Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Bigelowiella natans: Evolution Damage Control is Frantic

This One Looks Really Bad


You’ve heard of novel genes—genes that are found in only one species, and you’ve heard of alternative splicing—complex genes that are edited in different ways. Now put them together and on steroids, and to top it off, all in a mere unicellar algae. It’s another damage control nightmare as evolutionists again can’t figure out what went wrong.

The explosion in molecular biology in the past fifty years brought a plethora of new DNA sequence data and with it many new contradictions for evolutionists. One interesting finding was that in the higher species, genes are often interrupted multiple times. Instead of one DNA segment, those complex genes consisted of several smaller segments separated by intervening sequences.

As usual evolutionists figured it was all a mistake, the result of random mutations wreaking more havoc, this time in the higher species. As we have discussed many times, the evolutionist’s first move is always to assume that biology is a kludge, just barely functioning. It is amazing anything works at all.

Fortunately those random mutations also created exquisite molecular machines to splice the gene at just the right places and just the right times, and glue back together the right segments, omitting those useless intervening sequences. Another disaster somehow averted.

In fact, no thanks to evolutionary theory scientists discovered that those intervening sequences aren’t so useless, and that the gene segments are not only glued back together, but they can be rearranged as well. The process is referred to as alternative splicing and it rewrites the definition of a gene. It also allows for a far greater diversity of genes.

All of this was observed in the higher species, so evolutionists assumed those random mutations caused all this trouble at some point in the evolutionary history leading to those higher species.

That is, until the recent discovery that the unicellular algae, Bigelowiella natans, is an alternative splicing wizard, up there with the best of the higher organisms. It was “an unexpected finding”:

Unlike all characterized unicellular species—indeed, unlike all characterized non-metazoans—B. natans shows complex and ubiquitous alternative splicing.

Or as one evolution admitted, these levels of alternative splicing in B. natans:

greatly exceed that seen in the model plant Arabidopsis and on par with the human cerebral cortex, unprecedented and truly remarkable for a unicellular organism. This challenges the paradigm that complex alternative splicing is a phenomenon limited to sophisticated multicellular organisms.

It also challenges the paradigm called evolution. But as usual evolutionists easily resolve the dilemma. For once again, it is all just a mistake. The observed alternative splicing is really just “noise” in the molecular machinery—splicing errors. Like a broken calculator, evolutionary theory continues to give the same answer: it’s all just “noise.” It is amazing that evolution produced anything at all.

Alternative splicing is not the only contradiction offered up by this humble organism. B. natans also surprised evolutionists with unique, novel genes. In fact it has, err, about ten thousand unique genes.

When unique genes first starting appearing in the genomic data, evolutionists figured their evolutionary cousins would be discovered in the genomes of other species. The problem was that we did not yet have sufficient genome data in hand. Surely once the genome data from more species were obtained, the cousins of those pesky unique genes would be found. Unique genes would become a thing of the past.

But once again evolutionary theory pointed in the wrong direction. In fact, as the genomic data have increased, so have the unique genes. Now we can throw another 10,000 onto the heap.

Evolution is not motivated by the science. It never was. Darwin became convinced of transmutation for religious reasons. Since then nothing has changed. Religion drives science, and it matters.

76 comments:

  1. OH NOES!!! EVOLUTION IS DISPROVEN AGAIN!!!

    That makes, what, about 500 times at least you've single-handedly disproven evolution on this blog CH?

    All that amazing detective work and that evil Atheistic Scientific Establishment still won't award you your well deserved Nobel Prize.

    Pity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So says the evolutionist about 15 seconds after the posting. For evolutionists, it's not about the science.

      Delete
    2. Evolutionism was never about the science. Never.

      Delete
    3. CH, since academe is determined to render science incapable of being demarcated in part, at least, to pretend that evolutionary speculation is scientific, maybe the more accurate thing to say is "it's not about rational inquiry." For now, thanks to the current regime, science has no fixed definition. It's whatever the "consensus" wants it to be one day at a time.

      Delete
  2. This blog sure isn't about the science anyway.

    But go ahead CH. Start that petition to get you your well deserved Nobel Prize. I'll sign it.

    Wait...they do award a Nobel Prize for best unintentionally hilarious anti-science propaganda, don't they? ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! No one has won a Nobel Prize for anything dealing with evolutionism.

      Perhaps if someone comes up with a way to scientifically test evoltionism's claims, then people will start to take notice. Until themn it's all "wooooo-wooooo"

      Delete
    2. Except Herman Muller, Francis Crick, Joseph Hoffman, ...

      One thing I know for sure: Joe Gallieni never won a Nobel prize for anything and never will.

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joe G

      LoL! No one has won a Nobel Prize for anything dealing with evolutionism.


      No one Chubs?

      The 1962 Nobel prize was awarded to James D. Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins for their work on DNA structure.

      As of 2010, eight Prizes have been awarded for contributions in the field of signal transduction through G proteins and second messengers. 13 have been awarded for contributions in the field of neurobiology and 13 have been awarded for contributions in Intermediary metabolism.

      Barbara McClintock won an unshared prize in 1983 for the discovery of genetic transposition.

      Mario Capecchi, Martin Evans and Oliver Smithies won the prize in 2007 for the discovery of a gene targeting procedure (a type of genetic recombination) for introducing homologous recombination in mice, employing embryonic stem cells through the development of the knockout mouse.

      In 2009, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak of the United States for discovering the process by which chromosomes are protected by telomeres (regions of repetitive DNA at the ends of chromosomes)


      You need to put down the Doritos and pick up a history of science book.

      Delete
    4. Hi Jeff and queenoe-

      Please tell us what any of those have to do with evolutionism, ie blind and undirected chemical processes? Please be specific.

      Equivocating evos, just say anything and hope no one knows any better.

      Delete
    5. Chubby Joe G

      Please tell us what any of those have to do with evolutionism, ie blind and undirected chemical processes?


      Wow. Fatboy Joe doesn't understand what DNA has to do with evolution.

      Any of you IDiots out there want to give Chubs a hand?

      Delete
    6. Wow, dancing queen thorton answers with a non-sequitur with a loaded false accusation.

      Do you really think people are as twisted as you are?

      Now pull your head out long enough to answer the real question, the question I asked:

      Please tell us what any of those have to do with evolutionism, ie blind and undirected chemical processes?

      They did not elucidate the structure of DNA saying "If all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to blind and undirected chemical processes the structure of DNA should be a triple helix, wait, wait, we mean a double helix."

      Cornelius, clean up or take out, your trash, please

      Delete
    7. Chubs Gallien

      Cornelius, clean up or take out, your trash, please


      LOL! Better be careful what you wish for Mr. obscenity spewing physical threat maker.

      Delete
    8. LoL! More cowardly lies from the hypocritical dancing queen.

      Delete
    9. Jeffrey Shallit:
      One thing I know for sure: Joe Gallieni never won a Nobel prize for anything and never will.

      One thing we all know for sure: Jeffrey Shallit will never be mistaken for an honest man.

      Delete
    10. Wow, there sure is a lot of flaming going around this site. It would be nice to see a rational discussion of the topic. All of those Nobel Prizes that deal with genetics deal with evolution because that is what evolution is--change in gene frequencies from one generation to the next. The fact that you don't look exactly like one of your parents but look like a blend of them is the recombination of genes. That you are their descendant makes it "descent with modification." At its basic level, that is what evolution is.

      Delete
    11. LoL! Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution so those prizes could be Intelligent Design prizes. Even YEC's baraminology accepts your definition of evolution so those prizes could be baraminology prizes.

      Don't you guys ever get tired of equivocating? "Evolution" does not = blind and undirected processes. Only evolutionISM sez evolution proceeds via blind and undirected chemical processes and not one of those prizes had anything to do with that.

      3 equivocating chimp-wannabes do not make it right...

      Delete
    12. Chubby Joe G

      3 equivocating chimp-wannabes do not make it right...


      Correct. It's the millions of pieces of consilient and corroborating evidence collected over dozens of decades and hundreds of scientific disciplines that assure it's right.

      1 obese lying ignorant as dirt YEC sure doesn't make all that positive evidence wrong, even if he does outweigh the other 3 mentioned posters put together.

      Delete
    13. dancing queenie thorton is confused as he has already admitted that evolutionism is NOT scientific.

      So 1 cowardly bluffing equivocator doesn't mean anything, as usual.

      Delete
    14. That's mainly because we discuss evolutionism. And evolutionism isn't scientific.

      thorton
      You're right. "Evolutionism" isn't scientific.

      Thank you for admitting that the theory of evolution, ie evolutionism, is not scientific.

      Delete
    15. So to be clear:

      No one has won a Nobel Prize for anything dealing with evolutionism.

      And no amount of evoTARD lies will ever change that fact.

      Delete
    16. No one? Really?

      How about this title of the Nobel lecture given by one of the 2011 laureates in physiology and medicine: Evolutionary Perspectives of Innate Immunity: Studies with Drosophila

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. LoL! And another equivocator steps up.

      Please tell us that has to do with evolutionism, ie blind and undirected chemical processes?

      Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution so those prizes could be Intelligent Design prizes. Even YEC's baraminology accepts your definition of evolution so those prizes could be baraminology prizes.

      Don't you guys ever get tired of equivocating? "Evolution" does not = blind and undirected processes. Only evolutionISM sez evolution proceeds via blind and undirected chemical processes and not one of those prizes had anything to do with that.

      Delete
    20. Chubby Joe G is the closest thing we've got on Earth to a Vogon guard. Fat, stupid, slug-like, endlessly drones the same few stupid catch-phrases:

      "Resistance is useless!"

      "Evolution has no evidence!!"

      "Evolution has no testable hypotheses!!"

      "You can't support your position!!"

      At least his droning stupidity is occasionally entertaining.

      Delete
    21. Frankly, Joe, I don't give a rat's tail about your own definition of evolution.

      Delete
    22. LoL!@oleg!

      Unfortunately for oleg, it ain't my definition.

      So frankly, oleg, I don't give a rat's tail about your ignorance and equivocation.

      Delete
    23. And thorton continues to spew its lies:

      "Evolution has no evidence!!"

      I never said that. ID is OK with "evolution".

      "Evolution has no testable hypotheses!!"

      I never said that, either.

      "You can't support your position!!"

      Yes, now THAT is still true.

      Delete
    24. So to be clear:

      No one has won a Nobel Prize for anything dealing with evolutionism.

      And no amount of evoTARD lies will ever change that fact.

      Delete
    25. Joe, do you think the use of boldface type makes you silly assertions more authoritative or something? The Nobel laureates themselves say that their research has evolutionary underpinnings. And here we have Joe Sixpack who says it is untrue. Oh, well...

      Delete
    26. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    27. oleg- do you think that your continued cowardly equivocation and willful ignorance actually refute what I said?

      Really?

      Having "evolutionary underpinnings" does NOT mean they had "blind and undirected chemical processes underpinnings".

      It's as if you are just totally incapable of learning. You're a pathetic little man, oleg. Pathetic.

      HINT:

      They did not elucidate the structure of DNA saying "If all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to blind and undirected chemical processes the structure of DNA should be a triple helix, wait, wait, we mean a double helix."

      Go seek help, oleg

      Delete
    28. Joe, you crack me up. If I were "totally incapable of learning," I would not be where I am now, would I? But enough about me.

      Aside from copying and pasting your assertions in a boldface type, can you make any actual arguments in support of your assertions? :)

      Delete
    29. I have supported everything I have said. Again don't blame me for your willful ignorance.

      Why is it that you ignore just about everything I post? Why don't you answer my questions?

      You're a punk-ass, oleg.

