What a Mess, Alternative Splicing is Not Conserved Across Different Species
Remember when evolution created all of biology one mutation at a time? That quaint idea from your high school biology class was about as likely as an alien world smashing into the Earth last Friday. But at least it had the virtue of not being circular. No such luck today as now evolution has to create itself. Call it evolvability, call it pre planned evolutionary pathways or call it just plain serendipity, it all means the same thing: Evolution must have constructed elaborate mechanisms and structures which then became crucial agents of evolution, creating all kinds of biological wonders. Simply put, evolution must have created evolution. In recent years such serendipity in the evolution narrative has skyrocketed. If it were a stock you would be a millionaire by now. And the latest IPOs are the spliceosomes and exons which, if evolution is true, must be crucial in the creation of, err, pretty much all the higher species.You learned in your high school that genes are segments of DNA, but it is a bit more complicated than that. For starters, in the higher species a gene is often not a continuous segment of DNA but rather is interrupted several times by intervening segments. So there are the segments that make up the gene (called exons for expressed regions) and then there are the intervening segments (called introns for intervening regions).
Of course evolutionists figured that the introns were a big mistake and this genetic architecture was a big kludge. This despite the astonishingly complex spliceosome machine that removes the introns from the gene copy and glues the exons together. Evolutionists figured that evolution just happened to create and insert the supposedly worthless introns (evolutionists never could decide if the introns have been there all along or if they were inserted later in evolutionary history) and then just happened to create the fantastic spliceosome machine that just happened to know where to make the cuts to remove the introns and just happened to know how to glue the exon pieces back together.
Of course, as usual, evolutionists had to recant their just-so story as introns, while far from completely understood, are definitely not worthless. Evolutionists still insist the whole apparatus somehow evolved, though they have no idea how.
One of the features of the exon/intron genetic architecture is that it allows for alternative splicing schemes. In fact, incredibly, a given gene can have thousands of different forms depending on how the spliceosome machine edits the gene. And these alternative splicing schemes vary between tissue. In other words, the alternative splicing schemes are tissue-specific.
But new research adds yet more monumental problems for evolution, for these alternative splicing schemes are often not conserved between otherwise similar species. Evolution says that traits of different species should fall into the evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern.
Instead we now must believe that evolution not only (i) somehow created this fantastic architecture and apparatus with its spliceosomes, exons, introns and alternative splicing schemes, and evolution must have (ii) tailored those alternative splicing schemes for the different tissues, but evolution must also have (iii) changed the schemes even between similar species.
This forces evolution into yet another unlikely epicycle. Namely, those alternative splicing schemes must have been instrumental in the creation of the new species as they evolved. As one evolutionist explained:
But the core things that make a mouse a mouse may disproportionately derive from splicing patterns that differ from those of rats or other mammals.
So an important part of the evolution of a new species, such as a rat, must have been the redesign of the alternative splicing schemes. In other words, evolution occurs at the alternate splicing level. But this means that, for such evolution to occur, evolution must first have constructed the spliceosomes, exons/introns and alternative splicing architecture and apparatus.
And furthermore it means that this architecture and apparatus must have evolved in such a way that those alternative splicing schemes could easily evolve to new and different schemes which would help to create new species.
So evolution was not merely a series of random mutations accumulating and causing new species to arise. As unlikely as that is, evolution must also have created various structures which, themselves, became agents of evolution. I guess once one has come to believe that something comes from nothing then anything goes.
