The Evolution of Human-Specific Genes by Duplication

(1:34 - Evan Eichler) Huxley and Darwin were among the first to appreciate the close evolutionary relationship of humans and other African great apes but also to ponder what genetic changes might make us human. Initial comparisons of human and chimpanzee genes, showed little difference (greater than 99% identical) despite the numerous adaptations that must have occurred on the human lineage. Recent studies of more complex regions of our genome have revealed hotspots of dramatic evolutionary change. Within these regions are hundreds of new duplicate genes, several of which appear to be important in human-specific neuroanatomical adaptations. Paradoxically, this genetic complexity has led to mutations causing childhood diseases suggesting that human-specific genes and increased disease burden are tightly linked. Recorded on 09/29/2017. [2/2018] [Show ID: 32976]

More from: Cellular and Molecular Explorations of Anthropogeny

Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.

UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service – by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.

[victorvelie]

cool stuff, anyone know of more studies like this on youtube? It's exiting to live in the time where we are starting to understand how specific mutations led to certain key developments in our evolution

[MaryKDayPetrano]

That's fascinating. I am autistic and have anemia, or at least it has shown up sometimes in my labs.

[DrJoshLanders]

Does gene duplication in a HOX gene provide the creative power behind the Cambrian explosion?

[praxitelispraxitelous]

“Just duplicate your genes, new mutations occur, new functions”
Peace of cake! Evolution did it 😂

[youfreego]

13:51
14:45
19:02
- 21:41
25:46

[fbmethz]

Evolution, result of intercross. Its just a matter of combination.

[markharris]

Very intriguing, but I am having to view at three-quarter speed. I was confused by "highly/hardly (?) non-random". Context gave the answer, but still, sometimes a little rapid.

[kiastraight]

Nice, you can be a meme sadly im not cause i dont have the skull

[paublusamericanus]

I think, or suppose, that over time, we will revise our centromeres to better add this section, between duplications, so as to not loose it in the process during production of the preliminary cell, during sexual meeting of different dna. unless we personally intervene in centromere differentiation, it may take millions of years, for this change to happen naturally, and people may not want autistic babies that long of a time span.

[sombodysdad]

What? To duplicate a gene you also need a new binding site. Then that gene has to be on part of the chromatin that is exposed so it can be expressed. Now if you want to change the duplicated gene it takes more than just any mutation. And seeing that human and chimp genomes are so similar it is more than strange that no one can link the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans.

[henrymurray]

Please see if your duplication studies correlate with astrological horoscopes per individuals.

[psalmtree]

When you duplicate a recipe for fudge brownies on your printer, do you get nuts added in where you didn't include them?
Duplication is being conflated with origination. Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism.
We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said....
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
.
Now I hasten to add that in his next sentence Mueller went on to say "Nevertheless we can infer..." to support evolutionism anyway. That's how it goes in the politically correct, fiercely self protective, orthodox world of Neo Darwinisn. If the hard fought for research data doesn't agree with the sacred cow theory, no problem - just "infer" something that has no data whatsoever to support it.
.
Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc.
.
But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new genus. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new genus today?
.
Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution.
.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links, ' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology, " Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
.
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
.
On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.
.
Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.