Larry almost got it right, but he just can’t turn the corner

_{Salvador Cordova

April 17, 2014

'Junk DNA', Genetics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In 2013 Larry wrote On Beating Dead Horses

I was reminded of this while reading Salvador Corova’s latest post on Uncommon Descent because he refers to beating dead horses [If not Rupe and Sanford’s presentation (8/6/13), would you believe Wiki? In this case, yes]. I’m not going to make any comments. Read it and weep for the IDiots.

Well, it turned out Larry did make comments in that very same thread. 🙂

Sal begins with …

Evolutionists reluctantly admit most evolution is free of selection and therefore non-Darwinian …

I’ve been trying to teach this to the IDiots for over twenty years. Yet they still insist on referring to evolution as “Darwinism” and they continue to ignore random genetic drift in their attacks on evolution. About 99% of all IDiots have no idea what Sal is talking about. (Sal Cordova doesn’t know either.)

What Sal is saying is that practically all of the mutations being fixed in humans are either neutral or slightly deleterious. That has implications. It strongly suggests that most of our genome is junk.

Not quite, but almost, let me re-write the previous paragraph with errors corrected:

What Sal is saying is that IF practically all of the mutations being fixed in humans are either neutral or slightly deleterious, that has implications. It strongly suggests that most of our genome WOULD BE junk.

Larry Moran (with errors edited out by Sal)

My argument follows the form of a Proof by Contradiction. As we find more evidence that the genome is not junk, then it falsifies the premise that all of the mutations were fixed by neutral evolution in the first place.

VJ and I agree on the final conclusion, but I pleaded that an alternate line of proof was needed to falsify Kimura/Nei’s version of neutral theory (neutral evolution all the way) in favor of ReMine/Sanford’s version of neutral theory (special creation + neutral evolution ).

If Larry believes that neutral evolution makes junk, this may lead to a logical contradiction depending on how neutral evolution makes junk. If making junk includes eroding existing function at a rate higher than creating function, then this falsifies neutral evolution and casts doubt on evolution in general as the mechanism that assembles design out of many damaging mutations.

Empirically speaking, with respect to function, most observed evolution in the lab and field is loss of function, therefore it seems that indeed the rate of function loss is outpacing rate of function acquisition. This is known as “Behe’s Rule.” I even quote one of Larry’s heroes, Koonin in the discussion of Behe’s Rule in reductive evolution of complexity.

These considerations lead to scientifically testable predictions related to ENCODE, junk DNA and deeply conserved sequences. If the deeply conserved sequences are evolving in the present day according to neutral evolution, then how did they arise in the first place and remain conserved? It might be difficult to test this because of the expense, but what might we find when it is eventually done right? I’ve predicted rise in Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in conserved regions since January 2007 here. I discussed this idea with Dr. Sanford and Dr. Carter at ICC 2013, and they were enthusiastic about the testability of the idea.

The publication of my prediction in 2007 got a rare public chastisement from Bill Dembski in the comment section, he said, “Be careful, Sal.” On second thought, maybe I shouldn’t have been so careful. Even though I didn’t know much then and still don’t know much today, here is a related development 5 years after my prediction in Nature News:

Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years, the researchers report. On average, 164,688 of the variants — roughly 14% — were potentially harmful, and of those, 86% arose in the past 5,000 years. ‘There’s so many of [variants] that exist that some of them have to contribute to disease,’ says Akey

So if my prediction bears out observationally, then this debate will be closer to being settled. No need for a protracted internet war. We’ll let good old observation, hypothesis and testing settle the issue as to which side is closer to the truth.