It is interesting to point out just how hard the alternative splicing schemes/codes were to originally decipher:
ReplyDeleteResearchers Crack 'Splicing Code,' Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity - May 2010
Excerpt: "Understanding a complex biological system is like understanding a complex electronic circuit. Our team 'reverse-engineered' the splicing code using large-scale experimental data generated by the group,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505133252.htm
Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed - May 2010
Excerpt: The paper is a triumph of information science that sounds reminiscent of the days of the World War II codebreakers. Their methods included algebra, geometry, probability theory, vector calculus, information theory, code optimization, and other advanced methods. One thing they had no need of was evolutionary theory,,,
http://crev.info/content/breakthrough_second_genetic_code_revealed
and now finding the alternative splicing 'scheme/code' to be species specific is extremely problematic for Darwinism because random changes in the 'scheme/code' regulating how genes in a species are expressed would be far more devastating to an organism than single mutations to DNA (SNPs) would be. ,,, For instance, Richard Dawkins gives an example of what would happen if one were to make random changes in the genetic code here:
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
further notes:
“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/
"In recent years such serendipity in the evolution narrative has skyrocketed. If it were a stock you would be a millionaire by now. "
ReplyDeleteHistorical occurrences such as this are called "bubbles". Let's pray we'll see this one burst sooner, rather than later, before it takes down all of society,
What these articles show is that such research merely discovers more to BE explained evolutionarily. They don't actually explain any but the most trivial aspects of it, evolutionarily. That list is so large already that all living humans will die without the slightest clue whether naturalistic UCA is even logically possible, much less plausible.
ReplyDeleteSliceosomes and exons, two more things evolutionism cannot account for.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas all. And thank you Cornelius for another insight into God's creative activity. I find my relationship with God strengthens when I ponder the beauty and complexity of his work.
ReplyDeleteSo the key to life is not the material of dna, etc.; but the knowledge that is inherent in the process (splicing rules); i.e. the spirit of God which nourishes and sustains us.
Well said Peter. Merry Christmas everyone.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not the odd exception in science. Big science is full of lies. Big science has been taken over by psychopaths. Only psychopaths are deranged enough and power hungry enough to perpetuate such blatant, in-your-face lies and get away with it.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this. We should not argue with psychopaths (an exercise in futility) but we should plan to wrest science from the grasp of the elitists, the usurpers and their feeble minded followers, and give it back to the people. It won't be too long now. A lie can last a hundred or a thousand years but, eventually, the truth catches up to it and kicks its arse. :-D
As I remember, the last chance you had to really expose evolution for the lie you claim it to be was in court at Dover, Pennsylvania. How did that work out for you?
DeleteLOL. I got just three words for you, Ian H Spedding:
DeleteTruth, Arse and Kick
Yeah Louis, you guys sure did get your arse kicked by the scientific truth at Dover.
DeleteGlad we can finally agree on something.
What scientific truth? Please be specific.
DeleteReality says there wasn't any scientific evidence for evolutionism presented at that trial. So what are you talking about?
Ian:
DeleteAs I remember, the last chance you had to really expose evolution for the lie you claim it to be was in court at Dover, Pennsylvania. How did that work out for you?
It worked out well as not one evolutionist could present any positive evidence for evolutionism. Just because the judge was too ignorant to grasp that fact, well, that is a reflection on the judge.
The refs caused the loss,why didn't they appeal it?Surely an prejudiced judge is grounds for appeal.
DeleteChubby Joe G
DeleteIt worked out well as not one evolutionist could present any positive evidence for evolutionism.
Evolution wasn't on trial in Dover Chubs. People trying to sneak Creationism into science classes by re-labeling it "ID" were.
It was IDCreationism that failed to make its case, although having Behe testify that ID was as scientific as astrology was sure a hoot.
Maybe in the "next case" you keep fantasizing about you can testify that IDC is as scientific as pyramid antennas and reincarnation.
LoL! The only way to refute ID is to present positive evidence for evolutionism.
DeleteAnd no one was trying to sneak anything into any class. All that was required was a simple reading of a simple paragraph.
Also pyramids as antennas and reincarnation still have more positive support than evolutionism.
velikovskys-
DeleteOnly they know why they didn't appeal the decision.
But it doesn't matter as the judge's decision is only relevant in that small, insignificant school distict. It holds no weight outside of it.
That said, what some IDist could do is pay a biology teacher to talk about ID during biology classes- you know like what happened with Scopes- and that would get teh Court process churning again. And now that we know all of the ACLU's bluffs and the evolutists' lies, it won't go so well for you next time.
BTW thorton, astrology is more scientific than evolutionism....
