblical account happened in a fashion very similar to the account presented in Genesis (discounting, for the moment, the internal inconsistencies in the stories of creation as told in Genesis). To support this hypothesis, I predict that the genetic make-up of all organisms is exactly the same (down to the exact DNA sequence), with the exception of the genes needed to distinguish one organism from another. My null hypothesis is that a perfect creator did not create every organism, and that they evolved independently, in which case the genetic make-up would not be the same, even when coding for the same function. Why do I make these predictions? Because an intelligent creator would not reinvent the wheel for every single species; once a solution to a design problem has been determined, it would be applied across the board. All mammals need to carry oxygen in their blood; therefore, all mammalian hemoglobins should be identical in protein and DNA sequence, because they have the same function. When I examine hemoglobin sequences, however, I see that, although they are similar, they are not identical. So the experimental data supports the null hypothesis. And so on. So far, there isn't any experimental or observational evidence that precludes evolutionary theory in favor of a sudden creation event.
Evolution was proposed out of thin air?
Evolution is not science,
And Genesis is science?
I think I understand step 2 better than these yahoos understand genetic biology.
"Reasons" that, unfortunately, are not logically sound.
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.
So what? There is no logical requirement for "evolutionary relatives" to have exactly the same gene structure. This is something that we'd expect, based on the simple acknowledgement that "differences" exist.
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.
And again, so what? Even granting the full truth of this statement, it has no bearing on whether or not humans and chimps share a common genetic ancestor. If such "non-gene sequences" can be responsible for the bewildering variety of structures in a single human body, one would expect them to be involved in the differences between two "evolutionary relatives."
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.
Which is all well and good. However, simply to demand such mechanisms (or even to fail to find them) is not sufficient to invalidate a "common ancestor" hypothesis. Indeed, one can very easily envision a "common ancestor" scenario in which Creator derived humans and chimps from some "base" version.
That's very much like my approach to computer programming, in fact: I've written a large amount of software, and many programs literally share a common ancestor -- even if the programs themselves have significant differences between them.
The problem I have with this article, and many others like it, is that the author evidently does not have a firm grasp of the underlying logic (or lack thereof) of his argument. He's obviously opposed to the theory of evolution, but fails to recognize that a Creator might in fact work in ways that are functionally the same as what has been hypothesized for evolution.
What is probably damaging, however, is that with his demand for "mechanisms," Mr. Thomas has evidently (perhaps unwittingly) bought into a "God of the gaps" scenario. If such mechanisms are found, his entire argument would collapse -- even though it needn't do so given a different worldview.
CB: “Science, by its very nature, needs to be atheistic”
On the contrary, true science should not take any stance on whether God exists or not. Anyone who contends that atheism is not a religion (see definition for religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) is fooling themselves. God and science can coexist and in my opinion, must exist.
There should be no litmus test by the serious scientific community concerning one’s religious convictions.
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.