      Delete
    30. Oh, poor Joe. People ignore everything he says! Well, maybe if you made some sense then people wouldn't ignore you. Dontcha think? (I know you don't. Hahaha)

      Delete
    31. LoL! No oleg, you're just a willfully ignorant person. High school kids grasp what I am saying. So the problem is with you and your ilk.

      Delete
    32. Oh, I grasp what you are saying, Joe. I just don't find it interesting. Funny, yes. Interesting, no.

      Delete
    33. Obvioulsy you don't grasp what I am saying. And of course you don't find the truth, reality and facts interesting. And of course you find them funny. You are a loser.

      Delete
  3. Cool paper on some very unusual organisms.

    It isn't as though alternative splicing is absent from lower Eukaryotes. They're quite proficient at it, and have all the machinery for it. These organisms just happen to do it at a scale previously observed in only in metazoans.

    And the splicing found has some VERY important differences from metazoans: "two features of the B. natans alternative exons suggest that much of the exon skipping reflects spliceosomal ‘noise’ (that is, splicing errors). .... perhaps suggesting that exon skipping is not regulated. Second, the proportion of exons that maintain reading frame (that is, are a multiple of three nucleotides) is close to random expectation ... This proportion is lower than that observed for cassette exons in human and fly, in which maintenance of the reading frame is associated with functional (and evolutionarily conserved) alternative splicing..."

    As for the unique genes-how many Cryptophyte or chlorarachniophyte genomes are there? I think 1 each. Imagine if we only had 1 genome total-then 100% of genes would be unique. What would be expected if we had only 1 metazoan genome? Probably 50% or so. Same thing here. That many of the proteins in these organisms that are very distant from other organisms (some propose promoting them to kingdom level!) don't have paralogue that exceed a detection threshold is less than surprising.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alternative gene splicing requires knowledge- what to edit, what to splice, how to edit, how to splice- just how is that explained via blind and undirected chemical processes? (nevermind the equipment required to do all of that)

      Delete
    2. How do you distinguish "knowledge" from the products of evolution?

      Delete
    3. Enough of the equivovation, already. Products of Intelligent Design evolution or blind watchmaker evolution?

      just how is that explained via blind and undirected chemical processes? (nevermind the equipment required to do all of that)

      Delete
    4. Neither "Intelligent Design" nor "blind watchmaker" preceding the word evolution means anything to me. Evolution suffices to explain the concept in the scientific literature.

      Splice sites can arise or be eliminated by mutation. They are defined by a sequence motif. Novel splice variants can generate useful new proteins, or destroy function, and cause horrible diseases. Both are observed.

      Delete
    5. Umm RobertC- the entire debate is about how evolution operates- do organisms evolve by design or do they just evpolve willy-nilly?

      So if you aren't even going to acknowledge that then there isn't anything else to say

      Delete
    6. I acknowledge that is the debate you'd like to have.

      Scientists observe mutations creating or breaking splice sites. How do I disprove that mutation X creating phenotype Y was an intended design? Mutations in the human genome appear random.

      How do I prove a person winning the lottery is not part of some supernatural design? We know the odds, the tickets bought.... But no one calls it the "God-intended" or "Random-Chance" powerball winner. Not a debate anyone I know of is having.

      And "intelligent design evolution" besides being a bit of a oxymoron for historical reasons, seems to be a phrase that you have sole ownership of.

      Delete
    7. Joe, although "Intelligent Design evolution or blind watchmaker evolution" doesn't mean a lot to me, I do thank you for acknowledging the observation and hypothesis of evolution.
      Educating students in that would be a start, and so much better than the nothing/non-science/creationism so many hold to.

      Scientific vs. Theistic vs. "Intelligent Design evolution" or "blind watchmaker evolution" is perhaps less important.

      Delete
    8. RobertC-

      Intellgent design is not anti-evolution so acknowledging the observation and hypothesis of evolution I may as well be acknowledging Intelligent Design.

      And you are wrong- it is very important how we are evolving, by design or willy-nilly. tat is the whole ball-game.

      Delete
  4. 'It was “an unexpected finding”

    That really was a LOL, and by far the loudest I've laughed for a long time.

    I was drinking tea. So, that's a new keyboard you owe me, Cornelius!

    A little disappointed that you didn't manage to work in your watchword about evolution not having to be proved - as everyone knows it's true, sort of thing!

    But it's unrealistic to expect 'both barrels' every time, though you came close to it in the last paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul

      But it's unrealistic to expect 'both barrels' every time, though you came close to it in the last paragraph.


      You really are so cute in that little TeamJesus cheer-leading outfit.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, Thorton. When I get rancour from you, I know you're smarting. It's the icing on the cake.

      Delete
  5. RobertC , Cornelius or any biologist

    “...from lower Eukaryotes...”

    What makes the cell “lower” or “higher”? Their internal operations should be similar in many ways and also same in many ways I (as a layman) understand.

    If we extract functioning cell from a human and a worm how do we decide which one is higher and which one is lower eukaryotic cell?
    (no arguing just wondering)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes-all eukaryotes will have similar (but not identical) cellular functions. Higher (referring to multicellular life) and lower (protozoa, yeast) aren't very precise terms, and an old convention I should get away from using.

      Humans and worms are both metazoans, or "higher" eukaryotes. We're also a lot more like each other than the beasts of this study.

      Delete
    2. RobertC:
      Yes-all eukaryotes will have similar (but not identical) cellular functions.

      Yes, via a common design. A pretty good one too.

      Delete
    3. Thanks RobC

      "...an old convention..."

      If everybody knows the meaning I think it's OK to use old conventions.It's confusing to laymen but we can get used to it,too.

      In electronics-electricity we have a convention that current flows from positive to negative but in reality electrons can flow only from a place where there is excess of electrons ie from negative to positive.



      Delete
  6. Life began as highly complex and efficient.

    With human designs the expectation is that over time the technology will improve, get better, smaller, more efficient, etc (phones, cars, radios, etc). The theory of evolution generally holds to this expectation also, with the survival of the fitest, natural selection of beneficial mutations over time, etc.

    What we see in the record of life is not improvement from clunky to advanced (not the Ford Model T to the Porsche 918 Spyder). In the record of life we see highly advanced from the beginning and then various configurations and variety of that same technology used over time. The 918 Spyder shares nearly nothing with the Model T, yet humans share much of the same biological "technology" as first life. Life doesn't show evidence of a designer trying to improve and figure things out over time, nor does it show evolution "tinkering" with the cluncky and improving on the "technology" over time. Rather the record of life indicates that the design concept from prokaryotes to humans was already in the mind of the creator when the first life was formed. It is not the story of clunky to advanced, but the introduction of variety over time based on the same advanced biological concepts and technology. When we compare life, it is as if all of life is on the same software/hardware level, just different configurations. Maybe I'm wrong about that and I would be interested in rational feedback.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tedford

      Life began as highly complex and efficient.


      Unsupported Creationist assertion.

      With human designs the expectation is that over time the technology will improve, get better, smaller, more efficient, etc (phones, cars, radios, etc). The theory of evolution generally holds to this expectation also, with the survival of the fitest, natural selection of beneficial mutations over time, etc.

      False, ignorance-based claim. ToE says nothing about how species have to get more complex over time. All evolutionary processes do is drive a population to a local maximum in reproductive fitness. This may mean more complex or less complex, bigger or smaller, faster or slower.

      Why dimbulb Creationists can't be bothered to learn even the most rudimentary things about the science they attack is a mystery.

      Delete
    2. Thorton:

      " ""Life began as highly complex and efficient.""

      Unsupported Creationist assertion. "

      It seems to me that the evidence indicates that all life functions require a minimal amount of complexity. That mens that life started out complex.

      " False, ignorance-based claim. ToE says nothing about how species have to get more complex over time. All evolutionary processes do is drive a population to a local maximum in reproductive fitness. This may mean more complex or less complex, bigger or smaller, faster or slower. "

      Evolutionists claim that the fact that the fossil record shows life gradually becoming more and more modern is evidence for evolution. Now you are that evolution does not require or predict any sort of trend at all. I'm confused. Please clarify.

      Delete
    3. dancing queen:
      ToE says nothing about how species have to get more complex over time.

      Exactly, which is one reason it ain't scientific.

      All evolutionary processes do is drive a population to a local maximum in reproductive fitness.

      Whatever that is- another reason it ain't scientific.

      Thanks thorton.

      Delete
    4. Chubby Joe G

      Exactly, which is one reason it ain't scientific.


      Yeah Chubs, not like the "scientific" Noah's Flood, Noah's Ark, and baraminology you've been pushing.

      Delete
    5. Umm I don't push Noah's flood. I just correct ignorant evos when they spew their lies and misrepresentations about it.

      And baraminology is supported by the scientific evidence. OTOH you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for evolutionism.

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joe G

      Umm I don't push Noah's flood. I just correct ignorant evos when they spew their lies and misrepresentations about it.


      LOL! Right Chubs. That's why you just spent a week at your blog defending a literal Noah's global covering flood.

      Tell us Mr. Lying-About-Your-YEC-Beliefs, what is the proper way to represent Noah's Flood and the Ark story?

      Delete
    7. No, as anyone can see I was correcting RichTARD Hughes' lies. And I do not accept the Bible as anything but a collection of books. I don't even own one.

      You are just a cowardly little person

      Delete
  7. natschuster

    It seems to me that the evidence indicates that all life functions require a minimal amount of complexity.


    What is the minimal amount of complexity required for life? Please be specific and support your answer.

    Evolutionists claim that the fact that the fossil record shows life gradually becoming more and more modern is evidence for evolution.

    No one in the evolutionary sciences claims that. Please stop projecting your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thorton:

    I would imagine that the simplest cell that we know of would have minimal amount of complexity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And how much is that, exactly?

      Delete
    2. More than evolutionism can account for

      Delete
    3. Joe, when I am interested in your opinion, I will ask you directly. The question was addressed to natschuster, who can presumably answer my question without relying on outside expertise.

      Delete
    4. oleg, I will answer your snide remarks when I feel like it. I don't care what you are interested in. No one does.

      Delete
    5. Oleg:

      I don't know exactly how to put a numeric figure on the complexity of a cell. I know that a car needs a certain amount of complexity to work. I don't know exactly how much. I guess maybe we could just count all the parts. So maybe we could count all the molecules in a cell.

      Delete
    6. Fair answer, natschuster.

      Delete
    7. Well, there's this-Essential genes of a minimal bacterium, and there's this Another Minimal Genome: Microbe Needs Just 271 Genes.

      Dr Hunter even has a little ditty: The Minimal Cell

      That should be good for a start...

      Delete
  9. natschuster

    I would imagine that the simplest cell that we know of would have minimal amount of complexity.


    Why? Where is your evidence that there couldn't have been even simpler precursors?

    Science doesn't much care for what you can imagine. It only cares about claims you can support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Viruses can't replicate on their own. They have to invade cells. That seems to me to indicate that replication requires at least that much complexity.

      And all of evolution is full of speculation and imagination about origins, transitionals, etc, etc, etc. The idea of simpler precursers that you just mentioned is pure speculation and imagination. Where is your evidence that they existed.

      Delete
  10. dancing queen:
    Science doesn't much care for what you can imagine. It only cares about claims you can support.

    LoL! Your position relies solely on imagination. And it isn't supported.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The cost and efficiency of WGA, and the credibility of Darwinism (=evolutionism), are, respectively, directly and inversely proportional.

    Darwinism is so, so passe!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Science doesn't much care for what you can imagine. It only cares about claims you can support.

    a classic quote for some one who has no real empirical scientific evidence to back up his claim.

    ReplyDelete