Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: Uncharted genetic territory offers insight into human-specific proteins

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When researchers working on the Human Genome Project completely mapped the genetic blueprint of humans in 2001, they were surprised to find only around 20,000 genes that produce proteins. Could it be that humans have only about twice as many genes as a common fly? Scientists had expected considerably more.

Now, researchers from 20 institutions worldwide bring together more than 7,200 unrecognized gene segments that potentially code for new proteins. For the first time, the study makes use of a new technology to find possible proteins in humans—looking in detail at the protein-producing machinery in cells. The new study suggests the gene discovery efforts of the Human Genome Project were just the beginning, and the research consortium aims to encourage the scientific community to integrate the data into the major human genome databases.

Note that so-called orphan genes have been discussed in-depth at Evolution News:

Orphan genes (sometimes called ORFan genes in bacteria) are those open reading frames that lack identifiable sequence similarity to other protein-coding genes. Lack of similarity is hard to prove, given the size of the genomic universe. Methods vary from researcher to researcher, so each study needs to be evaluated carefully. There is also always the possibility that any given ORF has no function. No doubt some orphan genes will prove to be artifacts of incomplete evidence (see below). But orphan genes are a reality, nonetheless, based on numerous and substantial studies.

Thus, the existence and prevalence of orphan genes raises a number of significant questions.

Then there is the elephant in the room that evolutionary biologists don’t want to acknowledge. Perhaps we see so many species- and clade-specific orphan genes because they are uniquely designed for species- and clade-specific functions. Certainly, this runs contrary to the expectation of common descent.

Continuing with the Phys.org article…

New gene sequences remained out of reach

In the past few years, thousands of frequently very small open reading frames (ORFs) have been discovered in the human genome. These are spans of DNA sequence that may contain instructions for building proteins.

Traditionally, protein-coding regions in genes have been identified by comparing DNA sequences from multiple species: the most important coding regions have been preserved during animal evolution. But this method has a drawback: coding regions that are relatively young, i.e., that arose during the evolution of primates, fall through the cracks and are therefore missing from the databases.

So now the task is to integrate the largely ignored ORFs into the largest reference databases, because researchers have so far had to specifically search for them in the literature if they wanted to study them.

ORFs likely play a role in common diseases

Dr. Sebastiaan van Heesch, group leader at the Princess Máxima Center for pediatric oncology, says that their “research marks a huge step forward in understanding the genetic make-up and complete number of proteins in humans. It’s tremendously exciting to enable the research community with our new catalog. It’s too soon to say whether all of the unexplored sections of DNA truly represent proteins, but we can clearly see that something unexplored is happening across the human genome and that the world should be paying attention.”

“It is especially remarkable that most of these 7,200 ORFs are exclusive to primates and might represent evolutionary innovations unique to our species,” reports Jorge Ruiz-Orera, an evolutionary biologist working in Hübner’s lab at the MDC. “This shows how these elements can provide important hints of what makes us humans.”

Read the complete article at Phys.org.

Another “elephant in the room” is the question of how did the significant amount of information needed for novel protein-coding regions arise without intelligent design?

Comments
AF, your quarrel is with the authors not me.
I'm not quarreling with anyone. I'm just wondering how much concrete evidence there is for a glycan code. In my enquiries so far, I have found none.Alan Fox
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Horizontal Gene Transfer and Intelligent Design Theory Here's Allen MacNeill's argument:
But neutral or slightly deleterious genetic changes (such as those produced by the vast majority of HGTs) are exactly the opposite of what one would expect to see as the work of an “intelligent designer”.
The designer wouldn't do it that way.
Such an entity would (as several of the commentators in this thread have suggested) tailor HGTs to produce adaptive (i.e. beneficial) changes in the phenotypes of the recipients of its HGTs.
What the designer would do ( according to unnamed IDists from 13 years ago) is "tailor HGTs" to make them beneficial.
Either that, or the “intelligent designer” doesn’t “tailor” its HGTs at all, but rather produces them randomly, rather like a dealer in a card game. But in that case, the actions of a soi dissant “intelligent designer” would be indistinguishable from Darwinian evolution, and including any reference to its actions (and/or inferring its existence) would be unnecessary (and would therefore violate Occam’s razor).
Or, instead of tailoring HGTs, the designer would produce random gene transfers - Just like Darwinian evolution claims - because as everyone already knows, evolution is random and therefore there would be no need for a designer (and no evidence of design).
a relatively small number produce phenotypic effects that are correlated with increased survival and/or reproductive success. Unlike the vast majority of HGTs, these beneficial HGTs rapidly proliferate in the populations in which they arise, in exactly the way Darwin proposed in 1859. That is, they are preserved and passed on (while deleterious HGTs are eliminated), and thereby become more common over time among the populations in which they occur.
And there we have it. A relatively small number of beneficial HGTs turned bacteria into human beings without need for a designer at all.Silver Asiatic
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Of related note:
Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA Jonathan Wells* - 2014 Excerpt page 7: THE SUGAR CODE The plasma membranes of all living cells studied to date are covered by arrays of carbohydrates called “glycans” [162]. Glycans can be attached to lipid molecules (glycolipids) or to proteins (glycoproteins), and many of them are quite complex [163]. In living cells, nucleotides in DNA are covalently linked to each other in linear chains; with some exceptions, the same is true for amino acids in proteins. But monosaccharides can be covalently linked to each other through one or more of their hydroxyl groups. Since D-glucose (for example) has five hydroxyl groups, one of which can assume two different positions, it can be covalently linked to other monosaccharides in six different ways (Fig. 4). As a result, carbohydrates can form branching chains that are far more elaborate than linear chains of nucleotides and amino acids (Fig. 5) [164]. While the four nucleotides in the genome can form a maximum of 46 ? 4 x 10^3 hexanucleotides, and the twenty amino acids in the proteome can form a maximum of 206 ? 6 x 10^7 hexapeptides, the dozen or so monosaccharides in the “glycome” can theoretically form more than 10^12 hexasaccharides. Clearly, the information-carrying capacity of the “glycome” far exceeds the combined capacities of the genome and the proteome. The information carried by the glycome has been called the “glycocode” or “sugar code” [165?169]. Glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) are unbranched polysaccharides composed of disaccharide subunits containing an amino group. Yet although they are unbranched, they can be assembled from dozens of different subunits, and sulfate groups can be attached to them in a wide variety of patterns. For example, a sulfate group can be attached to a trisaccharide in ten different positions, increasing its information-carrying capacity tenfold [170]. This makes GAGs some of the most information- dense molecules in biology [171?173]. Of the five types of glycosaminoglycans, four are covalently attached to proteins to form proteoglycans (PGs). Like glycolipids and glycoproteins, PGs are common in the plasma membranes of many cells. https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.2/BIO-C.2014.2 Life Exponential: Life Exhibits Intelligent Design at Many Levels - Jonathan Wells - June 1, 2018 Excerpt: The Membrane Code So localized RNAs in the cortex, glycan patterns on the membrane, and bioelectric fields generated by ion channels in the membrane all carry spatial information. Although individual molecules may be specified by DNA, their three-dimensional patterns are not. Taken together, these patterns constitute a “membrane code” that is independent of DNA sequences.,,, ,,, the existence of the membrane code shows that the Central Dogma is false. And the materialistic idea that evolution is unguided cannot account for the complex specified information in DNA, much less for the extensive complex specified information in the membrane code. Just as the information in DNA points to design, so does the information beyond DNA. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/life-exponential-life-exhibits-intelligent-design-at-many-levels/ podcast - Dr. Jonathan Wells explains the concept of codes in living things, and how they affect the debate over neo-Darwinism and intelligent design. (at least 5 different codes outside of DNA are discussed) - Oct. 2015 – 4:45 minute mark 1. Epigenetic Code – modifies DNA molecule 2. RNA (Alternative) Splicing Code – modifies RNA sequences to produce many different proteins from same DNA sequence 3. Sugar Code – almost every protein is further modified by the addition of complex sugar molecules 4. Membrane Code – membrane patterns are inherited independently of DNA, and yet determine the spatial arrangement in the cell. 5. Bio-electric code – altering the bio-electric field without altering the underlying molecules affects the three-dimensional shape of the developing embryo https://idthefuture.com/887/
Moreover, there have now been found multiple overlapping codes within DNA itself.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
bornagain77
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Along with the genetic code and the glycan code, there must also be a code for the lipids that make up cell walls and other membranes of the cell. Those are by no means simple in that some different cell types have different fat molecules and the inner and outer membranes use different molecules as well. Those phospholipids, and other fats also need to be assembled, sorted, connected, moved around, etc.Fasteddious
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
AF, your quarrel is with the authors not me. And of course, there is the primary case. KFkairosfocus
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
KF
This code is deciphered by carbohydrate-binding proteins that possess distinct carbohydrate binding properties and act as molecular chaperones or sorting receptors.
In other words physical binding, not codes.Alan Fox
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Jerry at 16, Truth is truth. Once Leftists/Liberals infiltrated the schools, they had to convince young people that they came from nowhere. That no one made them. "Getting the poll numbers up" means nothing. ID is the correct answer. I was reading so-called reviews about a book about Intelligent Design. Guess what? The primary concern was "if this gets into the schools." That's not a real book review. So now that Leftists/Liberals control education, they will not prevail. "If this gets into the schools" then Atheists will have a hard time dealing with an established science that points to a designer. Example: Did your computer design and build itself? Yes or no.relatd
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
AF, That's odd, I readily see: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15939591/
The glycan code of the endoplasmic reticulum: asparagine-linked carbohydrates as protein maturation and quality-control tags Daniel N Hebert 1 , Scott C Garman, Maurizio Molinari Affiliations PMID: 15939591 DOI: 10.1016/j.tcb.2005.05.007 Abstract The majority of proteins that traverse the secretory pathway receive asparagine (Asn)-linked glycosylations. Glycans are bulky hydrophilic modifications that serve a variety of structural and functional roles within the cell. Here, we review the recent growing knowledge on the role of Asn-linked glycans as maturation and quality-control protein tags in the early secretory pathway. The carbohydrate composition encodes crucial information about the structure, localization and age of glycoproteins. The "glycan code" is encoded by a series of glycosidases and carbohydrate transferases that line the secretory pathway. This code is deciphered by carbohydrate-binding proteins that possess distinct carbohydrate binding properties and act as molecular chaperones or sorting receptors. These glycosidases and transferases work in concert with resident secretory pathway carbohydrate-binding proteins to form a network that assists in the maturation and trafficking of both native and aberrant glycoproteins within the cell.
KF PS, that is off on a side branch, we all must know about the multiple Nobel Prize winning work that elucidated the genetic code and how it works in protein synthesis, complete with transcription, editing and translation. Where the anticodons of tRNAs are at opposite ends of the L to the CCA universal tool tip that is loaded with a code specific AA, when chemically it could load with any one. Where the aaRS carries out the double matching of AA and tRNA effecting encoding. As a handy summary: https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Code
Genetic code refers to the instructions contained in a gene that tell a cell how to make a specific protein. Each gene’s code uses the four nucleotide bases of DNA: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) — in various ways to spell out three-letter “codons” that specify which amino acid is needed at each position within a protein . . . . Genetic code. The story of the genetic code is the story of biology and genetics in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, as well as its promises and its perils. Oswald Avery in 1944, for example, proved that the genetic code — that DNA —was indeed the carrier of hereditary information, ending more than 80 years of productive speculation. But as important as DNA was to the so-called heroic era of molecular biology, spanning the generation of scientific discovery after the Second World War, and as important as DNA is to the revolutionary sciences of genetics and genomics, neither genes nor DNA determine who you are or what you shall do. Christopher R. Donohue Christopher Donohue, Ph.D. Historian NHGRI History of Genomics Program
Similarly, Wikipedia concedes:
The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences of nucleotide triplets, or codons) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links proteinogenic amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries. A series of codons in part of a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule. Each codon consists of three nucleotides, usually corresponding to a single amino acid. The nucleotides are abbreviated with the letters A, U, G and C. This is mRNA, which uses U (uracil). DNA uses T (thymine) instead. This mRNA molecule will instruct a ribosome to synthesize a protein according to this code. The codons specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis. With some exceptions,[1] a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. The vast majority of genes are encoded with a single scheme (see the RNA codon table). That scheme is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though variant codes (such as in mitochondria) exist.
By all rights, this should be a commonplace and utterly non controversial. That the circles of objectors keep trying to suggest this is a weak and dubious analogy and the like, likely reflects how decisive it is to see machine code algorithms with halting that carry out a key part of a central matter in the cell, formation of proteins. As, that is language used to effect stepwise, goal directed processes. And language as well as goal directedness are known strong signs of rational, free, intentional designers and designs. At this point, I do not let such objections constrain what I confidently conclude is well warranted.kairosfocus
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Once a frequent visitor to ID, Allen MacNeill, has been incommunicado for about 8 years. While retired from teaching evolutionary biology at Cornell, he had health problems and is now 71. His personal blog on evolution hasn’t been updated since 2014. But it is still available even if 8 years old. It is http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/ The posts on that page only go back to 2010 though it’s possible to find earlier post by searching. For example here is a post on HGT from 2009
Horizontal Gene Transfer and Intelligent Design Theory
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/horizontal-gene-transfer-and.html It is Allen’s ideas that have to be refuted if there ever was a civil discussion. I personally don’t see that they won’t but one has to deal with the fact that a greater number of young people are being taught natural Evolution as gospel and are believing in it. For example, does this describe modern evolutionary biology.
The Modern Synthesis is Dead - Long Live the Evolving Synthesis!
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html We can pontificate/lament all we want but I doubt it will make much difference given that the trend is definitely the other way. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210820111042.htmjerry
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Your ignorance is not an argument.
I guess you don’t believe in ID from this comment. I am one of biggest advocates of ID on this site, have been for over 16 years. So I guess my arguments have been from ignorance.jerry
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
@LCD OK? Not really. Not seeing anything about codes. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41435-020-0105-9 A recent review paper covers the subject without mentioning codes.Alan Fox
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Jerry There will also be too many inexplicable events to explain away as a coherent design of an all powerful creator.
Your ignorance is not an argument.
Alan Fox However, I can’t find anything substantive about a glycan code.
It has long been known(1952) that carbohydrates encode biological information :variation of blood group determinants is a consequence of glycosylation, that is, the addition of complex carbohydrates to proteins and lipids. Today is 2022 and still are people who don't find anything substantive about glycan code. Ok.Lieutenant Commander Data
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
So sugars, in the form of monosaccharides, oligosaccharides, polysaccharides, glycolipids, glycoproteins (glycan is a synonym for polysaccharide) are a very important group of molecules. Examples are cellulose and chitin, essential structural components of plants and invertebrates respectively. Glycogen is a glycan that animals use as an energy reserve. Glycolipids are associated with cell membranes and are important in cell recognition and immune reactions. It's a big field with suggestions it's under-researched. However, I can't find anything substantive about a glycan code.Alan Fox
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Can anyone explain the glycan code? Is it a real thing in living organisms?
Seconded! It is apparently very real but reading about it is not enlightening. There has to be a short hand version somewhere. Certainly not in Wikipedia. Something like what has been done for transcription and translation. The other question is are these codes part of OOL or part of evolution? It seems that glycans what ever they are/do are more prevalent in multicellular organisms which definitely points to Evolution. One of the realizations is that cellular activity is so complex that the original proponents of naturalized evolution would have thrown in the towel. There are just too many complications to explain away by just chance. Prediction: there will be too much complexity for naturalized Evolution to explain as just happening by any methodology they can propose. There will also be too many inexplicable events to explain away as a coherent design of an all powerful creator. The latter is the real basis for adhering to naturalized Evolution and is why they cannot really defend any mechanism because one does not exist no matter how desperately they want one. Also they essentially want to eliminate a creator, the concept of they basically abhor. But the irony is that Evolution is a side show and as Denton’s recent book illustrates, Earth is exquisitely designed for complex life to go along with the fine tuning of the universe.jerry
