Saturday, December 29, 2012

Alternative Splicing Damage Control Still Underway

They Don’t Realize How Silly This Is

The headline says it all: “Evolution by Splicing.” Evolutionists once believed that the species arose by mutations that altered the nucleotide sequences of protein-coding genes. But these genetic differences between species do not seem to be very significant. Next evolutionists thought perhaps the differing expression levels of the genes did the job. Perhaps it was quantity rather than quality that created the species. But again the expression level differences are not so great. Now evolutionists have a new mechanism, and it is yet another example of evolution’s reliance on complexity, serendipity and misrepresentation.

As we reported recently, new research is showing that similar genes, in different species, are spliced differently. So the resulting protein products tend to differ between species.

You learned in high school biology that a gene consists of a long sequence of nucleotides—small molecules that comprise the DNA double helix. But in the higher species the nucleotides are grouped into building blocks or exons (expressed regions). So while the gene nucleotide sequences do not differ greatly between species, and while the gene expression levels also do not differ greatly between species, the exons that are used can differ. In other words, the building blocks themselves do not differ greatly, but which building blocks are used does differ. So for the same gene, you obtain a different gene product.

So now evolutionists are saying that new species can arise from changes in these building blocks. The process is called alternative splicing. Hence the headling, “Evolution by Splicing.”

But note the trend of ever increasing complexity and serendipity. Like entropy, the complexity and serendipity of evolutionary theory inexorably grows. First, it was mutations that inserted, deleted or altered the individual nucleotides that made up a gene. Next, it was mutations that altered the signals and machinery that govern the gene expression level. And now it is mutations that alter the signals that control the splicing machinery.

At each step in this progression, as evolutionists try to keep pace with the scientific results, the theory relies on increasing levels of pre constructed molecular machinery, instructions and processes. A tremendous infrastructure must be in place in order for evolution to occur.

And of course all of that infrastructure must have evolved. Once again, evolution creates evolution and what headlines, such as “Evolution by Splicing,” do not reveal is the ever increasing and quite frankly incredible levels of complexity and serendipity that evolutionary thought entails.

Unfortunately the disingenuous reporting does not stop there. Consider how Brent Graveley, professor of genetics and developmental biology at the University of Connecticut, portrayed these new findings:

These are very important papers that provide for the first time a large-scale view of the evolution of alternative splicing in vertebrates. They demonstrate how dramatically rapidly alternative splicing evolves, and suggest that it might play a role in speciation.

It would be difficult to imagine a greater misrepresentation of the science. There was nothing in the new results that demonstrates the evolution of alternative splicing, rapidly or otherwise. The misrepresentation relies on the prior, unspoken, assumption that evolution is true—that all of biology arose spontaneously as a consequence of random events such as mutations.

With that non scientific belief as his starting point, the evolutionist then reasons that the differing splicing patterns must have evolved. And since they are found in relatively similar species, those splicing differences must have evolved rapidly. So the evolutionist then arrives at the conclusion that the new findings “demonstrate how dramatically rapidly alternative splicing evolves.”

Is it any surprise then that journalists, in turn, misrepresent the science? Here is how one journalist reported the new findings:

The results suggest that differences in the ways genetic messages are spliced have played a major role in the evolution of fundamental characteristics of species.

It is yet another example of, as I explained in Science’s Blind Spot, how religion drives science. Theology is still queen of the sciences.

26 comments:

  1. Despite what evolutionists say, this is devastating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As to this comment in the article,,,

      Evolution by Splicing - Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. - Ruth Williams - December 20, 2012
      Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?” ,,,
      A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
      On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe. ,,,
      http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33782/title/Evolution-by-Splicing/

      This finding is far more devastating than the authors let on in the paper. Finding different regulatory 'alternative splicing codes/schemes' regulating the gene expression of different species is devastating because of neo-Darwinism's inability to account for any changes of any particular code once it is in place. This applies to either drastic of minor changes of any particular code. This applies to Alternative Splicing codes, Genetic codes, Histone codes, Acetylation codes, or any other code found, or that may be found, in life,,, Of note:

      "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10].
      Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010

      Delete
    2. ,,,The reason why drastically different alternative splicing codes/schemes between closely related species is devastating to neo-Darwinian (bottom up) evolution is partly seen by understanding 'Shannon Channel Capacity':

      “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible”
      Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life

      Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/

      But the reason why this is so devastating to neo-Darwinian (bottom up) evolution is best understood by taking a look at what Richard Dawkins said about what would happen if one were to 'randomly' change the genetic code once it is in place:

      Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011
      Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal:
      "The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (2009, p. 409-10)
      OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 23 variants of the genetic code).
      Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 23? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html

      Bottom line is that if any regulatory code, such as the alternative splicing code, is 'randomly changed' in part, it throws the entire code out of whack and will be 'instantly catastrophic', to use Richard Dawkins' most appropriate words!

      Delete
    3. correction: ,,,Finding different regulatory 'alternative splicing codes/schemes' regulating 'alternative splicing events',,,

      Delete
  2. I have a preference for arguments that are quantifiable.

    How often do we observe alternate splicing methods evolve in large populations of rapidly reproducing microbes? How many generations under what population sizes would be needed to evolve the splicing rules that separate species, such as us from apes?

    Unless we can quantify this, I fear that any arguments of "not enough time" are meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a preference for arguments that are quantifiable.

      Then that leaves out all arguments for the theory of evolution.

      Delete
  3. FYI, the lead author of the study is commenting on this and the previous blog post on reddit:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/15miti/scientists_of_reddit_what_are_some_glaring/c7nu0ti

    ReplyDelete
  4. It would be difficult to imagine a greater misrepresentation of the science. There was nothing in the new results that demonstrates the evolution of alternative splicing, rapidly or otherwise. The misrepresentation relies on the prior, unspoken, assumption that evolution is true—that all of biology arose spontaneously as a consequence of random events such as mutations.

    Only psychopaths blatantly and unashamedly act as if their assumptions are facts. There is an evil undercurrent within evolutionary biology that some would compare to "powers and principalities in high places". Know who you're fighting against.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So nearly all biologists are psychopaths. That seems a bit implausible, a priori. It seems vastly more plausible to me that someone who accuses hundreds of thousands of people that they have never met to be psychopaths is himself a psychopath.

      Delete
    2. No, most likley most biologists don't believe in blind watchmaker evolution. They just keep that quiet so they don't lose their jobs.

      Not one biologists uses blind watchmaker evolution to guide their research.

      Delete
    3. Joe, how would you know what biologists believe? Do you personally know any biologists? I doubt it.

      Evolutionary biologists often use mathematical models to guide their research. I don't recall seeing any 'guiding intelligence' terms in the equations. So in that sense they are using blind watchmaker evolution to guide their research. If you don't believe me, just take a look at a recent issue of the journal Evolution. Show me a single paper that doesn't use blind watchmaker evolution.

      Delete
    4. troy,

      Why don't you just point out the biologists who use the blind watchmaker thesis to guide their research- or stuff it already.

      Evolutionary biologists often use mathematical models to guide their research.

      What do mathematical models have to do with unguided evolution? What's the connection?

      Show me a single paper that doesn't use blind watchmaker evolution.


      LoL! YOU have to show me one that does. It ain't up to me to prove a negative. And only a scientifically illiterate wanker would ask me to- and here you are.

      Delete
  5. The misrepresentation relies on the prior, unspoken, assumption that evolution is true—that all of biology arose spontaneously as a consequence of random events such as mutations.

    Well, evolution is true. All biologists except for a few crackpots are convinced of this, and have been for a long time. It's "unspoken" because it's so obviously true. Get over it. If you prefer to believe that Jesus intervened from time to time, prove it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! troy the almighty equivocator strikes again!

      Unfortunately for troy not one biologist can produce a testable hypothesis nor positive evidence for unguided, ie blind watchmaker, evolution.

      Delete
    2. No biologist is interested in testing whether evolution is guided, by Jesus or Mohammed or Joe's dead grandma or [insert favorite designer], because 'guidance' is too vague to quantify. Perhaps you'd like to present a testable hypothesis?

      Delete
    3. LoL! The entire "theory" of evolution is too vague to quantify- And thanks for continuing to prove that you are a cowardly wanker.

      And why wouldn't biologists be interested in testing whether evolution is guided or unguided? It only makes all the difference in the world to their research.

      Genetic/ evoltionary algorithms demonstrate the power of guided evolution. OTOH unguided evolution doesn't appear capable of doing anything but damage and deteriorate.

      Go figure...

      Delete
    4. The entire "theory" of evolution is too vague to quantify

      I guess you haven't been paying much attention to the scientific literature, or you would have known better. There's even a quantitative unit of evolutionary change, called a 'Darwin'.


      And why wouldn't biologists be interested in testing whether evolution is guided or unguided?

      I told you why. Because saying evolution is guided is not specific enough.


      Genetic/ evoltionary algorithms demonstrate the power of guided evolution.

      No they don't. They demonstrate the power of unguided evolution.

      Delete
    5. LoL! Yes I have heard of the darwin unit- So tell us, how many darwin units difference between chimps and humans?

      Genetic/ evoltionary algorithms demonstrate the power of guided evolution.

      No they don't.

      Of course they do. All GA/ EAs are written to solve a problem or problems- ie they have specific goals. And all changes are directed towards that/ those goal(s).

      There isn't anything unguided about them.

      But thanks for exposing your ignorance, again.

      Delete
    6. There is also the haldane unit- and again it is not applicable to universal common descent and measuring the number of mutations it takes to get a phenotypic change.

      Delete
    7. Yes I have heard of the darwin unit- So tell us, how many darwin units difference between chimps and humans?

      It depends on the trait, obviously. If you had understood the Darwin unit, you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.

      Of course they do. All GA/ EAs are written to solve a problem or problems- ie they have specific goals. And all changes are directed towards that/ those goal(s).

      No, they aren't. They model random mutation and natural selection based on a fitness criterion. There is no guidance to whatever local fitness maximum the algorithms converge to. If there were, there wouldn't be a need to run the model.

      Do you understand?

      Delete
    8. LoL! I understand the darwin unit- and it doesn't apply to the scenario I asked about. I don't know of anyone who even uses it.

      Of course they do. All GA/ EAs are written to solve a problem or problems- ie they have specific goals. And all changes are directed towards that/ those goal(s).

      No, they aren't.

      Yes, they are.

      They model random mutation and natural selection based on a fitness criterion.

      LoL! Natural selection is just differential reproduction due to heritable chance variation. And fitness, wrt biology, is just reproductive success.

      But anyway, they used an EA to get a specific antenna design. They used EAs to get many specific designs.

      The solution isn't specified, just the target. And a fitness criterion is the guidance- it doesn't exist in nature as whatever is good enough survives and reproduces- and even that changes- meaning there isn't one set criterion in nature. Nothing is set and there is always more than one variant that survives to reproduce.

      Then there is the fact that all GAs/ EAs have to start with the very thing that needs to be explained-> reproduction.

      Designed organisms doing what they are DESIGNED TO DO, is evidence for Intelligent Design.

      Do YOU understand?

      Delete
  6. Darwinian Evolution Casino Analogy:

    Initial Budget = Initial Function
    Slot Machines (via RNG) = Random Mutations
    Win or Loss = Fitness (deviates from the Initial Budget)

    Good Luck!

    ahahahahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  7. That picture above...is that Jeff and Thorton?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, thorton's a pencil-neck-geek. He can only wrestle with his undies...

      Delete
  8. No, Eugen. Thorton's not the violent type! LOL!

    But to the point of the post: Above, JoeCoder says "I have a preference for arguments that are quantifiable." And then he says, "Unless we can quantify this, I fear that any arguments of "not enough time" are meaningless." This is sheer confusion. The whole valid point CH is making is that we DON'T have quantifiable arguments.

    It is it not the case that "arguments of 'not enough time'" are meaningless except in the sense that "arguments of 'there is enough time'" are meaningless. On the other hand, given the number of permutations of possible DNA sequences in a genome and the absence of a naturalistic theory that predicts phenotypical trajectories of the relevant kind in the posited time-frames, there is no way yet to demonstrate or corroborate the claim that there is even a non-zero probability for NATURALISTIC UCA-style evolution for the time-spans it is believed to have occurred in.

    Cladistic trees aren't even relevant to the question, because they assume tree-generating criteria correlate magically with the extinction/variation rules in operation in the real world. But there are ZERO reasons for thinking that is true. I could just as arbitrarily assume that manuscripts copy themselves imperfectly merely because they can be put into a tree using cladistic criteria. But how stupid is that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Joe G posted this:

    "Designed organisms doing what they are DESIGNED TO DO, is evidence for Intelligent Design."

    Amazing thought process behind that one. Absolutely priceless.

    ReplyDelete