HT JoeCoder x10
r/creation

[Thank you UD commenters for all criticisms and suggestion in improving my essays which will be archived, revised and re-expressed in various ways at CEU. I will be speaking tonight at JMU and referring students to the CEU website, and although the website is not yet the educational resource that is envisioned, maybe by next year it will have the depth I envisioned. I cross posted this draft at CEU IDCS Larry almost got it right, but he just can’t turn the corner]

Comments

Querius @ 35 Thank you for your kind words. I certainly can learn much from your very insightful and well written posts, so I look forward to reading more in the days ahead. Many blessings to you.Dionisio_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

jerry: I can give you some gross numbers for the human genome: The human genome is about 3200 Mb. Protein coding genes (exons) are about 1.5% (more or less). Non coding DNA is all the rest. Introns are about 26% of the total. Other gene related sequences are pseudogenes and gene fragments. The rest is intergenic DNA. Much of it is repetitive. Highly repetitive DNA (satellites) is about 3%. Interspersed repetitive DNA is made of: SINE (15%) LINE (21%) DNA transposon (3%) LTR transposon (9%) There are also minor classes (duplications, rDNA, etc). As you can see, the pattern is rather complex. Percentages may vary a little according to different sources. Regarding function, the discussion is completely open. It is increasingly obvious that a significant part of the non coding genome, in all its components, could be functional. Conservation is all another matter. All types of sequences can be conserved, not only protein coding genes. The relationship between conservation and function is not so simple as one could think, and there are controversial data. For example, from Wikipedia: "Highly conserved DNA sequences are thought to have functional value. The role for many of these highly conserved non-coding DNA sequences is not understood. Ultra-conserved elements or sequences (UCEs or UCRs) that share 100% identity among human, mouse and rat were first described by Bejerano and colleagues in 2004.[1] One recent study that eliminated four highly-conserved non-coding DNA sequences in mice yielded viable mice with no significant phenotypic differences; the authors described their findings as "unexpected".[2] Many regions of the DNA, including highly conserved DNA sequences, consist of repeated sequence (DNA) elements." I would say that we still need more information to fully understand which regions of the genome are conserved across species, and why.gpuccio_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

What evidence do you have for this?
I gave indirect one right here:
Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years, the researchers report. On average, 164,688 of the variants — roughly 14% — were potentially harmful, and of those, 86% arose in the past 5,000 years. ‘There’s so many of [variants] that exist that some of them have to contribute to disease,’ says Akey
Expanding population is given as the excuse for the absence of selection, but even granting that, it still proves absence of selection implies deterioration. And if evolution is mostly neutral, then deterioration like this will happen regardless of whether the population is growing or not. You're just saying it is conserved because you assume it's conserved. You have zero evidence that it is actually conserved. Look those knockout experiments with mice. Deeply conserved in both humans and mice 100%. Did the mice die? No. Did it have noticeable effect? No. Ergo it's probably not under selection, ergo it could be deteriorating, and we might be able to detect it if we had the money and resources to sequence mice,
As I said this is easily testable.
I don't think so. Have you run the numbers to estimate the expense and how many mice and how full the sequencing has to be? Finally,
Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years,
If the average protein size is about 400 monomers, that's about 1200 nucleotides. So multiply by the number of proteins identified: 1,200 x 15,000 = 18,000,000 nucleotides How many nucleotides do you think can be policed by selection if the excess reproduction capacity were even 2 per person? Not much, maybe on the order of 1 or 2...let's be generous and say 100, that's certainly not 18,000,000.scordova_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Some are, some aren’t.
Why don't you list the genome by types of elements such as coding regions, sines, lines, alu, pseudogenes, are, etc. And what percentage of these elements are repetitive. And what percentage of these are conserved. I assume that someone has done this and someone with your . would have easy access it. That way we can all be on the same page.jerry_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @ 25 . . . Your insightful and encouraging observations are appreciated, especially in regard to your experiences behind the iron curtain.
for some of us the ultimate reality is God. For others, it’s just matter and energy. That’s why, unless the inquirer is sincerely searching for truth, the arguments can’t turn into a sane and productive discussion that we all could benefit from.
This is the heart of the matter---why intelligent people with different worldviews and paradigms cannot seem to have a meaningful exchange of ideas. The ones who quickly descend into ad hominem attacks reveal their inner nature. This fundamental conflict is evidence to me that both Darwinism (and its materialistic successors) and ID are paradigms, not theories. I don't spend much time arguing. Some people might find my perspectives interesting---others don't--- but I certainly learn a lot from the insightful posts of others here, yours included. Thank you and God's blessings. -QQuerius_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Joe at #33: Perfectly correct! Neutral mutations and drift are really irrelevant. It is true that they can only generate junk. I cna't how Larry Moran (or anyone else) can be so satisfied of an explanatory theory for biological information that can only generate junk. Maybe I am missing something. Or maybe there is nothing to be missed. Maybe there is really nothing in his position. If I were a non IDists (Moran, as you can see I am avoiding to use the word "darwinist". Are you happy?) I would try desperately to stick to NS, even at the cost of being called a darwinist. NS is a desperate solution, but at least its "intentions" are "good" (selecting for function). Neutral "evolution", instead, is a loser by definition.gpuccio_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Do you know what is very disappointing about Larry? That he rails against us for not understanding that drift is the major mechanism for change. He says that we only care about natural selection which is a very minor player. Yet the reason why we don’t seem to care about drift is because it is NOT a proposed designer mimic. No one says that genetic drift constructed a bacterial flagellum. IOW saying that drift is the major mechanism supports our claim that unguided evolution doesn’t have the capability to be a designer mimic. To Darwin, random genetic drift would have been one mechanism for spreading the variations that occur and just happen to survive, ie no selective value.Joe_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

