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.
That falls within the shadow of our concern for folks who waste tax dollars.
A current scandal involves embryonic stem cell research. Although nothing has come of such research beyond the discovery that no one knows how to "turn on" the genes to build up to a tissue, a lot of public bonding authority has gone into backing the construction of large buildings to house researchers in that field.
At the same time meaningful and useful research into the use of adult stem cells lacks proper funding because all the money went into buildings for ESC research.
It's useful to discuss ESC and "evolution" on these threads ~ irrespective of which side of these issues you support or oppose.
"They" are wasting our tax dollars somehow and it's important we understand how "they" do it!
The process behind homosexuality is most likely methylation. Once the precise points are discovered, and some way is found to eliminate methylation with equal precision, homosexuality will be eliminated!
The differences arrise out of the control mechanisms ~ somewhere in the DNA possibly, or maybe in quantum processing pockets accessible by the cells.
The problem here is that the gradualist point of view has carved out such a vast period of time for evolution to do it's stuff that we cannot use scientific methods to examine it (mostly 'cause we die off centuries before we can review the results of our experiments).
. My own argument is very simple ~ that "life" is so incredibly complex and ancient, with features we have not yet discovered, that it could very well appear to be "changing" randomly..
Let's go back to W. Edwards Demming. He figured out what Juran was saying about random sampling and restated it so the rest of us could understand it better..
Demming said that if you sample a process over a long enough period of time your results will begin to appear to approach "randomness"..
That's the foundation of modern quality control ~ and a science called "quality auditing". .
You will notice that pulling fossils out of the ground is pretty much a selection process that covers a vast amount of time and space and so, therefore, if examined mathematically, will begin to appear to approach "randomness". .
Which means you could hypothesize something like "evolution" to be at work when in reality there may be a determinative process underlying it all that's driven by factors that are not, in and of themselves, "random". .
Alas, we have not yet discovered that determinative process although we are beginning to discover there's something there way beyond mere genes.
Actually, if a common designer inserted functional ERVs into our genomes at the time of creation, and if said designer created using modular nested hierarchies (just as we humans who have been made in God’s image naturally do), then shared ERVs between similar organisms with similar body plans and similar functional needs is EXACTLY what Creation/ID predicts. The reason why this is so confusing to you and your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics is because you have exchanged your God-given reason for mindless materialism.
Now, a question ~ how is it you like chocolate so well and yet humanity arose in the East and chocolate arose in the West?
Could it be it's simply an "acquired taste"?
Common descent explains the pattern. Common body plan and needs doesn't explain the data.
This is all predicted by common design. If God created a nested hierarchy of modular body plans, then you would expect to find many of the same or similar components in organisms that share a similar body plan and functional needs. And the further the body plans diverge, the more divergence you would expect in their respective genetic codes, to include ERVs.
That is not true. Humans and kangaroos may share many genes, but human and chimpanzees share more. Likewise humans share many genes with much lower life forms.
Any gene that is essential for the continuation of life is of course restricted in how much it can change.
The differences arrise out of the control mechanisms ~ somewhere in the DNA possibly,
The role of the genetic code in differentiating various species has not been "put to the sword" by the recent discoveries in epigenetics.
Just because two species share most of the same genes does not in fact mean that all the corresponding genes are exactly identical. For instance two species may share a gene for a certain enzyme, but the differences in coding may give a slightly different function in the two species.
A few years ago I read a paper that detailed the differences between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas in the genetic coding of a small structure in the mitotic spindle of cells called the kinetochore. It was not hard to see the various changes that had taken place over time. All three species had the same genes for this structure, but the genes were coded differently because of various types of alterations and insertions that had taken place.
Just as soon as you bring up the spindle you step right off the DNA mandala into the great unknown of “protonics” ~ and a search for the seat of consciousness.
One popular theory is that "sequence changes" can account for many differences between species ~ but apparantly not as much as anyone thought.
Another popular theory that burned and crashed less than a decade ago had it that the more complex the critter the greater the number of genes. Turns out mammals pretty much have similar gene counts ~ and this has been more or less stable for 195 million years.
Another theory (popular with the "sequence counts" guys is that the samples used for the kangaroos had been contaminated with human DNA.
Regarding differences in alleles, there are presently 83 known variations in the particular gene sequence that controls the production of heme in human beings. About 99.9% of humanity uses exactly 1 such version. The rest of humanity shares the other 82. Most of the papers regarding the variations also discussed current and former seal eating populations. Seals have 25 times the average mammalian level of iron in their tissues. Most of the variations in the heme producing genes appear targeted at shedding surplus iron. I am anxiously awaiting the development of a "map" that shows the history in the development of those 82 alleles.
Chimps and gorillas have more similar body plans and functional needs, yet chimps and humans are much closer aligned in terms of DNA (including ERV’s) than humans and gorillas or chimps and gorillas.
New world and old world vultures are not closely related to each other by DNA, but look as if they share common descent from different types of birds.
Once again you explanation isn't one, you have done nothing to explain the pattern except a ‘rule’ that is obviously contradicted in the case of human and chimp similarity and chimp and gorilla divergence, old world vultures, and anywhere else we care to look.
Your young earth creationist views are contradicted by astronomy data, geology data, paleontology data, and biology data. God must really have a sense of humor at your expense as the entire universe seems “designed” to confound your silly cosmological model.
==Chimps and gorillas have more similar body plans and functional needs, yet chimps and humans are much closer aligned in terms of DNA (including ERV’s) than humans and gorillas or chimps and gorillas.
Now you are just talking gibberish. How could chimps be closer to gorillas in terms of body plan and functional needs, and yet be genomically closer to humans? Pure hogwash.
==Your young earth creationist views are contradicted by astronomy data, geology data, paleontology data, and biology data.
Actually, it’s quite the other way around. Your materialist religion is contradicted by astronomy data, geology data, paleontoloy data, biology data—and above all, it is contradicted by the Bible.
Do you deny that humans and chimps are closer to eachother in DNA than either is to a gorilla?
Once again your ignorance is duly noted, along with your ‘doesn't actually explain anything’ explanation.
You are obviously delusional. Please let me know how light from an object one hundred million light years away supports a six thousand (or so) year old universe? How plate techtonics and Antarctica’s temperate fossils buried under the ice supports a six thousand year old earth? How the fossil record full of eons without human existence, ages of dinosaurs, etc, all support a young earth with all species created contemporaneously.
Yes, God has quite the sense of humor at your expense, as all the data coming from multiple lines of scientific inquiry all rains on your parade of ignorance.
==Gibberish?
Yes, gibberish!
==Do you deny that chimps and gorillas are closer to eachother in body plan and functional needs?
No, I used this obvious fact to demonstrate that you are talking in gibberish.
==Do you deny that humans and chimps are closer to eachother in DNA than either is to a gorilla?
If you are arguing that that (genome, epigenome, etc) which is responsible for making chimps closer to gorrilas than to humans in terms of body plan and functional needs is at the same time closer to that (genome, epigenome, etc) which makes humans diverge from the body plan and functional needs of chimps relative to apes, then I say you and all your materialist coreligionists are full of it.
Your ignorance is duly noted.
When comparing DNA, humans are more similar to chimps, and chimps are more similar to humans; than either is similar to a gorilla. That is a simple fact, every time you look, this is what you find. Humans and chimps are closer to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla. Learn it, Live it, Love it.
When comparing body plan and functional needs, it is obvious that chimps and gorillas share more in common then either shares with human beings.
Obviously your ‘rule’ that similar DNA is explained by similar body plans and similar needs breaks down rather quickly once ACTUAL data is considered.
==Your ignorance is duly noted.
Your sloven committment to godless materialism while giving lipservice to Christianity is duly noted.
==When comparing DNA, humans are more similar to chimps, and chimps are more similar to humans; than either is similar to a gorilla.
I see you are still wedded to the notion that DNA is the be all and end all determinant of an organism’s body plan and functional needs. Here’s a newsflash for you...IT’S NOT. May I suggest you start catching up on the new biology. You’re lack of knowledge in this area is emarrassing given the fact that you claim to be a freshly minted scientist.
==Humans and chimps are closer to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla.
Enough with your DNA strawman. It is a logical impossiblity for a chimp’s genome and epigenome to be closer to a human than an ape, and yet at the same time have a body plan and functional needs that are closer to an ape than a human. It’s time for you to put your fear away, step out of your self-imposed materialist darkness, and step into the clear light of God’s creation.
A logical impossibility for a chimps genome to be closer to a human than a (non human) ape?
Better get used to the “logical impossibility” GGG.
Humans and chimps genes are about 1-2% different. Chimp and gorilla genes are about 2-3% different. Human and gorilla genes are about 2-3% different.
Your ignorance of the subject, even calling the clear and compelling genomic data a “logical impossibility” is quite humorous.
But go ahead and compare chimp and human and gorilla sequences yourself if you want to, every study has shown clearly that in terms of DNA, humans and chimps are closer to each other than they are to any other species, including gorillas.
You are once again stuck on the strawman of DNA, when DNA is only part of what generates an organism’s body plan and functional needs. It is a logical impossibility for two organisms to be closer to each other than a third organism in body plan and functional needs, and yet be closer to the third organism in terms of what causes the same. If you can’t grasp this, it is because you have surrendered your mind to the insanity of super-sophisticated unintelligent design.
You have surrendered your mind and your credibility.
What you say is “impossible” is obviously part of God’s plan, as a chimp is closer related to humans than they are to a gorilla. This has been known within the field for over a decade, please try to keep up GGG.
“Genetically, however, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092615.htm
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.