Very different species have very similar genes

neo-Darwinism is gene-centric, and must rely on genes to explain everything; meanwhile, ID, is regulatory gene oriented, as I state above. And IDers were saying this when the large portion of regulatory genes now known to exist was waiting to become known.

A classic, PaV. Here are some predictions from a non-IDer: 1) 'neo-Darwinism' considers genes to include both their coding region AND the regulatory regions and you will be unable to show that this is not true. 2) You have no reason to state that ID is 'regulatory oriented' and you have absolutely no basis to support this claim. 3) You will not be able to point out statements by IDers about being 'regulatory oriented' prior to the discovery of the discovery of many of the regulatory genes now known to exist. hrun0815

More of the same... Unfortunately, most molecular biologists don't know a lot about evolutionary biology, so HUGO said 100,000 genes and that's the number everyone remembers. In fact, that was pretty much the upper limit, I think the median estimate in the sweepstake that ENSEMBLE held was about 60,000. The low numbers estimated by evolutionary biologists are not just "some person saying something", as you seem to claim. They are estimates based on evolutionary principles, which turned out to be pretty accurate. Your claim was that the small number of protein coding genes was a problem for evolution, but in fact the number was well-estimated from evolutionary principles. I don't know where this claim about evolutionary biology being tied protein coding genes (or indeed ID's fondness for regulatory evolution) comes from. As I said, that regulatory genes are key drivers of evolution has been orthodox evolutionary biology since the 1980s, when ID was still called creation science. The ENCODE project themselves have backed away from their papers' claims about functional elements, which where much less grand than their press releases. The problems with inferring biological function from the sorts of assays used in ENCODE have nothing to do with function being limited to "protein-like activity". As to King and Jukes title,what of it? Modern evolutionary biology is more that "Darwinism", indeed those accurate estimates of the gene content of the human genome use pretty non-Darwinian evolution. wd400

wd400,

Actually, evolutionary biologists predicted ~20,000 genes long ago.

Then why didn't the biology community accept it? This is a typical answer: yes, somewhere, someone once said this, that or the other. But if the scientific community doesn't settle on that as an answer, can you justify bringing it up and saying: "Oh, we've known that for a long time." What is known is what someone said a long time ago. Abraham Velikovsky was right about the atmospheric content of Venus, and Sagan was incredibly wrong. Yet no one took Velikovsky seriously. neo-Darwinism is gene-centric, and must rely on genes to explain everything; meanwhile, ID, is regulatory gene oriented, as I state above. And IDers were saying this when the large portion of regulatory genes now known to exist was waiting to become known. That you now want to talk about "regulatory" genes as if they're the same thing as "protein coding genes" is the typical Darwinian retrenchment given once it becomes clear that their previous ideas and predictions have been proven wrong. As to citations, just google UD and junk DNA and you'll find plenty of references from years ago. And the trail goes back to the 90's. As to ID being right, please consult the ENCODE project, and not the latest silliness which interprets "function" as meaning only some protein-like activity, IOW, a highly restricted understanding of cellular function. The citation of yours, "King and Juke's famous paper," is very interesting. The title: "Non Darwinian Evolution." I rest my case. PaV

Still waiting for an answer, BA. If, as you claim, regulatory sequences are "always catastrophically bad", and most of our genome is made of regulatory sequences, then where are all these universally catastrophic consequences of the 50 mutations you, I and the rest of us have? wd400

bornagain77 (quoting): After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. It's doubtful most biologists have heard of Abel, much less his challenge. In any case, it's a negative entailment. As such, it may just as well represent the limitations of human knowledge as of any underlying biological fact. Zachriel

PaV, although I was going to ignore wd400s responce because it is, IMHO, so nonsensical, since you have weighed in I would like to point out a few obvious reasons why wd400's response fails. Number one, as referenced previously, all the evidence we have, fossil and genetic, says that humans are in the midst of the slow down hill grind of genetic entropy.

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/genetics/very-different-species-have-very-similar-genes/#comment-539340

wd400's response to all that empirical evidence? Well he does not contest the fact that the rate of mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental and humans suffer many genetic disorders, instead he protests that if mutations were 'always' detrimental in regulatory regions then we should not be here at all, and then follows with the huge non-sequitor, therefore the genome must be mostly junk. The argument is so stupid it is hard to believe that wd400 made it with a straight face. Besides the fact that we now know that there is a tremendous amount of redundancy in genomes, it is also a well known fact that a large percentage of embryos don't make it to maturity and are aborted.

Studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of embryos are aborted by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's last menstrual period), even if a woman does not realize it.[9][10] Abortions after the sixth week LMP happen in 8% of pregnancies.[10] The risk of them is "virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period," with a rate of only two percent after 8.5 weeks LMP.[11]

In fact, neo-Darwinist John Avise used this fact of the high failure rate of embryos, among others, to argue, theologically, against Intelligent Design since apparently, in the twisted theology of Darwinian reasoning, God would never allow such things as mutations that caused embryos to be aborted

"The Human Genome and Theology" John Avise - (half way down the page) Excerpt: "Fallible Design (terrible point-mutation diseases either inherited or derived from sporadic mutations along with a extremely high-rate failure of blastulas to implant in the uterus [> 55%, in which the Mother-to-be is unaware of her failed attempt to become pregnant] or undergo spontaneous abortions after implantation [miscarriages in the first trimester, during failed embryogenesis, in which the Mother-to-be coincidentally became aware of her potential pregnancy]);" http://www.grg.org/breakingnews2010.htm

Also of note, fertility rates are dropping worldwide (which, of course, may also be mitigated by other factors besides genetic entropy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#mediaviewer/File:Trends_in_TFR_1950-2050.png Thus, even cursory examination shows wd400's response, as usual, to be intellectually dishonest to the actual evidence at hand. Moreover, despite whatever snake oil neo-Darwinists may be trying to sell people about the human genome, the fact of the matter is that we have abundant evidence for widespread, extremely complex and overlapping, functionality in the genome:

Biological Information - Not Junk After All 11-29-2014 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-7kVBA_JM

Moreover, neo-Darwinists have ZERO evidence of unguided material processes creating any non-trivial functional complexity/information:

The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-7kVBA_JM

Thus, without a single demonstration that unguided material preocesses can create anything of significance, neo-Darwinian explanations do not even rise to the level of being 'not even wrong' in trying to coherently explain the unfathomed complexity being discovered in life. i.e. Darwinism is a pseudo-science!

