It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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."
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)
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.
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.
In Quantum Cosmology, who designed the wave function of the universe?
The genes that regulate expression didn't evolve. These genes didn't try to find their way.
Originally posted by bknapple32
Yea, can't it be both ? God or whoever created The big bang Knowing that evolution would take its course.