Err, Remember That Little Problem About Novelty?

“Life is genomically complex”

The theory of evolution has made many predictions about what we should find in biology. Those predictions have routinely failed and that tells us there is something wrong with the idea. One such prediction is that the genomes and their protein products, from different species, should form a common descent pattern. The graphic above shows an example of this prediction from a high school textbook written by evolutionist George Johnson. In that example Johnson informs his young readers that the hemoglobin protein “reveals the predicted pattern.” That was a misrepresentation of the evidence at the time, and since then the failure of this prediction has only grown worse. Another more recent, but related, prediction is that evolution is largely driven by regulatory proteins which regulate the construction of other proteins. These regulatory proteins control the embryonic development stages and the idea was that species evolve by slight modifications to how these proteins function. This prediction has also failed, and even evolutionist are now admitting the evidence contradicts what they were claiming only a few years ago. Here is how one evolutionist explains the failure of these predictions:

The prevailing theory is that all animals are built from essentially the same set of regulatory genes—a genetic toolkit, and that phenotypic variation within and between species arises simply by using shared genes differently. Scientists are now generating a vast amount of genomic data from an eclectic mix of organisms. These data are telling us to put to bed the idea that all life is underlain by a common toolkit of conserved genes. Instead, we need to turn our attention to the role of genomic novelty in the evolution of phenotypic diversity and innovation.

The idea of a conserved genetic toolkit of life comes from the 'evo-devo' (evolutionary and developmental biology) world. In short, it proposes that evolution uses the same ingredients in all organisms, but tinkers with the recipe.

That, however, is all wrong:

However. We can now sequence de novo the genomes and transcriptomes (the genes expressed at any one time/place) of any organism. We have sequence data for algae, pythons, green sea turtles, puffer fish, pied flycatchers, platypus, koala, bonobos, giant pandas, bottle-nosed dolphins, leafcutter ants, monarch butterfly, pacific oysters, leeches…the list is growing exponentially. And each new genome brings with it a suit of unique genes. Twenty percent of genes in nematodes are unique. Each lineage of ants contains about 4000 novel genes, but only 64 of these are conserved across all seven ant genomes sequenced so far.

Many of these unique ('novel') genes are proving important in the evolution of biological innovations. Morphological differences between closely related fresh water polyps, Hydra, can be attributed to a small group of novel genes. Novel genes are emerging as important in the worker castes of bees, wasps and ants. Newt-specific genes may play a role in their amazing tissue regenerative powers. In humans, novel genes are associated with devastating diseases, such as leukaemia and Alhzeimer's.

So whereas the genome was once just so much junk, evolutionists now must admit that “Life is genomically complex” and that Darwinian evolution, err, doesn’t actually explain how the eye, or anything else for that matter, originated:

Life is genomically complex, and this complexity plays a crucial role in evolving diversity of life. It's easy to see how an innovation can be improved through natural selection, e.g. once the first eye evolved, it was subject to strong selection to increase the fitness (survival) of its owner. It is more challenging to explain how novelty first originates, especially from a conserved genomic toolkit. Darwinian evolution explains how organisms and their traits evolve, but not how they originate. How did the first eye arise? Or more specifically how did that master regulatory gene for eye development in all animals first originate? The capacity to evolve novel phenotypic traits (be they morphological, physiological or behavioural) is crucial for survival and adaptation, especially in changing (or new) environments.

Not a problem however. Biology doesn’t follow evolutions patterns? We merely must reimagine evolution. It’s a whole new theory as “genomes are constantly producing new genes all the time”:

But the presence of unique genes in all evolutionary lineages studied to date now tells us that de novo gene birth, rather than a reordering of old ingredients, is important in phenotypic evolution. The over-abundance of non-coding DNA in genomes is less puzzling, if they are a melting pot for genomes to exploit and create new genes and gene function, and ultimately phenotypic innovation. The current thinking is that genomes are constantly producing new genes all the time, but that only a few become functional.

“Constantly producing new genes”? Evolutionists think nothing of the failure of fundamental predictions—they simply add more epicycles. Whatever is found in biology, evolution produced it, no matter how silly the theory becomes. For decades evolutionists proclaimed that biology revealed evolution’s common descent pattern. That turned out to be wrong and now evolutionists simply turn the story on its head. Once we were told that evolution was proven by its common descent patterns. Now evolutionists euphemistically describe biology’s designs as “taxonomically-restricted,” “lineage-specific,” and “phylogenetically widespread.” The exact opposite of evolutions predictions.

Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

[h/t: The Man]