Testes gene may be what makes us human

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

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the heads up! Hmmmm... that is verrry interesting!

[Aracelis]

What evidence of evolution is there in this article?

Geeze...having a little Pavlovian reaction there? Did I mention evolution? Nope, I did not. I did however imply that Creationists seldom consider actual data...preferring instead to manufacture their own.

[bondserv]

Hello Lurking Libertarian,
I am not sure you believe in God as He is revealed in the Bible, but if you do this may help clarify Biblical views of evolution.

God is not a Deist watchmaker who created existence, set up the rules and parameters, and then let it all go. As Jesus shares in this passage we do not need to fear proclaiming these facts (See Matt 10:26-28), and that the father is continually and intimately involved with His creation.(See Matt 10:29-30)

In Psalms 139:13-14 the Scripture describes Gods personal involvement in our unique creation, and the Psalmist even goes so far as to say "I know that full well".(pro-Choice Beware)

One could rather describe it as, God personally programs the unique spiritual code (software identity) into the physical unique genetic material, from Mom and Dad, (hardware identity) of every person.

Animals have no spirit (software identity) therefore it is not immoral to kill and eat them. Dolphins and Blue Whales can have as big or bigger a brain than us proportionately, but that doesn't translate to God given spiritual creativity (in His image). Hand a two-year old child a piece of paper and a crayon and you will know how we are so different than all other creatures.

Then, via His will, He monitors our lives and participates in sustaining the materials we are made of.(Colossians 1:16-17)

Matthew 10:26-39

26 “So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.
27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.
30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.
33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
37 “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Psalms 139:13-14
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Colossians 1:16-17
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

[bondserv]

father=Father

[Junior]

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.

You need some reading comprehension, child.  From the actual article:

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.

Of course they do not have the vaguest idea how this happened.

They know it happened:

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.

There are theories on how it happens, but the fact is IT HAPPENS.  EVOLUTION OCCURS.  Not knowing HOW does not mean evolution is bunk, but you won't see that.  It goes against your carefully crafted worldview.  Of course, since you refuse to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table of knowledge, so you'll sit at the window sill and carp at those partaking of the feast ("You can't eat that!  You don't know what's in it or how it was made!) .

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.

Who said it would have killed our ancestors?  You?  Or someone who has as little comprehension of evolution as you?  Not all mutations kill.  Do we need to mention blue eyes and blond hair again?

So no, it is no proof of evolution, but of intelligent design, of many things coming together to produce something totally new.

So, you are actually going to give us a working theory of Intelligent Design -- I mean, other than "evolution doesn't work?"  There was no design involved.  It was a transcription error (duplication) that fused with another transcription error and eventually mutated to undertake a new role.

Note also that this article is so lame that it does not even tell what this gene does.

It is expressed mostly in the testes, which means it generates a protein used there.  It's specific role was unnecessary for the story.

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.

There is no "proof" in science, you nimrod.  You've been told this time and again, but you appear incapable of retaining any form of information contrary to your particular worldview for more than a day.  This is strong evidence of evolution (increase in information, mutation, new functions, etc.).  That you can't or won't see it is your problem, not science's. 

[Junior]

Read the article. This gene is the result of the fusing of two duplicate genes 21 million years ago. Mice do not have it, only hominoids. Mice may share the two genes that gave rise to the duplications, but they do not share the duplicated and fused gene. Your argument is a nonstarter.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[AndrewC]

This gene is the result of the fusing of two duplicate genes 21 million years ago.

Read my post. I simply say that a gene (no matter how it got there) is said to produce a similar function in different bacteria that have that gene. Your answer is irrelevant.

[Junior]

What have bacteria to do with this gene?

[AndrewC]

What have bacteria to do with this gene?

Nothing directly. The point being that function is not determined entirely by sequence. This fact has bearing on whether one can say anything definitive about function based on sequence similarity alone.

[Junior]

Have y'all noticed that threads with strong evidence supporting evolution have a tendency to die early?

[general_re]

Have y'all noticed that threads with strong evidence supporting evolution have a tendency to die early?

It's hard to argue the scientific evidence, so I've noticed a preference for threads that facilitate a discussion of the politics of it...

[Nebullis]

Bump for evolution.

(Something about the title made me shy away. )

[Junior]

(Something about the title made me shy away. )

It is rather ballsey...

[balrog666]

Elude-the-blue-spew placemarker.

[MEGoody]

"Of course, two gets you three the creos will either ignore this thread or try to pooh-pooh the research."

Less likely is that the evos will acknowledge that there are very valid questions that have to be answered before this can be accepted as a valid theory.

[Junior]

Evolution IS a valid theory. It's tenets agree with observation. Hell, this article is strong evidence that evolution is correct. Half the "questions" creationists claim evolution must answer are actually against strawman versions of the theory.

[PatrickHenry]

Have y'all noticed that threads with strong evidence supporting evolution have a tendency to die early?

Why are there still monkeys? Tornado in a junkyard! Hitler. Godless socialism!
[Happy now, or do you want blue?]

[Dataman]

Creationists seldom consider actual data...preferring instead to manufacture their own.

Your screen name testifies to the manufacturing of evidence by creationists.

[Aracelis]

Lighten-up, dear Data...my screen name, along with all other screen names, are hoaxes. I just don't make any bones about it.