Given the fact that many creationists accept evolution within rather vaguely defined kinds of animals but deny that man is the product of evolution, I’ve decided to go through our genomes and compare it with chimps (and other species). Firstly, I’ll define the genome. This is essentially the complete genetic sequence of an organism. Prokaryotes (eg bacteria) contain one copy of this sequence, and Eukaryotes (like ourselves) generally contain two copies of this information (some organisms are polyploid and contain many copies). In sexually reproducing organisms, there are often two separate sex chromosomes, so when a genome sequence is referred to in these organisms, it means all the different somatic (non sex) chromosomes plus a copy of each of the sex chromosomes (eg X and Y in humans).
In case anyone does not know, our genome has 96% identity with that of the chimp. That sounds a small difference for two easily distinguishable species. However, our genome is 3,200,000,000 base pairs (letters) long. However, that is equivalent to 128 million differences.
My plan is to go through the chromosomes from the first (largest) to the smallest (Y) and highlight the tell tale signs of evolution – signs shared with chimps – or derived from a common ancestor. Chromosomes often contain tell tale pieces of “junk” DNA (perhaps up to 50% of the genome is non functional junk acquired during our evolutionary past) or even fusions that show the ancestry of the organism. This will take some time, but I hope to learn a lot from it myself.
In case anyone does not know, our genome has 96% identity with that of the chimp. That sounds a small difference for two easily distinguishable species. However, our genome is 3,200,000,000 base pairs (letters) long. However, that is equivalent to 128 million differences.
My plan is to go through the chromosomes from the first (largest) to the smallest (Y) and highlight the tell tale signs of evolution – signs shared with chimps – or derived from a common ancestor. Chromosomes often contain tell tale pieces of “junk” DNA (perhaps up to 50% of the genome is non functional junk acquired during our evolutionary past) or even fusions that show the ancestry of the organism. This will take some time, but I hope to learn a lot from it myself.
13 comments:
Couldn't you just work a jigsaw puzzle? Take less time.
:-) Just kidding!
I did some (sadly very basic) news reporting on genome studies of triticale and wheat, and beef cattle, out of Texas A&M University in the early 1990s.
I consider myself a "creationist" only in the broadest sense. ... Which means I probably am not a creationist by creationists' standards. I've never thought it that critically important, faithwise, how it all came together.
Hi ER,
All theists are creationists' - just all about levels of degrees.
Some accept evolution (but being guided by God) I don't understand that.
Some are dead against evolution (but cannot then explain dog breeding or the 'flu jab') Those are just blind to evidence due to their faith.
As for 'critically important' - it depends of course on what you believe.
Lee
Hi Billy,
I look forward to reading the posts. It because of such posts that I feel happy to discuss/debate evolution with the fundies...
I'm 'discussing' a bit of that at the moment on the following thread:
http://rvagibby.blogspot.com/2008/12/
i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be-atheist.html
Not sure how far it will go... the facts always seem to get in the way of a long discussion.
I am waiting for a reply :-)
Lee
Sounds like a real waste of genetic material. Could you not just cut out all the unused DNA to create a more efficient human? I suppose they would then weigh half as much. Apart from fat people of course.
Hi ER,
I seem to remember that wheat is polyploid (tetraploid?).
Do you fall into the theistic evolution camp like Ken Miller or are you more like Michael Behe and broadly accept evolution but think that some structures could not have evolved.
For me, the randomness of mutation, the wastefullness and the impartiality of natural selection argue against a theistic god.
For the fundie, it is all about the authority of the bible though.
Lee,
I may try and pop over to that blog sometime (where do you find them you masochist :-) ). I've got three christmas lunches to attend this week though, so it may be later rather than sooner.
Robert Craig,
You are right - all the excess DNA is a strong argument against the design argument. Much of the junk are genes that are no longer functional and are decaying - or sequences derived from viral infection or transposable elements - which just do their own thing and if they screw your genome, then nae luck.
Having so much unused DNA is also costly in terms of energy and resources. It also increases the chances of a dangerous mutation. Sometimes this "junk" can be shuffled about and become active though - this seems to be what happened with bovne seminal ribonuclease where a pseudogene became relocated to a piece of "control"DNA and that allowed the "activation" of the pseudogene. If this had not happened, the pseudogene would have decayed and become less like a gene
Re, "For me, the randomness of mutation, the wastefullness and the impartiality of natural selection argue against a theistic god."
Well, if one conceives of "sin" more as "incompletion" or disarray than "moral failing," all that extra unused, inefficient, "dead" DNA sort of makes sense.
Don't know which camp I'm in, evolutionwise. I think I'm a wanderer.
I'm 'discussing' a bit of that at the moment on the following thread:
http://rvagibby.blogspot.com/2008/12/
i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be-atheist.html
A good idea by the teachers of these fundamentalists to get them to believe that evolution only applies to speciation.
They win in two ways, if you can't demonstrate speciation then it allows you to claim that evolution is false. Of course if you do demonstrate speciation and create a crocoduck then this allows them to claim that evolution is falsified.
On top of that it allows you to use the weasel words "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution"
Ask 'em about their microfaith versus macrofaith. ...
Billy-
This sounds like it will be an interesting series of posts, I look forward to reading it.
Lee-
I've been following that debate. I honestly couldn't summon the enthusiasm to comment. How do you do it? :)
Well, if one conceives of "sin" more as "incompletion" or disarray than "moral failing," all that extra unused, inefficient, "dead" DNA sort of makes sense.
I would say that would be more a problem for the concept of sin and punishment. The junk is stuff we have acquired rather than the result of incompletion.
Jonathan I honestly couldn't summon the enthusiasm to comment. How do you do it? :)
If Newton could stick needles into his eyes for science, I can write a few words on a blog.
Actually, it is good fun – I am trying to test my own knowledge of evolution by trying to explain it to others, which is the best way I feel to prove to yourself that you truly understand something.
Of course, I could be wrong on what I am ‘explaining’ – so if anyone wants to check my nonsense, I will warmly welcome correction.
I’ve just posted another essay… David’s last comment on evolution seems to fit what Epeeist said here. Now was this prophecy, experience, or research by reading the blog?
Lee
ER Ask 'em about their microfaith versus macrofaith. ..
he he - I like that... I will try and use it when a fundie talks about microevolution vs macroevolution.
Thanks
Post a Comment