Missing Genes!!

Vega

Banned
Banned
If one is to accept a tentative explanation for enigmatic genes that humans possess, offered when the deciphering of the human genome was announced in mid-February, the feat was decided upon by a group of bacteria!

“Humbling” was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding – that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm’s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!

Moreover, there was hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative to not the presumed 95 percent but to almost 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse. Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants, fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process – how more complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones, adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create a more complex higher life form – culminating with Homo sapiens.

It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.

How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?

In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”

In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --“rather recently”-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?

“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.

“We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,” states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) “are widespread among bacteria” – though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.

“It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,” Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.

But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with?
 
Vega:

Yeah, I found that quite interesting.

Next time I get a bacterial infection and go to treat it with a triple-antibiotic, I might think twice that perhaps I am preventing the introduction of a really useful gene that might otherwise have someday benefitted our future humanity!

I'm sure that Valich will want to post on this too, as he's seen a lot of evidence of bacterial gene transfer to chromosomal DNA for unicellular organisms.

What the exact transfer mechanism is I'm not certain. Presumptively, the bacteria even infect the gonads (yikes) of the higher vertebrates, and in so doing, one or more of their genes is spliced into the chromosomal DNA (or maybe into the mitochondrial DNA, and later into the chromosomal DNA?) and passed to the offspring, conferring a net benefit of some sort.

It sure complicates evolution, and what it took to make Man (and Woman).

Regards,



Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)
 
food... any change in a species common diet, would cause variations in the kinds and types of bacteria that we would be ingesting, regularly...

fascinating stuff.

-MT
 
Vega, it is customary, and sometimes required, to give credit and a link to the authors of an article that you cut & paste in these forums. Could it be from this article?
© Z. Sitchin 2001

Permission to reprint is hereby
granted on condition that the
following is prominently stated:

© Z. Sitchin
Reprinted with permission.

From the beginning of Sitchin's article:
THE CASE OF ADAM’S ALIEN GENES

In whose image was The Adam – the prototype of modern humans, Homo sapiens – created?

The Bible asserts that the Elohim said: “Let us fashion the Adam in our image and after our likeness.” But if one is to accept a tentative explanation for enigmatic genes that humans possess, offered when the deciphering of the human genome was announced in mid-February, the feat was decided upon by a group of bacteria!

“Humbling” was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding – that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm’s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!
....
And a followup of your last quoted lines:
“It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,” Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.

But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with?


The Role of the Anunnaki

Readers of my books must be smiling by now, for they know the answer.

They know that the biblical verses dealing with the fashioning of The Adam are condensed renderings of much much more detailed Sumerian and Akkadian texts, found inscribed on clay tablets, in which the role of the Elohim in Genesis is performed by the Anunnaki – “Those Who From Heaven to Earth Came.”

As detailed in my books, beginning with The 12th Planet (1976) and even more so in Genesis Revisited and The Cosmic Code, the Anunnaki came to Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru – a member of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere. Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge to create the needed Primitive Workers. When the other leaders of the Anunnaki asked: How can you create a new being? He answered:

"The being that we need already exists;
all that we have to do is put our mark on it.”
http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm

Here is a link to a pdf. form of the paper being discussed:
http://www.cbcb.umd.edu/~salzberg/docs/ScienceLateralTransfer.pdf

Here is a link to an article challenging the earlier paper that 223 genes may have been due to bacterial transfer:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Gene_transfer.shtml
 
2inquisitive,

Thanks for telling me that!!,.I'll be sure to include links and references in my future posts.

And yes!! the information is directly from Zecharia Sitchin's 2001 article!!

There is also another reference to the above article that's worth taking a look at

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/scope/keystone1/

discussing the Lateral Transfer or Gene Loss!!
 
First of all, there are only 23,000 or so genes now in the human Genome. The 30,000 figure is from 2001 - later updates reduced it further.
 
hdeasy said:
First of all, there are only 23,000 or so genes now in the human Genome. The 30,000 figure is from 2001 - later updates reduced it further.
How much of the sequencing of chemical base pairs have been completed so far?,..I believe they are about 3 billion or so to be determined!
 
From the link 2inquisitive gave:

"I was reading about this in the German newspapers," says William Martin, a researcher at the University of Duesseldorf who studies lateral gene transfer. "But when I saw the statement, I knew the number was wrong. Those of us in the field have seen these claims before. I don't even believe the 40 genes in the new study are real examples of lateral transfer."

So bullshit story.
 
How much of the sequencing of chemical base pairs have been completed so far?,..I believe they are about 3 billion or so to be determined!

All bases have been de-coded as they had to search exhaustively for gene sequences in the 3.E9 base pairs. Here's a quote from my forthcoming book on this sort of thing, and the brain/mind debate:

Thus in principle there are 3,000,000,000 / 4 bytes in the genome, or 750,000,000 bytes = 750 megabytes. More exact estimates give 780 MB of information in the genome.

Now of this 780 MB, only about 1.5 percent consists of ‘Exons’ or the protein coding sections of the genes. Separating the Exons are sections of non-coding DNA called ‘Introns’. The Introns comprise about 5% of the genome. Human genes have on average between five and 178 introns. More than half of the genome consists of repetitive sequences, or "junk DNA,". Most of this junk, or about half of the human genome, consists of repeats of short (between 2 and 300 bases) sequences. This repetitive aspect implies that the function of most of the junk is minimal, or non-existent. By comparing the genomes of humans with those of our evolutionary ancestors, it seems that the junk DNA has been wandering around the genome for the last three billion years. This wandering could be another indication of non-functionality, as it seems the genome is fairly insensitive to the precise location of the junk.
As for the Introns, it is widely thought that the non-coding DNA (or functional RNAs produced by them), which make up most of the introns, may perform a function in steering processes in the cell. Taking the protein coding Exons alone, we see that 1.5% of 780 Megabytes is about 12 Megabytes. If we are bold and assume that the non-coding RNA contributes a complexity corresponding to the information in the 5% of the genome, then we get a further 39 Megabytes. However, it is by no means certain that he non-coding RNA is so efficient.
One of the greatest mysteries of the human genome most is that it is 200 times larger than that of baker's yeast but 200 times smaller than that of amoeba. This discrepancy in genome sizes is due to different amounts of junk DNA and poor routine housecleaning of the DNA during evolution. The lack of a consistent relationship between ‘the amount of DNA in the haploid chromosomes of an animal or plant and its phylogenetic complexity is called the C-value paradox.
 
Transposons are also responsible for the addition of some genes, or even just the manipulation (translocation, copies, etc.) of pre existing genes.
 
Back
Top