Genes Code For Many Layers of Information

The book 'Science and Human Origins' shows brilliantly how there is a big difference between what evolutionists say in the public domain and to what they admit in the scientific literature. JoeMorreale1187

Apologies , I forgot to include NOT from religious arguments...... JoeMorreale1187

It's unfortunate that from a psychological point of view many people find convincing the superficial similarities between chimps and humans as enough to show that that proves common ancestry between them. Even if we shared 100% DNA with chimps it still would not be enough as proof because it still could be Common Design. The blind, trial and error, unguided and purposeless material processes of natural selection acting on random mutations as an upward and creating force has nowhere near been proven and in fact has been falsified . The fossil record clearly shows limited variation , abrupt appearances, extinctions and stasis for the most part and a few contestable so called transitionals in contrast. This shows that even intelligently guided evolution which the evidence shows would be the only logical and rational way it could happen if true has not been proven showing that theistic evolutionists have no need whatsoever to be embracing a 'middle of the way' approach. We can conclude with certainty based on scientific evidence and from religious arguments that the official institutionalised secular theory of neo Darwinian evolution is demonstrably false. It is about time that this was made official . JoeMorreale1187

Of related note: "I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up." - Dr. Craig Venter, American Biologist - quoted from following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMQkAqxNeE bornagain77

JLAFan2001:

Please understand that I have no Darwinian presuppositions. In fact, I didn’t even believe in evolution until just this past year. I looked into the evidence for it and was surprised by how much there actually is.

I don’t have any evidence for what you are asking for.

Makes me want to pull my hair out. Mung

JLAfan2001:

. . . there are several Christian scientists who accept this too like Todd Wood.

There are lots of people who accept it . . . generally because they are fine with the implications but haven't really thought through the data. The real questions for someone who is looking into this issue are: (i) how is the % similarity calculated, and (ii) what does similarity prove about either (A) common ancestry, or (B) the ability of purely natural processes to account for the differences. When we start looking into (i), we quickly realize that the #'s are all over the map and are generally inflated. When we look carefully at (ii), we come to realize that similarity, while consistent with the idea of common ancestry and natural processes, does not in any way prove them. Further, there are numerous exceptions and qualifications. Finally, nothing about similarity by itself demonstrates the ability of natural processes to form the thing in question. The real interesting question about, say, chimps and humans, is not some level of molecular similarity, but what accounts for the organismal differences, which are obvious and legion. And if we claim that our DNA is almost/nearly identical, it simply demonstrates that the differences may not be in the DNA. Like you, I don't have a personal dog in this fight. I don't have any particular religious or philosophical reason to reject a human-chimp link or to reject common ancestry. But from what I have seen there are way more open questions than answers. If we were to give an intellectually responsible answer to the question of a human-chimp link it would need to be worded something like: "There are some intriguing pieces of evidence that are consistent with the idea of a human-chimp common ancestry, but the evidence is not definitive and other interpretations are possible. In addition, there are a number of pieces of evidence that are inconsistent with the traditional human-chimp story. At this point, it is very much an open question." Eric Anderson

"My understanding is the percentage is not subject to change but an accepted fact." Funny that is exactly what they said just a few short years ago (prior to the discovery of over 1000 completely unique orphan genes) when the percentage similarity was cited as a "hard' 99%: Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004 Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity. http://www.nature.com/news/1998/040524/full/news040524-8.html and then throw ORFans on top of that and then you can begin to see the problem: 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. and if all it takes is similarity to prove common ancestry to you,,, well what about this? Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 Hmm, strange that is! as to vitamin C Here is the Vitamin C pseudogene refutation By Jonathan Wells from appendix of 'The Myth Of Junk DNA' pages 109-114 by Jonathan Wells https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18LV9Xp1RJv4k2KRQDOpN3_cjSCwBC_XXb8WGVNP4L8M further notes: Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89% - Jeffrey P. Tomkins - December 28, 2011 Excerpt: A common claim that is propagated through obfuscated research publications and popular evolutionary science authors is that the DNA of chimpanzees or chimps (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) is about 98–99% similar. A major problem with nearly all past human-chimp comparative DNA studies is that data often goes through several levels of pre-screening, filtering and selection before being aligned, summarized, and discussed. Non-alignable regions are typically omitted and gaps in alignments are often discarded or obfuscated. In an upcoming paper, Tomkins and Bergman (2012) discuss most of the key human-chimp DNA similarity research papers on a case-by-case basis and show that the inclusion of discarded data (when provided) actually suggests a DNA similarity for humans and chimps not greater than 80–87% and quite possibly even less. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/blastin bornagain77

