Beware of the Football
The evolution of even a single protein-coding gene is astronomically unlikely. How do I know? Because even the evolutionists
unrealistically optimistic estimates show a 27 order of magnitude shortfall. And so a
review paper from last year entitled “The evolutionary origin of orphan genes” attracted no little attention. Orphan genes are protein-coding genes that appear in a single species. Because they appear only once in the evolutionary tree, they must have evolved relatively rapidly and their history cannot be traced back to early evolutionary history. This means evolutionists cannot appeal quite so much to strange, unobservable and unverifiable events and processes to explain their origin. Given the 27 order of magnitude shortfall, an explanation for how protein-coding genes evolved, including mature, functional orphan genes, would be a terrific breakthrough. So did the paper actually explain “The evolutionary origin of orphan genes”? [Hint: Lucy was an evolutionist]
The review paper did not actually explain how orphans could have evolved. Rather, it assumed they evolved and explained that, given that orphans evolved, how fast they must have evolved, how they are identified, how they can help explain protein evolution, and so forth. It did, however, in passing admit to the gravity of the underlying problem:
If de novo emergence does indeed have a large role in orphan evolution, one has to explain how a new functional protein can emerge out of a previously non-coding sequence. This would seem highly unlikely a priori, particularly when one considers our current knowledge of protein evolution
Indeed it is highly unlikely according to our “current knowledge.”
So now the story from Darwinists is that ORFan proteins came from long non-coding RNAs? But weren't long non-coding RNAs just recently found to have a vital regulatory role over the protein coding regions even though many leading Darwinists insisted the long non-coding RNAs to be merely 'junk' DNA with no vital function?,,, Thus it seems that the Darwinists now have it completely backwards from a evolutionary perspective,,, So it appears the story from Darwinists is now (it is hard to keep up because the story keeps changing) that a regulating RNA sequence first 'randomly' appears then somehow this regulating sequence manages to become (they don't ever explain how) a regulated sequence???
ReplyDeleteResearchers discover molecular determinant of cell identity - March 2011
More 'Junk DNA' bites the dust; For years, many biochemists were skeptical that lincRNA played any important role in a cell and considered the molecules just mere "noise," perhaps vestigial protein-coding genes that had mutated to become nonfunctional., lincRNAs play a critical regulatory role: determining what proteins a cell produces and, thereby, what identity it assumes"
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-molecular-cell-identity.html
Dark matter DNA active in brain during day — night cycle - Sept. 21, 2012
Excerpt: "These lncRNAs come from areas of the genome that we thought were quiet,",,,"But current research in the field makes it unequivocally clear that the information-carrying capacity of the genome is a lot greater than we realized previously."
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2012/nichd-21.htm
Nature Study Vindicates ENCODE, Reports Functions for Antisense Non-Coding "Junk" RNA - Casey Luskin - October 25, 2012
Excerpt: We are delighted to see that there is one more function for long non-coding RNAs," says Piero Carninci, Team Leader at RIKEN OSC. "Since the initial discovery that the majority of the genome produces so many non-coding RNAs, there has been a general skepticism related to the possible function of these RNAs. This is a milestone study identifying a novel class of non-coding RNAs which have a key regulatory function, enhancing protein translation. Additionally, this function is mediated by repetitive elements, so far generally considered the 'junk' fraction of the genome, suggesting that the concept that most of the genome is 'junk' should be revisited. After all, there may be function embedded in any part of the genome, which we do not yet understand."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/nature_study_vi065741.html
Long Non-coding RNA Punches Another Hole in "Junk Genome" Myth - December 2011
Excerpt: cellular processes are not only highly complex, but highly regulated. As the authors of this study point out, "these results revealed a novel layer of regulation of erythroid cell differentiation and apoptosis by a lincRNA." When we consider that many aspects of the cell are highly regulated, we find that the cell operates like a factory with an intricately woven network of processes rather than a hodge-podge of functioning and non-functioning pieces of the kind you might expect to result from a randomly driven evolutionary process. With every discovery of additional layers of complexity and regulation in the cell, we see the hallmarks of engineered or designed processes.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/long_non-coding054291.html
Further notes:
DeleteHuman Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008
Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012
Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps."
Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/from_jerry_coyn060271.html
Moreover the 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced:
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life:
Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm
New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010
Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract
This following study, in which the functional role of ORFan genes was analyzed, the (Darwinian) researchers were 'very shocked' and 'taken aback' by what they found;
New Genes, New Brain - October 2011
Excerpt: “This is one of the first studies to look at the role of completely novel genes” in primate brain development,,, A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex,,, Finally, 54 of the 280 genes found to be unique to humans were also highly expressed in the developing prefrontal cortex,,,, “We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures.,,, (From the PLoS article, author’s summary: We found these genes are scattered across the whole genome, demonstrating that they are generated by many independent events,,, Our data reveal that evolutionary change in the development of the human brain happened at the protein level by gene origination,,)
http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/19/new-genes-new-brain/
"This would seem highly unlikely a priori, particularly when one considers our current knowledge of protein evolution"
ReplyDeleteThis is confusing language. Because all that is meant by "a priori" in the context is what is conceivable given "our current knowledge." This is all ID'ists are saying--that per our current knowledge, nothing about naturalistic UCA seems remotely probable. The claim that ID'ists say naturalistic UCA has been falsified is false. Most of us don't even believe it's falsifABLE. At least, we've never heard anyone explain how it could BE falsified.
Sure, there are people who confuse actual falsification criteria with gut hunches. But that's beside the point.
Louis,
DeleteThe theory of evolution is falsified because destructive mutations far outnumber constructive mutations by many, many orders of magnitude.
Do you have proof of this number?
This is all ID'ists are saying--that per our current knowledge, nothing about naturalistic UCA seems remotely probable.
DeleteOh, is that all they are saying? No alternative that is more probable and the calculations to show the alternative is more probable? That's not much to go on. No wonder ID has been such a failure thus far.
Me:
DeleteThe theory of evolution is falsified because destructive mutations far outnumber constructive mutations by many, many orders of magnitude.
velikovskys:
Do you have proof of this number?
Do you even need to ask? I mean, isn't it obvious? It's a stupid question, really. Only those lying psychopaths who are perpetrating the lie would feel the need to ask such a dumb question. Confusion is one of their tactics. Are you playing the devil's advocate?
Troy: Oh, is that all they are saying? No alternative that is more probable and the calculations to show the alternative is more probable? That's not much to go on. No wonder ID has been such a failure thus far.
DeleteJeff: You're assuming too much again. An ID inference doesn't require that one "go" anywhere. If I infer that cars only exist because of teleological (libertarian) causality, that inference is either more plausible than its negation per inductive criteria or not. I'm not obligated to "go" anywhere with the inference merely because it involves less ad-hoc assumptions than does the inference that only naturalistic causes were involved in the origin of cars.
If naturalistic-UCA'ists didn't claim their view is more plausible in terms of rational criteria than is ID-SA, there wouldn't even be an ID movement. It's the constant pontificating of obviously bogus claims that creates all the emotion and, therefore, movements. The handful of ID-UCA'ists that care about rationality more than careers aren't numerous enough to get a movement off the ground. And I'm sure they know it.
Velikovskys...Do you have proof?
ReplyDeleteLouis
Do you even need to ask? I mean, isn't it obvious? It's a stupid question, really. Only those lying psychopaths who are perpetrating the lie would feel the need to ask such a dumb question. Confusion is one of their tactics. Are you playing the devil's advocate
I agree,I was stupid to ask you a question about proof. Apologies,Louis.
Don't think I am a psychopath but in your expert opinion do you think a real psychopath would actually think they were a psychopath? Or merely the rest of the world was crazy.
Psychopaths know they're crazy, alright, but they won't do anything about it. Why? Because they enjoy behaving like assholes.
DeleteApparently
DeleteFrom The Talk Origins Archive:
DeleteClaim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Response:
Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
[...]
Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
Thank you Ian , appreciate the info. Somehow I suspected that Louis was confused.
DeleteThe lying psychos are at it again. LOL.
Delete"I have seen estimates of the incidence of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations which range from one in one thousand up to one in one million. The best estimates seem to be one in one million (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). Therefore, I cannot ...accurately represent how rare such beneficial mutations really are." (J.C. Sanford; Genetic Entropy page 24) - 2005
Delete“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information… All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
Lee Spetner - Ph.D. Physics - MIT - Not By Chance
John Sanford writes in “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”: “Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 ‘mutation’ hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word ‘beneficial’ (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed ‘beneficial mutations’ were only beneficial in a very narrow sense–but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes–hence loss of information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome.” (pp. 26-27)
http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp
Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...
(Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, "Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo's Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation," Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html
Mutations : when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations)
Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
A Serious Problem for Darwinists: Epistasis Decreases Chances of Beneficial Mutations - November 8, 2012
DeleteExcerpt: A recent paper in Nature finds that epistasis (interactions between genetic changes) is much more pervasive than previously assumed. This strongly limits the ability of beneficial mutations to confer fitness on organisms. ,,,
It takes an outsider to read this paper and see how disturbing it should be to the consensus neo-Darwinian theory. All that Darwin skeptics can do is continue to point to papers like this as severe challenges to the consensus view. Perhaps a few will listen and take it seriously.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/epistasis_decr066061.html
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives - November 2010
Excerpt:,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
The Majority of Animal Genes Are Required for Wild-Type Fitness. Cell. - Ramani, A. K. et al. 2012. - 148 (4): 792-802.
Excerpt: Whereas previous studies typically assess phenotypes that are detectable by eye after a single generation, we monitored growth quantitatively over several generations. In contrast to previous estimates, we find that, in these multigeneration population assays, the majority of genes affect fitness, and this suggests that genetic networks are not robust to mutation. Our results demonstrate that, in a single environmental condition, most animal genes play essential roles. This is a higher proportion than for yeast genes, and we suggest that the source of negative selection is different in animals and in unicellular eukaryotes.
http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674%2812%2900084-0
http://www.icr.org/article/7166/
Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? (Thomas Bataillon) - 2000
Abstract......It is argued that, although most if not all mutations detected in mutation accumulation experiments are deleterious, the question of the rate of favourable mutations (and their effects) is still a matter for debate.
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v84/n5/full/6887270a.html
"Moreover, there is strong theoretical reasons for believing there is no truly neutral nucleotide positions. By its very existence, a nucleotide position takes up space, affects spacing between other sites, and affects such things as regional nucleotide composition, DNA folding, and nucleosome building. If a nucleotide carries absolutely no (useful) information, it is, by definition, slightly deleterious, as it slows cell replication and wastes energy.,, Therefore, there is no way to change any given site without some biological effect, no matter how subtle."
- John Sanford - Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome - pg. 21 - Inventor of the 'Gene Gun'
Thanks, bornagain77. The number 1 characteristic of psychopaths is their forked tongues. If living organisms did not have powerful genetic repair mechanisms to weed out mutations, none would survive. The actual ratio of bad mutations vs good mutations is too high to calculate. Astronomical does not do it justice. Now, imagine the fate of a poor primordial cell that has not already "evolved" a genetic repair mechanism. Heck, imagine a bunch of organic molecule trying to become alive. The stupidity boggles the mind.
DeletePS. I note your continued efforts at trying to win over the psychos. It won't work.
Louis,
DeleteThe lying psychos are at it again. LOL.
Good name for a band. Thanks Louie
Louie,
DeleteThe number 1 characteristic of psychopaths is their forked tongues
What got their tongues all forked up,Louie?
The actual ratio of bad mutations vs good mutations is too high to calculate
Bad design
Heck, imagine a bunch of organic molecule trying to become alive.
They have more chance than the Dallas Cowboys.
PS. I note your continued efforts at trying to win over the psychos. It won't work.
I think Ian is wavering a bit. I think BA's links are starting to convince him.
Louie,
DeleteLouis SavainDecember 30, 2012 8:35 PM
Eat %#*+, velikovskys, whoever you are.
Music to my ears
More specifically to the claim of neutral mutations:
DeleteMajestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial - David Berlinski - November 2011
Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura's The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura's theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. "A critique of neo-Darwinism," the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, "can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science."
By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/berlinski_on_darwin_on_trial053171.html
Ann Gauger on genetic drift - August 2012
Excerpt: The idea that evolution is driven by drift has led to a way of retrospectively estimating past genetic lineages. Called coalescent theory, it is based on one very simple assumption — that the vast majority of mutations are neutral and have no effect on an organism’s survival. (For a review go here.) According to this theory, actual genetic history is presumed not to matter. Our genomes are full of randomly accumulating neutral changes. When generating a genealogy for those changes, their order of appearance doesn’t matter. Trees can be drawn and mutations assigned to them without regard to an evolutionary sequence of genotypes, since genotypes don’t matter.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/ann-gauger-on-genetic-drift/
Here is a Completely Different Way of Doing Science - Cornelius Hunter PhD. - April 2012
Excerpt: But how then could evolution proceed if mutations were just neutral? The idea was that neutral mutations would accrue until finally an earthquake, comet, volcano or some such would cause a major environmental shift which suddenly could make use of all those neutral mutations. Suddenly, those old mutations went from goat-to-hero, providing just the designs that were needed to cope with the new environmental challenge. It was another example of the incredible serendipity that evolutionists call upon.
Too good to be true? Not for evolutionists. The neutral theory became quite popular in the literature. The idea that mutations were not brimming with cool innovations but were mostly bad or at best neutral, for some, went from an anathema to orthodoxy. And the idea that those neutral mutations would later magically provide the needed innovations became another evolutionary just-so story, told with conviction as though it was a scientific finding.
Another problem with the theory of neutral molecular evolution is that it made even more obvious the awkward question of where these genes came from in the first place.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-completely-different-way-of.html
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012
DeleteExcerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html
Michael Behe on the theory of constructive neutral evolution - February 2012
Excerpt: I don’t mean to be unkind, but I think that the idea seems reasonable only to the extent that it is vague and undeveloped; when examined critically it quickly loses plausibility. The first thing to note about the paper is that it contains absolutely no calculations to support the feasibility of the model. This is inexcusable. - Michael Behe
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/michael-behe-on-the-theory-of-constructive-neutral-evolution/
On Enzymes and Teleology - Ann Gauger - July 19, 2012
Excerpt: People have been saying for years, "Of course evolution isn't random, it's directed by natural selection. It's not chance, it's chance and necessity." But in recent years the rhetoric has changed. Now evolution is constrained. Not all options are open, and natural selection is not the major player, it's the happenstance of genetic drift that drives change. But somehow it all happens anyway, and evolution gets the credit.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/on_enzymes_and062391.html
velikovskys December 30, 2012 9:03 PM
Delete[...]
I think Ian is wavering a bit. I think BA's links are starting to convince him.
They're doing something to me. If I read enough of them I have this strange urge to throw my computer out of the window. Is that good or bad?
That's good...
DeleteThe evolution myth is nothing but a fairytale. It requires one to first ASSUME it's true, then interpret all evidence with that bias in mind.
ReplyDeleteIt's not scientific, it's not even rational or logical, it's laughable.
In a way, that is how science works, at least in part. It gathers a lot of data that appears to be connected in some way and tries to come up with explanations that join the dots, as it were. How else would you do it?
DeleteWell seeing that unguided evolution can't even produce a testable hypothesis, it is easy to tell that it ain't science.
DeleteCornelius Hunter, you said:
ReplyDelete“If the supposed evolutionary path to a protein goes through a functional non-coding RNA then evolution’s ever increasing serendipity just went astronomic. For it would mean that evolution found a functional non-coding RNA which just happened to lie close to a protein in sequence space.”
It should not be that surprising that the origination of de novo protein-coding gene can come from non-coding RNAs: 1) there is a large pool of non-coding RNAs (~35k), 2) it’s more likely for a protein coding RNA to evolve from a transcribed region of the genome than from a region that is not transcribed, 3) many non-coding RNAs have signatures of mRNAs (i.e.: splicing, polyadenylation and 5’cap) and 4) non-coding RNAs can mediate their function independently of their sequence, simply by being transcribed.
It should not be that surprising that the origination of de novo protein-coding gene can come from non-coding RNAs: 1) there is a large pool of non-coding RNAs (~35k), 2) it’s more likely for a protein coding RNA to evolve from a transcribed region of the genome than from a region that is not transcribed, 3) many non-coding RNAs have signatures of mRNAs (i.e.: splicing, polyadenylation and 5’cap) and 4) non-coding RNAs can mediate their function independently of their sequence, simply by being transcribed.
DeleteNone of those reasons you list remove or reduce the search problem, which even going by evolutionist's unrealistic estimates falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. Indeed, the one strategy evolutionists pinned their hopes on, recombination (which does not solve the problem, but that's another story), becomes less relevant with non coding RNAs.
Without knowing the function of the protein, how can you tell? Every example in your other post that is linked in this post is about the search for a specific function. Do you know the probability of a protein having any function in a cell? What if the function of the protein was simply to interfere with another protein? What if the previously non-coded RNA was translated in order to increase its stability by avoiding premature decay?
DeleteAs I mentioned in my last post, non-coding RNA already have many other signatures from coding RNAs. Splicing is associated with higher level of transcription. Polyadenylation and 5’capping are known to increase the stability of RNAs. Considering there are thousands of non-coding RNAs with those signatures, would it be that surprising if a few of them were translated by chance?
"would it be that surprising if a few of them were translated by chance?"
DeleteYes it would, which is really beside the point in science, you must provide proof that what you say is true not speculation. But alas, Darwinists seem to think their theory is impervious to such beggarly requirements as empirical confirmation!
Without knowing the function of the protein, how can you tell? Every example in your other post that is linked in this post is about the search for a specific function. Do you know the probability of a protein having any function in a cell?
DeleteYes, I agree. Too many unknowns. Fixed.
"2) it’s more likely for a protein coding RNA to evolve from a transcribed region of the genome than from a region that is not transcribed,"
ReplyDeletePerhaps instead of speculation on what Darwinists feel to be 'more likely', you guys would care to actually demonstrate the origination of a novel protein from scratch? Or is empirical science 'more likely' to disconfirm your hypothesis than confirm it?
It’s a matter of common sense. If the sequence for a new gene is in a part of the genome that is never transcribed, it simply won’t be expressed.
DeleteI'll take your common sense and raise you empirical evidence! Prove with empirical evidence that your speculations are true.,, For instance, I hold that the detrimental mutation rate to genomes is far too high for evolution to be remotely feasible, and instead of just using 'common sense' to try to make you see this, I will actually provide proof that what I say is true:
DeleteGenetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description)
http://vimeo.com/35088933
Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf
MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
http://www.hgmd.org/
Kimura's Quandary
Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity.
John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162
A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' is shown in the following video:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010
DeleteExcerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit')
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:
Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00
Whether adaptive functions, per se, can occur naturalistically is irrelevant. What naturalistic UCA requires is a series of modifications that are BOTH sufficiently adapted to survive AND consistent with the posited phenotypical trajectories in the POSITED time-frame. It's the posited FINITE time-frame for both of these conditions being met that renders the evidential argument for naturalistic UCA so mind-bogglingly problematic.
DeleteThis is why UCA'ists HAVE to resort to story-telling the past (even God can't undo the past). Because apart from that, there's just a huge pile of empirical data with no theory that correlates it to natural event regularities.
Unknown:
DeleteIt’s a matter of common sense. If the sequence for a new gene is in a part of the genome that is never transcribed, it simply won’t be expressed.
True to the Darwinian tradition, the "answer" to the "origin" of something that is highly improbable is to be found somewhere among the INVISIBLE!!
It's an "orphan" gene because it's UCA is found in nc-DNA.
This is Darwinism at its finest: just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
How do you falsify this?
And then they complain about those who invoke a Designer.
At least we have "evidence" for a Designer. You have nothing; you simply invoke the 'invisible.' As Darwin suggests, just use your IMAGINATION!
Let's start calling the Darwinists the "Invisibilists"! What do you all think?
Cornelius Hunter:
DeletePart of the process of getting something posted here is identify letters and numbers. I rather suspect that Google is using this information for their own purposes, such as having a digital equivalent for numbers as they show up when Google's cars are out there filming city streets and such. I don't care to be a part of it. So I intentionally scramble the numbers and letters. I recommend this practice to others. Why be a part of what could very easily be a nefarious practice exercised by Google?
2012 is gone by, another whole year without a single piece of positive scientific evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism being presented. Same as all the other years.
DeleteThat's a pretty impressive track record for you clowns, ya know?
LoL! Seeing that "Intelligent Design Creationsim" only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant, of course there wouldn't be any evidence for it.
DeleteHowever peer-reviewed journals are full of evidence for Intelligent Design.
Chubby Joe G
DeleteHowever peer-reviewed journals are full of evidence for Intelligent Design.
LOL! We know Chubs. "The sky is blue" is evidence for intelligent design because the Designer might like blue. Right?
LoL! Your position can't even account for the sky, you loser.
DeleteMore specifically, there is a huge pile of empirical data with no NATURALISTIC theory that correlates it to natural event regularities to a degree inconsistent with SA.
ReplyDeleteLOL! Liar for Jesus Jeff still trying to philosophize away the scientific theory that frightens him so badly.
DeleteKeep humping LFJJ. Who knows, you may even sway someone's opinion with your ignorant blathering someday.
That was a
DeleteThorton moment
:D
depleted. This love, to have and to give up what mother of bride dresses is the use? Even if Katherine is alive, he can give her what kind of happiness?
ReplyDelete