Image from online ICR article.
Posted on 08/26/2013 9:03:18 AM PDT by fishtank
Newly Discovered 'Orphan Genes' Defy Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.
Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.
The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10–20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."1
These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment.2 The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry (DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important fact.
In the recent fish study, researchers sequenced the protein-coding genes in zebrafish and then compared the DNA sequences to other animal's gene sequences.3 The researchers classified the zebrafish genes into three different groups: 1) Genes commonly found in many types of animals, 2) genes that are only found in ray-finned fishes (the broad group of Teleost fishes), and 3) genes that are species-specific to only zebrafish. This third category refers to orphan genes. Thus there was a distinct group of genes found only associated with zebrafish and no other animal or type of fish.
In another study, researchers compared the genomes of seven different types of ants with other known insect genomes.4 When comparing the ant genes to other insects, researchers discovered 28,581 genes that were unique only to ants and not found in other insects. While the various ant species shared many groups of genes, only 64 genes were common to all seven ant species.
The researchers concluded that on average, each ant species contained 1,715 unique genes—orphan genes. Researchers not only found dramatic differences for protein-coding genes, but also for other types of regulatory DNA sequences that control how and when genes are turned off and on.
While these results clearly defy evolution, what do they mean within a biblical creation framework of origins? In the book of Genesis, created kinds of organism are defined as being able to reproduce and interbreed “after their kind.” These different ant species are not inter-fertile and they also inhabit different ecological niches, utilize different types of food sources, and have different types of social structures important to communal insects such as ants and bees. Combined with the fact that they also have unique gene sets, they possibly all descended from different created ant kinds.
While these orphan genes challenge evolution, they help creationists understand the patterns of genetic diversity related to created kinds. And ants may be a good example of animals that did not need to be saved from the Genesis flood by being sequestered on the ark, since they might have survived outside, on floating mats of vegetation. Ants would have, to some extent, also avoided a severe genetic bottleneck.5 If so, their present diversity would more closely represent the originally created array of ant genomes.
Clearly, the complexity and design of God's creation is astounding, vast, and incredibly amazing. Only an Omnipotent and Wise Creator could have been the source of these widely diverse, and yet complicated and precise genetic arrangements.
References
Khalturin, K., et al. 2009. More than just orphans: are taxonomically-restricted genes important in evolution? Trends in Genetics. 25 (9): 404–413.
Tautz, D. and Domazet-Loso, T. 2011. The evolutionary origin of orphan genes. Nature Reviews. Genetics. 12 (10): 692–702.
Yang, L. et al., 2013. Genome-wide identification, characterization, and expression analysis of lineage-specific genes within zebrafish. BMC Genomics. 14 (65): 1471-2164.
Simola, D.F., et al. 2013. Social insect genomes exhibit dramatic evolution in gene composition and regulation while preserving regulatory features linked to sociality. Genome Research. 23 (8):1235-1247.
A genetic bottleneck occurs when only a few breeding individuals are taken from a much larger population, and then create a new population. This effectively reduces genetic diversity and the amount of variability. A genetic bottleneck would have occurred for the different types of animals taken onto the ark in the global flood, as well as for mankind.
*Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.
Article posted on August 26, 2013.
Image from online ICR article.
Clever yet baffling this God.
I really appreciate ICR. I use their Days of Praise devotional, and devour their magazine Acts and Facts in one sitting. Thanks for the post.
ping
One of the all time great fresh water aquarium fish. Right up there with guppies (Number 1).
I guess that settles it. Evolution is bunk.
Funny how ICR has to rely on the work of evil evolution believing scientists.
The Wise Creator chose evolution and allows us to see it.
Horizontal Gene transfer via Viral Vectors...
“Evolution is, for most of the time, a race to stay in the same place. The worst enemies of any animal are among its relatives and descendants, who need the same things and may have evolved better ways to get them. Unless a parent can keep up with its children, its fate is sealed. Most cannot, and disappear. As a result, at any time, just the tips of the twigs of any evolutionary tree are on view. The branches have been replaced by something better. Because the past has been wiped out by the present, the ancients usually leave no clue to what their fate might have been. Nowadays there are no animals halfway between whales and hippopotami, or house files and fruit flies, although Darwinism demands that there were.”
Thanks for the interesting ping!
I don’t have any Orphan Genes. All of my genes belong to the Creator. :-)
besides “creationist” (no sarcasm intended) theories, there may be genetic processes that science has not yet discovered or understands or can yet explain - changes to DNA post-inception but pre-birth and/or changes to DNA ONLY in eggs and or sperm of parent and NOT in any parents’ other cells, by processes not yet known, observed, understood
Orphan genes might arise from duplication and rearrangement processes followed by fast divergence; however, de novo evolution out of non-coding genomic regions is emerging as an important additional mechanism. This process appears to provide raw material continuously for the evolution of new gene functions...Apparently actual evolutionary scientists don't thing these genes defy evolution at all.
I knew about duplication, but I didn’t know that the old “junk DNA” is now theorized to be a source of new genes. The real model of evolution is much more awe inspiring than ICR’s strawman.
Look, I wish that the NSF, DOE and other various funding agencies were not biased against:
(1) creationists
(2) real climate scientists
(3) epidemiologists studying the abortion-breast cancer linkage
(4) the “No Linear Threshold” model for radiation dosage
etc etc.
But they are.
Creationists can’t get a fair hearing for funding proposals, so, yes, indeed, they do rely on the data from other scientists.
Why?
Because the raw data doesn’t lie, and because creationist taxpayers have paid for that data with their (our) tax dollars.
Please don’t be mean, cruel and dismissive just because you seem to have a religious or philosophical bias.
Maybe you’d benefit in your worldview development from a free lecture series: http://www.bibleframework.com/
How is misrepresenting science going to help?
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.