A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

Yet another blow for those who support a natural interpretation of evolution. You often hear that humans and chimpazee's share 98 to 99% of DNA. This is simply a half truth.

To me there's a natural interpretation of evolution which makes no sense and an intelligent design interpretation of evolution that explains everything beautifully.

We share 98 to 99% of the same DNA sequence. This isn't the case when it comes to non-coding regions of DNA formally called Junk DNA. Here's more:

Humans, Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA but Not Gene Regulatory Mechanisms. Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins. The expression or activity patterns of genes differ across species in ways that help explain each species' distinct biology and behavior. DNA factors that contribute to the differences were described on Nov. 6 at the American Society of Human Genetics 2012 meeting in a presentation by Yoav Gilad, Ph.D., associate professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Gilad reported that up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.

www.sciencedaily.com...

So we can share the same sequence of DNA but it's expressed differently.

For years, scientists believed the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees would be easily explained -- the two species must have significantly different genetic makeups. However, when their genomes were later sequenced, researchers were surprised to learn that the DNA sequences of human and chimpanzee genes are nearly identical. What then is responsible for the many morphological and behavioral differences between the two species?

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species.

"Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves," said McDonald.

www.sciencedaily.com...

One of the predictions of an intelligent design interpretation of evolution is that what's called junk would have current function or past function. Here;s more from the ENCODE project.

Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as "junk" are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of researchers said on Wednesday.

It is the most significant shift in scientists' understanding of the way our DNA operates since the sequencing of the human genome in 2000, when it was discovered that our bodies are built and controlled by far fewer genes than expected. Now the next generation of geneticists have updated that picture.

For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books.

Encode is the largest single update to the data from the human genome since its final draft was published in 2003 and the first systematic attempt to work out what the DNA outside protein-coding genes does. The researchers found that it is far from useless: within these regions they have identified more than 10,000 new "genes" that code for components that control how the more familiar protein-coding genes work. Up to 18% of our DNA sequence is involved in regulating the less than 2% of the DNA that codes for proteins. In total, Encode scientists say, about 80% of the DNA sequence can be assigned some sort of biochemical function.

Birney says that the decade since the publication of the first draft of the human genome has shown that genetics is much more complex than anyone could have predicted. "We felt that maybe life was easier beforehand and more comfortable because we were just more ignorant. The major thing that's happening is that we're losing some of our ignorance and, indeed, it's very complicated," he says. "You've got to remember that these genomes make one of the most complicated things we know, ourselves. The idea that the recipe book would be easy to understand is kind of hubris. I still think we're at the start of this journey, we're still in the warm-up, the first couple of miles of this marathon."

The genes that regulate expression didn't evolve. These genes didn't try to find their way. They were encoded for a specific purpose and function. To regulate gene expression. Also, these genes were encoded for a specific purpose and function.

Let's look at the operon in E.Coli that expresses a protein that breaks down lactose. The operon has a promoter region of DNA, an operator and the DNA sequence that expresses the protein. There's a repressor that turns on and off the expression of the gene based on the presence of lactose. When lactose isn't present, the repressor attaches itself to the operator and the protein that breaks down lactose isn't produced. When you drink some milk, lactose is present and it attaches itself to the repressor and gene expression is turned on. Now the RNA Polymerase can attach itself to the Promoter region of DNA and express the genes that produce the proteins to breakdown lactose.

This is the mechanics of the genetic program. It didn't evolve. It didn't try to find it's way. These repressors are encoded for a specific purpose and function and that is to regulate gene expression and these genes have a specific purpose and function like the genes that breakdown lactose or the genes that regulate the design of the eye or of teeth.

At the end of the day, things like gene expression, gene regulation, transcription and translation didn't evolve. They're the mechanics of the genetic program.

It's just like 2 books. One one Physics and one a Thriller. These 2 books share the same alphabet and they will share some of the same sequences like and, another, when or proper. Even though they share the same sequences their 2 distinct books because of the way intelligence expressed these sequences.

Here's some questions.

How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

Why does the repressor attach itself to the operator and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why does the repressor attach to the operator when lactose isn't present and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why do you have promoter, operator then genes and how did this sequence evolve?

What stops the RNA Polymerase when the repressor is attached to the operator? Why can't it express the lac genes and how did this mechanism evolve?

CONT.

How did Repressors, Enhancers and Activators evolve and how did the mechanics evolve for there role in gene regulation?

