Sunday, June 1, 2014

Your Genetic Controls Take Form Even Before Conception

The Hits Just Keep on Coming

Who would have thought that the tiny West Africa nation of The Gambia, where British slave trade thrived centuries ago, would someday provide a devastating blow to Darwin’s theory on “the Preservation of Favoured Races.” But The Gambia’s consistent climate of rainy and dry seasons made for the perfect experimental conditions to test what is already known to be true in animals; namely, that not only does the food that you eat carry with it instructions for your body, and not only does the food that your mother eats while pregnant with you also influence your body, but the feed that she eats before conception also influences your body.

Rural diet in The Gambia is predictable across the seasons, as the rainy and dry seasons come and go. So people born in The Gambia are walking biology experiments in that their birth date is a reliable predictor of their mother’s diet before and after conception.

And sure enough a new study reveals that small molecular markers, such as the methyl group, which are attached to our DNA and influence which genes are expressed, vary depending on when they were born. The differences are statistically significant and are consistent with what has already been found from various studies, preconception diet alters the epigenetic control of the genome.

With evolution we would have to believe that random mutations somehow created an astonishingly complex adaptation machine for no reason, and it just happened to persist in the population, and just happened to come in handy eons later, and so be preserved by that all-powerful creator known as natural selection. The sheer intricacies and interdependencies of epigenetics, and the lack of an evolutionary fitness pathway, are inconsistent with an evolutionary origin.

Nothing in biology makes any sense in the light of evolution.

22 comments:

  1. Unless the trait is transmittable over generations, it only represents a type of phenotypic variation, such as the difference between grasshoppers and locust swarms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has been clearly shown to last over many generations...I am surprised at your comment as this is why it is such a hot topic. I hope you are not defending neo-darwinism as that theory is a joke.

      Delete
  2. DrHunter:
    And sure enough a new study reveals that small molecular markers, such as the methyl group, which are attached to our DNA and influence which genes are expressed, vary depending on when they were born.


    How did you eliminate the supernatural as a cause?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The fourth paragraph makes no sense. Just out of amusement: If not evolutionary, do tell us all what model of origins IS consistent with epigenetics. Don't skimp on hard facts and details now.

    Nothing in this blog makes sense in light of common sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, nothing in this blog makes sense to a single minded neo-darwinist. Your theory of random, random, random, is dead - give it a rest. At least check out www.thethirdwayofevolution.com and get your nose out of Scientific American propaganda - sorry but I am a bit angry at the Tautology of neo-darwinism, its deny of new discoveries or its "Just So" stories to make them fit the theory...enough is enough, your type hold back critical medical applications. Tired of you Junk, DNA, and your outright modern MYTHS told as science.

      Delete
  4. Stuart, untrue. It takes more faith to put credence is (darwinian /random with respect to need) evolution of life.

    In fact, it your side that skips all the hard work of explaining the nuts and bold of the development of life.

    Take the iconic bacterial flagellum. Darwinists need to lean on co-option as an explanation for this marvel of a machine. Yet co-option is simply doing an end-run around the elephant in the room, which is how an organism is in fact able to co-opt / recruit parts used in other processes and pull them in together with other parts and viola, make a flagellum.

    Its really a house of cards, with one explanation bolstered by a speculative study, in turn said speculative study bolstered by another speculative study. Thats why the penchant for evolutionists to use already evolved structures to explain other evolved structures. Its the only way to avoid getting pinned down.

    Clever, but tedious. And wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve:

    In fact, it your side that skips all the hard work of explaining the nuts and bold of the development of life.


    Then please fill us in on the nuts and bolts of design. What,when and how?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Velik: very simple, by eliminating randomness as a possible design-less creator. For example, tens of billions of cilia throughout the trachea and bronchial passages in mammals and other animals move in wavelike concert to expel mucus. Since it is you guys that propose that this wired-together system of billions of actuators arose stochastically, it is then up to you guys to explain exactly how all this came together by accident. If at one time there were a few hundred cilia there, how well did that expel the mucus and how did a hundred more of them provide selective advantage. In short, it is up to you guys to explain in step by step fashion how this mind boggling system of tens of billions of parts and its connected infrastructure came together by the nuts and bolts magic behind your randomness.

      Delete
    2. Steve,
      In short, it is up to you guys to explain in step by step fashion how this mind boggling system of tens of billions of parts and its connected infrastructure came together by the nuts and bolts magic behind your randomness.


      Yes,I understood your critique, if we do not know everything we know nothing

      it your side that skips all the hard work of explaining the nuts and bold of the development of life

      My question was go ahead, show the hard work your side has done explaining the nuts and bolts.

      Then we can compare the competing theories apples to apples.

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

      Delete
  6. Yes,I understood your critique, if we do not know everything we know nothing -- I disagree heartily with that last phrase, but I must say thank you, thank you for the observation that we do not know everything. I would phrase it that we can't know everything. Which must now imply that the fantastic system referenced in my post can't be known (at least currently) to have been created by colliding and degraded molecules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSEE,
      Which must now imply that the fantastic system referenced in my post can't be known (at least currently) to have been created by colliding and degraded molecules.


      Is that the theory of evolution,random collisions and degraded molecules? That seems to be a problem for design as well, how did the designer come to be?

      Delete
  7. MSEE: For example, tens of billions of cilia throughout the trachea and bronchial passages in mammals and other animals move in wavelike concert to expel mucus. Since it is you guys that propose that this wired-together system of billions of actuators arose stochastically, it is then up to you guys to explain exactly how all this came together by accident.

    The mechanism of metachronal rhythm is still unclear, but it is thought to include hydrodynamic coupling.

    MSEE: If at one time there were a few hundred cilia there, how well did that expel the mucus and how did a hundred more of them provide selective advantage.

    That's probably not how it works. There's a genetic switch involved so that all the epithelial cells in the lining develop cilia, or not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh I see. And they just happen to connect up in a fashion that creates the perfect wave like motions, tens of billions of actuators pop into existence operating accordingly and all that was required was a "switch". Wow pure magic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still waiting on the nuts and bolts from your side, let's see which version require less magic.

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

      Delete
    3. MSEE: And they just happen to connect up in a fashion that creates the perfect wave like motions, tens of billions of actuators pop into existence operating accordingly and all that was required was a "switch".

      The cilium predates metazoa, so the existence of cilia is not a conundrum. Hydrodynamic coupling is a very simple mechanism for coordinating large numbers of cilia. Not sure why you think that's so implausible. Do you think that people doing a stadium wave report to some central super-intelligent controller?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy60fnNagao

      Delete
  9. Not referring to the existence of cilia. You are changing the subject which doesn't work here. I'm referring, as any reader can tell to the existence of tens of billions of cilia, concentrated where they are needed crucially for the survival of the organism. How did tens of billions pop into existence in concentrated fashion and start waving in concert to ensure survival? You guys can't answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSEE,
      How did tens of billions pop into existence in concentrated fashion and start waving in concert to ensure survival? You guys can't answer.


      Then go ahead answer, what is the nuts and bolts answer to the existence of cilia,and how do you know?

      Delete
  10. MSEE: How did tens of billions pop into existence in concentrated fashion and start waving in concert to ensure survival?

    We answered both questions. The former is a matter of whether or not cilia are expressed. The latter is basically a stadium wave. The cilia don't have to know the global pattern, they just have to go along with it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh great such detail -- all the cilia have to do is go along with it. That tells us everything about how the whole system of billion of connected actuators was selected for. You really got that RMNS down to a tee don't you. Its just a matter of being expressed, wow so obvious I should have thought of it. You got that gradual morphological assemblage described so that any school kid can understand. Why not just admit that what you are saying has no evidence to back it up, and even worse is of zero explanatory power of the type required in any science? If what you are saying is of any value, then link me to some documentation that uses such trivial language describing what I challenge you for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSEE: That tells us everything about how the whole system of billion of connected actuators was selected for.

      We already told you. They don't have to be connected to a super-intelligent central intelligence. They just have to react to the cilia near them, through hydrodynamic coupling and intercellular communication.

      MSEE: If what you are saying is of any value, then link me to some documentation that uses such trivial language describing what I challenge you for.

      Guirao et al., Coupling between hydrodynamic forces and planar cell polarity orients mammalian motile cilia, Nature Cell Biology 2010.

      Delete