WD400, You are right that natural observation is a great route, but a narrative concocted after-the-fact isn't the same as tracking in real-time. Those mice knockouts ought to give one pause that selection can even see those deeply identical sequences. The HapMaps are a start, so are the deep pedigree studies like those done on the Y-chromosome, but personally I find it irritating narrative is equated with actual measurements, and it is sometimes hard to sort out what is what in the papers. Thank you for your input, and I think we won't settle the issue in the short space of this discussion, but you did point out a mistake in my suggestion of using clones. That was valuable, and I'm indebted to you for that comment. Thank you. In light of your excellent criticisms, I think viral and bacterial populations might be the choice of study. Which reminds me -- there are investigations along those lines and we may not realize it. The CDC and other organizations surely have tons of sequences over time. :-) That said, the question has medical significance. I don't mean to be polemic, but maybe setting aside the ID/evolution debate, the question is worthy on medical grounds, and I can only suggest that a qualified evolutionary biologist like your self reconsider the position for that reason. The mice knockout is a serious issue, and on empirical grounds alone, I don't think the question is settled: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050234
Ultraconserved elements have been suggested to retain extended perfect sequence identity between the human, mouse, and rat genomes due to essential functional properties. To investigate the necessities of these elements in vivo, we removed four noncoding ultraconserved elements (ranging in length from 222 to 731 base pairs) from the mouse genome. To maximize the likelihood of observing a phenotype, we chose to delete elements that function as enhancers in a mouse transgenic assay and that are near genes that exhibit marked phenotypes both when completely inactivated in the mouse and when their expression is altered due to other genomic modifications. Remarkably, all four resulting lines of mice lacking these ultraconserved elements were viable and fertile, and failed to reveal any critical abnormalities when assayed for a variety of phenotypes including growth, longevity, pathology, and metabolism. In addition, more targeted screens, informed by the abnormalities observed in mice in which genes in proximity to the investigated elements had been altered, also failed to reveal notable abnormalities. These results, while not inclusive of all the possible phenotypic impact of the deleted sequences, indicate that extreme sequence constraint does not necessarily reflect crucial functions required for viability.
Salscordova_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Some are, some aren't. The ones that are conserved are probably not junk (though their conservation might be more about there ability to copy themesevles than anything they are doing for their host).wd400_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

I don’t think anyone ever claimed conserved sequences where junk, Jerry.
People pointed to Sines and Lines as junk. Are these not examples of conserved regions?jerry_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

