They Win Again
And why were orphan genes a problem? If any design, such as orphan genes, exists in a species but not its allied species then according to evolutionary thinking, said design must not have been present in the common ancestor of those species. It must have evolved after the split from the common ancestor. And that means such a heroic evolutionary event cannot be pushed into deep time. And that’s a problem.
At first evolutionists rejected such an idea. They said such orphan genes would no longer be orphans once we decode the genomes of more species. But with more genomes came more orphans. Orphan genes did not diminish, they escalated, much to the chagrin of evolutionists.
So next evolutionists admitted that there were some novel, orphan genes, but they were exceedingly rare. An evolutionary novelty. And of course novelties are not fundamental to a theory, and so don’t need to be explained.
But the orphan genes just kept on coming. And coming. Finally evolutionists had to admit that there were a whole bunch of orphan genes, and so a whole bunch of genes, in various creatures, must have evolved relatively recently.
And as only evolutionsts can do, after losing every battle, they once again won the war. They turned defeat into victory by explaining that they now have evidence that genes are routinely evolving. The de novo mechanism went from rags to riches. It now was the predominant mode of gene evolution—it happens all the time, and there is no mystery.
And what exactly was that evidence that resolved the mystery? How can evolutionists now be so confident of what, only a few short years ago, they insisted was not possible? Well, err, the orphans are the evidence. Orphans exist in only a single species, so therefore the orphans must have evolved recently.
There, I said it.
And immediately this new truth was broadcast to the people. The New York Times assured its readers that evolutionists have discovered a “step-by-step process” for fast, efficient, modern gene evolution.
So it wasn’t too surprising when an evolutionist claimed recently that the origin of new genes, save for the very first genes way back in deep time, is “basically a solved problem.” That is, after all, the party line.
But when I pointed out the circular reasoning, the failed expectations, and the lack of any real solution beyond hand-waving, the evolutionist doubled down. He cited an 11 year old irrelevant paper (which repeats the now discounted refrain that “the true de novo origination of new genes from previously non-coding sequences is rare”). He also cited two proteins, neither of which are even examples of de novo gene evolution.
And so there we have it. Another evolutionary victory snatched from the jaws of defeat.
You're the one who introduced ORFans into this discussion. The vast majority of new genes are not ORFans, but the product of duplications, rearrangements, etc., and subsequent modifications. They constitute new genetic information. They falsify Stephen Meyer's idea in his book "Darwin's Doubt" that intelligence is the only known cause of new information, which is what I was discussing in the BioLogos discussion.
ReplyDeleteAll of the above is true whether or not on occasion a gene originates straight from noncoding DNA through a mutation creating a start codon and the resulting sequence just happening to have some crude selectable function.*
You have latched onto the latter for no apparent reason, and failed to tell your readers the full context. And you've failed to state whether or not you think standard evolutionary processes can be reasonably held to explain new genes like jingwei and sdic. The Discovery Institute's David Berlinski and Michael Behe say the natural origin of such genes is reasonable. But Cornelius Hunter dodges the question and instead tries to distract the topic to something else. Shame!
*(Most likely for short reading frames and simple functions, perhaps regulational effects through interference -- although Hunter of course never considers these sorts of obvious caveats, and instead misleads his naive creationist readers with the implication that ORFans all code for large, complex proteins.)
NickM- You are confused as you have never said how you determined that duplication, rearrangements, etc., are blind watchmaker processes. And until you do that all you have is your typical blathering.
DeleteThey falsify Stephen Meyer's idea in his book "Darwin's Doubt" that intelligence is the only known cause of new information, which is what I was discussing in the BioLogos discussion.
DeleteThey can't do that unless you can demonstrate those processes are blind watchmaker processes.
It's as if NickM thinks his willful ignorance means something.
Nick:
DeleteYou're the one who introduced ORFans into this discussion. The vast majority of new genes are not ORFans, but the product of duplications, rearrangements, etc., and subsequent modifications.