DeleteChubby Joe G
DeleteBTW thorton, astrology is more scientific than evolutionism....
LOL! That you think so says a lot more about your pitiful understanding of science than it does about ToE Chubs.
That you can't provide one testable hypothesis nor positive evidence for evolutionism, supports my claim, saclicker.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen scientific research is turned into a powerful, political, money making machine, such as with evolution, then open scientific inquiry is lost. Intelligent conversation is replaced by sound bites that resonant within small minds.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan we think of a mechanistic concept for how these spliceosomes find their way, and know what to do and when? Which particle in the cell has controlling power?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the overall mechanistic concept?
I would say some sort of genetic programming that results in "smart" macromolecules.
DeleteVery "smart" indeed!
DeleteVery smart, by design.
DeleteChubby Joe G
DeleteVery smart, by design.
What are you then, a prototype model labeled "ignorant blustering failure"?
Nice projection there tard-boy....
DeleteJoe said, "That said, what some IDist could do is pay a biology teacher to talk about ID during biology classes- you know like what happened with Scopes- and that would get teh Court process churning again. And now that we know all of the ACLU's bluffs and the evolutists' lies, it won't go so well for you next time."
ReplyDeleteConvincing the Ruling Class by legal action that evolution is a canard is like convincing them to actually make serious cuts to Government spending. It's not about truth, its politics and money and power. The same goes for the state sponsored media like CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. Bluffs and lies are what they all live on. The truth will ultimately prevail, but it won't come this way. Dismissing evolution will be as difficult as changing religion, because it is kinda of like scientology. Part sci-fi, part nonsense, part metaphysical, etc.
Neal or Robert,
DeleteI assume both of you are well versed in Biblical knowledge, I have a question. When God destroyed all mankind except Noah and family it was because man was sinful. Am I correct? How did humanity know right from wrong before the Bible and Ten Commandments? Did God reveal the truth to each one individually? What is the standard explanation,thanks just curious
Well, we don't have any reports of mysterious black monoliths appearing and disappearing in the area. Stone tablets would seem to be of limited use given the literacy rates. That leaves hearing voices in their heads.
DeleteUnless we imagine God as a Jedi Master:
"You want to go home and re-think your life."
"I want to go home and re-think my life."
"You will no longer covet your neighbors oxen."
"I will no longer covet my neighbors oxen. Hang on, he doesn't have any oxen."
"Well, his wife then"
"Have you seen his wife? I'd rather covet the oxen."
"D'oh! Why do I bother!"
A well put and funny analysis of how a wrong idea must reinvent itself to continue its existence.
ReplyDeleteEvolability indeed !
If evolution is not a possible, or did, create biology in its glory then its impossible it could stand much scientific scrutiny.
It must wiggle out of its historic claims and wiggle into something new.
It just can't be and doesn't work.
Its all been a grand hunch and wishful lines of reasoning.
So news lines of reasoning must replace the old ones to keep it vibrant especially as modern criticism from creationists etc is making it untenable.
It won't last long now.
For some reason, those who keep forecasting the demise of evolution remind me of all those people who keep predicting the end of the world. The deadlines keep passing, the world keeps on going and, nothing daunted, so do the soothsayers.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, of course, it doesn't matter what you or I or CH or anyone else here thinks about it. The theory will continue to be accepted for as long as working biologists find it to be a useful explanatory framework in their discipline.
It is notable that the research on which CH hangs most of his OPs almost invariably comes from evolutionary biologists. And there seems to be no end of papers for him to peruse, which is not what you would expect from a moribund field. Moreover, the alleged problems for evolution which CH claims are revealed by the research, even if true, would not be failures for science but the sort of challenges on which the whole enterprise thrives. If there are failures, it is the critics who point out alleged problems but are consistently unable to construct a better explanation.
Evolutionism will always be safe- heck it ain't based on evidence so no evidence can refute it.
DeleteBetter explanation? Anything is better than accumulations of genetic accidents didit.
