Certain highly similar DNA segments have been found that, while on the one hand are too similar when compared across the different species, on the other hand are limited to only one group of species. These highly similar segments are found in vertebrates, invertebrate chordates, nematodes, and arthropods, but they generally are restricted to those groups. That is, highly similar segments are found in the vertebrates, another set of highly similar segments are found in the invertebrates, and so forth.
These various segments seem to play the same types of regulatory roles across the vertebrates, invertebrate chordates, nematodes, and arthropods. Also, they share certain sequence properties. For instance, the vertebrate segments share striking nucleotide frequency patterns with the invertebrate segments.
So what does all this mean? To make sense out of the data from an evolutionary perspective we must believe that these thousands of sequences had to evolve independently and relatively rapidly in the vertebrates, invertebrate chordates, nematodes, and arthropods. This independent process of evolution produced all these sequences with similar functions across these disparate groups of species, and according to the same striking nucleotide frequency patterns. Amazing.
But that is not all. Then, after all these heroics, the evolution of these DNA segments, within each group, must have come to a mysterious and abrupt stop. These similarities within the groups make little sense on evolution. As one paper put it:
it is difficult to reconcile their extreme conservation with our current understanding of enhancer function.
It is yet another pattern that is the opposite of what evolution expected.
Mr Hunter,
ReplyDeleteWhen you cross-post over at UD, you always link to this blog's "front page," rather than to the individual blog-entry itself. This is a problem for as soon as you post another entry here, the "read more" link as UD no longer takes the reader to the correct item.
Could you also make sure the links to the papers work, please. Remove the question mark and everything after it. Otherwise your readers get cookie errors.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I would think research revealing that all organisms (who share a common lineage) share similar DNA segments would be evidence FOR evolution not against it.
ReplyDeleteSo, you're saying that widely disparate species share many identical genetic codes even though their ancient common ancestors had not yet evolved those traits? Very interesting. Now, step back and watch the Darwinists wiggle their way out of this one.
ReplyDeleteCornelius: "So what does all this mean? To make sense out of the data from an evolutionary perspective we must believe that these thousands of sequences had to evolve independently and relatively rapidly in the vertebrates, invertebrate chordates, nematodes, and arthropods."
ReplyDeleteWhat do YOU think it means? Presumably you think this is some form of evidence for ID? What can ID make of this? Can you make any hypothesis of when/how/what the designer did? If not what kind of experimentation would you propose to try and and find out? How does Dembski's CSI and explanatory filter help here?
Or are you going to do what you normally do - weasel your way out of answering by saying that the ID community does not have the resources to investigate this, and that we need to wait for mainstream biology to tackle it?
Austin:
ReplyDelete"Interesting. I would think research revealing that all organisms (who share a common lineage) share similar DNA segments would be evidence FOR evolution not against it."
Please read more carefully. What you have is (i) incredible similarity (it would require that function is hyper sensitive to the sequence which is never found to be true for such long sequences) within groups, but then (ii) complete dis similarity between groups that are supposed to share a common ancestor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere, @ YouTube, is prayer driving religion and how it does not matter.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m6qC6FCiY0
"Now, step back and watch the Darwinists wiggle their way out of this one."
ReplyDelete"Darwinists" are very good at ignoring inconvenient evidence ... and their own prior claims.
For instance, "Darwinists" used to claim that the "universal genetic code" is evidence of "evolution" -- while totally ignoring the fact that it's equally evidence of ID ... and of Special Creation. Then, when it turned out that the "universal genetic code" wasn't so universal, after all, they quietly forgot about that assertion.