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Cracking the Glycan CodeET
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
The glycan code of the endoplasmic reticulum: asparagine-linked carbohydrates as protein maturation and quality-control tagsET
July 15, 2022
July
07
Jul
15
15
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Seconded. Can anyone explain the glycan code? Is it a real thing in living organisms?Alan Fox
July 14, 2022
July
07
Jul
14
14
2022
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
LCD at 6, Do you think the average person discusses this? Ever? "Hey Bob. You know those hexoses?" The what?relatd
July 14, 2022
July
07
Jul
14
14
2022
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Relatd The Human Genome Project completed the job. https://www.genome.gov/about-nhgri/Director/genomics-landscape/april-7-2022-the-human-genome-sequence-is-now-complete The current problem is figuring out what everything does, so scientists are working on the Human Genome Reference Program. https://www.genome.gov/Funded-Programs-Projects/Human-Genome-Reference-Program
Flash News: Genetic code is the simplest code found in the cell but somehow we have a distorted image about genetic code[as the most complex and important in the cell :which is false] because darwinist birocracy control the flux of informations (schools and mass-media) so they have the power to mold public opinions.
Glycome(sugar code):Nucleotides and proteins are linear polymers that can each contain only one basic type of linkage between monomers. In contrast, each monosaccharide can theoretically generate either an ? or a ? linkage to any one of several positions on another monosaccharide in a chain or to another type of molecule. Thus, it has been pointed out that although three different nucleotides or amino acids can only generate six trimers, three different hexoses could produce (depending on which of their forms are considered) anywhere from 1,056 to 27,648 unique trisaccharides. This difference in complexity becomes even greater as the number of monosaccharide units in the glycan increases. For example, a hexasaccharide with six different hexoses could have more than 1 trillion possible combinations.Nucleotides and proteins are linear polymers that can each contain only one basic type of linkage between monomers. In contrast, each monosaccharide can theoretically generate either an ? or a ? linkage to any one of several positions on another monosaccharide in a chain or to another type of molecule. Thus, it has been pointed out that although three different nucleotides or amino acids can only generate six trimers, three different hexoses could produce (depending on which of their forms are considered) anywhere from 1,056 to 27,648 unique trisaccharides. This difference in complexity becomes even greater as the number of monosaccharide units in the glycan increases. For example, a hexasaccharide with six different hexoses could have more than 1 trillion possible combinations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1931/ (Essentials of Glycobiology. 2nd edition.)Lieutenant Commander Data
July 14, 2022
July
07
Jul
14
14
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
The Human Genome Project completed the job. https://www.genome.gov/about-nhgri/Director/genomics-landscape/april-7-2022-the-human-genome-sequence-is-now-complete The current problem is figuring out what everything does, so scientists are working on the Human Genome Reference Program. https://www.genome.gov/Funded-Programs-Projects/Human-Genome-Reference-Programrelatd
July 14, 2022
July
07
Jul
14
14
2022
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
How difficult is it to sequence a complete genome? I’m sure 20-30 years ago such a thing was daunting but with computers doing millions of calculations a second, could a data base be constructed containing a half dozen or more of genomes of the same species. Then, it should be easy to pick out what percentage is identical and what percentage is not. It should also be easy to identify if a specific protein has a gene sequence that is compatible even if that gene sequence is in several places. Such a project would answer once and for all if naturalistic processes could have produced the gene sequences. Several of the papers that BA77 referenced in #1 indicate it is definitely possible and being done by the evolutionary biologist community. I would not start with humans but with a species with a smaller genome.           The debate would be over. Aside: it might answer the questions about non-coding parts of a genome and what percentage have function. The above knockout studies indicated that certain protein eliminations ended up with dead entities.jerry
July 14, 2022
July
07
Jul
14
14
2022
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
EDTA at 2, Those looking at a Darwinian explanation are finding more and more surprises and therefore, fewer and fewer reasons to believe that these surprises happened through blind, unguided chance. And scientists are still finding new things to study. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30207-9relatd
July 13, 2022
July
07
Jul
13
13
2022
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
So the number of protein-coding genes found in 2001 was a minimum, not the maximum. Hmm. Nobody in the ID world predicted that! [sarcasm]EDTA
July 13, 2022
July
07
Jul
13
13
2022
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
as to:
"the most important coding regions have been preserved during animal evolution. But this method has a drawback: coding regions that are relatively young, i.e., that arose during the evolution of primates, fall through the cracks and are therefore missing from the databases."
There is a small problem with this Darwinian narrative. Specifically, "young" coding regions are found to be just as essential as the "important" older coding regions that have been supposedly 'preserved'.
A survey of orphan enzyme activities - 2007 Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244 Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." - per science daily New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract Scientists Find Vital Genes Evolving in Genome’s Junkyard - Nov. 2020 Excerpt:,,, Essential genes are often thought to be frozen in evolutionary time — evolving only very slowly if at all, because changing or dying would lead to the death of the organism.,,, This remarkable evolutionary conservation is a foundational concept in genome research.,,, “Not only is this (research) questioning the dogma, it is blowing the dogma out of the water,”,,, Long was so surprised in 2010, when he and his students “knocked down” 200 young, novel genes in Drosophila using a technique called RNA interference. Almost 30% of those young genes turned out to be essential; the flies died without them. Even more surprisingly, though, roughly the same percentage of old genes were essential — only about 25%-35% of them. Young genes were just as likely as old ones to encode essential functions. “I was really shocked and very excited,” Long said. “The old ideas of the field, we felt, were not right, not correct.” Because their discovery seemed so iconoclastic, Long says he decided to gather data carefully and use new technologies like CRISPR to test it further. His team updated their 2010 study in a recent preprint, which addressed some methodological challenges from the earlier study and expanded their analysis to 702 new Drosophila genes. The new paper reached the same general conclusions,,, “you really begin to question everything you think about in terms of biology, because you’re like, ‘Wait a minute. What is this?’,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-find-vital-genes-evolving-in-genomes-junkyard-20201116/
As to:
"When researchers working on the Human Genome Project completely mapped the genetic blueprint of humans in 2001, they were surprised to find only around 20,000 genes that produce proteins. Could it be that humans have only about twice as many genes as a common fly? Scientists had expected considerably more. Now, researchers from 20 institutions worldwide bring together more than 7,200 unrecognized gene segments that potentially code for new proteins.,,, “It is especially remarkable that most of these 7,200 ORFs are exclusive to primates and might represent evolutionary innovations unique to our species,”
First off, 7,200 Orphan genes roughly matches previous findings which found that up to a third of genes in a genome were Orphans.
Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729002-200-genes-from-nowhere-orphans-with-a-surprising-story/ Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes - January 2013 Excerpt: Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome. http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/24/gbe.evt009.full.pdf+html?
Secondly, even though Orphan genes, in and of themselves, are enough to falsify Darwinian claims. That falsification from Orphan genes pales in comparison to the fatal blow that 'alternative splicing' does to Darwinian claims. Specifically, where differences are greatest between chimps and humans, (and between all other creatures), are not in the genetic sequences, (as great as those differences are turning out to be), but the greatest differences are instead found in alternative splicing patterns. As the following paper states, “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,”
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
In fact, due to alternative splicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,”
Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016 In Brief Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013). http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/publications/Yang_Cell_OMIM_2016.pdf
As should be needless to say, finding “perhaps a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification” is simply completely devastating to the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists. As Stephen Meyer stated in the following interview, “it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species.,,, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates,”
An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve? SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-and-science-in-conflict/
In short, the evidence from genetics, (and from many other lines of evidence), directly contrary to what Darwinists repeatedly claim, simply does not support the Atheist's Darwinian ‘narrative’ that humans evolved from apes, but instead supports the Christian's belief that God created humans uniquely, apart from the other creatures. Verse:
Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.…
bornagain77
July 13, 2022
July
07
Jul
13
13
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply