Differences Between Chimps and Humans - Evidence Against Common Ancestry
Every time, I post with a lot of links, I get in trouble with FB and am blocked for some time. Right now i cannot post in groups for 3 days. So i am removing all links. You can read this article imho at my virtual library in full, with all the links.
Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), while chimps have 48 (24 pairs). The human chromosome 2 appears to have formed as a result of the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, akin to the chimpanzee's chromosomes 2a and 2b.
Complexity of Fusion
The fusion of two chromosomes into one (as is hypothesized with human chromosome 2) is a rare event. The specific mechanisms and conditions required to permit such a fusion, and then for the fused chromosome to become fixed in a population, are not entirely understood. This rarity is evidence against a shared ancestry, as it would require this significant event to happen in an isolated population of the shared ancestor, without the trait getting diluted or lost.
Functional Differences
The fusion of two chromosomes leads to significant functional differences between the resulting species. If the two species descended from a common ancestor, such a profound chromosomal difference would make interbreeding and producing fertile offspring challenging or impossible. Chromosomes house vast amounts of genetic information, and the arrangement of this information is crucial for the proper functioning of the organism. The fusion of two chromosomes means a rearrangement of genes, regulatory elements, and non-coding sequences. This rearrangement could lead to variations in gene expression, potential changes in regulatory networks, or even the creation of new genes or regulatory elements at the fusion site. For species with differing chromosome numbers, meiosis—the process that produces eggs and sperm—can become problematic. When these species interbreed, their offspring can end up with an odd number of chromosomes. This can lead to errors in further cell divisions, often resulting in reduced fertility or sterility in the hybrid offspring. For instance, mules, the offspring of horses (64 chromosomes) and donkeys (62 chromosomes), typically have 63 chromosomes and are sterile. If a population with a fused chromosome were to emerge, it might experience reduced interbreeding success with the original population due to chromosomal differences. Over time, these reproductive barriers could accelerate the process of speciation, as the two populations become more genetically isolated from each other. The fused chromosome, if it results in altered gene expression or functionality, might confer specific advantages or disadvantages to individuals bearing it. If the fusion provides a significant benefit in a given environment, it could become prevalent in a population over time. Conversely, if the fusion is disadvantageous, it could get selected against and diminish in the population. The significant genetic differences that arise from chromosomal fusions might mean that the evolutionary pressures and paths for populations with and without the fusion diverge substantially. Over time, the accumulated genetic differences could compound, leading to even more distinct species. The profound chromosomal difference brought about by a fusion event is a significant barrier to continued shared evolution, supporting the idea of distinct origins of humans and chimps.
Comparative Rarity
Most species retain their chromosomal numbers. When chromosomal changes do occur, they often lead to significant reproductive barriers. The difference between humans having 46 and chimps having 48 chromosomes is evidence of a fundamentally distinct genetic origin, given the rarity of such chromosomal differences in closely related species. The fact that most species maintain consistent chromosomal numbers over time underscores the importance of these structures. Chromosomes house the genetic instructions for every function of an organism. Alterations to their number or structure produce significant ripple effects, influencing everything from individual development to reproductive success. Changes to chromosome number or structure lead to multiple, interconnected consequences throughout an organism's biology. Chromosomal abnormalities affect the proper growth and development of an organism. For instance, humans with Down syndrome have an extra copy of chromosome 21, which results in various developmental and physiological challenges. Differences in chromosome numbers can create barriers to reproduction. When chromosomal changes arise, they can introduce reproductive complications. In cases where two species with different chromosome numbers mate, their offspring might inherit an atypical chromosome count. These irregularities can hinder the offspring's ability to produce its own viable gametes, essentially creating a barrier to further interbreeding. This reproductive isolation can be a significant factor in the speciation process. The chromosomal difference between humans and chimps is not a minor variation—it's a discrepancy of two whole chromosomes. In the context of closely related species, such a variation suggests a considerable genetic divergence. When we consider how rare it is for closely related species to have such chromosomal disparities, the difference between humans and chimps becomes even more pronounced. If a chromosomal change did arise in an ancestral population, it would likely set that group on a markedly different evolutionary path. The new chromosome number could bring with it unique challenges and opportunities, influencing everything from reproductive strategies to adaptation potentials. Over time, these divergent pressures would lead to the accumulation of other genetic differences, further separating the two groups. Given the rarity and significance of chromosomal number variations among closely related species, the discrepancy between humans and chimps is supportive evidence for fundamentally distinct genetic origins. If the two species did indeed share a recent common ancestor, we might expect more chromosomal uniformity between them, as is observed in many other closely related species.
Genomic Alterations
Both species have had many changes in their genomes, such as rearrangements, additions, or deletions of DNA segments. Think of these as "edits" to their genetic book, where some paragraphs or chapters have been changed, added, or removed. The genomes of species can be thought of as intricate manuscripts. As with any long, complex book, there are bound to be revisions — sometimes sentences are changed, paragraphs added or removed, or whole chapters rewritten. These "edits" come in the form of genetic mutations, rearrangements, additions, or deletions of DNA segments. Both humans and chimps have undergone numerous "edits" in their genetic manuscripts. While some of these changes may be shared, many are unique to each species. Think of these as separate editions or versions of a book. If two books have a multitude of unique edits that are not found in the other, it indicates that they have been written by different authors or have significantly diverged from an original draft. The sheer number and variety of these genomic changes underscore the distinct origins of the two species. Large-scale rearrangements or additions can lead to entirely new functionalities, much like how adding or revising chapters can drastically change a book's narrative or message.
One of the significant differences in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees is in the realm of gene expression and regulatory elements, which control when, where, and how genes are activated.
Concrete Example: HAR1 (Human Accelerated Region 1): The HAR1 region is just 118 base pairs long, but it's notable for having 18 mutations. What's fascinating is that this region is involved in the development of the brain's neocortex, which is responsible for higher-order functions like conscious thought, future planning, and language. In humans, the HAR1 region forms an RNA structure that's vastly different from chimps. This difference in structure suggests a significant divergence in function between the two species, possibly contributing to the vast cognitive differences observed. While both humans and chimps possess a version of HAR1, the considerable alterations in the human version might have played a crucial role in the development of our advanced cognitive abilities.
Pollard, K. S., Salama, S. R., Lambert, N., Lambot, M. A., Coppens, S., Pedersen, J. S., ... & Haussler, D. (2006). An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. Nature, 443(7108), 167-172. (This study explores the rapid evolution of the HAR1 gene in humans, a gene expressed during cortical development.)
In this paper, Pollard and colleagues describe how the HAR1 region differs significantly between humans and chimpanzees. This is a concrete example of how even small genomic "edits" can lead to potentially profound differences in the biology and capabilities of two species. The changes in genes related to brain development, immunity, or metabolism result in radically different physiologies and capabilities. When observing the diverse modifications in the genomes of both humans and chimps, one can draw an analogy to two intricate pieces of machinery or sophisticated software applications. Each machine or software application is designed for a specific purpose. They might share some basic components or foundational code, but the specificities of their design show a targeted purpose. When a designer embarks on creating multiple products, he often uses a foundational template or set of core components to ensure efficiency and functionality. But it's the subtle variations, the nuanced differences, that reveal the true genius and intention behind each creation. These variations aren't random or accidental; they're deliberate, crafted with foresight for specific purposes. Consider the world of automobiles. Many cars share similar foundational components: engines, wheels, transmissions, and so forth. Yet, a sports car is distinct from an SUV not just in appearance but in function. The designer of the sports car envisions speed, aerodynamics, and performance, optimizing every part with that intent in mind. Conversely, the SUV is designed with space, ruggedness, and versatility at the forefront. Both vehicles stem from the basic concept of transportation, but their design specifics clearly reflect different purposes. Similarly, in the realm of software, a programmer might utilize the same base code to develop different applications. Yet, one application could be a sophisticated graphic design tool, while another could be a database management system. Both applications might contain similar foundational algorithms or libraries, but they have been intentionally modified and expanded upon to serve distinct functions. This analogy can be drawn closer to the genetic similarities and divergences seen between humans and chimps. Yes, they might share a foundational "code," but the precise "tweaks" and "modifications" in their DNA suggest distinct intentions for each. These aren't mere byproducts of chance but rather indications of a purposeful design. It's as though a mastermind, equipped with immense knowledge and foresight, has used a foundational template but introduced critical variations to ensure that each species is perfectly designed for the designer's goals and purpose.
Imagine two master engineers who, using their vast knowledge, craft two machines. Both machines have gears, circuits, and power sources, but one is tailored for deep-sea exploration, while the other is built for navigating the vastness of outer space. The sea-exploring machine is fitted with tools and sensors that allow it to withstand high pressure and detect changes in water composition. The space machine, on the other hand, is designed to operate in a vacuum, with radiation shields and equipment to analyze alien atmospheres. While they share fundamental design elements due to the engineers' shared knowledge, their specific and intricate modifications point towards an intentional design for distinct environments. In a similar vein, both humans and chimps might have genetic "tools" and "features" that suggest a certain foundational design principle. Still, the multitude of unique "edits" in their genomes are intentional modifications. It's as though the story of each species has been meticulously crafted, chapter by chapter, to ensure they thrive in their respective narratives, rather than being mere products of random or passive changes. If two books were being concurrently edited by the same author, you'd expect recent changes to be consistent between them. However, many of the recent "edits" in the human and chimp genomes are not shared, suggesting separate or independent origins.
Mobile Elements
Both species have "mobile elements" in their DNA, which can move around and create changes. Humans and chimps have different numbers and types of these stickers. Mobile elements, or transposons, are sequences in DNA that can change their position within the genome. Picture these as stickers in a scrapbook that, rather than being permanently affixed to a page, can move around and even duplicate themselves in the process. This movement can influence the function of genes, potentially leading to changes. When we compare the genomes of humans and chimps, one fascinating discovery is the shared insertion sites of some of these transposons. In other words, in both species, certain "stickers" are found in the same positions in their respective "scrapbooks." From an evolutionary standpoint, the shared sites are often cited as evidence for a common ancestry. The reasoning is that the odds of the same mobile element inserting itself independently at the exact same position in two separate species are extremely low. However, the shared insertion sites are indicative of a shared template or design plan. If we consider an architect who designs multiple buildings, it's plausible that certain features or designs are intentionally repeated across different structures because they serve a particular purpose or function. Similarly, the shared transposon sites reflect an intentional design element optimized for a specific function in both humans and chimps.
The shared transposon insertion sites between humans and chimps are primarily associated with classes of mobile elements like Alu sequences, LINEs, and SVA elements. These elements have been found at the same positions in the genomes of both species, Alu Sequences are short stretches of DNA (about 300 nucleotides long) that have proliferated to the extent that they make up about 10% of the human genome. In both humans and chimps, there are over a million copies of Alu sequences. A significant number of these are located at the same genomic positions in both species. While new Alu insertions can happen, the shared positions between humans and chimps can be intentionally placed markers.