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518 It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk

Verse and Music:

Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Good To Be Alive - Official Lyric Video - Jason Gray https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4omFQJEAAVc

bornagain77

PaV. I don't even...

Here’s a problem. Before the advent of WGA, the estimate of the number of genes was 100,000. Now, with WGA, it’s all the way down to 20,000, almost the same number as a fly!

Actually, evolutionary biologists predicted ~20,000 genes long ago. It's in Ohno's junk DNA paper(30,000) , one of Crow's papers and King and Juke's famous one puts the upper bound at 40,000 (citing other studies).

The ID prediction is that genes are secondary, regulatory networks primary. The Darwinian view is ‘gene-centric.’ You’ve lost the battle then because the 100,000 gene figure represents your ‘gene-centric’ view of evolution and it has been cut down to 20,000. You’re left to answer why a fly and a human are equal in complexity.

What on earth are you talking about? Regulatory sequences are genes in the gene-centric view of evolution. That most evolution is regulatory evolution has been standard in evolutionary biology for more than 30 years.

Here, again, ID predicted correctly, just as with junk-DNA.

[citation needed]. Both for the claim that IDists predictions about junk DNA have been borne out, and that IDist predicted the number of genes in the human genome (remembering of course that Ohno and Crow did too). wd400

I can answer the question, BA. Most of the genome is junk so most of the 50 mutations are of no consequence. But you hold that most of the genome has a regulatory function, and that mutations to regulatory sequences are always bad news.

There are 20,000 proteins that are polymorphic. 50 mutations turns out to be one mutation in every 400 genes. How is this a problem? Here's a problem. Before the advent of WGA, the estimate of the number of genes was 100,000. Now, with WGA, it's all the way down to 20,000, almost the same number as a fly! The ID prediction is that genes are secondary, regulatory networks primary. The Darwinian view is 'gene-centric.' You've lost the battle then because the 100,000 gene figure represents your 'gene-centric' view of evolution and it has been cut down to 20,000. You're left to answer why a fly and a human are equal in complexity. If you try and get around that one by invoking alternate splicing, then you run into the problem that alternate splicing is "regulated." Here, again, ID predicted correctly, just as with junk-DNA. You can pooh-pooh the evidence all you want; but you can do so only for so long. PaV

DATCG: However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. Branching descent is strongly supported for most of eukaryota, which the evidence indicates is monophyletic. While horizontal mechanisms are more prevalent in prokaryotes and near the root of the tree, it's still possible to reconstruct the lines of descent. The base of the tree, though, is still enigmatic. Zachriel

Abstract: Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation. Pattern pluralism (the recognition that different evolutionary models and representations of relationships will be appropriate, and true, for different taxa or at different scales or for different purposes) is an attractive alternative to the quixotic pursuit of a single true TOL.

Tree of Life Dead?

We will argue that inclusive hierarchical classifications do not emerge naturally and consistently from the relevant prokaryotic data considered in general (in their entirety). Instead, they have been imposed on them by selective analyses that are based on the assumption that a tree must be the real natural pattern, even if only certain of the data can be trusted to reveal it. Furthermore, we propose that the underlying historical processes affecting prokaryotes are more complex and various than those imagined by Darwin (or by neo-Darwinists), and not of necessity expected to give rise to a natural hierarchy.

YES, they argue actual data shows patterns and processes are "more complex and various than..." "imagined by Darwin... or Neo-Darwinist," leading to an education that sent a "mixed message..."

Problematically, Darwin depended on the notion that the true pattern of natural relationships is a tree in the construction of his theory of the responsible process and, as Panchen (17) notes, his explanandum was subsequently considered by him as a part of the proof that his theory (explanans) was right. That classifications should be constructed as hierarchies because evolution is a branching process and that hierarchical classification is a proof of branching evolution is the mixed message many of us took from our early education as biologists.

and semicircular...

But we now have ample other evidence supporting the reality of evolution. We could thus dispense with the tree (and such semicircular reasoning), should this particular historical premise about branching fall short, without weakening the solid edifice of evolutionary biology.

but not a problem for evolutionism. To sum up... We can "dispense with" the "mixed message" received in "early education as biologist" and "semicircular reasoning" of Darwin and by neo-Darwinist that "can always be imposed on... data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL(tree of life) rest on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true." Thus removing the "... quixotic pursuit of a single true TOL. DATCG

lifepsy: Certainly there is a strong nested hierarchy pattern. Some people on this forum disagree, but at least we have found common ground. lifepsy: Of course it is not a signal of common ancestry, at least in any explicit sense. It's an entailment of common descent, and there are various testable mechanisms for anomalies in the nested hierarchy, such as hybridization and natural selection. lifepsy: This is because a common ancestry model can potentially accommodate far too many contradictory nesting patterns. Common descent is an historical process, so there are many ways it can turn. Did you have a specific objection? Zachriel

zachriel: Are you saying there is not a strong signal of a nested hierarchy? Certainly there is a strong nested hierarchy pattern. Of course it is not a signal of common ancestry, at least in any explicit sense. This is because a common ancestry model can potentially accommodate far too many contradictory nesting patterns. lifepsy

BA77:

Zach, gives us the exact same link that Dr. Hunter listed to illustrate the problem of unexpected convergent evolution,

Is this the Dr. Hunter of wolves/thylacine fame? sparc

lifepsy: Your claims about the nested hierarchy are too ambiguous to be meaningful. Are you saying there is not a strong signal of a nested hierarchy? Zachriel

lifepsy: Except when they don’t, then it is “incomplete lineage sorting” to the rescue, among other rescue devices. zachriel: The nested hierarchy is never exact. Incomplete lineage sorting is just arithmetic, and is fully consistent with population genetics. Nonetheless, there is a strong signal of a nested hierarchy. Your claims about the nested hierarchy are too ambiguous to be meaningful. There is nothing of substance worth rebutting. lifepsy

bornagain77: gives us the exact same link that Dr. Hunter listed to illustrate the problem of unexpected convergent evolution Unexpected? Let's review it again. 1. Darwin hypothesized that electric organs in fish are due to convergent evolution, adapted from muscle. 2. Scientists determine electric organs in fish are due to convergent evolution, and how they adapted from muscle. See Gallant et al., Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs, Science 2014. So Darwin hypothesized convergent adaptation from muscle in 1859. Genomic evidence supporting this hypothesis was provided in 2014, a century-and-a-half later. That's quite an amazing bit of science by Darwin. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Zachriel

I can answer the question, BA. Most of the genome is junk so most of the 50 mutations are of no consequence. But you hold that most of the genome has a regulatory function, and that mutations to regulatory sequences are always bad news. So, please, tell me how that is compatible with the fact we each have ~50 new mutations? (Or for that matter why you and I differ at about 0.1% of our bases). A straightforward answer if you can. I'll wait... wd400

Surprise, surprise. I guessed right.

Of note, I’m done responding to these guys.

Oh, and thanks for that. That was probably the funniest thing you ever posted here. hrun0815

If anything is an example of three dogs chasing their tails in a pointless circle, its the last three responses from Zachriel, hrun0815 and wd400. Zach, gives us the exact same link that Dr. Hunter listed to illustrate the problem of unexpected convergent evolution, as if listing the exact same link illustrating the problem explains the problem, It doesn't even go one inch towards answering the surprising finding/problem. Yet, Zach the dog goes round and round chasing his tail as if listing the exact same link accomplished anything other than to go around in a circle. hrun0815 pretends as if this whole thread, and links I provided in the last comment, has not addressed the main point of the headline, i.e. unexpected genetic similarity in widely divergent species. Yet apparently hrun0815 is convinced that his tail is some alien thing that is out to get him and chases away any way. but wd400 is a bit more coy and tries to get someone else to pointlessly chase his tail for him. Three dogs chasing tails, all three dogs chasing fails! :) Of note, I'm done responding to these guys. bornagain77

So that's a "no" then, BA? wd400

BA77:

hrun0815 and exactly what is the neo-Darwinian answer (read ‘just so story’) for widespread convergence, even down to the molecular level, for widely divergent species?

Translation: 'And here is an unrelated smokescreen that I will bolster with countless links and clippings without actually making a single point.' BA, here are some two novel ideas: 1) Would you like to defend or explain the OP's headline? 2) Would you like to do as News says and actually investigate the design principles at work here? No and no? I thought so. Don't worry. Even if you don't answer directly and instead send a barrage of complete irrelevant links I'm sure I guessed your answer correctly. hrun0815

lifepsy: Except when they don’t, then it is “incomplete lineage sorting” to the rescue, among other rescue devices. The nested hierarchy is never exact. Incomplete lineage sorting is just arithmetic, and is fully consistent with population genetics. Nonetheless, there is a strong signal of a nested hierarchy. bornagain77 (quoting): As we saw above, Darwin argued that the designs of the (many) different electric organs were sufficiently different that they must have arisen independently, and so they would not form a common descent pattern. 1. Darwin hypothesized that electric organs in fish are due to convergent evolution, adapted from muscle. 2. Scientists determine electric organs in fish are due to convergent evolution, and how they adapted from muscle. See Gallant et al., Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs, Science 2014. Zachriel

In fact, Simon Conway Morris has a website documenting hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of unexpected 'convergence':

Map Of Life – Simon Conway Morris http://www.mapoflife.org/browse/ Simon Conway Morris: “Fossil evidence demands a radical rewriting of evolution.” – March 2012 Excerpt: “The idea is this: that convergence – the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems – is not just part of evolution, but a driving force. To say this is an unconventional view would be something of an understatement.” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/simon-conway-morris-fossil-evidence-demands-a-radical-rewriting-of-evolution/

bornagain77

hrun0815 and exactly what is the neo-Darwinian answer (read 'just so story') for widespread convergence, even down to the molecular level, for widely divergent species? 'Convergent evolution' (homology in unexpected places) is found to be much more widespread than originally thought. Far more often than would be expected under the neo-Darwinian framework.

Fish Have a Toolbox and Several Other Findings - Cornelius Hunter - June 28, 2014 Excerpt: "Hence in the several fishes furnished with electric organs, these cannot be considered as homologous, but only as analogous in function. Consequently there is no reason to suppose that they have been inherited from a common progenitor; for had this been the case they would have closely resembled each other in all respects. Thus the difficulty of an organ, apparently the same, arising in several remotely allied species, disappears," Charles Darwin ,,,, today’s study nullifies Darwin’s second argument. As we saw above, Darwin argued that the designs of the (many) different electric organs were sufficiently different that they must have arisen independently, and so they would not form a common descent pattern. But the new study, which peers deeper into the data, down to the genetic level, finds no such differences. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/fish-have-toolbox-and-several-other.html Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes - Erika Check Hayden - 04 September 2013 Excerpt: “These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized,” says molecular phylogeneticist Frédéric Delsuc at the The National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) at the University of Montpellier in France, who was not involved in the study. What is more, he adds, the genes involved are not just the few, obvious ones known to be directly involved in a trait but a broader array of genes that are involved in the same regulatory networks. http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679 Newly Discovered Convergent Genetic Evolution Between Bird and Human Vocalization Poses a Severe Challenge to Common Ancestry - Casey Luskin - December 15, 2014 Excerpt: "We've known for many years that the singing behavior of birds is similar to speech in humans -- not identical, but similar -,,, "But we didn't know whether or not those features were the same because the genes were also the same." "Now scientists do know, and the answer is yes -- birds and humans use essentially the same genes to speak.",,, "there is a consistent set of just over 50 genes,,," "These changes were not found in the brains of birds that do not have vocal learning and of non-human primates that do not speak," So certain birds and humans use the same genes for vocalization -- but those genetic abilities are absent in non-human primates and birds without vocal learning? If not derived from a common ancestor, as they clearly were not, how did the genes get there? This kind of extreme convergent genetic evolution points strongly to intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/newly_discovere092041.html Same Old Darwinian Drivel - June 26, 2014 Excerpt: the six electric fish lineages, all of which 'evolved' independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/same-old-darwinian-drivel/#comment-505369 Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins - Liu et al (2010) Excerpt: We previously reported that the Prestin gene has undergone sequence convergence among unrelated lineages of echolocating bat [3]. Here we report that this gene has also undergone convergent amino acid substitutions in echolocating dolphins, http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2809%2902073-9 Study shows butterfly wings contain same (protein) toxin as sea snail - October 16, 2012 http://phys.org/news/2012-10-butterfly-wings-toxin-sea-snail.html "Despite its complexity, C4 photosynthesis is one of the best examples of 'convergent evolution', having evolved more than 50 times in at least 18 plant families (Sage 2004; Conway Morris 2006)." http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/8/1909.full.pdf “The reason evolutionary biologists believe in "40 known independent eye evolutions" isn't because they've reconstructed those evolutionary pathways, but because eyes don't assume a treelike pattern on the famous Darwinian "tree of life." Darwinists are accordingly forced, again and again, to invoke convergent "independent" evolution of eyes to explain why eyes are distributed in such a non-tree-like fashion. This is hardly evidence against ID. In fact the appearance of eyes within widely disparate groups speaks eloquently of common design. Eyes are a problem, all right -- for Darwinism.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/its_a_shame_rea083441.html

bornagain77

Zachriel: And yes, ERVs show the same nested hierarchy pattern as other genes, implying common descent. Except when they don't, then it is "incomplete lineage sorting" to the rescue, among other rescue devices. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F4/ lifepsy

Very different species have very similar genes

Yet again the journalistic integrity and science education by News are on full display. Does the post actually explain the headline? What it's actually similar? Which species are we talking about? Does this mean that some supposedly only far related organisms have more similar genes than more closely related ones? What support is there for this assertion? What is this supposed to mean for evolution? Or ID? I'm answer we get... virtually nothing. However, we are treated to this nice little howler:

The current situation should be baffling, though not terrifying, to any reasonable person. It seems there is some design principle at work, in which case it can be usefully studied.

The current situation is neither terrifying not baffling to a reasonable person. There might be some facts that are baffling, but that certainly does not mean the whole situation is. And the second sentence is a perfect way to close out this year. The ID community should take up this call and actually study something. Let's remember this at the end of 2015 and summarize what the ID community found out about the 'design principle' at work here. hrun0815

wd400 you ask

So, umm…. can you answer the question?

In regards to this question you originally posed:

If (a) regulatory networks are inflexiable (b) most of our genome is made of regulatory sequences and (c) we have ~50 new mutations how are we alive?

And exactly how do you think this question. 'how are we alive?', is not an exponentially worse question for neo-Darwinists to try to answer than it is for IDists to try to answer? Are you thinking along theological, instead of scientific, lines as John Avise did? Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a powerful scientific argument against Darwinism, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to Darwinian theology, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:

It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012 Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design” (Dr. Cornelius Hunter goes on to comment) "There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way." – - per Darwin's God blog

As pointed out previously, Dr. John Avise also states this in his book:

“Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” John C. Avise - Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57

Contrary to what Dr. Avise, and apparently other Darwinists, may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against neo-Darwinian claims,,, That this scientific fact would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian 'theological' thinking truly is in regards to the actual science at hand. In fact, there is a flat out contradiction to Darwinian theory in having sophisticated, overlapping, repair mechanisms in place to protect the genome against detrimental 'random' mutations: Although evolution depends on 'mutations/errors' to DNA to make evolution plausible, there are multiple layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any "random changes" to DNA from happening in the first place:

The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems Excerpt: The bottom line is that repair mechanisms are incompatible with Darwinism in principle. Since sophisticated repair mechanisms do exist in the cell after all, then the thing to discard in the dilemma to avoid the contradiction necessarily is the Darwinist dogma. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-darwinism-contradiction-of-repair-systems/ Contradiction in evolutionary theory - video - (The contradiction between extensive DNA repair mechanisms and the necessity of 'random mutations/errors' for Darwinian evolution) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzh6Ct5cg1o The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective - February 2011 Excerpt: "Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation." http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf

The extensive, overlapping, repair mechanisms for DNA include, but are not limited to, the following:

A proofreading system that catches almost all errors A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system Photoreactivation (light repair) Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 – methylguanine methyltransferase Base excision repair Nucleotide excision repair Double-strand DNA break repair Recombination repair Error-prone bypass http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

And even with such an sophisticated repair mechanisms in place for the genome, which is a 'paradox' in and of itself which directly contradicts Darwinian theory, the mutation rate, ('50' as even wd400 himself cited), is still well beyond what is the acceptable limit for mutations within Darwinian theory. In other words, a ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 50 per generation is far greater than what even leading evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them from a genome:

"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained… it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection… it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements." Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford; Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy Human evolution or extinction - discussion on acceptable mutation rate per generation (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM

Even viruses and bacteria, which are subject to much more 'purifying selection' than higher organisms are, have a fairly tight constraint on the mutation rate allowed. A constraint that is approx. 10 times below the '50' number that wd400 himself cited.

Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm

of note:

The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; - per Oxford Journals

Thus the answer to your question wd400,,,

how are we alive?

,,, is, although you may 'theologically' refuse to accept the answer wd400, as Kondrashov pointed out, 'we should have died 100 times over if Darwinism were true!' Supplemental note from the 'top down' perspective:

A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html

Of personal note: The question wd400 asked 'how are we alive?' is actually a much more difficult question to try to properly answer than has been touched on here:

The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings

Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Paul Baloche - He Is Risen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kbbxraBjy8

bornagain77

it should, it is a prediction of creationism(s) that common design would equal common genetics for common needs at basic levels of biology. Evolutionism should desire such variety as to go AH HA just as it should be! Genetics as varied as selection on mutations can be. As better investagation of biology happens common design will be the rule and common descent concepts the exception. If you were a creator YOU would use common blueprint designs at basic levels inclusing a system to react to bring change. Yes we are only a little different from kangaroos at genetic levels. As it would be predicted by a creationist thinker. I say evolutionists would like to NOT find common themes in genetics! They would go AH HA . Its very different as a unguided random thing would be. It ain't/ Merry Christmas and another happy year for creationists acoming. Robert Byers

Quoting from Dr. Sandford's video presentation posted by BA77 above... at about 18 minute mark...

Sanford quotes from PNAS paper on mutations by Michael Lynch(PNAS 107:961-968) - average cell in 15yr old - up to 6000 mutations - skin cell in 60yr old - up to 40,000 mutations - mutation primary cause of aging and death "... little potential for substantially increasing the upper limit of human life span."

Dr. Sanford goes on to discuss his theory of Genetic Entropy and "dissipation of information." Starting after 24:35 mark on video which BA77 points to shows Dr. Sanford refers to population geneticist including Dr. Crow and others...

- Dr. Crow - we're inferior to caveman - Dr. Kondrashov - no human geneticist doubts man is degenerating.(what do Rat Geneticist think?) - Dr. Lynch - even assuming a lower mutation rate, we are degenerating at 1-5% per generation

He quotes Dr. Lynch again. How long can that last?

- in next few centuries, "significant incapacitation at morphological, physiological, and neurobiological levels"

Dr. Lynch's recommendation? To go to the third world where there is more death and less degeneration. DATCG

Quoting directly from Reuters article, researchers and Center Director... similar...

(Reuters) - Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans and may have first evolved in China, Australian researchers said Tuesday.

What does the "center Director" mean by "same" and similar?

"There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," center Director Jenny Graves told reporters in Melbourne.

chunky genes...

"... thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome... right there in the kangaroo genome..."

Sadly, we are not so closely related to hoppers...

Humans and kangaroos last shared an ancestor at least 150 million years ago, the researchers found, while mice and humans diverged from one another only 70 million years ago.

... as we are of mice and men. Explains why I adore cheese and inclined to the animated food extravaganza of Ratatouille via link of a common ancestor. What I don't understand however is how the Rat suddenly leap-frogged past human chefs in gastronomy and the culinary arts. DATCG

News and her supporters should google what has been discovered by Zoo-FISH using human chromosome-specific paints during the last decades. Obviously, they are not aware of synteny conservation. They may be even more surprised/shocked if they look up karyotype evolution in birds in addition. sparc

So, umm.... can you answer the question? wd400

wd400, you may appreciate this: Podcast - Casey Luskin discusses the origin of birds on The Universe Next Door with Tom Woodward. A recent series of papers published in the journal Science presents evidence of the abrupt appearance of major bird groups. Listen in as Luskin explains how these findings support the theory of intelligent design. - 12/30/14 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/the-big-bang-for-birds/ bornagain77

As well, the fossil record backs all this up:

Scientists Discover Proof That Humanity Is Getting Dumber, Smaller And Weaker By Michael Snyder, on April 29th, 2014 Excerpt: An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly. Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller. The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development. The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/scientists-discover-proof-that-humanity-is-getting-dumber-smaller-and-weaker Human face has shrunk over the past 10,000 years - November 2005 Excerpt: Human faces are shrinking by 1%-2% every 1,000 years. What’s more, we are growing less teeth. Ten thousand years ago everyone grew wisdom teeth but now only half of us get them, and other teeth like the lateral incisors have become much smaller. This is evolution in action." http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/001604.html If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking Cro Magnon skull shows that our brains have shrunk - Mar 15, 2010 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: Using new technology, researchers have produced a replica of the 28,000-year-old brain and found that it is about 15-20% larger than our brains. http://phys.org/news187877156.html

of related note:

“Neanderthals are known for their large cranial capacity, which at 1600cc is larger on average than modern humans.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Anatomy Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2013 Excerpt: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)

Verse:

Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

bornagain77

wd400 you wrote,

You also haven’t answered by question. If (a) regulatory networks are inflexible (b) most of our genome is made of regulatory sequences and (c) we have ~50 new mutations how are we alive?

Well that question, or a very similar question to it, was asked here in this paper:

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations - 1995 "why have we not died 100 times over?" Kondrashov A.S. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/jt/1995/00000175/00000004/art00167

Dr. Sanford discusses that paper, and several other papers like it, at the the 24:40 minute mark of following video:

John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PHsu94HQrL0#t=1040s

Notes from John Sanford's preceding video:

*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.

Here is a rather, for mild mannered Dr. Sanford, blunt article on the subject:

Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy - Dr John Sanford - 7 March 2013 Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.]. African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare! http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

The implications of all this are also discussed in the following, in my honest opinion, very well done interview with Dr. Sanford:

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" Part 1 of 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos

That mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental is, again, a non-controversial fact (save for those who want neo-Darwinism to be true). The evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.

Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens." I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: Mutation total (as of 2014-05-02) - 148,413 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

With such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations, one thing is for certain, we obviously, as Dr. Sanford pointed out in his interview, did not get here by neo-Darwinian processes. Moreover, we now have evidence that these detrimental mutations have accumulated fairly recently:

Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013 Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,: "We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000 -10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,, As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,, http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/

bornagain77

Mung, The second quote indeed talks about the order of genes. The bits that News wrote don't appear to relate to this quote though, do they? wd400

OK, typo from me for which I apologise. But here's what all those links add up to: Related species share genes. You can't go round exclaiming that ORFan genes are the end of 'Darwinism' and and that shared genes are too. You also haven't answered by question. If (a) regulatory networks are inflexiable (b) most of our genome is made of regulatory sequences and (c) we have ~50 new mutations how are we alive? wd400

wd400, here's what I read. Perhaps you read something different.

Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” … “We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not.

It talking about the order of the genes in the genomes, not the similarity of the DNA sequences of the genes. Mung

wd400, you state: "News headlined a post “very different species have very different genes”," wd400, using your principle of non-charity in reading, that is not what she stated, although that is what is expected in the Darwinian framework. What she actually stated is: "Very different species have very similar genes" and again this is non-controversial for those not committed to neo-Darwinism, yet is surprising for those who want neo-Darwinism to be true. First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals "Junk DNA" Surprise - 2007 Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,, The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F also of note: Family Ties: Completion of Zebrafish Reference Genome Yields Strong Comparisons With Human Genome - Apr. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Researchers demonstrate today that 70 per cent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130417131725.htm Shark and human proteins “stunningly similar”; shark closer to human than to zebrafish - December 9, 2013 Excerpt: “We were very surprised to find, that for many categories of proteins, sharks share more similarities with humans than zebrafish,” Stanhope said. “Although sharks and bony fishes are not closely related, they are nonetheless both fish … while mammals have very different anatomies and physiologies. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/shark-and-human-proteins-stunningly-similar-shark-closer-to-human-than-to-zebrafish/ As to the inflexibility of regulatory networks, again that is a non-controversial fact (save for the Darwinist who wants Darwinism to be true), Dr. Paul Nelson has an excellent video for the lay audience on this topic: Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ bornagain77

'It seems there is some design principle at work, in which case it can be usefully studied.' Say it ain't so ! Oh, what slings and arrows of outrageous fortune! Axel

To recap, News headlined a post "very different species have very different genes", reproducing a quote that claims dolphin and human genomes are almost identical. Mentioning that dolphin and human and genome are not in fact identical is (according to BA) taking the quote out of context. The missing context is, evidently, something about chromosome organisation. It's very hard to see how the context improves the quote, or furthers News' faulty claim. All the "context" seems to say is that the same genes are organised in a different way. Which is still not true. BA now adds the claim that protein sequences are "unexpectly similar" and regulatory sequences are "vastly different". Neitehr of which are true (again, I linked to the genome sequences, if it's true just show me). And finally BA add that's regualtory networks are completely inflexible, which is a bizzare statment for someone who claims most of the genome is functinal to make. If (a) mutations always break regulatory sequences (b) all or most of the genome is made of regulatory sequences and (c) we all have ~50 new mutations then how are we alive? Isn't it more likely most of the genome is junk, and mutations there matter not at all? wd400

Richard Sternberg PhD – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Hmmm, seems she got the overall context right seeing as she noted this (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) right before the quote,,, But why DO YOU want to squabble of dotting i's and crossing t's when the elephant in the living problem for you, a problem that you ignore as an alcoholic ignores his destructive behavior, is that the places where the genomes are vastly different between chimps and humans (in regulatory regions) are the places where changes "are always catastrophically bad"? A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question - Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013 Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Thus where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome for Darwinism to be viable as a hypothesis is the place where the genome is found to be the least tolerant of change, and yet it is in these regulatory regions where 'vast differences' are found between species. If Darwinism were a falsifiable science instead of a religion masquerading as science, this would certainly rank as a premiere falsification of a primary Darwinian prediction. bornagain77

I didn't listen, I'm just responding to News' post. Are you now claiming she has quoted Sternberg out of context? wd400

wd400, if you would listen to the referenced audios, Dr. Sternberg makes it clear which parts of the genome are unexpectedly similar (protein coding regions and such as that) and which parts are found to be vastly different (higher level regulatory regions and architecture). You obviously are trying to uncharitably make it appear that Dr. Sternberg is claiming something he is not claiming. It is just another example of how disingenuous you are willing to be to in order to defend Neo-Darwinism! bornagain77

BA, You know disagree with Sternberg? These genomes aren't nearly "wholly identical", only the protein coding bits? Can you point to these very similar protein coding genes? Are they more or less similar when we compare chimps to humans, or rodents to humans? wd400

bornagain77: they don’t match the ever flexible Darwinian predictions for universal common descent Nested hierarchy. We assume you have retracted your claim about Sternberg & Shapiro 2005. Zachriel

wd400, the protein coding regions are 'very similar', regulatory regions differ greatly. Even Darwinists themselves admit that protein coding regions are far more similar than would be expected on the 'central dogma' framework of neo-Darwinism: Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, ,,, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees”, said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Moreover, since I do not know how to properly utilize the gene bank data, and since I have caught you being disingenuous to the evidence on several occasions, I certainly trust Dr. Sternberg's reading of the data more than yours. You simply have no credibility with me anymore wd400! bornagain77

Zach, as I referenced, no they don't match the ever flexible Darwinian predictions for universal common descent (whatever those predictions are this week since the predictions seem to change to match whatever the data may say :) ). of note: I will respond to your tail chasing no more today! bornagain77

Many of our genes have counterparts on other mammalian genomes, but the the sequences of those genes in dolphins and kangaros are not “very similar”.

From the quote above, it seems they were very surprised that the genes were found in much the same order. Does that make a kangaroo a "primate"? :) PaV

Anyone that wants to find these "very similar" genes in human, dolphins and kangaroos is most welcome to: Here's a kanagaroo genome http://uswest.ensembl.org/Macropus_eugenii/Info/Index And a dolphin http://uswest.ensembl.org/Tursiops_truncatus/Location/Genome?r=GeneScaffold_2231:208695-327249 You can look at gene trees for every gene in each genome. If you click on "genome assembly" you can add a track from "comparative genomics" with the best alignment to human genes. It will pretty much all look like this though, hardly "very similar". wd400

bornagain77: yet Darwinists continued to insist ERVs were conclusive proof of Darwinism for years afterward??? You claimed a prediction in 2005 of something known for years. And yes, ERVs show the same nested hierarchy pattern as other genes, implying common descent. Zachriel

Zach you wrote: Dr. Sternberg, along with Dr. James Shapiro, co-wrote two papers in 2005 in which they correctly predicted that Endogenous Retroviruses,,, what I actually wrote: "Dr. Sternberg, along with Dr. James Shapiro, co-wrote two papers in 2005 in which they correctly predicted that repetitive sequences (along with other elements) would be found to have non-trivial function",,, I corrected to more accurately reflect what they claimed. anyways in regards to ERVs, and yet Darwinists continued to insist ERVs were conclusive proof of Darwinism, even though they had evidence of non-trivial functionality, for years afterward??? go figure! Can't let such a thing as empirical refutation stand in the way of defending neo-Darwinism can they! The definitive response on ERV’s and Creation, with Dr. Jean Lightner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feHYEgzaGkY Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation - 2006 http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract. Retrovirus in the Human Genome Is Active in Pluripotent Stem Cells - Jan. 23, 2013 Excerpt: "What we've observed is that a group of endogenous retroviruses called HERV-H is extremely busy in human embryonic stem cells," said Jeremy Luban, MD, the David L. Freelander Memorial Professor in HIV/AIDS Research, professor of molecular medicine and lead author of the study. "In fact, HERV-H is one of the most abundantly expressed genes in pluripotent stem cells and it isn't found in any other cell types. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133930.htm Transposable Elements Reveal a Stem Cell Specific Class of Long Noncoding RNAs - (Nov. 26, 2012) Excerpt: The study published by Rinn and Kelley finds a striking affinity for a class of hopping genes known as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs, to land in lincRNAs. The study finds that ERVs are not only enriched in lincRNAs, but also often sit at the start of the gene in an orientation to promote transcription. Perhaps more intriguingly, lincRNAs containing an ERV family known as HERVH correlated with expression in stem cells relative to dozens of other tested tissues and cells. According to Rinn, "This strongly suggests that ERV transposition in the genome may have given rise to stem cell-specific lincRNAs. The observation that HERVHs landed at the start of dozens of lincRNAs was almost chilling; that this appears to impart a stem cell-specific expression pattern was simply stunning!" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121125192838.htm Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It - September 2011 Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/retroviruses-and-common-descent-and-why-i-dont-buy-it/ Some (inconsistencies) ERVs that don't fit into the naturalistic evolutionary assumption of common descent: PTERV1 in chimpanzee, African great apes and old World monkeys but not in humans and asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm Conservation and loss of the ERV3 open reading frame in primates. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15081124 ERV3 sequences were amplified by PCR from genomic DNA of great ape and Old World primates but not from New World primates or gorilla, suggesting an integration event more than 30 million years ago with a subsequent loss in one species. From ancestral infectious retroviruses to bona fide cellular genes: role of the captured syncytins in placentation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22695103 We focus on the recent discovery of genes derived from the envelope glycoprotein-encoding (env) genes of endogenous retroviruses that have been domesticated by mammals to carry out an essential function in placental development… Remarkably, the capture of syncytin or syncytin-like genes, sometimes as pairs, was found to have occurred independently from different endogenous retroviruses in diverse mammalian lineages such as primates–including humans–, muroids, leporids, carnivores, caviids, and ovis, between around 10 and 85 million years ago. The Human Lineage Was Somehow “Purged” - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012 Excerpt: Another such feature is the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans. The problem is that these viruses are present in the other primates, and so according to evolutionists these viruses must be present in their common ancestor which, again according to evolution, would be an ancestor of humans as well.,, In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans our DNA must have been “purged.” We got a do-over! Hilarious. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/unbelievableevolution-in-complete-free.html bornagain77

bornagain77: Dr. Sternberg, along with Dr. James Shapiro, co-wrote two papers in 2005 in which they correctly predicted that Endogenous Retroviruses Harris, Placental endogenous retrovirus (ERV): structural, functional, and evolutionary significance, Bioessays 1998. Zachriel

wd400, since I have caught you being disingenuous towards the evidence on more than one occasion, without apology I might add, I will take Dr. Sternberg's word, who has a two PhDs, over yours. Of related note. Dr. Sternberg, along with Dr. James Shapiro, co-wrote two papers in 2005 in which they correctly predicted that repetitive sequences (along with other elements) would be found to have non-trivial function (which is a concept that wd400 has rigorously fought against because of his neo-Darwinian presuppostions):

Shapiro and Sternberg Anticipated the Fall of Junk DNA - Douglas Axe - September 13, 2012 Excerpt: "In 2005, I published two articles on the functional importance of repetitive DNA with Rick von Sternberg. The major article was entitled "Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function." These articles with Rick are important to me (and to this blog) for two reasons. The first is that shortly after we submitted them, Rick became a momentary celebrity of the Intelligent Design movement. Critics have taken my co-authorship with Rick as an excuse for "guilt-by-association" claims that I have some ID or Creationist agenda, an allegation with no basis in anything I have written. The second reason the two articles with Rick are important is because they were, frankly, prescient, anticipating the recent ENCODE results. Our basic idea was that the genome is a highly sophisticated information storage organelle. Just like electronic data storage devices, the genome must be highly formatted by generic (i.e. repeated) signals that make it possible to access the stored information when and where it will be useful." - James Shapiro http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/shapiro_and_ste064291.html Sternberg, R. v. & J. A. Shapiro (2005). How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110: 108-116. Excerpt: Employing an information science model, the "functionalist" perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organization of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving retroelements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganization. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16093662 Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrEOe2E0Euc

Of note: Here is the entire recent talk by Dr. Sternberg that was referenced in the OP:

Podcast: Richard Sternberg PhD - " On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? part 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna/ Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2 (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: "Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species" http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Podcast: Richard Sternberg PhD - " On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 3 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-11-17T14_14_33-08_00 Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 4 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-4/ Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 5 (emphasis on ENCODE and the loss of the term 'gene' as a accurate description in biology and how that loss undermines the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-5/

bornagain77

Mung, the first quote says "almost identical", the headline says "have very similar genes", which I take to mean genes that are very similar, not genes that are related to each other. I can't quite see News dedicating a post to the fact human genes are related to other mammal's genes... Box, you can apply skepticsm as selectively as you like. But if you read a few papers, or check out genbank you'll find in right. wd400

wd400 #5, Why are we supposed to believe you? Box

Where was the claim made that the sequences are very similar? Mung

Well, this is just not true. Many of our genes have counterparts on other mammalian genomes, but the the sequences of those genes in dolphins and kangaros are not "very similar". wd400

Verse and Music:

Matthew 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. Mandisa – Esther – Born For This – music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxFCber4TDo

Also of note:

The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! – Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand; The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) – 2011 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ & THE NON-MYTHICAL ADAM AND EVE by (Dr. Robert Carter) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB516g_TgPc

bornagain77

Darwin’s Doubt (Part 8) by Paul Giem – developmental gene regulatory networks and epigenetic information – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLl6wrqd1e0&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=8 Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

Moreover, as if that was not devastating enough, body plans are not even reducible to DNA in the first place as is presupposed in Neo-Darwinism:

Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA – Jonathan Wells – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video https://vimeo.com/91322260 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

supplemental notes: The anatomy of chimps and humans differ far more than what many people believe,,,

The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009 Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html Why Keith Blanchard really doesn’t understand evolution – August 9, 2014 Excerpt: The anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, which are quite extensive, are conveniently summarized in a handout prepared by Anthropology Professor Claud A. Ramblett the University of Texas, entitled, Primate Anatomy. Anyone who thinks that a series of random stepwise mutations, culled by the non-random but unguided process of natural selection, can account for the anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, should read this article very carefully. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/why-keith-blanchard-really-doesnt-understand-evolution/

Moreover, Neo- Darwinists have no demonstrated examples of speciation in the lab,,,

Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282

In fact, laboratory evolution experiments going back four decades reveal that unguided Darwinian processes are far more likely to break things than ever build things up. Thus, any inheritance of beneficial, information bulding, mutations, as is presupposed in neo-Darwinism, is a purely a figment of imagination with no basis in experimental science:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

bornagain77

Here is the entire post as it appeared on facebook: At the risk of beating a dead horse into glue, the genetic evidence for human-chimp common ancestry is far less robust for the neo-Darwinian position than Darwinists pretend. Firstly, the similarity between humans and chimps has been vastly overplayed by Neo-Darwinists:

The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity and Chromosome Fusion between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – video https://vimeo.com/95287522 Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013. 1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%) 2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk) 3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. http://www.icr.org/article/7867/

Secondly, widely divergent species are found to be far more similar to humans than would be presupposed on a Darwinian framework:

Podcast – Richard Sternberg PhD – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,“We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,” http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118

Thirdly, where the chimp-human genomes differ the greatest,,,

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, ,,, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees", said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm “,”Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.” Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 Humans, Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA but Not Gene Regulatory Mechanisms – (Nov. 6, 2012) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106201124.htm

,,,where the chimp-human genomes differ the greatest is the place where changes to the genome are least likely to be tolerated.

A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013 Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html

bornagain77

Evolution theory once again demonstrating how impervious it is to failed predictions. lifepsy