Which evolved first the enhancers, activators, promoter region or DNA coding sequence and how did the mechanics evolve?

How did the bending protein evolve and how did the mechanics evolve where the bending protein folds the DNA strand to the spot near the promoter which activates gene expression?

Why does the activators attach themselves to the enhancers and how did the mechanics evolve?

Which evolved first gene regulation or gene expression? How did these things evolve and how did the mechanics evolve?

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?

Here's a video for Gene Regulation including the lac operon which shows a beautiful expression of intelligent design.

Evolution is a lie.

It is said that these creatures evolve themselves.

But I haven't seen any creature evolving itself telling it self "I must grow this way, then it grow"

My skin is tanned when it is exposed to sunlight.

I don't tell it "get tanned"

Some rule is imposed on it and it gets tanned.

Western materialists invented Evolution to ignore god.

I feel like I am in Bio 1407 lol


Interesting I never thought about how it came to be the evolution of it.

Remind's me of Hoyle's Fallacy, which has been said to include God, or Aliens. On ats I would have to lean towards Aliens.

Hoyle's Fallacy is comparable to the older infinite monkey theorem but applied to cellular biochemistry instead of the works of William Shakespeare. The fallacy claims that the probability that a protein molecule could achieve a functional sequence of amino acids is too low to be realised by chance alone. Hoyle calculated this as being comparable to the probability that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and randomly assemble a Boeing 747.

The argument conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) with the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in Boeing 747). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction

If we were designed by a creator I'd still like to know who designed the creator. If it's not possible for amazingly complex things to naturally evolve over time then we must conclude that something else created the creator. Saying that complex things must always be designed and can't arise naturally is a paradox... because then you are forced to say the creator couldn't have possibly arisen naturally. At the end of the day, the ONLY possible conclusion that one may reach is that given enough time even the most absurdly unlikely events will occur. It doesn't matter how unlikely those events are, they will eventually occur. And when extremely rare things like sentient life pops up they think "man there's no way we got here naturally".

Um, the whole point of the article was to help understand trait difference between three species. It In no way implies evolution is wrong or a lie.

Intelligent design doesn't solve anything beautifully. It's a deus ex machina explanation. I have my phd in archeology and have studied evolution thoroughly. To just say it's a lie is ignorance at its finest.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
If we were designed by a creator I'd still like to know who designed the creator. If it's not possible for amazingly complex things to naturally evolve over time then we must conclude that something else created the creator. Saying that complex things must always be designed and can't arise naturally is a paradox... because then you are forced to say the creator couldn't have possibly arisen naturally. At the end of the day, the ONLY possible conclusion that one may reach is that given enough time even the most absurdly unlikely events will occur. It doesn't matter how unlikely those events are, they will eventually occur. And when extremely rare things like sentient life pops up they think "man there's no way we got here naturally".

edit on 23/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

That's a question that I never understood. Why does the Creator need to be evolved?

In Quantum Cosmology, who designed the wave function of the universe?

In M-Theory, who designed the 11th dimension?

In Randall-Sundrum who designed the Gravity Brane?

The point is, even science has to posit an uncaused cause to make their theories work.

Originally posted by mideast
Evolution is a lie.

It is said that these creatures evolve themselves.

But I haven't seen any creature evolving itself telling it self "I must grow this way, then it grow"

My skin is tanned when it is exposed to sunlight.

I don't tell it "get tanned"

Some rule is imposed on it and it gets tanned.

Western materialists invented Evolution to ignore god.

I myself am a theist (christian to be exact) , and do not find adaptation and evolution a mutually exclusive concept to a creator.

Heres an example, do you have a slight overbite? or are your teeth perfectly matched up? The majority of the population have that over bite, WHY? Because of utensils, they can trace the slight overbite to the introduction of utensils in society.

Even more proof is this occurs across cultures where Eastern civilizations who started using utensils to eat gained the overbite much earlier than western ones. An adaptation that is passed on to offspring caused by a change in the environment and passed on, the very definition of evolution.

If anything I take that as a marvel in and of it self, that creation is so adaptable, and it doesn't hurt my personal beliefs one bit.

Yea, can't it be both ? God or whoever created The big bang Knowing that evolution would take its course.

In Quantum Cosmology, who designed the wave function of the universe?

If you are referring to the theory of quantum fluctuations as an explanation for where all the energy came from, it doesn't need to be "designed". It's simply the fundamental nature of nothing to manifest something. If this wasn't the case then how could anything, including a creator, exist in the first place? If reality wanted to have nothing as a natural state of existence, that's what we'd have. But in fact nothing has a natural tendency to not stay as nothing.

There's nothing that needs to be designed here, it's the single most fundamental aspect of reality. Even the concept of a creator is confined to the logic that the raw nature of reality must prefer the creator to exist. And once we have these fundamentally natural fluctuations in the fabric of nothing, we get energy and all the forces which are naturally derived from the basic properties of this energy. Thus a theory of everything would explain all the forces we observe as one unified set of logic from the most fundamental stand point.

READ A BOOK
READ A BOOK
READ A BOOK

ibd.uchicago.edu...

READ ANOTHER BOOK

books.google.com...= onepage&q=gene%20regulation%20evolution&f=false



Oh, and my only argument against you is this:

I really don't care what you believe. Just keep your idiocy to yourselves.
Stop trying to force us to deceive our children or make scientific decisions based on your delusions.
As for there not being 'enough' evidence to support evolution?
There is NO evidence to support creationism.

I'm not debating with any of you for the simple reason neither of us are going to be able to convince each-other otherwise. But you have a MAJOR misunderstanding with how science works.

You see, in your eyes, if you find something we can't explain then it is a 'blow' to our theories.
But we don't claim to know everything like you do. When we find something new that we can't explain, it's exciting. And Science can actually -admit- when it's wrong, as it's meant to find an answer, not force a pre existing assumption on everyone regardless of evidence. All you have here is a newly discovered part of DNA we have not closely examined yet. Do you have any idea how complicated DNA is? We understand maybe 2% of what it is or how it works. That does NOT mean that the other 98% must be god. We don't HAVE to know everything. I guarantee you in the next 10 years we will have a more complete understanding of DNA, just like we have with everything else. It was you people that insisted the sun revolved around the earth and killed anyone who said otherwise. This is not a blow against evolution in any way, shape, or form. It's just a group of sad individuals grabbing for straws to save their dying religion in a more advanced age.

And those links I posted, although I highly doubt you will read them, do a very good job of explaining how gene regulation evolved and had an effect on natural selection.

Have a good day, god bless you and forgive you for your ignorance. If there is one.
And if there is, then I thank him for making such a wonderful world for us to study and enjoy.
I just wish he hadn't made Religion.

The genes that regulate expression didn't evolve. These genes didn't try to find their way.

Nothing that you quoted validates this conclusion.

You ask a bunch of questions, and while they are good questions, just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't an answer. They are questions that probably won't be answered by the people who visit this website. They are extremely complex answers. We're talking about things that changed very slowly over billions of years. These things didn't just all of a sudden appear. Some of the questions probably can't be answered by anyone. We're talking about things that happened billions of years ago. But just because we can't answer some of them, doesn't negate the whole argument.

Let me ask you this. You say the complexity means that it's evidence for a creator....but wouldn't a creator make things as simple as possible? Why would he make things so unnecessarily complex?

Keep in mind, these are the same people who think the Earth is only 9,000 years old.

A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

or you could have had the title

Another Triumph for Science - Gene Regulation

It is science that discovered this and science that looks for the evidence to explain it and yet again expands our knowledge and uncovers more questions that need to be answered.

The day I will agree with you that science is a religion and its discoveries are a faith is when it says it has all the answers and writes a book for all to follow without question

reply to post by benrl


I have thought about that there are changes and adaptions , but the idea that creatures are the source and the reason for change is something far from logic.

They say that these creatures do the change. But the truth is that they are forced to change and they don't change themselves.

Like I didn't change myself from sperm to what I am right now. Or like the tanning skin example.

Materialism comes by these little changes in grammar and does serious changes.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Yea, can't it be both ? God or whoever created The big bang Knowing that evolution would take its course.

It could be.

But , but when I listen to so called documentaries on nature , they say "it took many years for these creatures to change to this"

I am a fan of documentary and I have about 200GB of them on my hdd.

There are very few and maybe old ones that are narrated by some logic and facts.

Others seem like some one is telling a fiction story which is far from reality.

That is why I prefer to watch the muted.

reply to post by mideast


From your last 2 posts it seems that the problem is a loss in translation. The animals don't choose to change and then make it happen.

Most of the times there is no change in any one particular animal. When they say that an animal changes, they mean that a trait has become common to all the animals of a group, making them a different species.

Dear OP: please explain why you think natural selection is blind to non-coding DNA.