I actually think many “conserved” regions are mutating for the worse... I think they are deteriorating. That is the testable prediction I’m putting forward, and that’s one of the reasons I say the term “conserved” is prejudicial.
What evidence do you have for this? As I said this is easily testable. This is testable in humans as well as organisms that have much shorter reproductive cycles such as mice and rats. Rats and mice seem to be flourishing as well as many other species. For humans we have about 7 billion across the planet. About 60,000 years ago we supposedly had only 10,000 wandering the African savannahs. So the possibilities of things going wrong in the genome are tremendously more likely. I passed an ad in an airport a couple years ago which said something like this "75% of all the people who lived to be older than 65 years are now alive." So we are living longer, and in better health, granted modern science is to blame and people are talking about living 100+ years in the near future. So these deteriorating genomes do not seem to be a major problem.
It’s so prejudicial we actually stopped testing to see if it is indeed not deteriorating. To stop testing, to stop measuring, to be presumptuous — that isn’t good science.
What evidence do you have for this? Are you aware that there is a move to not test this. It is easily testable and the results should be easily publishable.
The accurate term is “deep identity across species”
This is a nonsense term. I tried to do a google search on this and it did not appear anywhere. I am sure it must exist somewhere for you to come up with it. "Conserved" is a much more accurate term and gets at what is actually happening What one is interested in is the lack of mutations or changes in certain regions within a species over time. That is conservation or conserved. It implies extreme functionality. Why can we get mutations across the coding regions and not amongst the conserved regions? My guess is that the designer wanted it that way. That way we get variety and debates on UD and not just an incredible sameness. But we need an incredible sameness for the basic machinery. It has almost zero tolerance for deviation. If the same sequences are across species then that it an implication of the wide spread functionality of the sequences and the reason why they cannot withstand mutations.
A question. Just what are you going to call the phenomenon that large parts of a genome do not change hardly at all over time while other parts do change substantially.
I think the term "conserved" best describes this.jerry_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

I don't think anyone ever claimed conserved sequences where junk, Jerry. In fact the lack of conservation exhibited buy ~90% of the genome is one argument for most of the genome being junk. Sal, Why insist on experimental evidence for purifying selection in conserved elements, when real populations represent natural experiments of just this. It would be a terrible waste of time and money to prove something that has already been shown.wd400_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

I actually think many "conserved" regions are mutating for the worse. Unless they are life critical (like "conserved" ribosome machinery), I think they are deteriorating. That is the testable prediction I'm putting forward, and that's one of the reasons I say the term "conserved" is prejudicial. It's so prejudicial we actually stopped testing to see if it is indeed not deteriorating. To stop testing, to stop measuring, to be presumptuous -- that isn't good science. The accurate term is "deep identity across species". It is neither prejudicial toward evolutionism or creationism or ID, it states the facts as plainly as possible and without any embellishment.scordova_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

The term "conserved" is a very simple one when applied to the genome. It just says that certain elements of the genome remain the same or are conserved. There has been a lot of pixels expended on the affect of mutations in the last few weeks. (One might want to ask why?) But here we have regions, very large regions, that are not subject to mutations. Ask the question Why? Do mutations never affect this region. Of course they do but during reproduction, those organisms with mutations in these region are not violable. In other words the region has a function that cannot withstand even the smallest deviation. There is no form of selection here, just not viability. There is a difference between this and selection. So instead of being junk DNA which a lot of people said they were, they must be highly functional or else the organisms with these mutated regions would be born. They are only now just finding out how they are functional. So instead of supporting the naturalistic point of view, they instead point to design. So the term "conserved" is not something an ID proponent should be afraid of. It is one more nail in the coffin of naturalism. Why, because these so called junk DNA sequences are very much involved in an extremely complicated form of control of cellular processes, processes that could not have arisen by any naturalistic sequence of events they can conceive of.jerry_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Querius @ 24 I agree too. Thanks for your well stated comments. Actually, regarding your comments, the apparent surprising reappearance of some commentators out of nowhere (after leaving many unanswered questions in other threads in this same UD blog and disappearing), does not prove abiogenesis, because it doesn't seem like they're alive. True life comes only from being in the Light, but as Dr. Lennox said, those folks apparently believe in their fairytale story because they're afraid of the Light. This whole senseless arguing, with so many 'vacuous ad hominem attacks', boils down to a conflict between two irreconcilable worldviews: for some of us the ultimate reality is God. For others, it's just matter and energy. That's why, unless the inquirer is sincerely searching for truth, the arguments can't turn into a sane and productive discussion that we all could benefit from. But there's hope. I was there too, blindfolded, brainwashed, completely lost. Had solid education in materialistic philosophy as part of my engineering studies behind the 'iron curtain', during the 'cold war' days. So those folks can't make me blink at all. I know very well where they come from. Been there, done that. They can't fool me, because I had all that crappy scientific materialism embedded in my mind when I was an engineering student. I believed god was just a figment in the imagination of the brainless ignoramus. So I -very arrogantly- used to say those same nasty things we now read directed at us in their comments. Back in those dark days, which I count all as loss, I wouldn't listen to anyone who would try to present any different opinion, regardless of the strength of their arguments. Pretty sad and pathetic. It was the gracious God who pulled me out of that doomed pathway I was in, where I was heading towards the eternal abyss that I deserved. That's why today and everyday I sing hallelujah! Let's pray that God (the Creator of everything, not the fictional gods of the gaps), open their spiritual eyes, so they too can enjoy these wonderful times we're in, when so many scientific discoveries keep pointing more and more to the marvelous design we're seeing in biological systems these days. We look forward with great anticipation to every report on scientific research discoveries that reveal the beautiful elaborate choreographies and orchestrations found in the biological systems. I believe God gave me this desire to learn this difficult science for some reason, though the career change from engineering software development to biology hasn't been easy for me. But I'm excited by every little detail I can learn. I look mostly at the complex specified purpose-oriented functional information processing within biology. I have so much to learn ahead: detailed cell fate determination mechanisms, specially in the first few weeks of human development, from zygote on. Genotype-phenotype mechanisms. Regulatory networks, signaling pathways, the whole nine yards and their cousins. So little time available to learn just a fraction of that. So I can't afford to squander time on senseless unproductive arguing. Have a good weekend. May God bless you.Dionisio_{April 18, 2014
April
04
Apr
18
18
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Dionisio, Yeah, I very much agree. The word "conserved" implies continuity and immutability over time. It also implies something reminiscent of physical laws involving mass, energy, momentum, and angular momentum. But I guess the people that name these things choose the most favorable terms in support of their ideas. It reminds me of Dr. Ohno's choice of calling non-coding DNA "junk." I've noticed that their defenders seem to be undeterred by the smack down from scientific research, and defying all logic, they vociferously defend the indefensible. When challenged, they immediately resort to vacuous ad hominem attacks as has been amply demonstrated in a previous post and a feces-storm of others. Gack. -QQuerius_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

How is the word "conserved," inaccurate? How is it confusing? It's exactly what it says. If you have an IQ in the double digits, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out .AVS_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

scordova @ 5
“Conserved” is a misnomer, “identical” or “highly similar” is the correct term, but I’m using the standard double-speak term used in science literature. “Conserved” is a highly prejudicial term, highly anti-ID, and inaccurate, but it’s one we are unfortunately stuck with.
Glad to read this timely clarification. Thanks. To me "conserved" is a highly confusing pseudo-scientific term. It assumes something that hasn't been proven. I agree that science should use straightforward terms that reflect the available evidences that have been tested, verified in labs and shared through peer-reviewed publications.Dionisio_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

unless one is tracking it over time
What is the oldest recoverable DNA for a human? If it a couple thousand years ago, then here is a basis for an experiment. What about rats and mice? There may not be rats and mice from a thousand years ago but there are certainly examples from a lot of isolated locales that could be compared to see how these regions compare. I made the same suggestions with humans. Take native Australians and compare them to modern day Africans and Europeans. An almost perfect experiment since there has been a long times since they were isolated, about 50,000 years.jerry_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

look at allele frequency distributions in conserved and non-conserved regions. Of course, it’s already been done…
That's not experimental verification unless one is tracking it over time, but thank you any way.scordova_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