The shared insertion sites have been mentioned and popularized as presenting a compelling case for shared ancestry from an evolutionary perspective. But there are alternative possible, plausible explanations. If the locations of these Alu insertions are crucial for some cellular or molecular function, then their shared presence in both human and chimp genomes is a feature of intentional design. Specific genomic loci might be "hotspots" for insertions because they offer functional advantages, such as influencing gene regulation or expression. If these sites provide a benefit, it makes sense that both humans and chimps have them, irrespective of common ancestry. Such insertions, found at the same relative location in both genomes, are powerful evidence for functionality when they have discernible roles in gene regulation or other genomic functions.
Several known functions of Alu elements include:
Influence on Gene Regulation: Alu elements can act as transcriptional enhancers or silencers, influencing the expression levels of nearby genes.
Alternative Splicing: Alu sequences in exons and introns influence alternative splicing patterns, resulting in diverse transcript variants. This can lead to the generation of various protein isoforms from a single gene.
Genomic Structural Variation: Alu elements can promote non-allelic homologous recombination events, which may result in genomic structural variations like deletions, duplications, and inversions.
Influence on Protein Coding: On rare occasions, parts of Alu sequences can be incorporated into mature mRNA and get translated, impacting protein function or creating novel peptides.
miRNA Target Sites: Alu elements can provide binding sites for microRNAs (miRNAs), small non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression post-transcriptionally.
DNA Methylation: Alu elements can be sites for DNA methylation, an epigenetic modification that can influence gene expression. Alu-associated methylation can have implications in various biological processes, including aging and cancer.
Promotion of DNA Double-Strand Break Repair: There's evidence suggesting that Alu elements can participate in the DNA damage response, particularly in non-homologous end joining, a pathway for repairing DNA double-strand breaks.
Genome Evolution: Due to their repetitive nature and capacity for mobilization, Alu elements play a role in genome evolution by promoting genomic diversity.
Formation of Nuclear Domains: Alu elements have been implicated in the organization of certain nuclear domains which influence gene expression and other nuclear processes.
Stress Response: Some Alu elements are transcribed in response to various stresses, and their RNA products might play roles in cellular stress responses.
Source of Genetic Diseases: Mis-insertion or unequal recombination involving Alu elements can lead to genetic diseases.
Here's a notable paper on this topic:
Polak, P., & Domany, E. (2006). Alu elements contain many binding sites for transcription factors and may play a role in regulation of developmental processes. BMC Genomics, 7(1), 133. (This study explores the high frequency of transcription factor binding sites within Alu elements. Given that many of these Alu insertions are shared between humans and chimps, this study postulates that they may have roles in the regulation of developmental processes in both species.)
This paper not only sheds light on shared Alu insertions but also delves into their potential functional roles. The presence of shared insertion sites with functions like transcription factor binding suggests that these are not mere byproducts of random insertion events, but rather potentially conserved elements that play a role in the shared biology of humans and chimps.
There is also the observed influence of Alu sequences on gene regulation, expression, splicing, and other genomic functions. Influence on Gene Regulation and Expression:
Batzer, M. A., & Deininger, P. L. (2002). Alu repeats and human genomic diversity. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3(5), 370-379. (This comprehensive review highlights the impact of Alu sequences on genomic diversity and underscores their potential to influence gene expression and regulation.)
Sorek, R., Ast, G., & Graur, D. (2002). Alu-containing exons are alternatively spliced. Genome research, 12(7), 1060-1067. (This study demonstrates that Alu sequences within exons can influence alternative splicing patterns, leading to diverse transcript variants.)
Bejerano, G., Lowe, C. B., Ahituv, N., King, B., Siepel, A., Salama, S. R., ... & Haussler, D. (2006). A distal enhancer and an ultraconserved exon are derived from a novel retroposon. Nature, 441(7089), 87-90. (The paper identifies retroposon-derived sequences, including those similar to Alu elements, which have taken on critical regulatory roles in the human genome, particularly in neural gene expression.)
Each of these studies sheds light on the functional significance of Alu sequences, providing a plausible reason for their presence and conservation in specific genomic locations. These shared features are evidence for purposefully placed elements that contribute to the functionality and robustness of the genome.
Alu insertions
There are thousands of shared Alu insertions between humans and chimpanzees. Estimates suggest that humans and chimps share approximately 7,000 to 8,000 Alu element insertions. These shared insertions are often used as evidence in support of a common ancestor for the two species. Both evolution and design can operate under constraints. In the case of Alu insertions, there might be only a limited number of sites that are permissible or optimal for insertion. From a design perspective, these constraints could be imposed to ensure genomic stability, proper function, or other essential attributes. Hence, the presence of Alu sequences in the same loci across species are warranted to be seen as a feature of design operating within specific constraints, rather than evidence of common ancestry. If certain insertion sites offer advantages, it's possible that these sites could be chosen for both species due to their benefits, even without shared ancestry. The sheer complexity and intricate order of the genome might necessitate specific features to be in certain places. If one views the genome as a meticulously crafted system, then every part, including Alu insertions, has its designated place for the system to function optimally. The presence of these insertions in the same places in both species might be evidence of an underlying blueprint or pattern, much like how different models of a device might have components in the same locations because they are all based on a foundational design.
LINEs (Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements)
LINEs are longer sequences, typically around 6,000 nucleotides. LINE-1 (L1) is the most common type in mammalian genomes. There are shared L1 insertion sites between humans and chimps, again suggesting either a common ancestral origin or an intentional design. The idea of "hotspots" or preferred regions for transposable element insertions isn't new. These hotspots can be areas that are more accessible to the transposable element machinery, or they might be regions where insertion doesn’t result in a lethal effect, and thus these insertions can be passed on to the next generation.
Speek, M. (2001). Antisense promoter of human L1 retrotransposon drives transcription of adjacent cellular genes. Molecular and cellular biology, 21(6), 1973-1985. https://mcb.asm.org/content/21/6/1973
This study explores the regions where L1 elements integrate and suggests that certain genomic regions might be more conducive to these insertions due to their regulatory potential.
Boissinot, S., & Furano, A. V. (2001). Adaptive evolution in LINE-1 retrotransposons. Molecular biology and evolution, 18(12), 2186-2194. This paper discusses insights into the regions of the genome that might act as "hotspots" for LINE-1 insertions.
If L1 insertions were purely a result of common ancestry, the expectation would be that other closely related species would also share these same insertions. However, looking into the broader spectrum of primates and mammalian evolution, L1 activity and its patterns are not uniformly conserved across all lineages. Some key findings in various scientific studies have highlighted these discrepancies:
Salem, A. H. ... & Batzer, M. A. (2003). Alu elements and hominid phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(22), 12787-12791.
Link. (This paper explored Alu elements and their relevance in understanding hominid relationships. The study highlighted that the distribution of Alu elements is not always consistent with the accepted phylogenetic tree.)
Boissinot, S., Chevret, P., & Furano, A. V. (2000). L1 (LINE-1) retrotransposon evolution and amplification in recent human history. Molecular biology and evolution, 17(6), 915-928.
(This study on L1 elements showcases that the recent evolutionary amplification patterns of L1 are not consistent across all human populations.)
Khan, H., Smit, A., & Boissinot, S. (2006). Molecular evolution and tempo of amplification of human LINE-1 retrotransposons since the origin of primates. Genome research, 16(1), 78-87.
(This paper examined the evolutionary history of LINE-1 elements in humans and found that their amplification has not been steady over time and varies considerably among primates.)
Locke, D. P.... & Gibbs, R. A. (2011). Comparative and demographic analysis of orangutan genomes. Nature, 469(7331), 529-533.
(In this study, orangutan genomes were analyzed, revealing significant differences in the distribution and activity of mobile elements, including LINE-1, when compared to humans and other primates.)
These studies reveal that while there might be shared L1 insertions between humans and chimps, the broader context of primate evolution presents discrepancies. These discrepancies in shared L1 sites among a wider spectrum of primates indicate that there's more to the story than just a straightforward narrative of common ancestry based solely on L1 insertion similarity. If shared L1 insertion sites between humans and chimps have been demonstrated to serve essential regulatory or structural functions in the genome, it hints at an intentional design. Evolution by natural selection operates on functionality; it doesn't have foresight. In contrast, intentional design can place elements in anticipation of future needs or to serve intricate, multifaceted roles. The selection of studies presented covers a wide spectrum of the roles and implications of LINE-1 (L1) elements in the genome. At a holistic level, they make a compelling case that these elements are not mere genomic "junk" or arbitrary remnants of ancient viral insertions, but rather possess significant functionalities that might be better explained by a design perspective.
Speek (2001): The ability of the antisense promoter in the L1 retrotransposon to drive transcription of adjacent genes underscores the importance of L1 in influencing gene expression patterns. Such a feature can be likened to a regulatory mechanism, one that has been deliberately positioned to optimize the expression of essential genes. 1
Khan et al. (2006): If L1 elements were simply remnants of our evolutionary history, one would expect them to be uniformly amplified across primates. However, the study suggests that their amplification has been selective, hinting at some functional significance which has undergone specific pressures to maintain or change their presence. 2
Faulkner & Carninci (2009): Contrary to the notion that mobile elements like L1 are "selfish" and exist primarily for their propagation, this research elucidates their "altruistic" roles that benefit the host. Such complex dual roles—both selfish and altruistic—are indicative of a design with multifaceted purposes.3
de Koning et al. (2011): The staggering presence of repetitive elements in the human genome, including L1, challenges the idea that these sequences are merely evolutionary leftovers. Their abundance suggests an orchestrated design, with each element playing a part in the genomic symphony. 4
Fort et al. (2014): The involvement of retrotransposons, including L1, in maintaining pluripotency of mammalian stem cells, is a testament to their essential function. It's challenging to dismiss such a pivotal role as a mere coincidence arising from shared ancestry.5
Lewinski & Bushman (2005): By diving into the mechanics and implications of retroviral DNA integrations akin to L1, this review encapsulates the myriad ways through which these elements impact genomic structure and function. The precision and intricacy of these mechanisms point towards a well-calibrated system, which could be seen as a hallmark of design.6
The genome operates as a complex system with multiple layers of regulation and interaction. Shared L1 insertions that are found in functionally crucial regions of the genome (e.g., gene regulatory networks) in both species can be seen as evidence of a shared design template. Just as an engineer might use a specific component in multiple devices because of its reliability and function, the shared L1 sites can be viewed as essential components in the genomic machinery. If the shared L1 insertions work in coherence with other genomic elements (like Alu sequences or specific genes) in a way that creates a harmonized system in both humans and chimps, it would suggest a design principle that values integration and harmony in genomic operations.
SVA Elements
These are newer, composite elements made up of sequences from other transposons. They're called SVAs because they contain segments from SINEs, VNTRs, and Alu sequences. While there are fewer SVAs than Alus or LINEs, shared insertion sites can still be found between humans and chimps.
Additionally, it's essential to note that while many insertion sites are shared, there are also numerous sites unique to each species, highlighting the distinctiveness of their genetic makeup. These unique sites, along with the shared ones, contribute to the overall complexity and specificity of each species' genome.
Gene Differences
The genes, or instruction sets, for things like smell (olfactory receptors) differ between the two species. Both have unique mutations in genes that deal with immune responses and how cells recognize each other. Humans have specific mutations related to speech and brain size, while chimps have their own unique mutations. Apart from genes that instruct how to build and operate a body, there are other DNA segments, "non-coding sequences", that help control how these genes work. Humans have special regions called HARs and HACNs. These areas are especially important for brain development and function. Both species have various pericentric inversions, as well as a multitude of deletions, insertions, and copy number variations. The complexity and multitude of these alterations suggest separate genetic pathways and histories, rather than modifications from a shared ancestor. There are species-specific mutations and differing repertoires of genes related to olfaction, immunity, sialic acids metabolism, and brain development. The unique genes and mutations in each species might suggest they were crafted for specific purposes, hinting at separate origins. Differences exist in the coding sequences of both species, such as the divergent genes related to immunity and cell recognition. The unique sets of protein-coding genes in each species may imply separate genetic blueprints, supporting the idea of separate origins.
Neurological Distinctions
Humans have unique white matter tracts, with changes in their architecture, implying different neural connections. This impacts cognitive functions and our ability for abstract thinking, planning, and complex language.
Distinct genes related to neurotransmitters affect behavior, cognition, and social interactions differently in the two species.
White Matter Tracts and Cognitive Function
Human brains show a distinctive pattern of myelination, particularly in the white matter tracts. Myelin is crucial for rapid signal transmission in neural pathways. Enhanced myelination in humans, especially in the frontal lobes, contributes to quicker cognitive processing and advanced decision-making capabilities. Arcuate Fasciculus is a white matter tract connecting the Broca's area and the Wernicke's area in the human brain, essential for language comprehension and production. While chimps do have an arcuate fasciculus, it's less developed and doesn't have the same connectivity, which may partly explain why they don't possess complex language capabilities like humans.
The Significance of the Arcuate Fasciculus AF in Humans
The AF is not just a simple connector between Broca's and Wernicke's areas, but serves as an essential highway for a plethora of linguistic processes. This includes semantics (meaning), syntax (sentence structure), prosody (intonation and rhythm), and phonological processing. The development and sophistication of the AF in humans facilitates the nuanced and multifaceted nature of our language. Research using diffusion tensor imaging has revealed that the human AF consists of both anterior-to-posterior and posterior-to-anterior segments, indicating a bidirectional flow of information. This two-way communication is essential for the real-time feedback and rapid processing required for fluent speech and comprehension. Beyond just Broca's and Wernicke's areas, the AF interacts with other parts of the brain, such as the inferior parietal lobule, involved in tasks like reading and number processing. This suggests its role in integrating diverse cognitive functions, not just speech. The level of sophistication and intricacy in the human AF, compared to its simpler counterpart in chimps, doesn't lend itself easily to gradual evolutionary narratives. It's hard to envision intermediary stages where a partially formed AF would offer significant evolutionary advantages. For the AF to evolve to support language, language itself would need to co-evolve with the tract. This simultaneous evolution of brain structures and sophisticated linguistic capabilities presents a chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first: the linguistic need or the neural structure? If the AF in earlier hominins or common ancestors of humans and chimps was underdeveloped (similar to chimps), they would likely have alternative neural pathways for communication. Evolutionary development of the AF would render these pathways redundant, which is inefficient from an evolutionary perspective. The AF's intricate architecture in humans, with its bidirectional pathways and connections to multiple brain regions, suggests a purposeful design tailored for complex linguistic and cognitive tasks. This is less about a mere enlargement or modification of an existing structure and more about a reimagining of its role and capabilities. The disparity in the development and functionality of the AF between humans and chimps indicates distinct blueprints or origins, rather than one species being a modified version of the other. The brain operates as a holistic network. A change in one area (like the AF) can impact various other regions and functions. The seamless integration of the AF in the human neural framework underscores the idea of a coordinated and thoughtfully crafted design, as opposed to haphazard evolutionary additions.
Corpus Callosum Connectivity
The corpus callosum in humans supports enhanced interhemispheric communication, critical for complex tasks like reading and abstract thinking. Chimps, while having a corpus callosum, exhibit differences in their architecture and function. The corpus callosum is the largest white matter tract in the human brain and plays a pivotal role in integrating functions of the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Its intricate design in humans compared to other primates like chimps raises profound questions about the nature and origin of its development. The corpus callosum facilitates rapid and complex communication between the two hemispheres. This integration enables humans to perform tasks that require the simultaneous engagement of both hemispheres, such as understanding metaphors, where the left hemisphere processes the language and the right processes the abstract concept. Motor and Sensory Integration plays a role in coordinating motor outputs and sensory inputs between the hemispheres. This is evident in tasks requiring hand-eye coordination, where both hemispheres must work in tandem. The right hemisphere plays a significant role in processing emotions. Through the corpus callosum, emotional signals can be rapidly transferred and processed in the context of language and logic located predominantly in the left hemisphere.
While chimps have a corpus callosum, there are distinctions: The human corpus callosum, when adjusted for brain size, is thicker and contains more axons. This means more information can be transferred and at a quicker rate in humans. The patterns of connectivity, and thus the specific functions facilitated by the corpus callosum in chimps, may be different from those in humans, reflecting the disparate cognitive capabilities between the species.
Given the profound impact of the corpus callosum on human cognition and its intricate design, it's challenging to envision intermediary stages of its evolutionary development where incremental advantages would be provided.
The brain isn't just about having connections, but about having the right ones. For every neuron in the brain, there are approximately 10,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. The mathematical permutations for these connections are staggering. Even a slight miswiring could lead to non-functionality or malfunctions. A fully functional corpus callosum emerging through random mutations seems immensely improbable. The evolution of the corpus callosum's advanced design would necessitate the simultaneous evolution of other brain regions and functionalities that it interfaces with. Such a synchronized evolution poses a significant challenge to explain. The precise and meticulous design of the human corpus callosum points to intentional crafting. Its integration with other brain areas seems purposefully coordinated for complex cognitive functions. The capabilities facilitated by our corpus callosum, like abstract thinking, are uniquely human. Such distinctive features hint at a separate origin or blueprint rather than an incremental development from a primate ancestor.
Neurotransmitters and Behavior
The DRD4 gene, which codes for the dopamine receptor, has variations in humans linked with novelty-seeking behavior. Chimps have different versions of this gene, leading to differences in risk-taking and exploratory behavior.
Variations in genes regulating serotonin can influence social behavior. Humans have specific genes that underpin our cooperative nature and societal structures, while chimps possess versions that support their more hierarchical and territorial social systems. HARs (Human Accelerated Regions) are segments of the genome that are often involved in gene regulation, especially during brain development. microRNAs are small RNA molecules that play a crucial role in gene regulation. Humans and chimps have differences in the expression and function of several microRNAs, especially those implicated in brain function and development. Methylation patterns, an epigenetic mechanism, can vary between humans and chimps. Differences in these patterns can influence how genes are turned on or off, leading to divergence in traits and functionalities. Gene regulatory networks often involve feedback loops, where the product of a gene can influence its own expression or that of other genes. Differences in these loops between the species can lead to a cascade of changes, drastically altering biological outcomes. Given the complexity of these networks, even minor initial differences imply in significant divergence. While humans and chimps share a substantial portion of their DNA, the intricate differences in neural architecture, neurotransmitter regulation, and gene regulatory networks strongly suggest separate evolutionary trajectories. These distinct pathways and the resulting differences in cognition, behavior, and social structures provide powerful evidence against a singular shared ancestry.
Further differences
Humans and chimps have different dietary requirements and digestion mechanisms. Chimps have a more robust gut to process a varied diet, including raw plant materials, whereas humans are adapted to eat cooked food. Chimps have unique genes catering to their knuckle-walking motion, while humans possess genetic codes for upright bipedalism, affecting everything from our pelvis structure to foot arches. Humans have an extended childhood and adolescence phase compared to chimps. Genetic differences dictate the human brain's slower maturation and our longer reproductive cycle. The genetic, epigenetic, manufacturing, and regulatory information and signaling pathways and information result in different lengths of pregnancies between the two species, with humans having a notably longer gestation period. While both rely heavily on vision, humans have specific genes related to trichromatic vision, aiding in discerning a broader spectrum of colors. Chimps, although having good vision, don't have the same color discernment abilities. Genetic differences result in variations in taste bud receptors. For instance, humans are sensitive to a broader range of tastes, making us more discerning eaters. Interestingly, chimps have a faster wound-healing process than humans. Distinct genetic pathways provide them with a more efficient recovery mechanism.
While humans might be susceptible to certain diseases, chimps might be naturally immune to them, and vice-versa. This can be attributed to species-specific immune-related genes. Differences in DNA methylation, a mechanism used to control gene expression, between humans and chimps points to different evolutionary trajectories. Studies suggest that certain genes mutate at different rates in humans and chimps, indicating separate evolutionary trajectories.
1. Speek, M. (2001). Antisense promoter of human L1 retrotransposon drives transcription of adjacent cellular genes. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 21(6), 1973-1985. Link.
This paper demonstrates that the antisense promoter in the L1 retrotransposon can drive the transcription of adjacent cellular genes. This shows that L1 can influence gene expression patterns.
2. Khan, H., Smit, A., & Boissinot, S. (2006). Molecular evolution and tempo of amplification of human LINE-1 retrotransposons since the origin of primates. Genome research, 16(1), 78-87. Link.
This study reveals that LINE-1 elements, such as L1, have not been uniformly amplified across primate evolution. Their distribution and activity patterns suggest selective pressures, indicating their potential functional significance.
3. Faulkner, G. J., & Carninci, P. (2009). Altruistic functions for selfish DNA. Cell cycle, 8(18), 2895-2900. Link.
This study showcases the broader perspective that mobile elements, including L1, have roles beyond "selfish" propagation. They often have "altruistic" roles beneficial for the host organism, like gene regulation.
4. de Koning, A. P., Gu, W., Castoe, T. A., Batzer, M. A., & Pollock, D. D. (2011). Repetitive elements may comprise over two-thirds of the human genome. PLoS genetics, 7(12), e1002384. Link.
This comprehensive study suggests that a significant portion of the human genome is comprised of repetitive elements, including L1. The sheer abundance of these elements points towards their potential functionality.
5. Fort, A., Hashimoto, K., Yamada, D., Salimullah, M., Keya, C. A., Saxena, A., ... & Carninci, P. (2014). Deep transcriptome profiling of mammalian stem cells supports a regulatory role for retrotransposons in pluripotency maintenance. Nature genetics, 46(6), 558-566. Link.
This study provides a deep insight into the transcriptional profile of mammalian stem cells. It supports the idea that retrotransposons, including L1, play a role in maintaining pluripotency.
6. Lewinski, M. K., & Bushman, F. D. (2005). Retroviral DNA integration—mechanism and consequences. Advances in genetics, 55, 147-181. Link.
This review covers the mechanics and consequences of retroviral DNA integration, including elements similar to L1. It underscores the potential functional implications of such insertions.
////Point out, why a nonguided, non-intelligent set-up, step by step, is extremely unlikely, and design a far more case-adequate explanation of each point. write from the perspective of a proponent of intelligent design. Do not write: " From an intelligent design standpoint ". Just say it.Do not put enumeration numbers at the beginning of the sentences. Write in bbcode, like this:
The Mathematical Order in the Laws of Physics: The universe is governed by several fundamental laws of physics, which can be expressed with high precision using mathematical equations. From Newton's laws of motion to Einstein's theory of relativity, these equations predict the behavior of objects and energy within our universe. The universality and consistency of these laws suggest a deep-rooted structure in the fabric of reality.[/size] Their universal applicability, from the movement of galaxies to subatomic particles, points to a harmonized system rather than a chaotic one. The probability of such exact and universally applicable laws emerging from randomness is vanishingly low. The precision of gravitational constants, the speed of light, or Planck's constant, to name a few, doesn't merely offer predictability; they shape the very conditions necessary for life and the stability of the universe as we know it. A slight deviation in any of these constants could render the universe hostile or chaotic. The fine-tuning required for these constants to align in a way that supports structured cosmic evolution and life appears beyond the scope of sheer chance. Furthermore, the emergence of mathematical equations that can accurately describe these laws hints at a profound relationship between the physical world and the abstract realm of mathematics. Why should the universe, if borne out of randomness, adhere so faithfully to mathematical descriptions? The inherent order and mathematical structure suggest that there is a foundational logic and design to the universe. When we explore phenomena like quantum entanglement or the conditions necessary for the Big Bang, the interconnectedness and sensitivity of these systems seem to defy unguided emergence. Instead, the cohesive framework of physical laws, coupled with their mathematical elegance, makes the argument for an underlying intelligence overwhelmingly compelling. Given the depth of order, precision, and fine-tuning in the laws of physics, attributing their existence to mere chance seems foolish and nonsensical. The very fabric of our reality, woven with these laws, appears to resonate with the signs of purposeful design.
1. Something new created based on no pre-existing physical conditions or state of affairs ( a concept, an idea, a plan, a project, a blueprint)
2. A specific functional state of affairs, based on and dependent on mathematical rules, that depend on specified values ( that are independent, nonconditional, and that have no deeper grounding)
3. A force/cause that secures, upholds, maintains, and stabilizes a state of affairs, avoiding stochastic chaos. Eliminating conditions that change unpredictably from instant to instant or preventing things from uncontrollably popping in and out of existence.
4. Fine-tuning or calibrating something to get the function of a (higher-order) system.
5. Selected specific materials, that have been sorted out, concentrated, and joined at a construction site.
6. An information storage system ( paper, a computer hard disk, etc.)
7. A language, based on statistics, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and apobetics
8. A code system, where meaning is assigned to characters, symbols, words
9. Translation ( the assignment of the meaning of one word in one language to another of another language ) that has the same meaning
10. An information transmission system ( a radio signal, internet, email, post delivery service, etc.)
11. A plan, blueprint, architectural drawing, or scheme for accomplishing a goal, that contains instructional information, directing the making for example of a 3D artifact, 1:1 equivalent to the plan of the blueprint.
12. Conversion ( digital-analog conversion, modulators, amplifiers)
13. Overlapping codes ( where one string of information can have different meanings)
14. Systems of interconnected software and hardware
15. A library index and fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval program
16. A software program that directs the making, and governs the function or/and operation of devices with specific functions.
17. Energy turbines
18. To create, execute, or construct something precisely according to an instructional plan or blueprint
19. The specific complex arrangement and joint of elements, parts, or materials to create a machine or a device for specific functions
20. A machine, that is, a piece of equipment with several moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work that achieves a specific goal
21. Repetition of a variety of complex actions with precision based on methods that obey instructions, governed by rules.
22. Preprogrammed production or assembly lines that employ a series of machines/robots in the right order that are adjusted to work in an interdependent fashion to produce a specific functional (sub) product.
23. Factories, that operate autonomously in a preprogrammed manner, integrating information that directs functions working in a joint venture together.
24. Objects that exhibit “constrained optimization.” The optimal or best-designed laptop computer is the one that has the best balances and compromise of multiple competing factors.
25. Artifacts which use might be employed in different systems (a wheel is used in cars and airplanes)
26. Error monitoring, check, and repair systems, depending on recognizing when something is broken, identifying where exactly the object is broken, to know when and how to repair it (e.g. one has to stop/or put on hold some other ongoing processes; one needs to know lots of other things, one needs to know the whole system, otherwise one creates more damage…) to know how to repair it (to use the right tools, materials, energy, etc, etc, etc ) to make sure that the repair was performed correctly.
27. Defense systems based on data collection and storage to protect a system/house, factory, etc. from invaders, intruders, enemies, killers, and destroyers.
28. Sending specific objects from address A to address B based on the address provided on the object, which informs its specific target destination.
29. Keeping an object in a specific functional state of affairs as long as possible through regulation, and extending the duration upon which it can perform its task, using monitoring, guaranteeing homeostasis, stability, robustness, and order.
30. Self-replication of a dynamical system that results in the construction of an identical or similar copy of itself. The entire process of self-replication is data-driven and based on a sequence of events that can only be instantiated by understanding and knowing the right sequence of events. There is an interdependence of data and function. The function is performed by machines that are constructed based on the data instructions. (Source: Wikipedia)
31. Replacing machines, systems, etc. in a factory before they break down as a preventive measure to guarantee long-lasting functionality and stability of the system/factory as a whole.
32. Recycling, which is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects. The recovery of energy from waste materials is often included in this concept. The recyclability of a material depends on its ability to reacquire the properties it had in its original state. ( Source: Wikipedia)
33. Instantiating waste management or waste disposal processes that include actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal. This includes the collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of waste, together with monitoring and regulation of the waste management process. ( Source: Wikipedia)
34. Electronic circuits are composed of various active functional components, such as resistors, transistors, capacitors, inductors, and diodes, connected by conductive wires through which electric current can flow. The combination of components and wires allows various simple and complex operations to be performed: signals can be amplified, computations can be performed, and data can be moved from one place to another. (Source: Wikipedia)
35. Arrangement of materials and elements into details, colors, and forms to produce an object or work of art able to transmit the sense of beauty, and elegance, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially sight.
