Chinese Researchers Demolish Evolutionary Pseudo-Science

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 4, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In recent decades the genomes of several species have been mapped out and evolutionists are using these genome data to refine their theory. They are also making some high claims. The genome data sets, say evolutionists, are adding striking new confirmations for their theory. One piece of evidence evolutionists point to is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from a chimp-human common ancestor. Evolution professor Dennis Venema explains: Read more

Comments

#40 Thank you Cornelius Hunter on that change. Obviously there is a mission-gap between us but that change is one particular bugbear cleared up. Regards, Lincoln.Lincoln Phipps_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

wd400 also asserted:
Most (human) DNA is junk,
Not at all. Dr. Ohno's presupposition about what is now know as non-coding DNA are evolutionary leftovers has been shown to be incorrect. Here's a generous description: http://www.news-medical.net/health/Junk-DNA-What-is-Junk-DNA.aspx
development recapitulatoin hasn’t been part of mainstream evolutionary theory for a hundred years,
Really? Then check this out . . . the textbook is dated 2010. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/current_textbooks_misuse_embry035751.html
living fossils evolve (and in fact, are seldom like their fossilised cousins).
Wow, that statement flies in the face of a lot of articles! Here's an example from http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/FosCephs.php: "Regardless, nautiluses barely distinguishable from the ones alive today are known from the Cretaceous Period, and the subclass is by far the oldest cephalopod group, going back about half a billion years. In this sense, the living nautiluses are living fossils: animals which have changed very little over the course of around 100 million years at least."
As far as I can tell precisely two scientists think the organ is the closest relative to humans. Jon grehan is a crank, who adheres to very strange school of biogeogrpahical thinking called “panbiogeography” which amounts to drawing squiggly lines on maps and calling it science. Don’t take him seriously
Great, but remember that at one time, only two scientists believed in the double helix structure of DNA, Watson and Crick. I'm not saying that the orangutan theory is correct by any means, but I don't think "Jon Grehan is a crank" constitutes a particularly compelling rebuttal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02141.x/abstract -QQuerius_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Lincoln Phipps (17): Thanks for pointing that out. I meant "earlier primate" and have fixed it.Cornelius Hunter_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

wd400:
Observed patterns in ERVs and chromosomes-fusions can be best explained by common descent
Untestable claim. For one the alleged "ERVs" are just pieces and may have never been ERVs at all. And the alleged chromosome fusion had nothing to do with the alleged common ancestry.Joe_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Querius, Well, I don't it's evolutionary biology that has the problem with cherry picking. To take your laundry list: Observed patterns in ERVs and chromosomes-fusions can be best explained by common descent - so I don't now what you mean about facts evapourating. Most (human) DNA is junk, development recapitulatoin hasn't been part of mainstream evolutionary theory for a hundred years, living fossils evolve (and in fact, are seldom like their fossilised cousins). As far as I can tell precisely two scientists think the organ is the closest relative to humans. Jon grehan is a crank, who adheres to very strange school of biogeogrpahical thinking called "panbiogeography" which amounts to drawing squiggly lines on maps and calling it science. Don't take him seriouslywd400_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

wd400, What I dislike is the cherry-picking of information. Speculation is presented as Fact when convenient. You probably know this to be true even among various evolutionist factions. Proofs of descent based on retrovirus traces, fusion of chromosomes, gene loss (invoked only when expedient), and lots of other "Facts" that often seem to evaporate under further scrutiny. How many times have we read that the "missing link" has finally been discovered, that most of our DNA is mostly "junk," that we have lots of "vestigial organs left over from our evolutionary journey, that our evolution is recapitulated during embryonic development, that some biological feature is "poorly designed" (really? And how well do your designs work? Oh, they don't.), that something is a "living fossil" that somehow has defied evolution for *millions* of years of environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection, that organic tissue has miraculously survived *millions* of years of ionizing radiation that should have turned it to powder, and on and on? How is it that some scientists believe that humans share their common ancestor with the orangutan, and not the chimpanzee. See http://johngrehan.net/index.php/human-evolution/ Where does that leave the "Facts" about our common ancestry with the chimpanzee? Gosh, what if all scientific publications were anonymous, and published purely on their merits and only for the sake of scientific progress? I'm not sure that this system would work (it wouldn't), but there would certainly be a lot fewer papers! What if presenting and comparing new observations and findings was more important than than "winning an argument"? -QQuerius_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

wd400, "When you remember chimps have been evolving for 6 million years..." You are asking us to remember what happened 6 million years ago?inunison_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

WD400 @ 33:
the generation of new genes in the human lineage isn’t the only force that can create such a pattern. When you remember chimps have been evolving for 6 million years too it’s obvious that you have to consider gene loss.
The loss of a gene or the loss of function or the loss of information is easy to observe and explain. This can be seen in the natural processes of erosion and decay. The History Channel's Life After People (http://hft.history.com/shows/life-after-people) shows what naturally happens to designed structures without regular care and maintenance. What is amazing to me are the self-repair mechanisms that provide resistance to this natural decay in biological organisms. Do you really believe evolutionary theory adequately explains this? And of course, there is still the problem of explaining how the original functions and genes developed prior to being lost.Piltdown2_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

hi wd400. this is because a lots of genes consider as pseudogenes are actually not. but even so: : the oux pseudogene in both gorila and orang utan share stop codon at codon 107 and also a GGGATGCC duplication at codon 911 ,but both human and chimp dont have them . so this is evidence of "hot spots" in the genome according to the evolution scientist because its contradict the phylogenetic tree . but again- if we can get share mistake without commondescent, then share mistake cant prove commondescent. simple logicmk_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

So, yes, people should speak more clearly and refer to the “common ancestor” — you know, that hypothetical evolutionary construct — rather than just saying “chimps.” But everyone knows what is meant and getting up in arms about the definition just avoids the main poin Unless having the wrong (linear) model makes you say stupid things, as it does in this case. Even if the 60 protein coding genes putatively found to be in humans but not chimps hold up, the generation of new genes in the human lineage isn't the only force that can create such a pattern. When you remember chimps have been evolving for 6 million years too it's obvious that you have to consider gene loss. That Hunter doesn't tells you something. Hunter makes the same mistake in dimissing the share mutations in the egg yolk pseudogene. Oh, and mk, why is there "no such thing as a pseudogene?". Have I missed an important proclimation?wd400_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

the vitellogenin actually have another function: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129092428.htm One of these molecules is a protein called vitellogenin. "Simply put, the more vitellogenin in bees, the longer they live. Vitellogenin also guides bees to do different social tasks, such caregiving or foragingmk_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

hi guys. about the egg yolk protein. acctually there is not such thing "pseudo gene " anymore. second- we have a lots of evidence for parrel evolution. even on pseudogenes: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n3/mistakes so there is no evidence for evolution here. about to make a new protein. lets say that we whant to evolve new protein that bind 2 molecules. we need for this change 2 binding sites. a minimal binding site need 40-50 amino acid. so we need 100 amino acid. the sequence space is about 20^100. its alotmk_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Anderson @29, Well said.Mapou_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Lincoln Phipps @17:
Humans and chimpanzee are claimed to have a common ancestor not that humans evolved from the chimpanzee !
I love how defenders of evolution get all up in arms when people talk about humans descending from chimps. "No!" they shout indignantly, "Humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor!" Completely ignoring the point in question with a quibble over wording. Yes, yes, yes, the common ancestor. Everyone knows that, but it is a mouthful to say every time. Humans and chimps also both descended from an amoeba -- oh, not an existing amoeba, mind you, but a common ancestor creature that closely resembled an amoeba. Not from a current chimp, mind you, but from a common ancestor that probably was more similar to the chimp than the human. So, yes, people should speak more clearly and refer to the "common ancestor" -- you know, that hypothetical evolutionary construct -- rather than just saying "chimps." But everyone knows what is meant and getting up in arms about the definition just avoids the main point. How about actually addressing the substance of Hunter's point?Eric Anderson_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

I just read the Wikipedia article on "Human/Chimp last common ancestor" and one expert on primates believe the ancestor was very chimp like. So Dr. Hunter's statement may be an error or just reflect the point of view of some that humans descended from chimps. There does not seem to be any firm understanding based on reading the Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestorjerry_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Phipps:
That humans and chimpanzee could have a common ancestor is not an “extraordinary claim” and it is trivial to locate online (Try Wikipedia and look at the references for the Human-chimpanzee_divergence article).
It is both an extraordinary and false claim because the having a 95% genetic similarity is not a proof of common ancestry. It could just as easily be common design via genetic engineering.Mapou_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

He should have said, “”evolutionists say this shows how easily the human and chimpanzee could have evolved from a common ancestor.” rather than his bizarre version.
Let's just assume that Dr. Hunter made a mistake and assume that chimps and humans have a common ancestor and Dr. Hunter will agree. Where does that lead? Any place different?jerry_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

If humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor then there are a lot of questions.
When did this take place? Is there any evidence for this common ancestor other than it might explain some things? Where did these new species originate? Were they geographically isolated? How much of the changes originated after humans left Africa? Could the number of proteins that are different between the two species arise in the amount of time postulated? Were some of the proteins lost from the common ancestor? That is did the common ancestor possess all the genes in both humans and chimps?
There are probably more questions to be answered and some of the questions above may be trivial or silly but they should be answerable if one is to hold that humans and chimps had a common ancestor.jerry_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Phipps, Hunter is a computational biologist and biophysicist and he's well versed in the theory of evolution. If you had bothered to read his actual blog post, you would have read the next paragraph where he's quoting Venema talking about the supposed common ancestry of human and chimps. So I'm sure you are misinterpreting what Hunter wrote. At any rate, some of us are tired of anal retentive Darwinists coming on this forum and acting like they're high priests of knowledge and intelligence. You are not. The theory of evolution is not rocket science. It's a mediocre, dime-a-dozen theory as theories go.Mapou_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Lincoln Phipps, if I wanted literary criticism for what I read I would go to an English teacher. Since I don't want that, I ask you once again to Please provide experimental evidence for your extraordinary claim as requested: “Humans and chimpanzee are claimed to have a common ancestor” Seeing as you are claiming knowledge about how humans, of which I am one, came to be, I have more than a few questions towards your extraordinary claim! In fact, I've found a number of crushing problems against your claim: https://uncommondescent.com/mind/but-can-nature-create-human-consciousness-at-all/#comment-486059 If you can address each point raised at the link specifically, and in order, with peer-reviewed references, I would be most appreciative of your effort! Moreover, if you choose to ignore these seemingly insurmountable problems I've outlined, exactly why do you believe what you claim if you have no real proof but only bald face assertion?bornagain77_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, That humans and chimpanzee could have a common ancestor is not an "extraordinary claim" and it is trivial to locate online (Try Wikipedia and look at the references for the Human-chimpanzee_divergence article). But your point is off-topic other than the burden is Cornelius Hunter's to show where "evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from the chimpanzee." He should have said, ""evolutionists say this shows how easily the human and chimpanzee could have evolved from a common ancestor." rather than his bizarre version.Lincoln Phipps_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Mapou I'm sorry you have such a reading and comprehension problem but you will see that Hunter said "The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from the chimpanzee." How about you read what he said. Carefully.Lincoln Phipps_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Lincoln Phipps:
What nonsense is this …
The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from the chimpanzee.
No one says that ! Humans and chimpanzee are claimed to have a common ancestor not that humans evolved from the chimpanzee !
I'm detecting the old insufferable Darwinist pomposity from Mr. Phipps. Hunter did not say that humans evolved from chimps. Read what he said carefully, Mr. Phipps. And please spare us from the condescending, smarter-than-thou outbursts. You people are not nearly as smart as you think you are.Mapou_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Lincoln Phipps, "Humans and chimpanzee are claimed to have a common ancestor" and your experimental proof for this extraordinary claim is where exactly? https://uncommondescent.com/mind/but-can-nature-create-human-consciousness-at-all/#comment-486059bornagain77_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

LP:
Humans and chimpanzee are claimed to have a common ancestor not that humans evolved from the chimpanzee !
Was this alleged common ancestor chimp-like or human-like or what was it? And how can we test the claim that humans evolved from non-humans?Joe_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

What nonsense is this ...
The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from the chimpanzee.
No one says that ! Humans and chimpanzee are claimed to have a common ancestor not that humans evolved from the chimpanzee !Lincoln Phipps_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

The question of ORFan genes should be easy to settle, if not now, then in the near future. Four questions seem to be (feel free to add any more since I am just responding to this on the fly): 1. Are these ORFan genes substantially different from other genes in the genome of the organism? Or are they just slight variations of existing elements of the genome? If they are not much different then they could be explained by various processes such as retroposons. Examples such as the nylonase are meaningless. There will always be small variations of current genes that may have some function but these examples cannot be used to defend naturalistic evolution since most expressed genes differ widely from each other. So resorting to such examples, is an admission that current science does not have a clue. Nobody really gives a rat's rear end for how nylonase arose. 2. If these ORFan genes are not slight differences from current genes then how did such genes arise? There should be a history of these types of genes progressing and then arising in genomes in various species before they become expressed. I believe the theory is that unexpressed non-functional regions of the genome mutate away till "voilá" we have a new functional gene. If such is the case, then other genomes all over the spectrum of animal organisms should show evidence of such genes in the process of developing into something functional. And for those that have already become functional by this mutation process, there should be evident in various genomes of other organisms of their non functional equivalents (that is genomic sequences that are very similar but never actually making it to a functional sequence.) This will require a lot more genomes to be sequenced but should be available in time. If such is not there, then one has to ask just how did these functional sequences arise and how were they then made functional and expressed. The problem with gradualistic evolution in general is that there should be forensic evidence of the paths that got the new population to the point where they are then considered a new species. This evidence should be in the populations that never made it to a new species. In other words when a new gene is formed precursors of this functional gene should be evident in the genomes of similar species. But in these related species the sequence never made it to functionality. Do we have such examples? If not then gradualistic evolution has to be abandoned because it must be there for it to be true. 3. Just what functions do these ORFan genes have? If they are just mutated parts of a genome with no apparent meaningful function even if they are expressed, can they really be used to identify differences in genomes. 4. How easy is it to develop a new protein by small mutations to current ones? I know Axe and Gauger say it is extremely rare but is there agreement from the scientific community with examples on how common such genes are. The fact that nylonase is offered up as an example means they do not have anything meaningful. No one would point to nylonase if there were really good examples of new gene formation. It is a classic example of the "dog barking in the night."jerry_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Footnote: Nylon Degradation - 2008 Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. The most studied of the nylon degrading bacteria is Arthrobacter sp. K172 (formerly Flavobacterium sp.70). This bacterium employs three enzymes for nylon degradation, EI (NylA), EII (NylB), and EIII (NylC), which are found on the plasmid, pOAD2.71, 72 EI and EIII (also NylC in Agromyces sp.) have been initially characterized.73, 72 They apparently hydrolyze the cyclic forms of some nylons, which provides a linear substrate for EII. However, no detailed analysis of the mutational changes of EI or EIII has yet been performed. The mutational changes of EII (6-aminohexanoatedimer hydrolase) have been characterized in detail. This analysis suggests that point mutations in a carboxyesterase gene lead to amino acid substitutions in the enzyme’s catalytic cleft. This altered the enzyme’s substrate specificity sufficiently that it could also hydrolyze linear nylon oligomers.74, 75 Yet, the EII enzyme still possesses the esterase function of the parent esterase. Thus, the mutational alteration results in a reduction of the parent enzyme’s specificity (Figure 4). This enables it to hydrolyze a wider range of oligomers that include nylon oligomers.76 Nonetheless, reduced specificity of a pre-existing enzyme is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme,77, 78 even if it provides a presumed phenotypic benefit. The “beneficial” phenotype of nylon degradation requires the a priori existence of the enzyme and its specificity. Its degeneration is not a mechanism that accounts for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity.,,, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteriabornagain77_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Roy:
But then, if current theories regarding the origins of orphan genes from transcription of mutated non-coding regions are correct, there is no such thing as a ‘new protein’.
No, Roy. If the sequence was never a protein and it then formed one, that would be a new protein.Joe_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Roy you are just embarrassing yourself now. You claimed that nylonase was a 'new' protein thus refuting Hunter's claim that ORFan proteins are extremely hard to come by. But you were shown that this was merely a minor variation of a preexisting protein that was 'designed to adapt' (Of related note, antibiotic resistance itself is also now shown to preexist the development of antibiotics by millions of years).
A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution - September 2011 Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.” http://crev.info/content/110904-a_tale_of_two_falsifications_of_evolution (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012 Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes. http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183#
In fact the ability to digest nylon was shown to be a repeatable adaption within 9 days for bacterial populations that are stressed/starved of other nutrients (not 60 years as you had claimed). For this to repeatably happen requires in such a short time span would require only one or two point mutations to a pre-existing protein (Axe, Gauger : Behe: Edge of Evolution).
What are the Limits of Darwinism? A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto - November 15th, 2012 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_XN8s-zXx4 "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 Wheel of Fortune: New Work by Thornton's Group Supports Time-Asymmetric Dollo's Law - Michael Behe - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: Darwinian selection will fit a protein to its current task as tightly as it can. In the process, it makes it extremely difficult to adapt to a new task or revert to an old task by random mutation plus selection. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/wheel_of_fortune_new_work_by_t051621.html Following the Evidence Where It Leads: Observations on Dembski's Exchange with Shapiro - Ann Gauger - January 2012 Excerpt: So far, our research indicates that genuine innovation, a change to a function not already pre-existent in a protein, is beyond the reach of natural processes, even when the starting proteins are very similar in structure. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/observations_re055171.html
This clearly is NOT a 'new' protein, but is merely a minor modification of a pre-existing protein! But what do you do instead of being honest when you were shown to be wrong in your claim that this is a 'new' protein? Why you say I have to prove that the proteins differ more than the completely unique ORFan genes/proteins that Dr. Hunter is referring to in his article? Really? That's all? Will you stop believing in Darwinism then? Okie Dokie, let me help you with your homework then:
The three-dimensional structure of nylon hydrolase and the mechanism of nylon-6 hydrolysis - Seiji Negoro - Dec. 2011 SUMMARY: We performed x-ray crystallographic analyses of the 6-aminohexanoate oligomer hydrolase (NylC) from Agromyces sp. at 2.0 Å-resolution. This enzyme is a member of the N-terminal nucleophile (N-tn) hydrolase superfamily that is responsible for the degradation of the nylon-6 industry byproduct. We observed four identical heterodimers (27kDa+9kDa), which resulted from the autoprocessing of the precursor protein (36kDa) and which constitute the doughnut-shaped quaternary structure. The catalytic residue of NylC was identified as the N-terminal Thr267 of the 9kDa-subunit. Furthermore, each heterodimer is folded into a single domain, generating a stacked (greek symbols) core structure. Amino acid mutations at subunit interfaces of the tetramer were observed to drastically alter the thermostability of the protein. In particular, four mutations (D122G/H130/D36A/E263Q) of wild-type NylC from Arthrobacter sp. (plasmid pOAD2-encoding enzyme), with a heat denaturation temperature of T m=52°C, enhanced the protein thermostability by 36°C (T m=88° C), whereas a single mutation (G111S or L137A) decreased the stability by approximately 10°C. We examined the enzymatic hydrolysis of nylon-6 by the thermostable NylC mutant. Argon-cluster secondary ion mass spectrometry analyses of the reaction products revealed that the major peak of nylon-6 (m/z 10,000-25,000) shifted to a smaller range, producing a new peak corresponding to m/z 1500-3000 after the enzyme treatment at 60°C. In addition, smaller fragments in the soluble fraction were successively hydrolyzed to dimers and monomers. Based on these data, we propose that NylC should be designated as nylon hydrolase (or nylonase). Three potential uses of NylC for industrial and environmental applications are also discussed. http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2011/12/19/jbc.M111.321992.full.pdf De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes - 2011 Excerpt: Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence.,, Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare,,, http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002379
And as was pointed out in post 2 of this thread, that 60 number for ORFan genes/proteins is a severe underestimation:
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving – May 2012 Excerpt: “More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps.” Jerry Coyne – ardent and ‘angry’ neo-Darwinist – professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics, cats, (and persecuting anyone who questions neo-Darwinism). - per ENV etc.. etc...
So Roy, do you still think that Nylonase is a completely unique 'ORFan protein'? If so I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you! Music and Verse:
George Strait - "Ocean Front Property" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNlMzNUDM8 Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
bornagain77_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply