PROOF against evolution

Hello k.kslick! You don’t seem to understand the significance of this, so here’s a bit of background.The vast majority of our DNA is what’s called ‘non-coding’. That is, when it is being used by cells to make proteins to make a body, hardly any of it is used, anywhere.In the lingo, a strand of DNA is made up of exons (coding bits, in effect bits of genes) and introns (non-coding bits: ‘intruders’ is my mnemonic for which is which ). If you look it up in a textbook, you’ll be surprised (I was) to see that along a given strand, the exons are tiny little bits interspersed between great long lengths of code -- stuff that doesn’t seem to do anything except be along for the ride.And we know why it is these ‘introns’ aren’t used. A lot of it is just nonsense code, that does not translate into any amino acid (the building-blocks of proteins).A lot more of it is ‘pseudogenes’: these are made up of the same sequences that form real genes, but in one way or another they are broken, lacking for example the bits of code that say ‘start’ or ‘stop’. So these don’t get used to make a body either. And there’s a load more sorts of this so-called ‘junk’ DNA.Another example is satellite DNA. This is short segments of nonsense code that are repeated many many times. In Drosophila fruitflies, for instance, there are three sattelite sequences, each just seven ‘letters’ (bases) long. One sequence is repeated eleven million times; the other two are repeated 3.6 million times each. Together they make up 40% of the fly’s entire genome. We humans have a ton of satellite DNA cluttering up our (God-made?) genomes.Now, the easy majority of our DNA is so-called junk. I can’t lay my hands on the figures right now, but if I say it’s 80% I know I’m hugely underestimating. That is, at least eight-tenths of our DNA is not used to make our bodies.And the same is true for chimpanzees.The significance of the 98% the same as chimps statement is this. Only a small fraction of our DNA makes our bodies. And only a small fraction of chimps’ DNA makes their bodies. Now, our bodies are very very similar: so similar that the father of classification, Linnaeus -- a creationist, btw -- put chimps in the genus Homo, iirc. So it’s no surprise that the DNA that makes human bodies should be so similar to that which makes chimp bodies. So okay, God made it that way, if you like.But why should the vast quantities of DNA that does not make our bodies be so similar? Sure, God could have made it that way. But there is no point to having all that non-coding stuff the same, since it doesn’t do anything! (In fact, there’s no reason for it to be there at all, so it is odd that God might put it there, wasting so much material. But that’s a different argument.)All that DNA -- that is, most of it -- could have any sequences at all in the two species, as long as it doesn’t get translated. If God had wanted to show that we are separate from chimps, having completely different non-coding DNA would be as clear a way as any. But it is, point for point, broken codon for missing codon, nearly identical.Now consider. One thing we do know about DNA is that the patterns of it are passed down generations. If we didn’t, and if it were not demonstrably true, there could be no DNA-based paternity suits! These things work by comparing the patterns in the non-coding DNA, in much the same way as one can detect copying and plagiarism.Database compilers often put in deliberately incorrect bits of information. They do this because anyone merely copying the information will copy across the errors too, and can be detected because the chances are negligible that anyone compiling their own information would include the same wrong information.So all that non-coding DNA -- a gene with a broken start codon, for instance -- can be regarded as lots of wrong information. The chances of the same mistake breaking the same gene in the same way are -- and you’ll like this, since you like probabilities -- astronomically small. So the presence of the same unused, wrong code in two places -- two individuals -- shows that they have been copied.Now, evolutionary theory suggests that DNA patterns are copied down generations (so far, so uncontroversial). But if a lineage splits -- as it does when speciation (which is an observed phenomenon, btw) occurs -- then the errors, the useless stuff will get copied down the generations in the two lineages.So if a man can be identified as a child’s father because of idiosyncracies in his non-coding DNA, then cousins can be similarly identified. And if two species are related -- as evolution proposes -- then they too should share idiosyncracies in their non-coding DNA. The same impeccable logic and evidence that shows familial relationship can also show species relationship.Guess what? Humans and chimpanzees do indeed share loads of identical sequences in our non-coding DNA. What does this show, if not that they have been carried down lineages... even into separated ones?Oh sure, you may still say ‘God made it that way’. But we have an extraordinarily good reason to think that he might have made it that way by means of copying and change, allowing his creation to become, not just be. If he did just make it that way, we can fairly ask you, who say so, why he did. So? Why?Here are a couple of examples of this non-coding DNA evidence.Firstly, as has already been mentioned, there’s vitamin C. Just about all mammals are able to make their own. So evolution predicts that human ancestors could, too. It therefore predicts that humans might have, somewhere in their genome, the remnants of the mechanism for doing so.Guess what? We do. We have the necessary genes... but one bit of the system, the gene that makes the wonderfully-named L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase, is broken by a mutation. Now, humans generally get enough vitamin C from their diets, so we don’t usually miss this gene’s benefit. But is this not an odd thing for God to have ‘made that way’? After all, it condemns those without adequate diets to scurvy!But now note: apes are also unable to make their own vitamin C. And, the reason they can’t is the same reason we cannot. The L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase gene is broken. And it is broken by exactly the same mutation!It seems that either God made us that way, with a gene for making Vitamin C but broken so that we’re susceptible to its deficiency, and also gave the same broken gene to apes... or that this mistake has been plagiarised, copied into now-separate lineages. Which seems more probable?See here for more details.And secondly. Chimpanzees have one more pair of chromosomes (the chunks that DNA is clustered into) than we humans have -- they have 48 to our 46. A problem for evolution? No, some stong evidence for it. Our chromosome 2 (they are numbered according to size; this is our second-largest) is remarkably similar to two separate chimpanzee ones. Evolution therefore suggests that, in our lineage, the two have fused to form our single chromosome 2, hence us having one fewer pairs.And so evolution predicts that there might be evidence of this fusion, tucked away in the non-coding sequences of that chromosome.Chromosomes have characteristic endy-pieces to them called telomeres, and these sequences are easily recognised. They also have characteristic middle pieces, called centromeres, that are used during cell division. What would happen, do you think, if two chromosomes fused? Is it reasonable to suspect that the single chromosome might have, in amongst all the non-coding stuff, a telomere sequence in its middle, and a couple of extra centromere sequences?That is exactly what we do find.Our chromosome 2 is unambiguously two ape chromosomes stuck together. The alternative -- that God made it that way -- would seem to mean that God deliberately put useless (ie they have no business being there at all!) telomere sequences into the middle of a chromosome. A chromosome that just happens to be pretty well identical to two separate ape ones.See here for more details.You should note that there are countless other examples of this sort of evidence in our DNA.If, as you would have it, God made it that way, then God has done a remarkable job of making it look exactly like evolution, even to the extent of giving us a broken gene that would otherwise be useful. One has to then ask: Why?Since you’ve suggested that as the answer, perhaps you can tell us? Please?TTFN, DT

Hi DNAunionI agree with all of your points, and apologise if I was misleading on any of them. I was just trying to put it as simply as possible, getting the main points across to KK... but such superficiality inevitably means that a lot will be glossed over. But thanks for your input!Ref the unused introns, yeah that is a bit confusing. I wrote just that, then added the examples, but didn't tidy the first para up. Would satellite DNA be the simplest example?Ref pseudogenes, you are of course correct, and my example of start and stop codon mutations undoubtedly highlights my own superficial knowledge -- I expect most aren't like that, as you indicate. However, I did say 'for example'... and I had gathered that a simple start or stop mutation can render a perfectly good gene non-functional, ie turn it into a pseudogene....? (Please correct me if not -- this isn't really my area (haven't really got one!), and my textbooks are all at home, where I'm not.)Cheers, DT