|
Author
|
Topic: New molecular evidence against common descent
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. December 2006 09:50
Now the genomes of men and chimp have been sequenced it has become clear chimp is not as closely related as believed by the Darwinian community.
About a decade ago Roy Britten showed the genomes' sequences differed by at least 5% percent (counting indels), instead of the 1-2% percent usually propagated.
Last year it was reported that humans have three dozen unique protein coding genes when compared to chimps and now we find that of the 244 newly discovered microRNA genes 10% are unique to humans (not found in any other organism). Chimp also has unique microRNA genes. Apparently, this "junk" makes the species. At last we know.
reference: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n12/full/ng1914.html
[ 20. December 2006, 09:56: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. December 2006 10:46
Peter
I do not believe in "junk" DNA. Which animal do you think is our closest living relative? I think it is the chimpanzee followed by the gorilla and next the orang utan. Do you agree?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 20. December 2006 22:24
A new article in PhysOrg said the difference was 6% in genes betwen humans and chimps.
quote:
The researchers paid special attention to gene number changes between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method they devised, the scientists inferred humans have gained 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes) and lost 86 genes since diverging from their most recent common ancestor with chimps. Including the 729 genes chimps appear to have lost since their divergence, the total gene differences between humans and chimps was estimated to be about 6 percent.
http://www.physorg.com/news85806798.html
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 21. December 2006 06:17
Daer John,
quote:
Which animal do you think is our closest living relative?
The issue is that evidence against common descent is accumulating.
The chimp and/or gorilla may be our closest living relatives, the evidence now shows we most probably do not have a common ancestor with chimp.
peter
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. December 2006 10:59
Then in your opinion, do we have an ancestor at all?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. December 2006 16:40
Peter
Are you going to ignore such an important question? I will be very disappointed if you do.
"A past evlution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 24. December 2006 00:09
Hello Peter, I had kinda given up on this board because there was nothing fresh coming out. Alas, finally something interesting.
Question 1, is this nature article one that I really should purchase, or am I getting the heart of it in your summary?
2, You said that there are "three dozen unique protein coding genes." Would these then be ORFan genes? Is there any speculation by the randomists (new term, what do you think?) as to where they came from?
3, Of the 24 or so new "human only" microRNA genes, how big are these things? Is there any known precursors to these guys?
4, In private e-mail we discussed the HAR1F gene. It is some kind of RNA gene also, correct? Is it considered a microRNA gene?
5, You have suggested that this dooms "common descent". I wonder how you figure this. It seems clear to me that we are seeing plenty of evidence of agency here. However, it still appears to me that baby ancestors were born with some twiddles in their genes, then the twiddled adults had babies with more twiddles. Why is this hypothesis invalid? Would Haldane's dilemma, the cost of fixation, be the thing that causes you to question common descent, or something else?
The single piece of evidence that I see which supports common descent rather than common design is the evidence of genetic drift. It really appears that there is a component of true randomness floating around in the genes. This true randomness renders a reasonable rendition of the phylogenic tree. How would such evidence persist in a common design model?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. December 2006 03:46
Peter
"we probably don't have a common ancestor with chimp" won't feed the bulldog.
How can you ignore the structural chromosomal homologies? They speak for themselves. We differ by around 12 or so rearrangements of the same chromosomal segments. Assuming these were produced one at a time, it follows that there have been 12 intermediate discrete species involved in our separation. I feel this is a very reasonable number based on what we know from the fossil record.
For God's sake Peter, don't try to make a case for the de novo production of Homo sapiens because no one will buy it except the most hide bound of Biblical Fundamentalists. Man is an animal and had animal ancestors. You sure won't ever convince me that isn't so. Look at the behavior on some of the forums and then tell me man is not an animal!
I also think it is perfectly conceivable that Homo sapiens was produced more than one time and possibly not even from the same immediate ancestor. Everything we are learning from chromosomal mechanics indicates preferred sites for restructuring. George Gaylord Simpson suggested that separate origin was likely the case for horse evolution. How he reemained a Darwinian is the mystery. There is no place for randomness in any of it. The whole business seems to have been planned from the beginning.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 24. December 2006 11:26
quote:
I also think it is perfectly conceivable that Homo sapiens was produced more than one time and possibly not even from the same immediate ancestor. Everything we are learning from chromosomal mechanics indicates preferred sites for restructuring.
What an intriguing concept. I could see this happening within a PEH framework, but certainly not in a neo-Darwinian model. This would also help explain why genetic analysis is proving to not generate a consistend phylogenic tree as recently discussed on uncommon descent.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. December 2006 18:33
Thank you Bruce. One of the virtues of the PEH is its great flexibility and lack of constraints.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. December 2006 18:51
I don't believe that there is any evidence that "genetic drift" can lead to true speciation: suspecies yes, true species no. Speciation and the formation of the higher categories requires far more dramatic changes than can ever be effected through natural selection and sexual reproduction, both of which are entirely conservative, serving to bring evolution to a complete halt and, with very few exceptions, to ultimate extinction.
In my opinion we are not one of those exceptions.
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
"A past evooution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 25. December 2006 17:03
Hi John,
When I mention genetic drift, I am not at all suggesting that it causes speciation. I am suggesting, however, that if drifting happened in a common ancestor, the same drifted position shows up in both lineages. If chimps and humans have the same markers of genetic drift, the most likely cause is common ancestry. I see this as good reason to reject the common design hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 27. December 2006 04:15
Bruce,
the positions that line up in chimp-human genetic comparisons you believe are the result of genetic drift are in actuality the reuslt of a non-random genetic mechanism. Mutations are not merely random, you know, but rather modulated (read LH Caporale's work). Non-random mutations give an illusion of common descent. Common descent of humans and chimps cannot be true due to the fact of novel genes in humans not present in chimps, such as the presented microRNA genes. I have abandoned Darwinian common descent and it is not part of GUToB.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 27. December 2006 04:18
John,
quote:
Then in your opinion, do we have an ancestor at all?
Of course we have, but not a common ancestor with chimps, isn't that obvious from the new biology data?
have a good one,
Peter
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. December 2006 09:57
Peter
Not to me it isn't, especially when you can't come up with some candidate other than the chimpanzee. When we examine the genome of various animals all that we see is what is not silenced. There is a tremendous body of information that is unexpressed. We are not even sure that DNA is the only source of information, at least I'm not.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic