Genetics Human evolution Intelligent Design

The new “unique human genes” findings contradict previous research

Spread the love
Scientists uncover a trove of genes that could hold key to how humans evolved

The blue section in the pie charts represents a proportion of transcription factors, across different classes, which are dissimilar in humans/Sam Lambert

The genes seem to have got started rather quickly:

The finding contradicts earlier research, which stated that almost all of human and fruit fly TFs bind the same motif sequences, and is a call for caution to scientists hoping to draw insights about human TFs by only studying their counterparts in simpler organisms.

“There is this idea that has persevered, which is that the TFs bind almost identical motifs between humans and fruit flies,” says Hughes, who is also a professor in U of T’s Department of Molecular Genetics and Fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. “And while there are many examples where these proteins are functionally conserved, this is by no means to the extent that has been accepted.”

As for TFs that have unique human roles, these belong to the rapidly evolving class of so-called C2H2 zinc finger TFs, named for zinc ion-containing finger-like protrusions, with which they bind the DNA.

Their role remains an open question but it is known that organisms with more diverse TFs also have more cell types, which can come together in novel ways to build more complicated bodies.

Hughes is excited about a tantalizing possibility that some of these zinc finger TFs could be responsible for the unique features of human physiology and anatomy—our immune system and the brain, which are the most complex among animals. Another concerns sexual dimorphism: countless visible, and often less obvious, differences between sexes that guide mate selection—decisions that have an immediate impact on reproductive success, and can also have profound impact on physiology in the long term. The peacock’s tail or facial hair in men are classic examples of such features.

“Almost nobody in human genetics studies the molecular basis of sexual dimorphism, yet these are features that all human beings see in each other and that we are all fascinated with,” says Hughes. “I’m tempted to spend the last half of my career working on this, if I can figure out how to do it!” University of Toronto, “Scientists uncover a trove of genes that could hold key to how humans evolved” at Phys.org

Note: Hughes could run into problems with Correct culture, where sexual dimorphism in nature may now be a problematic concept. Stay tuned.

See also: Dozens of genes once thought widespread are unique to humans Researchers: Even between chimps and humans, whose genomes are 99 per cent identical, there are dozens of TFs which recognize diverse motifs between the two species in a way that would affect expression of hundreds of different genes.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “The new “unique human genes” findings contradict previous research

  1. 1
    PeterA says:

    “I’m tempted to spend the last half of my career working on this, if I can figure out how to do it!”

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    As to their claim for ‘rapidly evolving class’,,,

    As for TFs that have unique human roles, these belong to the rapidly evolving class of so-called C2H2 zinc finger TFs, named for zinc ion-containing finger-like protrusions, with which they bind the DNA.

    And what is their specific evidence that TFs are a rapidly evolving class? Well, obviously that would be the fact that they are found to be very different than what Darwinists had originally presupposed they would be and, thus, of course, to a Darwinist they simply MUST be a rapidly evolving class.

    But for those of us not so enamored with Darwinian just-so stories as Darwinists apparently are, and if Michael Behe’s previous work elucidating the rarity of protein-protein binding sites being generated by Darwinian processes is of any indication, then we have no reason to presuppose that TF’s binding to DNA in completely new ways can be accomplished via Darwinian processes.

    “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

    “The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’
    – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – (p. 155).

    Behe’s work, as of 2014, has now been empirically confirmed,,,

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

Leave a Reply