Similarity of human and chimp DNA is down.

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
It is being found that the major differences between chimps and humans are not in the individual SNP’s but rather in genetic switches. How did these preexisting switches come to be and if evolution is right how were they retained? Evolution has no satisfactory explanation to date.

Evolution of gene regulation:

Access : The evolution of gene regulation by transcription factors and microRNAs : Nature Reviews Genetics

Common design on the other hand predicts such switches.

What doesn't common design predict? What observation, if made, would be inconsistent with common design?
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It is being found that the major differences between chimps and humans are not in the individual SNP’s but rather in genetic switches. How did these preexisting switches come to be and if evolution is right how were they retained? Evolution has no satisfactory explanation to date. Common design on the other hand predicts such switches.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dna-human-evolution.html
Common design does not predict switches that are different even though they do the exact same thing.

ETA: SNPs and differences in genetic switches are not mutually exclusive. Nucleotide differences are, after all, what make the switches different. Could be SNPs, could be multiple substitutions, could be indels.

Although I think technically they would no longer be called SNPs if they represent interspecific differences. Unless both species are polymorphic at that locus, they'd simply be "substitutions".
 
Upvote 0

Zaius137

Real science and faith are compatible.
Sep 17, 2011
862
8
✟8,547.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Highly conserved gene switches in organisms will not hold their context over millions of years. The fast breeding fruit fly yields no insight to the slower reproducing hominid. Grounds for comparison between a slow breeding organism and a rapid breeding organism may not illustrate the connotation of conservation. Highly conserved genes are nothing short of miracles if you buy into evolution. In real life it is simply a consequence of a designer depending on the paradigm of the observer.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_101-108.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
59
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Zaius123 really is like a ping pong ball being batted around a table, he makes some unsupported illogical comment, gets completely destroyed, and blithely moves on to the next hitting station.

Good stuff, excellent atheist witness. Keep up the good work Z.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,678
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Zaius123 really is like a ping pong ball being batted around a table, he makes some unsupported illogical comment, gets completely destroyed, and blithely moves on to the next hitting station.

Good stuff, excellent atheist witness. Keep up the good work Z.
I don't know if you've noticed, but he's also taken on particle physics and cosmology in the formal debate forum.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,678
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Highly conserved gene switches in organisms will not hold their context over millions of years. The fast breeding fruit fly yields no insight to the slower reproducing hominid. Grounds for comparison between a slow breeding organism and a rapid breeding organism may not illustrate the connotation of conservation. Highly conserved genes are nothing short of miracles if you buy into evolution.
Please present your calculations.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Highly conserved gene switches in organisms will not hold their context over millions of years.


So you are saying that gene regulation networks evolve over time? Hmf, that seems to be what we are saying.

The fast breeding fruit fly yields no insight to the slower reproducing hominid.

Why not?

Grounds for comparison between a slow breeding organism and a rapid breeding organism may not illustrate the connotation of conservation.

Why not?

Highly conserved genes are nothing short of miracles if you buy into evolution.

Why?

In real life it is simply a consequence of a designer depending on the paradigm of the observer.

What observation, if made, would be inconsistent with a common designer? Why can't you answer this question?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Zaius123 really is like a ping pong ball being batted around a table, he makes some unsupported illogical comment, gets completely destroyed, and blithely moves on to the next hitting station.

Gish Gallop baby!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Highly conserved gene switches in organisms will not hold their context over millions of years.
Weasel word alert! What's the "context" of a gene switch? What do you mean by "holding their context"? Why shouldn't they "hold their context"?

Conversely, if the switches were designed, why are they changing like crazy in the space of 20-something million years* while retaining the exact same function?

*Approximate divergence time of D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura, the most distantly related species in the eve enhancer study, according to the 12 Drosophila genomes resource.

The fast breeding fruit fly yields no insight to the slower reproducing hominid.
That may be true in some ways, but can you give me a reason why enhancer evolution should work in a qualitatively different way (i.e. not simply faster) in fruit flies?

In any case, that was not the point of my example. Recall that you said that genetic switches only make sense with design. In return, I asked you how design explains the differences between certain genetic switches.

Note that this question has nothing to do with the identity or rate of evolution of the species in question. I linked a Drosophila study because I happened to know about one that illustrates the point quite nicely.

I don't know if you've noticed, but he's also taken on particle physics and cosmology in the formal debate forum.
He's just trying to live up to the expectations that a typical YEC has towards an evolutionist...
 
Upvote 0

Zaius137

Real science and faith are compatible.
Sep 17, 2011
862
8
✟8,547.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
“That may be true in some ways, but can you give me a reason why enhancer evolution should work in a qualitatively different way (i.e. not simply faster) in fruit flies?”


Why should enhancer evolution work at all? Did you even read the link?


http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_101-108.pdf



“Conversely, if the switches were designed, why are they changing like crazy in the space of 20-something million years* while retaining the exact same function?”

*Approximate divergence time of D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura, the most distantly related species in the eve enhancer study, according to the 12 Drosophila genomes resource.

Who said anything about 20-something million years? And the fruit fly example shows changes over 20 million years? My question did they diverge at all? Still fruit fly’s right?


“In any case, that was not the point of my example. Recall that you said that genetic switches only make sense with design. In return, I asked you how design explains the differences between certain genetic switches.”

Design says just that the differences did not come about by small changes over long periods of time (as in a hominid). How do I explain different sub routines as a programmer? I designed them that way.

What was your point about your example?

“Note that this question has nothing to do with the identity or rate of evolution of the species in question. I linked a Drosophila study because I happened to know about one that illustrates the point quite nicely.”

What was that one?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Zaius137

Real science and faith are compatible.
Sep 17, 2011
862
8
✟8,547.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
20 million years and you think you would get something other than a fruit fly. Apes and humans were only supposed to be diverged by 5 million years. Common decent is only a pipedream. Let’s see…

Ape>man
Fruit fly>fruit fly + 15 million years
What’s wrong with this picture?

By the way mutations in fruit flies never caused anything but fruit flies.


“The year 2010 could be considered the Year of the Fruit Fly, as it marked the 100th anniversary of the first published fruit fly genetics study—the forerunner of the burgeoning discipline of modern genetics’Despite evolutionist expectations, fruit flies that survived this century of mutations and manipulations have done nothing but remain members of the fruit fly kind.”


“This year also saw the publication of a nearly 20-year-long study designed to detect fruit fly evolution. The researchers ensured that during 600 generations of fruit flies, fast-developing individuals were separated from slow-growers. But after generations of living separately, when the two groups were finally allowed to interbreed, their offspring showed that no permanent change in speed of development had taken place and no evolution was observed.”


Thomas, B. No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 16, 2010, accessed December 22, 2010.

“In 1977, the late evolutionary biologist Pierre-P. Grassé commented, “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.”3In 2010, this summary is even more scientifically accurate. Fruit flies have not evolved because they cannot evolve.”

Grassé, P. P. 1977. Evolution of Living Organisms. New York: Academic Press Inc., 130. Quoted in Sherwin, F. 2006. Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution. Acts & Facts.

http://creationrevolution.com/2011/01/origins-breakthroughs-of-2010-zoology/
“After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.”
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster,there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.”
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Bible is always the measure of the truth… Mr. Dave
Don't forget Faith ;)

Matthew 21:21 Answering the Jesus said to them "verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having faith and no ye may be doubting,
not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to this, the Mountain, ye may saying 'be being lifted up! and be being cast! into the Sea' it shall be becoming" [Galatian 4:24,25/Hebrew 12:18/Revelation 8:8]

Reve 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a mountain, great to fire burning, was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood
[Matthew 21:21/Galatian 4:24, 25/Hebrew 12:18]

The Mountain in Matt 21 question - Christian Forums
The Mountain in Matt 21 question
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Zaius137

Real science and faith are compatible.
Sep 17, 2011
862
8
✟8,547.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Faith knows that God is who He says He is. Faith is also a gift from God not of ourselves that any man shall boast.

Romans 12:3
3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
Don't forget Faith ;)

Matthew 21:21 Answering the Jesus said to them "verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having faith and no ye may be doubting,
not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to this, the Mountain, ye may saying 'be being lifted up! and be being cast! into the Sea' it shall be becoming" [Galatian 4:24,25/Hebrew 12:18/Revelation 8:8]

Reve 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a mountain, great to fire burning, was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood
[Matthew 21:21/Galatian 4:24, 25/Hebrew 12:18]


... and so it was...

Rev. 8:8 And (the Sociological Mass Group), the second angel, (the collective body of a massive Christian fellowship), sounded, and as it were a great mountain, (The New Testament), burning with fire (of God:[Matt 3:12]) was cast (in its canonization in 382 AD) into the sea (of the Gentiles): and the third part of (the Western World, Pagan, Jew, and Christian), the sea (of the Gentiles), became (Christians by decree in 380AD, symbolized by) blood (and blood shed in religious conversion to the Cross);

Rev. 8:9 And (in the Roman World), the third part of the creatures, (the pagan Temples and congregations) which were in the sea (of the Gentiles), and had life (until Christianity), died; and (in the Roman Empire) the third part of the ships, (their doctrines and philosophies), were destroyed (leaving only the Jews and Christians).

Revelation 8
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Who said anything about 20-something million years? And the fruit fly example shows changes over 20 million years? My question did they diverge at all? Still fruit fly’s right?

:doh:

You do understand that species diverge from one another, and that "fruit fly" is not the name of a species, don't you?

Humans and chimps are apes as was the common ancestor that they diverged from. Humans and bears are still mammals, as was the common ancestor that they diverged from. Humans and trout are still vertebrates, as was the common ancestor that they diverged from. If you understood how evolution works and what cladistics describes you would not be making these mistakes.

Design says just that the differences did not come about by small changes over long periods of time (as in a hominid).

Where is the evidence for this?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Why should enhancer evolution work at all?
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking here...

Did you even read the link?
The abstract of that paper is already a big helping of misrepresenting the field, seasoned with unsupported claims out of personal incredulity. Doesn't seem to get much better, from the looks I've had at the main text...

Plus I don't see how it is relevant to my question to you, but look how easy I am to derail...

Cserháti 2007 said:
Because of their widespread distribution, conserved non-coding sequences have important implications for the
creation/evolution debate. Such sequences are indeed highly conserved, which means they resist mutational
change.
Like all "conserved" DNA, conserved non-coding elements are conserved to highly variable degrees.Here's a figure from another study on enhancer evolution that demonstrates this. CsB, the HoxD control element illustrated in the figure, has bits that are conserved all the way across jawed vertebrates, other parts only across the amniotes, and some that are specific to the mammals. Note also that even with the most highly conserved regions, we're not talking about 100% identity.

Cserháti 2007 said:
Thus, they are design elements in the genetic makeup of organisms that may help to differentiate
between taxa. Moreover, many evolutionists now believe regulatory sequences are the central motor for molecular
evolution, and that evolution of these regulatory regions is what mainly alters protein expression.
Actually, it's becoming increasingly clear that regulatory regions AND protein coding sequences (and RNA genes, let's not forget those) are heavily involved in evolution (and molecular evolution means something slightly different). Of course you mainly (or at least often) alter protein expression by messing with the regulatory elements. (Other options include microRNAs, alternative splicing and even ribosomal proteins.)

He says that like coding sequence evolution was thought to alter protein expression before. (Which, as a matter of fact, it can do. IIRC, bacteria make use of rare codons to slow down translation, and I'm sure there are other examples.)

But regulatory elements are very obviously not the only players.

Cserháti 2007 said:
But this does
not explain molecule-to-man evolution, which requires a continuous supply of new genetic information.
And here our author conveniently omits that NO ONE is proposing that CNEs alone explain everything. Presumably, he's never heard of gene duplication, domain shuffling, HGT, heck, de novo gene birth from non-coding DNA! (The first is hard to believe given that he discusses it in the main body of the paper...)

Cserháti 2007 said:
It does
however provide an explanation for the origin of variability within the created kinds in the biblical creation
model. In this model, the information content of genes is conserved, while certain regulatory changes bring
about changes in gene expression.
And here, he basically says that enhancer evolution does work. Since morphologically and genetically speaking, we're well within the "ape kind" (unless domestic dogs are several different kinds...), your "did you read???!!11!!!" source appears to be on my side ^_^

A choice quote from the paper itself, for what it's worth:

Cserháti 2007 said:
That is, the
more a pair of genes have diverged from each other, the
larger the differences in TFBS content and expression
patterns. However, a detailed study by Zhang et al. of
202 pairs of yeast genes showed there was only a weak
correlation between TFBS content and expression, and
showed that the 10 most highly co-expressed gene pairs
do not have even half of their TFBSs in common. They
believe other factors, such as motif-motif interactions*,
trans factors, and chromatin structures might be responsible
for differences in expression.
57
It doesn't work that way. Transcription factors work in combinations to activate (or repress) a target gene. We've just seen from the eve study that quite different sets of TFBSs can sum up to the exact same expression pattern, using the exact same TFs to boot (all enhancers were tested in the same species). It's like 2x2 + 3x7 is the same as 1x5 + 5x4. Thus expecting raw divergence in TFBS content to match expression divergence is probably not a good idea. What the differences are appears to be more important than how many there are. Naturally, that's also a far more difficult situation to analyse.

Who said anything about 20-something million years? And the fruit fly example shows changes over 20 million years? My question did they diverge at all? Still fruit fly’s right?
They obviously did, or there wouldn't be a paper about it. You do know what "divergence" means, right?

And don't come with that tired trope. Fruit flies happened to be morphologically conservative over that time span. Other things haven't. (Ironically, the "slow-breeding" apes may have changed more in appearance in the last 20 million years than the "fast-breeding" flies!) But that's not why I brought this up at all.

Of course, you didn't seem to get why I did bring it up, so let's have another go at explaining that...

me said:
“In any case, that was not the point of my example. Recall that you said that genetic switches only make sense with design. In return, I asked you how design explains the differences between certain genetic switches.”

you said:
Design says just that the differences did not come about by small changes over long periods of time (as in a hominid). How do I explain different sub routines as a programmer? I designed them that way.
If you were a designer with a thimble of sense, why would you change a perfectly functional design to something that produces the exact same result?

What was your point about your example?
That question above.

And before you answer "'cuz I felt like it", think about what that implies for the testability of the design hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0