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.
Real science is OK, its the evolutionism that reeks.
You are obviously too narrow minded to realize that we are not to take any aspect of the Bible literally under any circumstances whatsoever.
==“The more we know about it, the more it looks like someone designed it.”
That part doesn’t even require faith IMHO. It’s more rational to believe that a designer is behind the super-sophisticated designs of life than it is to believe that all the millions of species on earth are the product of an extended period of dumb luck that merely gives the “appearance” of design.
I'm not the one who starts a dozen threads or more per year arguing that anal sex is safe, and does not spread AIDS. Threads that argue that the medical establishment should be in prison for treating AIDS.
This is not an isolated bit of weirdness on the part of the poster. It is just one facit of a finely cut diamond of wrongness.
Who appointed you chief interrogator?
Do you beleive that ALL species THAT EVER EXISTED lived SIMULTANEOUSLY???
Do you belive modern man was contemporaneous with dinosaurs and Cynodonts??
“Do you believe that all life on this planet is derived from one original living cell/organism?”
Probably.
“Is all life trending toward diversity?”
All life forms evolve into different populations and sometimes species as time goes on. SOme populations and species beccome extinct and new ones evolve. So I don’t think that you can generalize with that statement.
“Just as a side note, do you think science can explain “consciousness”?”
What is “consciousness”? The ability of an organism to be aware of its existence??
People who believe in evolution are not necessarily atheists.
That is an incorrect and presumptuous generalization.
GGG: “I use mostly-atheists to disprove mostly-atheists all the time.”
The primary problem with Atheism is that it can explain so very little of what is truly important. Which is startling since you would expect scientists to be the most concerned with explaining the world and all that is in it.
Atheism cannot explain love, emotion in general, intelligence, hopes and dreams, consciousness, and why we are even on this earth (let alone how).
Any scientist that does not ask himself these critical questions is living in ignorace.
Again, he’s just upset because I dared to expose the suicidal lifestyle’s of his buddies in the homosexual lobby.
Give my profile page a careful look. If you’d like to be added to my infrequent Rethinking AIDS ping list, drop me a FReepmail.
All the best—GGG
How often do you use exclusively-creationists to prove exclusively-creationists?
The idea of Darwin was that there was descent with modification (there is) and that different variations will have different reproductive success based upon selective pressure (they do); and that this will lead to the wide ranging differences we see in animal species, just as human selection of genetic variations has led to the wide ranging differences we see in dogs and other domesticated species when compared to their wild fore-bearers.
Within the mantle of Evolution is also usually included the notion of common ancestry; i.e. that species share a common ancestor at various times in the past.
Not included in the idea of evolution is how imperfect replicators came about in the first place, although that is often the notion Creationists have in their head when they attack evolution. In science this idea is known as abiogenesis.
I believe that the evidence clearly shows that all life shares common ancestry. Early life forms shared genetic information so this need not be “one original living cell/organism” but most likely an entire population of living organisms that swapped DNA. This concept is known as L.U.C.A. (last universal common ancestor).
Yes, science can and does explain consciousness. Our consciousness is a product of our biology. Take away the biology and the consciousness fades away. But our souls live forever.
funny you suggest the ping list.
When I saw who was on your ping list in post 1, I started to type out a freepmail request, figuring I’d be in great company, didn’t click send as I want edot read more of the thread, then forgot.
So...yep...sign me up!
...and TY in advance!
It has been noted that DNA does not drive evolution.
Noted by who?
DNA is what changes in evolution. Evolution is a change in allelic frequency of a population. Alleles are genetic variations. Genes are made of DNA.
I’m not trying to be combative. I am just curious how a biologist looks at an average cell and thinks it came into being by evolution. You, of all people, should understand the intricacies of even the most common cell and yet you think it is a product of chance? Or perhaps the term is evolution.
I think that most people who believe this origin of life have inherently taken an atheistic approach to begin with. Their intent belief that there is no God imposes upon them that evolution can be the only way.
Regarding your questions, I believe that all creatures and living things are created by God. How and when they were created is a bit more speculative. I don’t have any scientific evidence to support that man was contemporary with all living species but I am not sure it has been disproven either.
And yes, consciousness is the ability to be self-aware. Most plants and creatures do not have it although there are some people who claim monkeys/apes have consciousness (I am quite skeptical on that).
Partial but that's not all. Other structures also change, but which comes first if any?
Do you think that “it proceeded by random steps” and “it happened as God wanted it to” are mutually exclusive?
Prov 16:33 the dice are cast into the lap, but the LORD determines every outcome.
Scientists can neither include nor exclude God, this is not an “atheistic” approach, it is agnostic. Evolution is no more (or less)”atheistic” than the theory of universal gravitational attraction of mass.
The intent belief of many scientists (and the Pope) is that evolution is part of God's plan.
DNA is the hereditary material, and all hereditary changes are changes in DNA sequence or methylation.
Again I ask, noted by WHO?
So they say.
“There should be no litmus test by the serious scientific community concerning one’s religious convictions.”
The converse is equally true, namely:
There should be no litmus test by the fundamentalist religious community concerning one’s scientific convictions.
Of course if the goose/gander rule were applied to science vs. religion threads a lot of people’s ignorance of religion and/or science wouldn’t be able to be displayed in such a splendid fashion, as there would be too little argument to reach critical mass.
So I say, and as shown in numerous experiments. Where have YOU been the last fifty years? Obviously not following biology.
DNA is the hereditary material.
Again I ask, noted by WHO? Please provide a source for your rather ridiculous assertion.
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.