Testes gene may be what makes us human

News in Science ^ | Wednesday, 19 February  2003 | Bob Beale

[vannrox]

	Here is the news: a gene from the testes may be what made humans diverge from their prehistoric ancestors

The sudden emergence of an unusual new gene expressed mainly in the testes of our direct primate ancestors may have helped humans to become a distinct species, American scientists have reported.

Professor Daniel Haber, of the Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues report the discovery in a study published in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

They conclude that the new gene, known as Tre2, appeared as little as 21 million years ago - relatively recently in terms of human evolution - and note that "the emergence of novel genes this late in evolutionary history" had not been appreciated until now.

The gene was first identified during the human genome project, but its evolutionary origin was unknown.

Haber's laboratory specialises in the genetics of cancer, and was studying Tre2 during a routine search for unknown oncogenes, which can transform normal cells into cancerous ones.

They found that it does not cause cancer in humans, but does act as an oncogene in mice. This makes it unique among oncogenes in being a normal human gene which can cause cancer in a species that lacks it.

When they analysed the gene in detail, they discovered that it was a chimera gene: composed of fused pieces of two older genes that still exist and are expressed in many parts of the human body. Because it is expressed predominantly in the testes, the researchers believe Tre2 may well have played a role in creating the reproductive barrier that led to humans becoming a separate species.

By comparing the human genome with those of other species, they learnt that Tre2 is found uniquely in the human line of ancestry among the primates. Our ancestors seem to have been especially prone to undergoing a whole series of duplications of segments of their genes, the authors write.

"These duplications appear to have emerged only during the last 35 million years, within the primate lineage, and to have rapidly expanded," Haber said. The new gene probably emerged from that process when two duplicated segments of different genes fused to make a new one.

The researchers date that event at around the time the hominoid lineage appeared, between 21 and 33 million years ago. Its sudden emergence - and its association with the testes - may have meant that individuals who had the gene could not reproduce with those who did not.

The researchers suggest that this may have led to speciation among primates and, eventually, to the genetic differences that spawned humans. The findings highlight both a growing awareness of the striking unity between all living things, coupled with a previously unknown plasticity in the way genes evolve.

It now seems that genetic codes can change markedly over time as well: single genes can be duplicated, deleted, switched on or off, moved to different locations, fused with parts of other genes (as in the case of Tre2), or be pressed into service in new roles.

Yet many are stable and well conserved: about seven out of every 10 genes found in bacteria, for example, are now thought to be the direct counterparts of those in their common ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago.

Bob Beale - ABC Science Online

More Info?

Chimps to give genetic clues on human diseases, News in Science 17 Apr 2001

Human genome discovery brings challenges, News in Science 16 Feb 2001

Further controversy on human origins, News in Science 16 Jan 2001

© ABC 2003 | privacy

[templar]

And if it appeared simultaneously in several individuals, how did that happen?

An asteroid strike. A radioactive, mutation causing, asteroid strike. Or, maybe, Klingons.

[r9etb]

A radioactive, mutation causing, asteroid strike.

You meant to say: a radioactive, mutation causing, works exactly the same on everybody, asteroid strike.

[Dataman]

Well, this settles it. There is no God or higher being. We just simply evolved.

Hahaha. I don't know why they keep wanting to debate it. Doesn't settled mean settled?

[Dataman]

Wake me up when they know what is going on.

Have a nice long sleep. Ever hear of Rip VanWinkle?

[BeAllYouCanBe]

Rip?

These manufactured stories have been the same for 20 years so I might as well go to sleep.

[Pharmboy]

Doesn't God love complete sentences?

[f.Christian]

Oh the trees (( weeds -- woods -- words // ideology ))---

then the forest (( understanding // truth -- LIGHT )) !

Hi everyone . . .

I am f.Christian - - -

a falling down recovering evolutionist // liberal // globalist ==== now I hate the stuff // lies // NWO !

Not any more since . . . FR saved (( link )) - - - me !

(( lest we forget ))

[Pharmboy]

I guess not...

[f.Christian]

What kind of pharm -- lab are you running ? boy ? ?

[Pharmboy]

Nice sentence. Only the legal, lifesaving kind.

Cheers,
PB

[f.Christian]

Hi everyone . . .

I am f.Christian - - -

a falling down recovering evolutionist // liberal // globalist - - -

not any more since . . . FR saved me (( link ))=== now I hate the stuff // lies ! !

[AndrewC]

They found that it does not cause cancer in humans, but does act as an oncogene in mice. This makes it unique among oncogenes in being a normal human gene which can cause cancer in a species that lacks it.

Hmmmmm... I thought that certain people have "proved" given evidence (a just-so story) that if a gene is found in one bacteria, it functioned in a similar manner in another bacteria. That is how something is made reducibly complex.

[gore3000]

I am confused. I thought that Homo Sapiens appeared about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.

The fact is these scientists do not have the vaguest idea of when it appeared. All they know is that chimps and other monkeys nor anything they call 'primates' has it so they put the age back as far as they can. This assertion of over 20 million years also pushes back the man/chimp break back some ten million years farther which shows again that science keeps showing that man and monkey if at all related (as evolutionists would like us to believe) is a very, very, very far relation. It also gives them an excuse for spending another 150 years looking for the 'missing link' they never seem to find.

[gore3000]

[This ping list is for the evolution

Yup, can't invite opponents of evolution to the discussion. Evolutionists are too lame to hold up their side of a debate.

[gore3000]

Wake me up when they know what is going on.

Great point, the only definite thing in the article is that humans have a totally different gene which is expressed in the testes and which would kill other species if they have it. This seems to make humans quite unique if you ask me but evolutionists have to add tons of meaningless verbiage to try to confuse the scientifically ascertained facts.

[gore3000]

After all, this is about a duplicated gene taking on a whole new role

You really need some reading comprehension. First of all this is not in any way a duplicated gene according to the article but two genes joined together. Of course they do not have the vaguest idea how this happened. It is all assumptions which would be true if evolution is ever proven to be true - and there is no such proof. That this joining would have killed our ancestors furthermore is proof that it could not have occurred without many other things happening at the same time which would have enabled the organism to survive this new combination. So no, it is no proof of evolution, but of intelligent design, of many things coming together to produce something totally new. Note also that this article is so lame that it does not even tell what this gene does. Note also that all the evo stuff is absolute unsubstantiated nonsense. The only known fact here is that this gene does not occur in any other species and that it would cause cancer on other species if they had it. Hardly a 'proof' of evolution.

[gore3000]

You didn't actually think they would seriously consider evidence...did you?

What evidence of evolution is there in this article? Evolution is about descent and the article explicitly states that no other species has this gene and if it did it would kill it. How can you call that evidence of evolution?

[gore3000]

I didn't think deserved its own thread,

You are right, it does not.

[Doc On The Bay]

Klingons, For Sure!

Doc

[gore3000]

the article has a lot of "may"s in it which clearly indicate there are a lot of unanswered issues and questions which will have to be researched.

But of course, this hack being an evolutionist instead of a scientist, goes around making high sounding pronouncements instead of working to learn the facts. This is another example of why evolution is not science. These hacks do no real research, they just go around looking for something, anything they can twist and turn to sound as evidence for evolution.