|
Part 10: The Origin of Species from DNA Coding and Decoding
.
In part 9, we have shown the authoritativeness and accuracy of DNA codes in tracing the origin of human beings. Our DNA has recorded the origin and migration history of modern human beings. Are there similar records in other living creatures? For the past 30 years, many researchers have attempted to answer this question.
.
Άρ. Searching for the “source of species”
.
1. “Inherent Markers” and the DNA Dice Theory
.
A specific living creature has its own unique DNA. Any living creature is “woven” by its own DNA codes. The DNA coding sequences within the same species are very consistent for every creature within that it. Some segments with very long sequences are completely the same with a little difference only at several positions in terms of codes in every single creature of the same species. We can refer to these sequence segments as “Inherent Markers”. Such markers cannot be generated at random during breeding of the living creatures, so they can only come from the earliest “source individual”. We know that during the breeding of a living creature, the factors that influence changes in DNA sequences are merely due by mutation and synapsis of meiosis. As factors of random change, these two factors can only cause the consistent DNA sequences to change and create distinction from each other rather than causing the inconsistent to become consistent.
.
To judge whether different individuals of living creatures have a shared “source individual”, we need to base the evidence on determining whether or not their DNA sequences have “Inherent Markers” which are long enough. By the P formula mentioned in Part 6, “DNA Dice Theory” (one toss of DNA tetrahedral dice theory), we can analyze the probability of random generation. If the probability is very low, the conclusion is this: The DNA sequences of all individuals must come from the same “initial source” as copies of the DNA sequence from the “initial source”.
In Part 2, we inferred the Y-chromosome Adam by applying the above theory to the 729 DNA sequence of the Y-chromosome ZFY gene. In Part 6, from the 789 DNA sequence as the “First Marker” on No. 2 autosome, we inferred the “source individual” of all human beings in the world; and the Mitochondrial Eve by applying the same theory to mitochondrial DNA sequences.
.
“DNA Dice Theory” is nothing but a simple probability theory. A regular dice is a hexahedron, while the dice of “DNA Dice Theory” is a tetrahedral (with the four sides being A, T, C and G). Therefore, “DNA Dice Theory” is nothing but an exception in “Dice Theory”, which is mathematically undisputable. For example, 789 DNA can be deemed as 789 tetrahedral dices with 4 sides. It is hardly possible to generate completely the same 789 DNA codes sequence by one tossing, at random, the first set of 789 DNA codes sequences.
.
Why is there only one chance of tossing? It is because at the same position of Y chromosome, no any man has a different sequence consisting of 789 DNA. Probability can be determined by the P formula of “DNA Dice Theory”. It proves that it is absolutely impossible to generate exactly the same 789 DNA codes sequence by randomly tossing it just one time.
.
The theory depends on a precise cellular DNA replication mechanism that is diametrically contrary to the random evolution principle. Because of this, “DNA Dice Theory” is also applicable to other living creatures.
.
2. Two restrictive standards in searching for the “source individual” of species
.
Part 2 shows that during growth and breeding of a living creature, DNA codes keep precise replication, so that the “Inherent Markers”, the DNA sequence segment of the non or only slightly mutated “source individual” can be traced in chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA. Meanwhile, we can judge whether two species share the same “source individual” by thorough review of a segment of DNA codes sequence and P formula. However, judging by P formula is subject to two restrictive standards:
.
(1) The same species should have the same number of chromosome pairs. The centromere positions on the same name chromosomes should be very consistent.
.
(2) The DNA sequence size of mitochondria and chromosomes should be the same number of DNA codes for the same species.
.
These two restrictive standards are based on the rigorous replication characteristics of DNA. Within the same species, there cannot be a big deal of change in the DNA sequences. At the same time, in the very important process of meiosis, chromosome pairing must follow these criteria. For example, human No. 1 chromosome will definitely not pair up with No.2 chromosome because they have different centromere locations and different lengths. If the pair number of chromosome were different, there it would be impossible for a normal pairing.
Under the two conditions, we can adopt formula P to calculate the probability of random generation. When the probability is close to zero, this means that it is impossible to generate at random these identical segments’ DNA. We can conclude that copying DNA sequences from the “source individual” must generate such segments. From this we can confirm that this species must share the same “source individual”.
Formula of random probability P: P=1/(L×4n£©
.
In the formula, L represents the sum of DNA codes of the chromosome or mitochondria. The reason for introducing L to the calculation, theoretically, is that the start of the sequence can occur at any position of the chromosome or mitochondrial DNA code. The probability of occurring at the same position is far less likely.
n represents the sum of DNA codes of the same sequence segment. (See Part 4)
.
When n is quite large, the effect of L can be ignored as shown in the approximate formula:
P=1/ 4n
Can we judge whether human beings and chimpanzees share an ancestor by comparing DNA sequences between human beings and chimpanzees? The answer is no because it does not comply with the two above standards. The number of human chromosome pairs is 23, while that of chimpanzees is 24. In addition, the sum of DNA codes of chromosomes between them is also very different. For example, the sum of DNA codes of human Y chromosome is 59,373,566, which that of chimpanzees is 26,342,871 with a sizable difference of 1:0.44.
.
The foundation of the DNA Dice Theory involves the mechanism of rigorous DNA code replication with which such significant difference is impossible. Therefore, even if DNA codes with some genes from the chimpanzees has some consistency with some fragment of human DNA sequences, the similarity is only limited to some components of the individual. Based on this understanding it is not possible for “chimpanzees and human beings share the same ancestor.”
3. Chimpanzees also come from the one and only “couple of parents”
Very similar to human beings and based on the Theory of Evolution, chimpanzees are deemed as sharing the same ancestor with human beings beginning with our respective looks. However, judging from the chromosomes and DNA, they cannot share the same ancestor with human beings, which have been described in detail in Part 8 and 9. You and I may ask this question: why are there many genes with similar functions are arranged in the chromosomes of human beings and chimpanzees? In fact, a related question can also be asked: why do they also have eyes, noses, ears, mouths, etc. with similar functions as human beings. Like so many similar organs, many genes are certainly similar. Nonetheless, we cannot merely use this method to get the conclusion of ancestor sharing.
From the viewpoint of chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA, we can raise even more significant questions: Do chimpanzees also have paternal genealogical and maternal genealogical trees? Do they also have the only grand, grandfather and mother? The DNA codes and DNA Dice Theory can only answer such questions.
.
|