if you have suggests for experimental verification of the selection levels in a way more feasible, please feel free to post Sequence populations, look at allele frequency distributions in conserved and non-conserved regions. Of course, it's already been done...wd400_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species.
From another post this morning on a different thread: --------------- John Garvey has on his site a discussion about what makes human unique. It primarily references a paper by a population geneticist David Wilcox. Here is the Wilcox paper http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetin.....Wilcox.pdf and an excerpt
One of the things it says is that the regulatory nature in the human genome is extremely more complex than the next species. Here is a quote: What shall we say about the genes which make us human? We and chimps share 96% to 99% of our protein coding sequences. Why are we different? Not the 1.5% of our genome that codes for proteins but the 98.5% that controls their production. Literally, no other primate lineage has evolved as fast as our lineage has during the last 1.5 million years, and it’s all due to unique changes in our control genome. At least 80% probably more of our “non-coding” genome is also transcribed, starting from multiple start points, transcribed in both directions, with overlapping reading frames of many sizes and a whole spectrum of alterations, producing a whole zoo of ‘new’ types of RNA control elements – piRNA,siRNA, miRNA,sdRNA, xiRNA, moRNA, snoRNA, MYS-RNA, crasiRNA, TEL-sRNA, PARs, and lncRNA. Most of these unique RNA transcripts – and there are thousands, if not millions of them – are uniquely active in developing human neural tissue – uniquely active compared to their activity in chimpanzees, much less other primates or mammals. It is the new epigenetic world
jerry_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

'Junk DNA' defines differences between humans and chimps "For years, scientists believed the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees would be easily explained -- the two species must have significantly different genetic makeups. However, when their genomes were later sequenced, researchers were surprised to learn that the DNA sequences of human and chimpanzee genes are nearly identical. What then is responsible for the many morphological and behavioral differences between the two species? Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species. The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic "gaps" in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are "turned on" and "turned off." The research shows that these genomic "gaps" between the two species are predominantly due to the insertion or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about half of the genomes of both species. The findings are reported in the most recent issue of the online, open-access journal Mobile DNA. "These genetic gaps have primarily been caused by the activity of retroviral-like transposable element sequences," said McDonald. "Transposable elements were once considered 'junk DNA' with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees." McDonald's research team, composed of graduate students Nalini Polavarapu, Gaurav Arora and Vinay Mittal, examined the genomic gaps in both species and determined that they are significantly correlated with differences in gene expression reported previously by researchers at the Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany. "Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves," said McDonald. The current analysis of the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees was motivated by the group's previously published findings (2009) that the higher propensity for cancer in humans vs. chimpanzees may have been a by-product of selection for increased brain size in humans."kevnick_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

That epxeriment would tell you about the (non-lethal-) mutation rate, not whether such sites evolve under neutrality
Good insight, so how about cross breeding the mice with knocked out conserved regions with regular mice and sequencing the populaton. If in the struggle for existence in some lab controlled population, the knocked-out mice don't show measurable lack of fitness : where S less than 2Ne then we know those regions aren't under selection. This could be a very expensive experiment, and if you have suggests for experimental verification of the selection levels in a way more feasible, please feel free to post. The reason I think it is a legitimate question was the knockout experiments on conserved regions in mice. I wouldn't be surprised to hear Larry trash the ENCODE project because of the mega base pair deletion experiments and the lack of change in fitness.scordova_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Conserved” implies common descent
No it implies common design!!!!!!! Design, that doesn't change due to mutations.jerry_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

How is that?
"Conserved" implies common descent, common descent is anathema to the creationist faction of ID. At least that's how I see it, but I'm only one creationist. Maybe other creationists can weigh in and say how they feel about the word "conserved" versus "deeply similar over large continuous stretches of DNA".scordova_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

anti-creationist
How is that? I would assume that conservation implies function which implies design which implies less junk in genomes. So conservation is highly favorable to ID. So are you saying that creationism is antithetical to ID?jerry_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Just read the OP. Isn't 5000 years ago when the human populations started to explode due to efficiencies in farming and animal husbandry and the rise of cities. That may explain the change in mutations if in fact it is accurate.jerry_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

That epxeriment would tell you about the (non-lethal-) mutation rate, not whether such sites evolve under neutralitywd400_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Why is conserved highly anti-ID?
Sorry, more precisely anti-creationist. My mistake.scordova_{April 17, 2014
April
04
Apr
17
17
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply