Very different species have very similar genes

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 29, 2014

Genetics, News}

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

Did you know: “ … widely divergent species are found to be far more similar to humans than would be presupposed on a Darwinian framework”:

1. 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”

2. Reuters: 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, … ”

Despite all this, over at Pom-Pom Central, we recently learned about the “Picture that terrifies creationists”:

Naturally, I thought they had discovered a man actually morphing into a fly.

It turns out, Mooney provides only primate gene sequences showing similar chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Which mainly shows what genetics doesn’t do.

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.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

So, umm.... can you answer the question?wd400_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

'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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

I didn't listen, I'm just responding to News' post. Are you now claiming she has quoted Sternberg out of context?wd400_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.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.htmlbornagain77_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

wd400 #5, Why are we supposed to believe you?Box_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Where was the claim made that the sequences are very similar?Mung_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

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://uncommondescent.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_{December 29, 2014
December
12
Dec
29
29
2014
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply