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.
Uhhhhh, we’re still waiting for you to show us the religion here:
Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Or will you just keep parroting your nonsense?
I don't disagree. By atheistic, I mean that science should not consider the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being when looking for a particular answer.
There should be no litmus test by the serious scientific community concerning one’s religious convictions.
There isn't, AFAIK. There are many scientists with strongly held religious convictions.
You are correct. Most scientists in the USA are people of faith.
“WE DON’T KNOW IT ALL YET! “
No we don’t and never will.
Only God does. That’s one of the reasons He is God and we are - just mortals.
But as an educated biologist, I believe evolution is pretty much an indisputable fact - the scientific evidence is overwelming.
But I don’t believe that the Bible and evolution are mutually exclusive and as a Christian I have no problem reconciling the two.
And global warming may or may not be true - but the impact of human agencies on global climate is certainly minimal. The earth has a history of going through warm and cold cycles and people who pull out statistics to cover global climate change in the last 100 years are looking at a very brief photogrpah of the earth’s geological history. Its been around a long time and 100 years is not enough of a timeframe to draw any conclusions.
But as an educated biologist, I believe evolution is pretty much an indisputable fact -
ZULU: “But as an educated biologist, I believe evolution is pretty much an indisputable fact.”
As a scientist, I would expect maybe a bit more precision in your answer. Do you mean macro or micro evolution? Do you believe that all life has been derived from a single-celled plant/animal? Do you believe that all life trends toward diversity?
The term “evolution” is a much misunderstood word on these threads...
Coyoteman is correct.
What he says is well documented.
Flock of Dodos is a good film that covers this.
It is an affectionate,factual look at the case that broke open the truth about ID.
It unsurprisingly reveals the ID folks to be nice people,
the opposition,well,somewhat less than nice.
So it is bearable for someone sensitive to this subject.
*********
Questions for folks who reject evolution,if I may?
Is this a deeply personal conflict?
Would evolution as a fact undermine
the basis of your faith?
Do you believe that if evolution occurs,
God cannot exist?
Is it a desire to reform public school policy?
What is it you wish to accomplish?
Thanks.
What would be really helpful would be an argument, preferably between Catholics and Protestants, as to the implications of creation or evolution on the nature of free will.
/sarc
I'm of the opinion that when a poster is demonstrably wrong about nearly everything (gold will sell for $1600 in the summer of 2008, HIV is a harmless virus, and so forth) that calling attention to his sweeping intellectual incompetence is fair game.
In the arena of Biology, GGG routinely posts mainstream biological findings as evidence against evolution. He's simply too stupid to understand what he's posting.
But on the subject of HIV he is a criminal sociopath, giving medical advice which, if taken, would be fatal. He associates conservatism and FR with this mental pathology, which is a shame. I've been here ten years, and no Freeper in my experience has been so destructive to the reputation of the site.
Thanks for noticing. He and I were told by the mods to stay away from each other in the threads. He will never forgive me for exposing the slow motion suicide of his brethren in the fast-track homosexual community. For more, feel free to read my profile page.
All the best—GGG
He's just upset that I expose the suicidal lifestyle of fast-track homosexuals. And he has a penchant for selecting hardcore gay activist publications as the authority for his “rebuttals.” He's very odd that way.
PS The mods explicitly told both he and I not to respond to each other in the threads. So now he has resorted to issuing oblique insults directed at me in the threads, but without addressing them to me directly...as if that is what the mods meant.
PSS If you would like to be added to my infrequent Rethinking AIDS ping list, if for no other reason than to aggravate the FRevos on this forum, feel free to drop me a FReepmail—GGG
==There isn’t, AFAIK. There are many scientists with strongly held religious convictions.
I don’t know about you guys, but I see a definite trend:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
The question is mushy- not believing in a personal god does not neccesarily make one an atheist. Deists hold the same belief but are not atheists. As for the belief in the afterlife, Judaism is pretty vague on the subject, yet no one would call a believing Jew an atheist.
I'd recommend against that vis- GGG is a firm believer that unprotected male homosexual sex is harmless, at least when it comes to transmitting HIV/AIDS. Arguing for the harmlessness of the promiscuous gay lifestyle is not what I'd call a conservative view, IMO.
Evolution is the devlopment of new species from a previously existing species over a period of time through genetic changes induced by environmental factors.
Good enough definition?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/
“About two-thirds of scientists believe in God”
I most assuredly think homosexual sex transmits HIV. Whatever made you think otherwise?
Evolution need not entail a species level change.
Evolution is the reason for human diversity of such traits as skin color, lactose tolerance, malaria resistance, etc. This evolution did not (obviously) involve a species level change.
DNA is like C++, only better.
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.