
From a bioRxiv preprint:
Abstract: The origin of ‘orphan’ genes, species-specific sequences that lack detectable homologues, has remained mysterious since the dawn of the genomic era. There are two dominant explanations for orphan genes: complete sequence divergence from ancestral genes, such that homologues are not readily detectable; and de novo emergence from ancestral non-genic sequences, such that homologues genuinely do not exist. The relative contribution of the two processes remains unknown. Here, we harness the special circumstance of conserved synteny to estimate the contribution of complete divergence to the pool of orphan genes. We find that complete divergence accounts for at most a third of eukaryotic orphan and taxonomically restricted genes. We observe that complete divergence occurs at a stable rate within a phylum, but different rates between phyla, and is frequently associated with gene shortening akin to pseudogenization. Two cancer-related human genes, DEC1 and DIRC1, have likely originated via this route in a primate ancestor. – Nikolaos Vakirlis, Anne-Ruxandra Carvunis, View ORCID ProfileAoife McLysaght doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/735175 Pdf.More.
So 2/3 of the time, we have “de novo emergence from ancestral non-genic sequences, such that homologues genuinely do not exist?”
Okay. Somebody better go put their arm around the Selfish Gene. It’s tough being the Last Darwinian.
Gene, we did not do this to you. Francis Collins and Craig Venter did this to you. Honest.
Hat tip: Creation-Evolution Headlines
See also: De Novo genes and normal science
Follow UD News at Twitter!
as to:
They may be the ‘dominant’ explanations but neither are the correct explanation.
As to the supposed ‘dominant explanation’ of “de novo emergence from ancestral non-genic sequences”, in the following article Dr Hunter points out that Darwinists believe that “de novo emergence from ancestral non-genic sequences” must be true not because of any substantiating evidence that they may have, but they believe it must be true in spite of the evidence to the contrary, (i.e. they believe it must be true simply because of their apriori belief that Darwinian evolution must be true).
In the minds of Darwinists, Darwinism is simply never allowed to be falsified by empirical observation. Needless to say, this not science.
As to their other supposed ‘dominant explanation’ of “complete sequence divergence from ancestral genes”, likewise Darwinists believe “complete sequence divergence from ancestral genes” must be true not because of the substantiating evidence but they believe it must be true in spite of the evidence to the contrary, (i.e. they believe it must be true simply because of their apriori belief that Darwinian evolution must be true).
Darwinists hold that genes-proteins have, basically, unlimited plasticity in their ability to try new sequences in their search for new functional sequences in sequence space.
Yet directly contrary to their belief that genes-proteins have, basically, unlimited plasticity in their ability to search for new functional sequences in sequence space, genes-proteins are instead found to be highly constrained in their ability to search ‘sequence space’ in order to try to find new functional sequences.
Doug Axe and Ann Gauger have done experimental work exploring just how constrained genes-proteins are in their ability to search sequence space. Their work found genes-proteins to be highly, even severely, constrained in their ability to search sequence space.
Thus again, Darwinists believe that “complete sequence divergence from ancestral genes” must be true not because of any substantiating evidence but they believe it must be true in spite of the evidence, (i.e. they believe it must be true simply because of their apriori belief that Darwinian evolution must be true).
And again, as should be needless to say, this is NOT science:
Of supplemental note to genes-proteins being highly constrained in their ability to search sequence space:
Verse:
News,
Unrelated, but new finding:
Counterintuitive physics property found to be widespread in living organisms
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-counterintuitive-physics-property-widespread.html
(Darn those dang counterintuitive findings! 😎