36. Instantiating things on the nanoscale. Know-how is required in regard to quantum chemistry techniques, chemical stability, kinetic stability of metastable structures, the consideration of close dimensional tolerances, thermal tolerances, friction, and energy dissipation, the path of implementation, etc. See: Richard Jones: Six challenges for molecular nanotechnology December 18, 2005
37. Objects in nature very similar to human-made things // point out, why these things are indicative of intelligent design, and not unguided, non-intelligent, natural events.
Indicative of Intelligent Design:
Something new created based on no pre-existing physical conditions or state of affairs (a concept, an idea, a plan, a project, a blueprint): This demonstrates the ability to conceive and plan, attributes of intelligent design.
A specific functional state of affairs, based on and dependent on mathematical rules, that depend on specified values (that are independent, nonconditional, and that have no deeper grounding): Mathematical precision suggests a deliberate design.
A force/cause that secures, upholds, maintains, and stabilizes a state of affairs, avoiding stochastic chaos: Intelligent design is needed to establish and maintain stability.
Fine-tuning or calibrating something to get the function of a (higher-order) system: This precision indicates a thoughtful design process.
Selected specific materials, that have been sorted out, concentrated, and joined at a construction site: The selection and concentration of materials require a deliberate choice.
An information storage system (paper, a computer hard disk, etc.): Designing systems for storing information is an intelligent process.
A language, based on statistics, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and apobetics: The complexity of language implies intelligent design.
A code system, where meaning is assigned to characters, symbols, words: Assigning meaning to symbols is a product of intelligent design.
Translation (the assignment of the meaning of one word in one language to another of another language) that has the same meaning: Accurate translation involves understanding and design.
An information transmission system (a radio signal, internet, email, post delivery service, etc.): Designing systems for information transmission is an intelligent act.
A plan, blueprint, architectural drawing, or scheme for accomplishing a goal, that contains instructional information, directing the making, for example, of a 3D artifact, 1:1 equivalent to the plan of the blueprint: Planning and blueprinting are quintessential examples of intelligent design.
Conversion (digital-analog conversion, modulators, amplifiers): Engineering conversions indicate intelligent design.
Overlapping codes (where one string of information can have different meanings): Complex coding systems require intelligent design.
Systems of interconnected software and hardware: The integration of software and hardware requires intelligent engineering.
A library index and fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval program: Creating systems to organize and retrieve information is an intelligent design task.
A software program that directs the making and governs the function or/and operation of devices with specific functions: Developing software to control devices demonstrates intelligent design.
Energy turbines: The design of energy turbines showcases intelligent engineering.
To create, execute, or construct something precisely according to an instructional plan or blueprint: Following a blueprint is an act of intelligent execution.
The specific complex arrangement and joint of elements, parts, or materials to create a machine or a device for specific functions: Complex arrangements signify intelligent engineering.
A machine, that is, a piece of equipment with several moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work that achieves a specific goal: Designing machines is a clear sign of intelligent engineering.
Repetition of a variety of complex actions with precision based on methods that obey instructions, governed by rules: Precise repetition of complex actions requires intelligent design.
Preprogrammed production or assembly lines that employ a series of machines/robots in the right order that are adjusted to work in an interdependent fashion to produce a specific functional (sub) product: Setting up preprogrammed production lines is an intelligent design process.
Factories, that operate autonomously in a preprogrammed manner, integrating information that directs functions working in a joint venture together: Designing autonomous factories demonstrates intelligent planning.
Objects that exhibit “constrained optimization.” The optimal or best-designed laptop computer is the one that has the best balances and compromise of multiple competing factors: Achieving constrained optimization is a product of intelligent design.
Artifacts which use might be employed in different systems (a wheel is used in cars and airplanes): The adaptability of artifacts indicates intelligent design.
Error monitoring, check, and repair systems, depending on recognizing when something is broken, identifying where exactly the object is broken, to know when and how to repair it: Designing systems for error monitoring and repair involves intelligent planning.
Defense systems based on data collection and storage to protect a system/house, factory, etc. from invaders, intruders, enemies, killers, and destroyers: Defensive systems involve intelligent design to protect against threats.
Sending specific objects from address A to address B based on the address provided on the object, which informs its specific target destination: This requires intelligent logistics.
Keeping an object in a specific functional state of affairs as long as possible through regulation, and extending the duration upon which it can perform its task, using monitoring, guaranteeing homeostasis, stability, robustness, and order: Maintaining functionality and order is a result of intelligent design.
Self-replication of a dynamical system that results in the construction of an identical or similar copy of itself: Self-replication involves a sequence of events and interdependence of data and function, indicating intelligent design.
Replacing machines, systems, etc. in a factory before they break down as a preventive measure to guarantee long-lasting functionality and stability of the system/factory as a whole: Preventive maintenance demonstrates intelligent planning.
Recycling, which is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects: Recycling involves controlled processes, suggesting intelligent design.
Instantiating waste management or waste disposal processes that include actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal: Managing waste is a deliberate process, not a result of random events.
Electronic circuits are composed of various active functional components, such as resistors, transistors, capacitors, inductors, and diodes: Designing electronic circuits is an example of intelligent engineering.
Arrangement of materials and elements into details, colors, and forms to produce an object or work of art able to transmit the sense of beauty and elegance, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially sight: Artistic arrangement reflects intelligent design.
Instantiating things on the nanoscale: Nanoscale engineering involves precise design and knowledge of quantum chemistry.
