Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution (article)
Institute for Creation Research ^ | May 31, 2013. | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

Posted on 06/05/2013 8:25:10 AM PDT by fishtank

Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Results from a recent study in human and chimpanzee genetics have shipwrecked yet another Darwinian hypothesis.1 Genetic recombination is one of the key events that occur during the production of egg and sperm cells, and secular scientists have long thought it to be a major driver of human and ape evolution.

When sperm and egg cells are formed in humans and various animals, the process of meiosis generates genetic variation. For example, since humans have two sets of chromosomes, when similar ones (i.e., sister chromatids)–one each from your mother and father—pair up together in the cell, they undergo a controlled exchange of DNA segments (maintaining the same linear order of segments). This is one reason why the offspring of two parents are always genetically unique, except for identical twins where the fertilized egg cell splits into two identical embryos. This process of exchanging DNA segments across sister chromatids is called genetic or homologous recombination and does not occur randomly across the genome, but most often occurs in areas called “hotspots.”2

Evolutionists have speculated for years that genetic recombination is one of the key mechanisms generating mutations and resulting in new genes and regulatory DNA sequences. They claim that this process facilitates some sort of mystical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling mechanism.

The problem with this idea is the fact that genetic recombination is now being shown to be a highly regulated and controlled cellular process. It is limited to specific hotspots and directed away from the key regulatory parts of the genome that are critical for gene regulation.3,4 Unless something goes wrong with the process, recombination typically allows for variations in non-vital traits while protecting core-cellular processes. If this process was not precisely arranged and expertly controlled, severe damage to the genome would result and sexual reproduction would not be possible.

A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.

Interestingly, the authors also searched the DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees for sections that were “flipped” in their orientation, called inversions. Large inversions, once they occur in a species and if they are tolerated, will stop recombination. However, the researchers found that inverted sequences accounted for very few differences in the regions they examined.

These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!

More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not!

Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome.

Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different.5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely.

References

Farré, M. et al. 2013. Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 30 (4): 853-864.

Smagulova, F. et al. 2011. Genome-wide analysis reveals novel molecular features of mouse recombination hotspots. Nature. 472 (7343): 375–378.

Tomkins, J. 2012. Gene Control Regions Are Protected--Negating Evolution. Posted on icr.org June 11, 2102, accessed May 17, 2013.

Brick, K. et al. 2012. Genetic recombination is directed away from functional genomic elements in mice. Nature. 485 (7400): 642-645.

Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.

Article posted on May 31, 2013.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; dna; recombination
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Image from ICR article.

1 posted on 06/05/2013 8:25:10 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

To bad it has ‘Creation’ in its moniker. That is an immediate repellent.


2 posted on 06/05/2013 8:29:48 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

bm


3 posted on 06/05/2013 8:37:52 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45 (t ask the BIG question,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

[[the process of meiosis generates genetic variation.]]

But ONLY WITHIN specieis specific parameters- No new infromation is beign ‘created’

[[resulting in new genes and regulatory DNA sequences.]]

Bzzzzt- Nope- No NEW genes, only altered genes that can ONLY be altered withing strict species specific parameters

[[The problem with this idea is the fact that genetic recombination is now being shown to be a highly regulated and controlled cellular process]]

Hmmm- Whoda thunk it? Almostl ike it’s intelligently designed just for that particular species

[[Unless something goes wrong with the process, recombination typically allows for variations in non-vital traits while protecting core-cellular processes.]]

Which is precisely why I keep harping on ‘species specific paramters’- the FACT is that each species has several intelligently designed layers of species specific paramters which protect it from foreign ‘invasions or manipulations’ (that’s not to say that parasitic species can not invade and live in a symbiotic atmosphere, but symbiotic coexistence is NOT Mega-Evolution). Each species has layers of protection that prevent their DNA from beign altered beyond what can be tolorated by the species, and any attempts to break thsoe bariers results in the breakdown of the system of hte species and is not conducive to life— (Think organ transplant- even when two of hte same kind of species share organs, it can only be doen so under strict interlligently designed and controlled circumstances ie: Anti-rejection drugs and close monitoring

[[If this process was not precisely arranged and expertly controlled, severe damage to the genome would result and sexual reproduction would not be possible.]]

That just summed up what I’ve been sayign for years

[[These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected.]]

Hmmm- whoda thunk it? Oh yeah- Intelligent Design scientisits had been sayign that for years- Well, at least the secular scientists were honest enough to admit that hwat htey foudn didn’t fit their preconceived belief abotu mega-evolution

[[While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome.]]

Almost as if... Gasp.... An Intelligent Designer was needed to order such highly complex bio-engineering... Nah- couldn’t be... had to be the all powerful supernatural mother nature

[[Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different.5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely.]]

I imagine htat when everyoen stands before God, off to the side will be a big red lettered sign stating “No folks, primates did not evolve into people- My people Tried to tell ya- but you wouldn’t listen- I wish ya had”


4 posted on 06/05/2013 8:47:20 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Frankly it is somewhat difficult for me to imagine what it would take scientifically for the one on the right to become the one on the left. More like impossible than difficult.


5 posted on 06/05/2013 8:48:55 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

What the evolutionist cannot answer they will ignore.


6 posted on 06/05/2013 8:53:57 AM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wita

[[More like impossible than difficult]]

Brother, you have no idea how impossible it is- it is so impossible that it isn’t even possible, that’s how impossible it is-

Seriously- the odds against even the very beginnings- the most basic and ‘simple’ evoltutionary leaps from chemicals to protiens, is so impossible that there isn’t even hte slightest tiniest chance that it coudl have happened (and scientists in pittspberg convention HAD to come to the conclusion that it was NOT possible because the scientific facts do NOT support mega-evolution)- once you get beyond a certain number mathematically when calculating odds, there is no logner any chance that a change coudl have happened, and the mathematical odds facign even ONE ‘simple’ Evolutionary change at the most ‘basic levels’ of the hypothesis of evolution totally shatter that line of impossibility with a number so large, it’s hard to even visualize it

So yeah- evoltuion is way way beyond merelty difficult, it’s biologicaly impossible, mathematically impossible, chemically impossible and it also vioaltes natural laws. It’s not only impossible for just one leap from chemicals to protiens, but the steps of eovlution would have had to have nubmered in the trillions- that means the ‘evolving species’ woudl have had to overcome impossible odds, not just once, but trilliosn of times as it evolved into all the various species we have today-

One impossible ‘simple’ event in evolution is hard enough to accept- but now we’re to accept that nature over came impossible odds trillions of times? And the evolutionists accuse Creationists and Intelligent Design scientists of believign in mythological fairy tales? At least our faith is placed in an Intelligent SUPERNATURAL DEsigner who has proved Himself over and over again to us, and not in some suppsoed unthinking sueprnatural mother nature that somehow beat tremendous impossible odds to arrive at the variety of life we have and know today


7 posted on 06/05/2013 9:01:36 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
evoltutionary leaps from chemicals to protiens

Are you counting on everyone being ignorant of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?

8 posted on 06/05/2013 9:07:21 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!”

No. What this says is that mutations in protected areas are more likely to be retained than those in areas subject to recombination.


9 posted on 06/05/2013 9:21:31 AM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[Are you counting on everyone being ignorant of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?
]]

apparently you ignored the rest of my post (Per usual- )Abiogensis is just ONE problem- EVEN IF you discount life startign from chemicals- and EVEN IF you allow that God may have ‘started life as what? A blob? A fish? A Worm?” you will STILL be faced with trilliosn of impossbile steps alogn hte way-

But of course you needed to totally disregard everythign else I said and just isolate oen small part of my psot in order to try to ‘refute’ what I said- Typical-


10 posted on 06/05/2013 9:32:57 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

They claim that this process facilitates some sort of mystical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling mechanism.

I was more in line with sure, it IS mystical evolutionary tinkering. I’ve read a book that said so!

Psalms 139:13-16 (ESV)

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

Some folks attribute it to “evolution” - “pure chance” - “random luck”, and claim to be brilliant.

Others claim not to know where to attribute it.

Me? As for me and my house, we’ll serve the Lord.


11 posted on 06/05/2013 9:54:32 AM PDT by ro_dreaming (Chesterton, 'Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found hard and not tried')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[Are you counting on everyone being ignorant of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? ]]

And by the way- MANY scientists beleive life started from chemicals- Were you countign on people being ignorant of that fact when you threw out a red herring as your ‘rebuttle’?

here’s a neat idea- how about actually takign the precepts I laid out and refutign them with coutner facts?
For instance Mathemeticians have concluded it is scientifically impossible that evoltuion coudl have overcoem impossible odds- that’s a FACT- several scietific symposiums/meetings have taken place and come to thsoe conclusions- I’m NOT statign anythign that isn’t o nthe record- IF you have proof mega-evolution coudl have violated thsoe odds- then let’s see it-

Biologists have stated that species have several built in layers of protectiosn that PREVENT an alterign of their cells beyond species specific parameters (the layers don’t just make it hard, they PREVENT it from happening) IF you have evidence to refute that- let’s see it-

- IF you have If you beleive nature coudl have overcoem trillions of odds, show some scientific proof that it could have- or if you think the basis of this htread’s precepts that recombination throws a monkey wrench into the ‘primate to man’ evolutio ntheory is wrong, how about showing some evidence that refutes that? The thread was kind enough to show you soem evidence that scientists have discovered that what they thought turns out to be incorrect, but all you seem to be cotnent to do is htrow red herrings out while ignorign the key points- perhaps you think peopel will be distracvted long enough to ignore the rest of my posts by tryign htese tired out diversionary tactics, but I doubt it-


12 posted on 06/05/2013 9:57:56 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
apparently you ignored the rest of my post

It started out so badly it was painful to continue.

I notice you never did, and I'm assuming you never will answer that question.

You want me to believe that it must be an "either-or" proposition - that it's not possible for God to have created life with the ability to evolve, and I'm not going to do it.

13 posted on 06/05/2013 10:08:51 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ro_dreaming

[[Some folks attribute it to “evolution” - “pure chance” - “random luck”, and claim to be brilliant.]]

Hittign hte lottery, with it’s mere 1 in 500,000,000 chance (or whatever low odds it is) is ‘random luck’ and is a possibility- even a small one- Evoltution violating natural law, and reating NEW non species specific information is so far beyond random luck, even for just one event to happen, is so far beyond random luck that it simply isn’t possible- never mind the fact that this impossible process had to happen not just once or twice, or even a few dozens times, but thsi impossible feat had to happen over and over and over again, trillions of times-

Brother, that’s a WHOLE lotta faith goign on if we’re to beleive a midnless entity such as mother nature coudl violate it’s own laws over and over and over again, and beleive that it coudl simpyl ignore the impossible, and create the diversioty of life we see today

Some think that when organisms were smaller, ‘in their infancy’ so to speak, that they were simpler to ‘alter via mutation’ however, as we delve deeper and deeper into molecular biology, we see that things begin to get very complex and complicated, and we see just hte reverse, MORE design, not less- We discover what was ocne thought to be ‘simple’ turns out to be quite complex

[[DNA is the famous molecule of heredity that carries the code of life—an altogether remarkable biopolymer (polynucleotide). As expected, the more research that is conducted on the DNA molecule, the more complexity it divulges.1]]

http://www.icr.org/article/6393/

(And YES, this is fro mthe same site, however, you can finsd htis same scietific info andm ore on ‘secular’ science sites too)


14 posted on 06/05/2013 10:10:34 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pride in the USA; Stillwaters

oops


15 posted on 06/05/2013 10:15:54 AM PDT by lonevoice (Today I broke my personal record for most consecutive days lived)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[I notice you never did, and I’m assuming you never will answer that question]]

there’s no need to- you took my post out of context and tried to make it appear as though there was only one beleif in evolution that life had to start from chemicals- that was the whole basis of your ‘rebuttle’? Wow- I’ll refer you to my previous post to you as you seem unwilling to address the facts IN CONTEXT- and I expaliend to you that EVEN IF you allow that God began the process of mega evolution- it is STILL IMPOSSIBLE- It doesn’t matter where you begin the process- You can beleive God created Monekys and just let nature take over from there- it’s still impossible

[[It started out so badly it was painful to continue.]]

i see yopu are swtil lgoign to play the game of ignoring the facts and leading the conversation down one rabbit trail after antoher- IF you don’t care to show the following, then conversation is over with you- not itnerested i nyour silly little games- however, IF you care to address any of the points below, then I’ll be more than happy to discuss the issue- if not- then whatever- everythign I’ve said stands on it’s own merrits:

here’s a neat idea- how about actually takign the precepts I laid out and refutign them with coutner facts?
For instance Mathemeticians have concluded it is scientifically impossible that evoltuion coudl have overcoem impossible odds- that’s a FACT- several scietific symposiums/meetings have taken place and come to thsoe conclusions- I’m NOT statign anythign that isn’t o nthe record- IF you have proof mega-evolution coudl have violated thsoe odds- then let’s see it-

Biologists have stated that species have several built in layers of protectiosn that PREVENT an alterign of their cells beyond species specific parameters (the layers don’t just make it hard, they PREVENT it from happening) IF you have evidence to refute that- let’s see it-

- IF you have If you beleive nature coudl have overcoem trillions of odds, show some scientific proof that it could have- or if you think the basis of this htread’s precepts that recombination throws a monkey wrench into the ‘primate to man’ evolutio ntheory is wrong, how about showing some evidence that refutes that? The thread was kind enough to show you soem evidence that scientists have discovered that what they thought turns out to be incorrect, but all you seem to be cotnent to do is htrow red herrings out while ignorign the key points- perhaps you think peopel will be distracvted long enough to ignore the rest of my posts by tryign htese tired out diversionary tactics, but I doubt it-


16 posted on 06/05/2013 10:17:09 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I expaliend to you that EVEN IF you allow that God began the process of mega evolution- it is STILL IMPOSSIBLE-

The problem is, you didn't explain anything. All you did was spout your personal opinion as if it were self-evident truth. In order to be able to say it's impossible you must first understand everything about and know every possible outcome that is possible. Neither you nor anyone else understands it well enough to be able to say that.

17 posted on 06/05/2013 10:27:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Its finger snappin’ time.


18 posted on 06/05/2013 10:27:49 AM PDT by Allen In Texas Hill Country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

A thank you bookmark.


19 posted on 06/05/2013 10:28:08 AM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

20 posted on 06/05/2013 10:29:29 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson