You are right that the bad ones do get weeded out unless there is some reason they're not. We all know about the benefits of having just one copy of the gene that leads to sickle cell anemia and even diseases like cystic fibrosis have an advantage for carriers. Other genetic diseases like Huntington's disease happen after we're done having kids so they wouldn't be weeded out either.

Plants and animals have lots of defects as well. One that comes to mind is albinism…sometimes an animal is born as an albino and it quickly ends up getting eaten. That genetic issue was hidden in its parents' DNA, only to be revealed in its offspring.

What this all means is that there is a perfectly natural explanation for the "defects" in our DNA and so no need to invoke alien intervention.

I believe that orangutans also share the same mutated vitamin C gene. If I recall correctly, the mutation is quite old where prosimians have a functioning gene while the Anthropod branch lost the function.

I appreciate all of your information and interesting discussion. This is the first discussion in which I have participated. I was always troubled by the chromosome 2 fusion believing that chromosome structure was critical and that organisms with different structures cannot interbreed.

With your observation of the wild horses, I did a little more reading and some thinking about what chromosomes really entail. I believe that chromosomes are really just packaging and as long as cell division works and all the essential genes are functioning, organisms with different chromosome structures can interbreed and propagate these different chromosome structures. Has there been much research on this thesis?

I can envision substantial analogy of chromosomes with how complex computer programs are packaged and function. In these programs, the functional subroutines are packaged in a number of files where each subroutine has an identifier. With most modern systems, the subroutine need not always be in a specific file but could be found in any accessible file. Using objects as the subroutine structure, objects can be changed without changing the identifier and the overall program functions with the changed object capabilities. This is parallel to changing a gene.

The states of the internal cell structure, proteins, and DNA are ideal for analysis using the tools of computer science state machines. Are you aware of similar work?

I had hoped that the religious aspects of the discussion could be explored with other participants. The ID / Creationist and frankly many devout Christians, Muslims, and some Jews view the question of evolution as either a belief in science or a belief in some great mystery that could give us the reason for our existence, role in the Universe, and how we should live our lives. They cannot conceive that these are not mutually exclusive.

Dawkins and some others push this into the face of people of faith to debunk their beliefs and the folly of their denial of evolution and other observable characteristics of the Universe. These individuals are made to feel that they are like those who believe in a flat earth or earth centered universe. To them evolution is a dichotomy where admission of evolution is a denial of their faith. It is unfortunate that the ID / Creationists bring their beliefs into doubt by confronting a very provable element of science. “God in the gaps” is not viable and clearly not correct.

In some of my entries, I had hinted on how religion and science can converge where religion need not feel that it must retreat with each new scientific understanding. Perhaps a discussion with an ID advocate is not the best forum since much of the polarization is already set.

I really appreciate you allowing me to post. I really learned a lot.

Again,
Thank you

Ken is right that life would not start as random proteins. Life probably started out as an RNA world (see http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=110 for my take on the issue).

There is certainly lots of data (most life scientists would argue an overwhelming amount) out there that supports the idea of common ancestry and lots of sites, blogs, etc. to dig up information on the subject (one of my favorites is http://evolution.berkeley.edu/).

If macroevolution means the creation of a new species, then researchers at Stanford have done this with yeast (as have beer makers). See http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=143.

As a side note, I think it is probably time to close this thread since at this point I think just Ken, John and I are paying attention. Any last comments? I am also happy to continue the discussion offline…

There are a number of identical “misspelled” defective genes shared by all three.

Human DNA and chimp DNA are literally identical when the fusion of chromosome 2 and 11 inversions, where a section of a chromosome that broken off and fused in the reverse direction but the sequence of genes is clearly the same but simply inverted in the chromosome are understood.

Again, I repeat, the chromosomes are just the packaging of the genes and as long as the gene is functional, its location is not critical. A gene on an inverted section of a chromosome functions as it did before the inversion.

Comparison of the chimp DNA and human DNA leaves no doubt that there was a common ancestor. Examination of the DNA bases is an exacting science that provides measured results. Kepler used very accurate astronomical measurement to determine the orbits of the planets as ellipses and established to high accuracy the proof that the planets and the Earth orbit the sun. With these measurements, Kepler provided undeniable evidence of the FACT that the Earth orbits the sun. With the base by base examination of the chimp and human DNA and the accounting of the fusion and inversions, the differences between the two are so small that it points directly to a common ancestor from which these two DNA evolved.

The difference between humans and chimps is probably not in the protein creating genes but in the homeobox and structure regulating genes. Hence, it is not surprising that humans and chimps share a significant percentage of the genes but develop different physical bodies. Small changes in the structure regulating genes and the interaction of the set of proteins in the cells are the differences.

I do not believe the chromosome 2 fusion was the separating event since the genes still worked before and after the fusion. The fused and pre-fused beings were interbreeding just as the 44 chromosome horses and 46 chromosome horses. Changes in the structure regulating genes caused the separation from the common ancestor.

There is no difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. All evolution is micro with changes in the DNA and resulting in changes in the physical bodies of organisms.

I do no believe that random proteins was the start of life as questioned in an earlier entry. The protein soup will never create life. Start with RNA which also can be made from the juice, amino acids, of a Miller Urey process. There is research that supports an RNA self replication where a small set of simple RNA structures evolved in a high energy molecule environment where these molecules were metabolized by the early RNA structures. The ATP – ADP and AMP cycles are the energy molecules in all life so was a very early piece of the puzzle. By the way the “A” is the same A in RNA and DNA. RNA can serve as enzymes as do proteins. With very simple RNA self replication, then protein synthesis using RNA evolved. RNA was the repository of heredity during this phase of life. Finally, DNA evolved as the repository of the genetic information.

Again, I assert that there is not one shred of evidence that all forms of life did not evolve from simpler forms of life. Yes, there are still questions that still need answers but this does not refute the FACT of evolution. The fact that we do not understand why gravity exists or why G has it value does not disprove the FACT of gravity.

ID and Creationism is a call for ignorance. “It’s too hard to understand so it must have been designed or created” is not an answer but simply shutting the door to investigation; a submission to ignorance.

Personally, I think we should all take a soda break, and maybe even have some potato chips…….with ketchup on em of course!

As John has pointed out, ID and creationism do not do this. They are alternative explanations but not scientific ones. What this means is that science does not have the tools to verify or test either idea.

So what can we learn from the fusion of chromosome 2? We can learn first of all that it happened. The evidence is strong enough on this one that it can't really be effectively argued against.

The fusion had to have happened long enough ago for it to have supplanted the original 48 chromosomes. Either this or we had to be designed that way. If this is the case, then there should be some advantage to the fusion event. I have not yet seen one.

We can learn more about the fusion event by looking at the ancient telomere and centromere DNA. Because this DNA is not being used, it is not protected from DNA change. In other words, over time, the centromere and telomere have built up DNA changes. This is where the 740,000 to 3 million years came from.

The idea would then be that we have been on this Earth for at least 740,000 years without significant change.