BA77 My understanding is the percentage is not subject to change but an accepted fact. I would agree that it could be outright false if only materialist atheist scientists were trying to prove their dogma but there are several Christian scientists who accept this too like Todd Wood. This makes me think that there isn’t some evolutionary conspiracy out there. Perhaps I misunderstand but the quote you cited seems to be in line with what I’m saying. 23% of our genes do not come from common ancestry so therefore they must have evolved and changed when we split off. The remainder comes from common ancestry. Please understand that I have no Darwinian presuppositions. In fact, I didn’t even believe in evolution until just this past year. I looked into the evidence for it and was surprised by how much there actually is. I haven’t fully accepted it yet but I am trying to find a reasonable belief between evolution, ID and creation. A balance between science and faith. I haven’t found one yet and that’s why I’m asking questions. I don’t have any evidence for what you are asking for. If I understand you correctly, we have no evidence that a new gene can arise in a species after a divergence of one from the other e.g. human and chimps but we do have evidence that an existing gene can be mutated. A mutation in the gene can account for hair loss, change in size, no tail etc. but to have a third arm, that would need a whole new gene. Is that right? What about the protein that creates Vitamin C? I understand that is the same in both species and that odds of that happening are way to high to be luck. JLAfan2001

JLA, you state: ,,,"We have 95% – 99% of the DNA that is similar because of common ancestry with chimps",,, Yet, as was pointed out to you yesterday, that 95 to 99% figure is very questionable if not outright false, and is certainly not a figure to be relied upon as hard fact that is not subject to change. Thus why did you cite it again? Is the presupposition of Darwinian evolution a presupposition that you are unable to shed yourself from in your analysis? If so please cite your evidence for JUST ONE gene or protein arising by neo-Darwinian processes. I can show you intelligence doing as such and thus I don't have to rely on blind faith that intelligence can accomplish what evolution has never been observed doing!! bornagain77

If it's the same genes, evolutiondidit. If it's different genes, evolutiondidit. Not exactly an explanatory theory.

We may not know how these different genes arose but evolution does explain why they are there.

No, evolution does not explain why they are there. Mung

BA77 Isn’t this exactly what evolution would predict though? We have 95% - 99% of the DNA that is similar because of common ancestry with chimps but the remaining difference is due to human evolution when we split off from the last common ancestor. I think chimps also have genes we don’t have due to their evolutionary past. We may not know how these different genes arose but evolution does explain why they are there. On the other hand, I can also see this as a problem for falsifying. Similar DNA: evolution, different DNA: evolution. Pseudo-genes: evolution, no pseudo-genes: evolution. JLAfan2001

Biochemical Pathways: An Atlas of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Mung

New DNA sequencing technology uncovers, you guessed it, more complexity: New Technology Reveals More Genome Complexity by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. - January 2013 Excerpt: A new type of DNA sequencing technology has been developed and used to identify and characterize key regions of the genome called "enhancer" sequences.1 These are novel DNA features that were once thought to be a part of the so-called "junk DNA" regions of the genome. These key elements are now proven to be part of the indispensable and irreducibly complex design inherent to proper gene function for all types and categories of genes. http://www.icr.org/article/7248/ The seemingly endless levels upon levels of complexity being discovered, every time they make an advance in technology, reminds me of this quote from a researcher: Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html bornagain77

Of related note: Dr. Doug Axe - What are the implications of the book Science & Human Origins for the Darwinian paradigm? - video (What needs an explanation is not the similarities but the differences) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnFs5D-vvnI bornagain77

excuse me '5' Darwinists bornagain77

Well, I'll see your YEC, and raise you 3 Darwinists: A 2007 article in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution states: “For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place.” (Ingo Ebersberger, Petra Galgoczy, Stefan Taudien, Simone Taenzer, Matthias Platzer, and Arndt von Haeseler, “Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 24(10):2266-2276 (2007).) bornagain77

Now that we know that 80% of the genome has function, I wonder if there would be any plans to go back and analyze the whole thing. Makes one curious to see what the percentage would be then. However, I think that Todd Wood, a YEC, also came up with roughly the same percentages as the Darwinists and he would definitely not have an evolutionary pre-supposition. JLAfan2001

JLAfan2001 as to: "Can anyone tell me if the 95% – 99% similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA are just the 3% that codes for proteins or is it the whole strand?" It is not the whole stand. In fact the 95% to 99% is not even truly representative of the 2 to 3% portion of the genome that codes for proteins. Darwinists arrived at that artificially high figure for percent similarity by presupposing that the genomes would be highly similar and 'throwing out' all sequences that did not match their presupposition (assuming your answer prior to investigation). But now it is found, among other things, that there are a very large number of "ORFan genes", with no sequence similarity whatsoever, that were failed to be properly accounted. As to a true percent number for similarity, I have seen the numbers vary widely depending on what presumptions and methodological factors one chooses to employ in ones analysis. But one thing that is certain is that the percent similarity that is oft quoted by Darwinists as conclusive proof that we evolved from some apelike ancestor is not anywhere near as high, or as conclusive, as they pretend it to be: Notes: Percent similarity all over the map: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/from-science-daily-humans-chimpanzees-and-monkeys-share-dna-but-not-gene-regulatory-mechanisms/#comment-438316 Percent number of completely unique ORFan Genes, which encode proteins, keeps growing https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/new-scientist-article-on-orfan-genes/#comment-444519 bornagain77

Can anyone tell me if the 95% - 99% similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA are just the 3% that codes for proteins or is it the whole strand? JLAfan2001

A brilliant book by John Sanford called 'Genetic Entropy' makes a very good case for the genome increasingly deteriorating which is/would be another massive blow for upward Evolution that NDE requires. JoeMorreale1187

There can be as many layers as we like the methodological naturalists will insist that it still only appears designed!! JoeMorreale1187

OT: Irreducible complexity meets multifunctionality: Immune system molecule with hidden talents - January 22, 2013 Excerpt: The human immune system is made up of some half a dozen different cell types that are all working in tandem. Team work is key since each cell type has a single unique job to perform, which is central to its ability to help defend the body against invaders and ward off disease. If one of these players is taken out of commission, the entire system is thrown out of whack. This is precisely what Dr. Siegfried Weiss, head of HZI Department of Molecular Immunology, and his team of researchers observed when they looked at immunodeficient mice. "Our 'RAG' mice are lacking adaptive, or acquired immunity," explains Weiss. "Basically, what this means is they are missing their antibody-producing B cells, among others." The dendritic cells belong to a different branch of the immune system - innate immunity, which, although far less pliable, is capable of a fairly rapid response. Which is why these cells should not be affected by a defect in acquired immunity. Still, the scientists noticed that DCs obtained from this particular murine strain were not working properly - their maturation process was faulty and instead of breaking down a pathogen into small pieces, they ended up destroying the pathogen altogether.,,,, "We had no idea that B cells and dendritic cells use immunoglobulins to communicate with each other. It just goes to show you how complex the immune system really is and how we are a long way from truly grasping the full scope of its complexity," http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-immune-molecule-hidden-talents.html bornagain77

A few related notes: DNA - The Genetic Code - Optimization, Error Minimization & Parallel Codes - Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491422/ The data compression of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (12 different ways of DNA transcription) (Trifonov, 1989). (This is well beyond the complexity of any computer code ever written by man). John Sanford - Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of The Genome - 2005 The multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Trifonov EN. - 1989 Excerpt: Nucleotide sequences carry genetic information of many different kinds, not just instructions for protein synthesis (triplet code). Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes.... the present findings support the view that protein-coding regions can carry abundant parallel codes. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/405.full Ends and Means: More on Meyer and Nelson in BIO-Complexity - September 2011 Excerpt: According to Garrett and Grisham's Biochemistry, the aminoacyl tRNA snythetase is a "second genetic code" because it must discriminate among each of the twenty amino acids and then call out the proper tRNA for that amino acid: "Although the primary genetic code is key to understanding the central dogma of molecular biology on how DNA encodes proteins, the second genetic code is just as crucial to the fidelity of information transfer." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/ends_and_means050391.html "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010 Biochemical Turing Machines “Reboot” the Watchmaker Argument - Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: Researchers recognize several advantages to DNA computers.(7) One is the ability to perform a massive number of operations at the same time (in parallel) as opposed to one at a time (serially) as demanded by silicon-based computers. Secondly, DNA has the capacity to store an enormous quantity of information. One gram of DNA can house as much information as nearly 1 trillion CDs. And a third benefit is that DNA computing operates near the theoretical capacity with regard to energy efficiency. http://stevebrownetc.com/2012/07/02/biochemical-turing-machines-%E2%80%9Creboot%E2%80%9D-the-watchmaker-argument/ DNA Caught Rock 'N Rollin': On Rare Occasions DNA Dances Itself Into a Different Shape - January 2011 Excerpt: Because critical interactions between DNA and proteins are thought to be directed by both the sequence of bases and the flexing of the molecule, these excited states represent a whole new level of information contained in the genetic code, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128104244.htm Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905048 The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11233.html DNA - Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ bornagain77

A few related notes: DNA - The Genetic Code - Optimization, Error Minimization & Parallel Codes - Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491422/ The data compression of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (12 different ways of DNA transcription) (Trifonov, 1989). (This is well beyond the complexity of any computer code ever written by man). John Sanford - Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of The Genome - 2005 The multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Trifonov EN. - 1989 Excerpt: Nucleotide sequences carry genetic information of many different kinds, not just instructions for protein synthesis (triplet code). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2673451 Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes.... the present findings support the view that protein-coding regions can carry abundant parallel codes. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/405.full Ends and Means: More on Meyer and Nelson in BIO-Complexity - September 2011 Excerpt: According to Garrett and Grisham's Biochemistry, the aminoacyl tRNA snythetase is a "second genetic code" because it must discriminate among each of the twenty amino acids and then call out the proper tRNA for that amino acid: "Although the primary genetic code is key to understanding the central dogma of molecular biology on how DNA encodes proteins, the second genetic code is just as crucial to the fidelity of information transfer." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/ends_and_means050391.html "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010 Biochemical Turing Machines “Reboot” the Watchmaker Argument - Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: Researchers recognize several advantages to DNA computers.(7) One is the ability to perform a massive number of operations at the same time (in parallel) as opposed to one at a time (serially) as demanded by silicon-based computers. Secondly, DNA has the capacity to store an enormous quantity of information. One gram of DNA can house as much information as nearly 1 trillion CDs. And a third benefit is that DNA computing operates near the theoretical capacity with regard to energy efficiency. http://stevebrownetc.com/2012/07/02/biochemical-turing-machines-%E2%80%9Creboot%E2%80%9D-the-watchmaker-argument/ DNA Caught Rock 'N Rollin': On Rare Occasions DNA Dances Itself Into a Different Shape - January 2011 Excerpt: Because critical interactions between DNA and proteins are thought to be directed by both the sequence of bases and the flexing of the molecule, these excited states represent a whole new level of information contained in the genetic code, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128104244.htm Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905048 The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11233.html DNA - Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ bornagain77