Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

MicroRNA Study: “We Liberated Ourselves” From the Evolution Requirement

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

MicroRNAs are short RNA molecules that regulate gene expression, for example, by binding to messenger RNA molecules which otherwise would code for a protein at a ribosome. MicroRNAs were first discovered in the 1990s but a full understanding of their numbers and distribution across different tissue types has been slow in coming. Increasingly MicroRNAs are understood to be lineage-specific and a new studyfurther confirms this. lineage-specific structures are the antithesis of evolution and its expected common descent pattern. Instead, structures appear in a few species, or even in just a single species, and are nowhere else to be found. Biology, as John Ray found three centuries ago, is full of unique solutions.  Read more

Comments
The argument for ERVs is "it looks like ERVs to me".Joe
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
#24 What's that? A drunken troll?Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Pioter never disappoints me... unfortunately he is not as proficient at " The Costco fashion"... I used that term because I know he has no idea what it is just as he has no idea about "the claims of evolution". He hasn't spent one day in the real lab... why should he get a break...? I can set up a lab in Poland in 72 hours if need be if there is an outbreak... I can have ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD TO DO IT... Who is he...? Can anybody here comprehend he scale of issues we're have been discussing...Quest
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Ok, so I am exploring ultra-conserved DNA as it relates to my earlier discussion. 'Found this interesting quotable: "These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Haussler said. "We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them" What honesty. Btw, check out the link source: http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/05-10/genome.html UCSC, definitely an ID friendly source.bFast
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Piotr having ERV's regulate embryonic development at such an early stage is definitely not evidence of 'domestication' but is evidence of Intelligent Design: Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus – ERVs – Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrEOe2E0Euc The reason such early regulation is evidence of design has already been stated at post 3: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/microrna-study-we-liberated-ourselves-from-the-evolution-requirement/#comment-551621bornagain77
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
BA77 HERV-H is inactive as a retrovirus. Its code may still be co-opted by its host for some useful job (producing a functional RNA). This is not really news -- some ERVs are known to have been "domesticated" in this way. This is a far cry from claiming "function" for all, or most, or even a substantial minority or inactivised ERVs.Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Piotr 'your' bogus 80% figure is derived by willfully ignoring functionality and presupposing common descent as true. Can you say "Cart before the horse"?!? How about you guys first demonstrate that evolution CAN happen before you presuppose that it DID happen??,, and trying to force fit the evidence into that unfounded presupposition? That would be the proper 'scientific' way to do things in case you had any questions as to propriety!
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
bornagain77
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
BA77, I of course trust those Oxford University researchers and their results more than I trust Youtube scholarship, UD propaganda, and "Richard Sternberg PhD". My 80% figure for junk DNA takes into account a rather wide margin of error.Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
as to: "Modern human ERVs are all inactive." another completely bogus claim by a Darwinist Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrEOe2E0Euc Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation - 2006 http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract. Retrovirus in the Human Genome Is Active in Pluripotent Stem Cells - Jan. 23, 2013 Excerpt: "What we've observed is that a group of endogenous retroviruses called HERV-H is extremely busy in human embryonic stem cells," said Jeremy Luban, MD, the David L. Freelander Memorial Professor in HIV/AIDS Research, professor of molecular medicine and lead author of the study. "In fact, HERV-H is one of the most abundantly expressed genes in pluripotent stem cells and it isn't found in any other cell types. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133930.htm Transposable Elements Reveal a Stem Cell Specific Class of Long Noncoding RNAs - (Nov. 26, 2012) Excerpt: The study published by Rinn and Kelley finds a striking affinity for a class of hopping genes known as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs, to land in lincRNAs. The study finds that ERVs are not only enriched in lincRNAs, but also often sit at the start of the gene in an orientation to promote transcription. Perhaps more intriguingly, lincRNAs containing an ERV family known as HERVH correlated with expression in stem cells relative to dozens of other tested tissues and cells. According to Rinn, "This strongly suggests that ERV transposition in the genome may have given rise to stem cell-specific lincRNAs. The observation that HERVHs landed at the start of dozens of lincRNAs was almost chilling; that this appears to impart a stem cell-specific expression pattern was simply stunning!" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121125192838.htm Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It - September 2011 Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/retroviruses-and-common-descent-and-why-i-dont-buy-it/ The definitive response on ERV’s and Creation, with Dr. Jean Lightner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feHYEgzaGkYbornagain77
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
bFast
How can DNA be highly conserved if it serves no evident purpose?
Selection coefficients can have a long-term effect despite being close to zero, given large effective populations (mice have them) and enough time -- that's what population genetics predicts. In laboratory studies, the mice may look normal and healthy, but in the wild their offspring have to compete with other mice for thousands (and even millions) of generations to prove "equally fit". Even a tiny advantage makes a difference in such time scales. So yes, it's likely that the conserved sequences are advantageous, but the loss of that advantage is not "obvious" in laboratory conditions.Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
When researching for my earlier comment (14) I came upon an intriguing website: http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2010/03/who-understands-evolution/ It is the product of T. Ryan Gregory, a professor at the U. of Guelph in Canada. I like him, he's unusually honest for an evolutionary biologist.bFast
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
as to: "junk DNA makes up about 80% of the genome." That is, as with pretty much everything in Darwinism, a completely bogus claim.
Biological Information – (The Dan Graur incident) Criticizing ENCODE 12-13-2014 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlFJO1WqVk Protracted Unrest Between ENCODE Researchers and Junk-DNA Advocates Goes On - November 26, 2014 Excerpt: It's not exactly Fergusson, Mo., but the battle between ENCODE researchers and junk-DNA holdouts goes on.,,, ,,,"Evolutionary conservation of primary sequence is typically considered synonymous with conserved function, but this finding suggests that this concept should be reinterpreted, because insertions of retrotransposon elements in new genomic regions are not conserved between species." In short, the Mouse ENCODE group takes direct aim at the arguments of Dan Graur and the other junk-DNA faithful, who say that everything evolution did not conserve is junk.,,, ,,,much of what Darwinian evolutionists had dismissed as junk appears functional. Non-coding regions of the mouse genome are transcribed, and appear to function in previously unimagined ways, such as regulation of gene expression, chromosomal stability, and maintenance of species identity. Carninci offers further thoughts: ,,,"we should rethink the relationship between genomic function and evolutionary conservation. Regulatory regions and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are not subject to the evolutionary constraints of protein-coding genes, which may help to explain the sequence drifts reported in these papers. However, it is striking that transcription-factor networks are conserved despite low conservation of their binding positions in the genome." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/protracted_unre091501.html
The main paper that questioned the widespread functionality found in the genome by ENCODE did so by presupposing common decent into it premises!
DNA mostly 'junk?' Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is 'functional', study finds - July 24, 2014 Excerpt: To reach their (8.2%) figure, the Oxford University group took advantage of the ability of evolution to discern which activities matter and which do not. They identified how much of our genome has avoided accumulating changes over 100 million years of mammalian evolution -- a clear indication that this DNA matters, it has some important function that needs to be retained. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724141608.htm
Thus, according to these Darwinian critics of the ENCODE study, which found widespread functionality within the genome, functionality does not actually determine if a given sequence is functional, only 'conservation of sequence' determines what is functional???, So basically, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true at the outset will Darwinists be willing to accept that a given sequence of 'junk' DNA may be functional!!!,, That is called 'assuming your conclusion into your premise' and is an absolutely horrid way to practice science (if such a method of practicing science can dare be called science in the first place)! Further notes:
Biological Information - Not Junk After All 11-29-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-7kVBA_JM In the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives" the chapter entitled "Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information" discusses the various functions of DNA and finds that non-functional DNA is a small minority. Podcast: Richard Sternberg PhD - " On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? part 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna/ Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2 (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: "Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species" http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Podcast: Richard Sternberg PhD - " On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 3 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-11-17T14_14_33-08_00 Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 4 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-4/ Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 5 (emphasis on ENCODE and the loss of the term 'gene' as a accurate description in biology and how that loss undermines the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-5/
etc.. etc...bornagain77
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Piotr, "In a typical mammalian lineage, hundreds of new miRNAs originate every million years. A small proportion of them — evidently those employed in really useful functions — survive and remain highly conserved among the descendants of the species that acquired them. The majority drop out of use and degrade rapidly. Once they become invisible to selection, their sequence decays beyond recognition." Lets see, Each unique species has a bunch of new miRNAs. That's the data. Everything else you said is conjecture based upon your theory. You said, "Once they become invisible to selection, their sequence decays beyond recognition." This is the expectation of the theory. Does it hold up to experimentation? A puzzle for you, (http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/09/ultraconserved-non-coding-regions-must/) I remember reading about a study in mice where a bunch of DNA, including highly conserved regions, were snipped out. After comparing the modified, and unmodified mice for a few generations, the results were that there was no obvious difference between them. How can DNA be highly conserved if it serves no evident purpose?bFast
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Moreover, you claim that only ‘functionally important’ sequences will be conserved yet both ORFan genes and ERV’s, which were both predicted to be functionally unimportant by Darwinists...
Modern human ERVs are all inactive. Much of the genome is littered with decaying fragments of ERVs acquired over our evolutionary history. We share most of them (in orthologous loci) with chimps, then with all great apes; then also with gibbons, then also with all New World monkeys -- in that order, confirming the nested structure of the primate family tree. Older ERVs can't be recognised precisely because they were junk DNA and neutral mutations have wiped out their "fingerprints".Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
I bet you still say the vast majority on the genome is junk?!?
Nor every genome. But in humans, yes, junk DNA makes up about 80% of the genome.Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
as to: "These percentages are fully consistent with what is known about the origin and evolution of miRNAs in animals (and particularly in vertebrates). In a typical mammalian lineage, hundreds of new miRNAs originate every million years." That is complete B.S.! Darwinists have yet to demonstrate the origin of a single gene and or protein (Axe), much less the origin of hundreds of new regulatory miRNAs. Moreover, you claim that only 'functionally important' sequences will be conserved yet both ORFan genes and ERV's, which were both predicted to be functionally unimportant by Darwinists, have both now been shown to be functionally important, thus contradicting Darwinian predictions, and even in this study of RNAs it was said: "it is reasonable to expect that at least some of these novel primate-specific RNAs participate in unexplored aspects of regulatory processes" For your information, regulatory processes' are functionally important. The 'spin' never stops with you guys! I bet you still say the vast majority on the genome is junk?!?bornagain77
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
bornagain77, These percentages are fully consistent with what is known about the origin and evolution of miRNAs in animals (and particularly in vertebrates). In a typical mammalian lineage, hundreds of new miRNAs originate every million years. A small proportion of them -- evidently those employed in really useful functions -- survive and remain highly conserved among the descendants of the species that acquired them. The majority drop out of use and degrade rapidly. Once they become invisible to selection, their sequence decays beyond recognition.Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Piotr, "Bornagain, You are spinning off on a tangent again. I know you keep a vast database of useful links, quotations and slogans, but do you have to paste them it at random?" Piotr, your analysis of BA77's comments hold some merit. They often wander off tight track of the topic. That said, I love them. BA77's links are often very enlightening to the general topic of ID if not the specific topic of discussion. BA77's analysis is also very often very enlightening. I wish that BA77 was a thread starter on this site rather than just a thread enhancer. Example: "where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where ‘substantial’ differences are found between even supposedly closely related species. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome." A serious challenge to NDE.bFast
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Joe, "LoL! A nested hierarchy is not a “common descent pattern”. Common descent doesn’t produce a nested hierarchy." Piotr, as a linguist, thought that the evolution of languages and "evolution of miRNAs" follows that same pattern... This is what happens when someone's preordained set of beliefs gets in the way of reason and evidence...lolQuest
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Piotr, but alas it is you who is trying to 'spin' the evidence,,, for instance to include the omitted portions of your cite we find these shocking numbers:
We found that 2,140 (58.1%) precursor/mature miRNA combinations were specific to humans: i.e., they were absent from the other primates, rodents, and invertebrates that we examined (Table 2 and Table S2). As the phylogenetic distance from the human genome increased, we found that progressively fewer of our novel miRNA precursors were conserved: only 476 (12.8%) precursor/mature miRNA combinations were shared by all of the members of the Hominidae family of primates that we examined (Table 2). Beyond primates, the extent of conservation of precursors and their respective mature miRNAs dropped abruptly and substantially: 109 (2.9%) of them were present in mouse whereas none were present in the Drosophila or worm genomes.
For you to pretend that is 'just as could be predicted' by Darwinism is disingenuous to be mild and downright dishonest to be frank! Moreover, the integrity and relevance of my links stand. The links I cited clarify the fact that the 'species specific' problem is far deeper and far more costly for humans, health-wise, than you, as a Darwinian atheist. would prefer to believe. But alas, such has been the overall Darwinian influence on biological science since its inception. Failed prediction after failed prediction, and horrendous social consequence after horrendous social consequence, follow in the wake of Darwinism's stranglehold on the biological science of origins. That you would turn a blind eye to all these failures of Darwinism just so as to protect your atheistic/naturalistic worldview is more of a sad testimony to your dogmatic bias than it is to the science at hand.bornagain77
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Piotr:
Those miRNAs that aren’t restricted to one species just follow the same nested hierarchy (“common descent pattern”)...
LoL! A nested hierarchy is not a "common descent pattern". Common descent doesn't produce a nested hierarchy.Joe
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Bornagain, You are spinning off on a tangent again. I know you keep a vast database of useful links, quotations and slogans, but do you have to paste them it at random?Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
from study
In the early days of the miRNA field, there was an emphasis on identifying miRNAs that are conserved across organisms ... These findings strongly suggest the possibility of a wide-ranging species-specific miRNA-ome that has yet to be characterized. Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that at least some of these novel primate-specific miRNAs participate in unexplored aspects of regulatory processes that cannot be captured by the currently available mouse disease models.
Will there be justice made available for people when they find out the medicine they've been taken was prescribed based on erroneous mouse disease models when a working model has been freely available for thousands of years?
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:25
Will the pharmaceutical companies be kind enough to return some of our prescription insurance fees?awstar
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
Yet there is a huge problem for Darwinists in having very different species specific gene regulatory mechanisms:
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be 'always catastrophically bad'. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where 'substantial' differences are found between even supposedly closely related species. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome.bornagain77
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
a few related notes: Assuming common descent has wasted billions of dollars of medical research funding:
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? – Mouse Models Excerpt: A recent scientific paper showed that all 150 drugs tested at the cost of billions of dollars in human trials of sepsis failed because the drugs had been developed using mice. Unfortunately, what looks like sepsis in mice turned out to be very different than what sepsis is in humans. Coverage of this study by Gina Kolata in the New York Times incited a heated response from within the biomedical research community. AZRA RAZA – Professor of medicine and director of the MDS Centre, Columbia University, New York http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org Mouse gene expression reveals “widespread differences” from humans - Nov. 22, 2014 Excerpt: an international group of researchers has found powerful clues to why certain processes and systems in the mouse — such as the immune system, metabolism and stress response — are so different from those in people.,,, Mice are widely used to model human metabolism, disease, and drug response. But results published today (November 17) in PNAS reveal widespread differences between human and mouse gene expression, both in protein-coding and noncoding genes,,, Michael Snyder of Stanford University and his colleagues compared how genes are expressed in 15 different human and mouse tissues, including brain, heart, liver, and kidney. They found that gene expression patterns clustered by species rather than tissues. For example, gene expression in a mouse liver more closely resembled the patterns observed in a mouse heart than those observed in a human liver. https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/mouse-gene-expression-reveals-widespread-differences-from-humans/ Our Microbes, Ourselves: Billions of Bacteria Within, Essential for Immune Function, Are Ours Alone - ScienceDaily (June 21, 2012) Excerpt: Chung repeated the experiment, only this time populating a third group of mice with microbes common to rats. This new group showed the same immune system deficiency as the humanized mice. "I was very surprised to see that," Chung said. "Naturally, I would have expected more of a half-way response." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120621130643.htm
Moreover, gene regulatory networks 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 Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Expanding ENCODE - Aug. 2014 Latest Encyclopedia of DNA Elements data enable researchers to compare genome regulation across species Excerpt: Ho and his coauthors also found key differences in the structure of heterochromatin between species.,,, ,,,these data show that “heterochromatin is not the same thing in different organisms, not only in terms of distribution but also in terms of composition.” http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40891/title/Expanding-ENCODE/ 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/
bornagain77
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
lineage-specific structures are the antithesis of evolution and its expected common descent pattern.
By no means. Those miRNAs that aren't restricted to one species just follow the same nested hierarchy ("common descent pattern") as other genetic innovations (ERVs, for example). According to the paper, 12.8% of human miRNAs are shared with chimps, gorillas and orangutans, but not with mice, fruit flies or C. elegans. A few more are shared with primates and rodents, but not with insects or nematodes -- just as could be predicted from our phylogeny. By the way, miRNAs are ca. 22 nucleotides long. There are about 17.5 trillion possible sequences of that length, but since there are thousands of different miRNAs, the odds that any random sequence can be transcribed and co-opted as a functional miRNA are pretty good.Piotr
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply