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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
edit on 23-2-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)