Natural Selection

A Brief on Evolution by Natural Selection
If evolution is a random phenomenon of nature, evolution should be an ongoing process and should be observed today. We observe microbes assimilating genes from other microbes and mutations giving some bacteria resistance to antibiotics. We see Darwin’s finches branch out into different species on the Galapagos Islands. These are among many ubiquitous examples of speciation by natural selection.
To illustrate one of the problems associated with evolution by natural selection, let us consider gene and DNA creation. Before gene decoding, it was generally believed that humans contained about 100,000 genes. After decoding began, estimates arrived at 30,000 genes. Recent decoding has led a number of researchers to challenge the early decoding estimates. An average of recent estimates by scientists is 66,000 human genes. A bacterium like E. coli is seen to have about 4,000 genes.
E. coli is far from primitive and even though bacteria in the Cambrian period likely had fewer genes, we can use the number of genes in E. coli to represent Cambrian bacteria, 600 million years ago. If we determine the number of genes that have been added to the mammalian phylogenetic branch since then, 62,000, and then calculate the rate at which they must have been added over 600 million years to arrive at the number of genes in a mammal today, we find that one gene is added every 10,000 years. If we consider 1000 mammals from aardvarks to zebras, we should have observed at least one gene added to a member of this group of mammals every ten years as well as a number of different additional genes in some lines of Homo sapiens. If we assume the Homo sapiens branch occurred 100,000 years ago, there should be as many as 10 different genes in each of the human races, yet Homo sapiens is a single species! Three obvious alternatives are: 1) All branches of Homo sapiens added the same DNA in parallel evolution. 2) All branches of Homo sapiens are of recent origin. 3) There have been intermarriage among all races and tribes no matter how isolated some appear to be.
Many genes are analyzed by the proteins they produce, but only a small fraction of DNA actually decodes proteins. Some of the undeciphered DNA in chromosomes between genes likely contains important information besides helping separate the genes and making the exchange of alleles between chromosomes during crossing over easier during late prophase. A more universal agreement among genome researchers is the number of DNA base pairs 3.1 billion in humans and 2 million in E. coli. Mammals have nearly the same number of base pairs as humans. When we take the more accurate count of DNA base pairs, instead of genes, we find that 3 billion base pairs need to be added to the mammal line in 600,000,000 years, or five base pairs per year. This means an average of five base pairs per year added to each human and each mammal. In the 5000 years of recorded history, 25,000 additional base pairs must have been added to the progenitors of each human!!
There are 2175 bases in the primary (exon containing) transcript of the mRNA gene for preproinsulin. The protein coding sections in the primary transcript are called exons and they contain 465 bases. The total mRNA transcript decoded from DNA contains almost 5000 bases. Thus, the exons represent 9.3% of the transcripted insulin gene while the primary transcript represents 44% of the bases in the total mRNA insulin transcript. The exons in the primary transcript are separated by sections called introns. It would be premature to not count the introns as essential parts of the gene even though you can get along without them when placing insulin genes in E. coli . Genes are a significant percentage of DNA and mRNA. They have been estimated to be only 5% or so because of the large number of bases in the genome and the comparatively small number of genes.If we assume an average of 2000 base pairs per gene, and if 10% of the base pairs became genes, we arrive at 1.2 additional genes per human since our ancestors lived in Mesopotamia. If we assume the beginnings of Homo sapiens was 100,000 years ago, each isolated race line should have added 500,000 different base pairs and 24 somewhat different genes from inhabitants in other isolated areas. Surely, this is did not happen!
If these calculations are correct, it would seem that phylogenetic evolution has not occurred during the past 5000 years, or even the past 100,000 years if one believes that Homo sapiens has existed for that length of time. All we see in natural selection is speciationthe mutation and shuffling of extant genes. Of the three explanations mentioned to explain this dilemma, Ockham's razor would point to all branches of Homo sapiens being of recent origin.
William E. Harris WmEHa@cs.com------------------

Percy, Thanks for your rapid response. Perhaps the rapid evolution prior to Homo sapiens was related to the earlier rapid expansion of the universe. (Joke!) It seems logical that large populations would slow natural selection and evolution, but how do we know that the precursors of Homo did not exist in population as large as Homo? Do you consider the aborigines in Australia too large a population to have developed genes different from Caucasians?
Question: When a new batch of genes is developed in an organism, such as the insulin genes (regulation, cleaving enzymes, etc.), what results when the organism mates with an existing organism without such genes? How much of a gene difference prevents fertilization? William

Are you trying to find out if I am LDS? If so, I am. I have not found any connection to Martin Harris, who I believe came from southwesten England. My progenitors came from the midlands. If you want to persue some creationist-science viewpoints, I would enjoy further discussion. I even wrote a book on the subject called, "From Man to God."
William

I guess my question really is when would a new set of genes in one organism make it uncompatible with and organism with out the new set?

Scientific Evidence of God
In an article called, Beyond Physics (Scientific American, Aug. 1998, page 20), renowned scientists contemplated the evidence for God. Allan R. Sandage, one of the father’s of modern astronomy, asked several hundred scientists and theologians if there were sufficient evidence to support a belief in a Jedeo-Christian god.
Many of the scientists had as belief in a supreme being but could not support their belief with scientific evidence. About two dozen, nearly all at the top of their fields, arrived at a different conclusion.
George Ellis, a cosmologist said, There is a huge amount of data supporting the existence of God. The question is how to evaluate it. Item one on his list was the so-called Anthropic Principle. This principle has to do with the extreme unlikelihood for all the fundamental constants of nature to be so precisely balanced by accident. Without this very precise balance, galaxies and life could not exist. Astronomer John D. Barrows asked, One possible explanation they give is that the universe was designed.
Mitchell P. Marcus, chairman of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania said, In mathematics and information theory, we can now guarantee that there are truths out there that we cannot find. The inability of science de to provide a basis for meaning, purpose, value and ethics is evidence of the necessity of religion Sandage adds, The reasons for the existence of the universe, the existence of any physical laws at all and the nature of the physical laws that do hold--science takes all of these for granted, and so cannot investigate them.
If all things, including man, were part of intelligent design by a supreme being, it seems that man must have a special place in that creation. As Barrows asked, How is it that humans’ cognitive abilities greatly exceed the demands imposed by evolutionary pressures, so that we can perceive the quantum nature of the universe and map its cosmic features: And why is mathematics so surprisingly effective at describing the physical world?
Einstein stated, Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.I therefore make the following conjectures which can only be supported by indirect evidence:1. God and man are of the same species and we are his spiritual offspring.I will begin the indirect evidence support with NDEs (near death experiences). The best reference I can give you is the book Fingerprints of God by Arvin Gibson, Horizon Press,Bountiful, Utah, 1999. This is a book written by a scientific professional and has analyzed dozens of NDEs. Gibson correctly asserts that studying NDEs can be done with scientific methodology, you just have to pick those who claim NDEs as your test subjects. There is a large amount of out-of-body experiences of events occurring that can not be explained otherwise and correlates with other NDEs. He is interested to get comments on his ideas from forum readers. If I cannot get him to join the forum, I will submit some of his findings.2. Indirect evidence of God (I may comment on later after I get a string going on item #1 above.)The Anthropic Principle (coined by Brandon Carter), the complexity of design motif that many forum members have addressed, the bible as history, and grand design logic.

Percey,The following are comments on your responses 1, 3 & 4.
1. Does anyone have information on the number of genes in the first protozoan ancestor of Homo? I thought you could see that my model does not depend on that. I am satisfied to let the number of genes in E. coli represent a later protozoan at the beginning of the Cambrain. If you have any better information on the number of the genes in such a protozoan, I am interested to know.
3. If chimps and humans have the same genes, why aren’t chimps human? I had already stated that mammals have about the same number of genes as humans. The fact that they both make similar hemoglobin or differ in only amino acid in cytochrome C misses the point again. Just pretend that man was the only mammal that developed and go through the model again.
4. You still don’t get my paradigm! Of course all humans have different SNPs, otherwise we would all look alike. What I am talking about is additional genes and bases that must have been added to the Homo lines since it began and that we should still see it today in isolated tribes. If Tay-Sach’s disease could arise in Ashkenazi Jews, why couldn’t some new genes just as well have developed?------------------

Thanks for your response. I recognize the junk DNA between genes. Space between genes helps with crossing over and may have other functions. It may be that there is no correlation bewteen the number of bases and the number of genes, but I assume that there is in my second argument. I agree that evolution takes a small family of genes and evolutionists have a difficult time doing it one mutation at a time. Also, what is called evolution in the lab is only speciation and does not procuce a new Genus. Do not all of Darwin's finches have the same genes but with different SPNs? This is survival of the fitter, but is it really evolution?
William------------------

Thanks for your input. I am curious about the new Genera of finches on the Galapagos. What is the criteria for this? I have no problem with there being a new Genus of finches there. Improper mating displays may prevent interbreeding of species while artificial insemination can still produce viable offspring.
William

If the population of the human line preceding the catastophy was large, why did this not deter evolution and if the number following the catastrophy was small, why did this not stimulate evolution?
Would someone explain to me why a recent recessive gene mutation for Tay-Sach's disease could proliferate but new genes appearing in Ashkenazi Jews, say for increased computational ability, could not proliferate the same way to produce a new evolutionary step?
William

My point is. why has not some new gene deveolped in small groups instead of just mutations of existing genes. Another example is the people on Iceland developing a recessive gene for osteoarthritis. They have been there for 1000 years. Aboriginies have been in Austrailia for thousands of years as well as the isolated families in the Phillipines. If mutations can spread in an isolated community, why do we never see a new gene appearing in such a community?
William