Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution (article)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | May 31, 2013. | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

[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.

[RobbyS]

Maybe it is because Chimps and humans are “mature”species.

[American in Israel]

Only to those who are so allergic to reality hate pops up when it manifests.

[CottShop]

Tactic- I played your game a year ago- took me awhile- but I caught on- I did infact explain the FACTs- if you don’t wish to address them- the by all means don’t- but if you’re goign to play your little games here- forget about it

[[gravel, rocks, boulders, stones, cobble, water, strea, brook, creek, trees, forrest, woods, wilderness]]

Hmmm- hyou might wanna tell that to the scioentists that met at several meetigns over the yeasrs that came ot these same conclusiosn thenm- Bet they’ll get a good laugh too-

[[Neither you nor anyone else understands it well enough to be able to say that.]]

Lol- Still not goign to address the quesitosn with anythign credible eh? Oh well- whatever- As I said- since you don’tcare to discuss anythign other than saying “Nuh Uh”- then there’s no point discussing it further with you- If you insist on playign sillyl ittle games, I’ll oblige by returnign the favor

[tacticalogic]

You aren't "playing my game". My first rule is that you don't try to pass dogma off as "FACTs".

Your endless proseletizing masquerading as "science" does no service to religion or science. It makes a mockery of both.

[PeterPrinciple]

These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected.

---

So the evidence doesn’t support the theory. They say they will go where the evidence leads them. All the information and biological machinery points to intelligent design, but they won’t go there.

[CottShop]

Tactic- I’ll say it again- scientists gave thsoe FACTS- not me- so please refrain from FALSELY claiming i am spiouting dogma- if you can’t at least be the slightesdt bit honest in your ‘discussions’ then I must ask, what is your objkective? I ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG AND all you come back with is what you just wrote? Apparently you aren’t goign to- so pleasse stop stalking thsoe who don’t beleive in evolution- I’ve watched your posts for many years now, and you NEVER offer ANY sort of evidence and simply attack thsoe who present arguments relentlessly dfespite their repeated requests that you refraIN from doing so and address the issues-

NOTHING I said was prostelizing- Everythign I mentioend is backed up by secular scientists- Hell- even this thread was a result of secular scientists who were baffled that what they foudn didn’t support their beleif- I asked you to address that topo and you refused- The only one makign a mockerty of science is you tactic- you Never offer anythign but petty little insults- you are liek a heckler cruising htreads looking for creationsits to attack- and quite frankly it;s gettign old

[CottShop]

I will give you one more chance to answer the quesitosn I asked, to provide the evidence to refute the assertions that SCIENTISTS made- and remember, repeated dodging and avoidance whiel simpyl insulting htose that present evidence you don’t like just further makes a mockery of science on your part- -

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-

[CottShop]

aND JUST so you know- Science coems up with facts all the time despite your insistence that it doesn’t- Courts weigh evidence to coem up with facts all the itme despite your petty assertion that they can’t because ‘they don’t know everythign there is to know ever’- And when soemthign is impossiblem, it’s impossible- you can kick and scream about it all you like, but the fact remains, when somethjign is impossible, it’s impossible- Again, this isn’t MY dogma- this is a fact that is supported by science- Science also supports the idea that life gets very complex in the microbiology department- not simpler- and the fAXCT is that species have several build in species specific layers of protection that prevent a evoltuion- Again, these are facts whether youl iek it or not- and they arern’t my factsd as you so snidely suggested either-

So againm, I’ll ask that you at least try to be honest in your discussion- and stop throwign crap out which is a blatant lie- thanks

[CottShop]

sorry peterprinciple- that post was meant for tactic logic- I clicked the wrong reply by mistake-

[tacticalogic]

I’ll say it again- scientists gave thsoe FACTS-

Then you need to find better "scientists".

I repaeat - the only way you can say definitively that something is impossible is to be able to understand the process well enough to demonstate what all the possible outcomes are, and prove that isn't one of them. Nobody has that kind of knowlege or understanding of the process. If they did, we wouldn't still be doing research.

What is it about that you can't understand?

[CottShop]

[[I repaeat - the only way you can say definitively that something is impossible is to be able to understand the process well enough to demonstate what all the possible outcomes are, and prove that isn’t one of them.]]

you rweally don’t udnerstand science do you?

[[Nobody has that kind of knowlege or understanding of the process.]]

Hmmm- Guess we shoudl throw out all our court’s decisiosn and let everyoen out of prisons then then because by your wierd logic, nooen can ever be convicted again because ‘all the possible combinations of variables can’t be known-

Cripes-

[[Then you need to find better “scientists”.]]

LOL- stil lgoign to avoid providing evidence eh? Yiour ‘Nuh Uh’s’ are gettign comical

[tacticalogic]

Science coems up with facts all the time despite your insistence that it doesn’t-

Okay. Show us where I've said science doesn't come up with facts.

Didn't your Momma ever teach you not to lie?

[tacticalogic]

LOL- stil lgoign to avoid providing evidence eh? You're ‘Nuh Uh’s’ are gettign comical

Your the one claiming to have answers. Now you expect me to cough up the evidence for you, and you say I'm the one who doesn't understand science. Where did you learn this stuff?

[ro_dreaming]

I believe in micro-evolution. The darwin finches, for example, changed beak shape depending on available food sources. I do not believe in macro-evolution, cross speciation changes.

[CottShop]

Microevolution is a fact- a verifiable fact- a scientificalyl proven fact- Marco-Evolution is a beleif in the impossible as proven out by science-

Demski has mathematically proven that any odds more than 10 to the 150’th power is impossible, can’t happen- regardless of any variables not known- The odds of Mega-evolution happening is 10 to the 4,478,296’th power- and again, this is just for one single cell evolving by chance-

[PeterPrinciple]

I don’t think your argument is with me. The evidence does not support the theory of evolution. A good scientist will then go back and examine their theory. The evidence points to God but they will not go there...................

If all the time and resources were spend on discovering the design instead of trying to prove there was not a design, think about how much further along we would be. Same for global warming. If all that time money effort could only be spent on solving real problems.

[Dudoight]

Sorry if I offended you, but ‘creationists’ have given a bad name to Christianity. Dinosaurs and homo sapiens did not roam the earth hand in hand because the earth was ‘created’ 6 thousand years ago.

To disbelieve the Creationist’s presentation is not blasphemous! God must be laughing. LOL!

[ro_dreaming]

So, you’re saying I’m right.

Got it.

[CottShop]

[[If all the time and resources were spend on discovering the design instead of trying to prove there was not a design, think about how much further along we would be.]

That’s a goodp oint- instead of cosntantly trying to discount that htere is design, tryign to discover how that design operates would open up the door to many discoveries one woudl think- It’s kinda l ike someone who desperately needs insulin and a vial of it sits right smack dab i nthe middele of hte table, but hte person states that it can’t possibly be insulin and frantically searches every place else for soemthign that is right in front of them-

[CottShop]

[[Sorry if I offended you, but ‘creationists’ have given a bad name to Christianity.]]

So in other words- Christians that beleive God’s word are givign Christianity a bad name? alrighty then