This talk about death of evolution reminds me of:
DeleteThe reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
Mark Twain
Carefull Eugen, slippery slope,:)
DeleteHappy Year of ISON
How was your Geminids? It was cloudy here, usually is around this time of the year.
DeleteHad to work the next day,so no geminids for me. Luckily for me it was also cloudy. Trying to plan a early visit to some dark skies
DeleteWhat is in that stargazing drink again?
DeleteStarry Night
Delete1 part Goldschlager
2 parts Jagermeister
I'll do one of those on New Years Eve. Be careful partner!
Neal,
ReplyDeleteConvincing the Ruling Class by legal action that evolution is a canard is like convincing them to actually make serious cuts to Government spending. It's not about truth, its politics and money and power. The same goes for the state sponsored media like CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. Bluffs and lies are what they all live on. The truth will ultimately prevail, but it won't come this way. Dismissing evolution will be as difficult as changing religion, because it is kinda of like scientology. Part sci-fi, part nonsense, part metaphysical, etc.
You left out having a Kenyan president, since we have been discussing morality, do you believe is our moral obligation towards our fellow man? Only help the deserving?
Vel - of course we ought to help our fellow man but not by borrowing trillions from our children and grand children. Not for supporting able men that exchange government assistance for drugs. Not for paying government inefficiency and fraud. Not for 1 million dollar dates for the president and wife or 16 million for their vacations. Our ruling class hates the future generations.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
DeleteI agree,fraud is bad. Have you always felt presidents should not either be on call all the time and protected or is this just a new view? Just curious have you contributed to this debt which until January 2009 seemed a necessary evil? Did you support the Wars? What is your main source of accurate news, might I guess. Do you believe our President is moral in killing civilians in order to kill terrorists?
Who exactly is our ruling class made up of? Ian thinks you are a Republican but I think that is not quite right,my guess you are a libertarian who supported probably Cain .
Remember the people who run Fox News are members of the real ruling class in the USA, the wealthy and powerful who buy and sell politicians and sucker the rubes into giving them the money to do it. They make the real money off this debt,not some smuck stealing a couple of hundred dollars
Vel - of course we ought to help our fellow man but not by borrowing trillions from our children and grand children. Not for supporting able men that exchange government assistance for drugs. Not for paying government inefficiency and fraud. Not for 1 million dollar dates for the president and wife or 16 million for their vacations. Our ruling class hates the future generations.
ReplyDeleteYes, the country was so much better when it was run as a subsidiary of Halliburton. All the sweetest deals and plum contracts could be slipped to them or their "partners" with hardly a comment. Private "contractors" could roam Iraq and Afghanistan doing pretty much what they liked - rape, murder - since they were outside US jurisdiction and effectively immune from local prosecution. Best of all, you had Karl Rove swaggering around Washington as "kingmaker". No corruption or profligate government spending there, no sir!
DeleteIan, government spending has been out of control for a long time. Overspending, fraud, and inefficiency is a problem of big government in general. It doesn't matter who is president... the bigger the government, the more corrupt and wasteful it is. The few adult voices in government are not heard because of all the noise from democrats and republicans and media and special interest groups vying for position and power rather than doing what is right. Just like a kid that gets caught doing wrong and says my brother did it too! Karl Rove did it too! It's Bushes fault! It's Warren G. Hardings fault! Understanding the history of a problem is important, but at some point, one has to take responsibility and own it or the problem never gets resolved.
DeleteIf we are honest, we have to recognize that overspending, fraud and inefficiency are also problems of big business as well. The serious problems in the banking and auto industries were not caused by big government but by often greedy, shortsighted and incompetent businessmen. What we are up against are basic human failings, whether expressed in public service or private enterprise.
DeleteGoverning a huge country like the United States where there are so many competing and conflicting interests to try and reconcile is always going to be a messy and sometimes corrupt business. I don't see any way round it.
"I guess once one has come to believe that something comes from nothing then anything goes."
ReplyDeleteWhere did God come from?
I didn't know that God came from somewhere.
DeleteBethlehem
DeleteZingggg ...
DeleteHence the old song:
Delete"You came to me from out of nowhere..."