That is absurd. Even evolutionists are now agreeing that what they once rejected as impossible, and then grudgingly admitted as “rare,” now must be treated as a significant mode of the origins of new genes. As Light, Basile and Elofsson write in their 2014 review which I referenced, “It has even been proposed that the creation of novel genes, a continuous process where most de novo genes are short-lived, is as frequent as gene duplications.” Likewise Neme and Tautz explain, “there is now rapidly increasing evidence that de novo evolution of transcripts and genes is not only a theoretical possibility, but might even have been a rather active process throughout evolution.” And even Zimmer admitted in the NY Times piece, “Far from being a fluke, these studies suggest that de novo genes are abundant.” Nick you have an ax to grind that won’t let acknowledge the clear evidence.
They constitute new genetic information. They falsify Stephen Meyer's idea in his book "Darwin's Doubt" that intelligence is the only known cause of new information, which is what I was discussing in the BioLogos discussion.
Unbelievable. Meyer’s point in DD is not that duplications, rearrangements, etc. are impossible, but rather that new protein-coding genes, not constructed from existing coding segments that were lying around, is not likely under the evolution model. As he writes on Page 187, for example, “But could mutation and selection generate the precise arrays of nucleotide bases necessary to build fundamentally new protein structures?”
Your attempt to walk back your comments as nothing more than about gene duplication, rearrangements, etc., is telling. So will you now post an addendum to Biologos, explaining that the evolution of new genes is, in fact, not “basically a solved problem”? If not, can we at least interpret your comments here as making that admission?
All of the above is true whether or not on occasion a gene originates straight from noncoding DNA …
It isn’t “on occasion” Nick. Your evolutionary bias won’t let you get out of the 1990s.
You have latched onto the latter for no apparent reason,
Yet more absurdity. You can’t say evolution has it all figured out and then, when presented with the actual facts of biology, say “Oh come on, I wasn’t talking about that!” But you do do that, and for good measure you then point to finger at the messenger:
and failed to tell your readers the full context. And you've failed to state whether or not you think standard evolutionary processes can be reasonably held to explain new genes like jingwei and sdic. The Discovery Institute's David Berlinski and Michael Behe say the natural origin of such genes is reasonable. But Cornelius Hunter dodges the question and instead tries to distract the topic to something else. Shame!
Dodges the question? No Nick, I’m afraid I am not the one here who is dodging the question. You can’t claim evolution is a no-brainer fact, dodge the evidential problems, and then blame the other guy for dodging the question. In fact I specifically addressed both jingwei (gene fusion) and sdic (fission), in response to your earlier comment. The evidence suggests that jingwei and sdic arose from parts lying around. Now whether that can be explained as merely a result of evolution’s random change plus selection is another question. That approach fell flat on its face in the case of neo Darwinism and adaptation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIs this the same guy who imagines into existence ATP synthase in his part 2 of 10 or so on the way to the flagellum? I bet he thinks alot of things are basically solved.
DeleteMeyer is talking about the origin of the Cambrian phyla. Please tell me some "fundamentally new" genes that originated with the phyla. Meyer doesn't identify any. Whereas we know of thousands that are just new -- modified duplicates and the like.
DeleteMeyer also -- I didn't make him do this, he does it himself -- makes his ENTIRE argument depend on the premise that ONLY intelligence can produce new information. Gene copies that have been modified and shifted function have got to be new information or the concept is meaningless. Your continuing attempts dodge the evidence by shifting the topic or ORFans is further evidence that the the main evolutionary explanation for new genes/new information -- duplication and modification -- works well. Thus, either you explain why duplication and modification doesn't work as an explanation of most new genes and new genetic information, or we have to conclude that Meyer's key premise is falsified, and actually natural processes can produce new information, and actually intelligence is not the unique and only known cause of new information.
It's very simple. Why can't you get it?
NickM:
DeleteMeyer is talking about the origin of the Cambrian phyla.
And evolutionism has nothing to say about it. Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution can't even get beyond prokaryotes.
NickM:
Whereas we know of thousands that are just new -- modified duplicates and the like.
Your position cannot account for duplications.
THAT is very simple yet you don't seem to be able to get it, Nick.
NickM is lying about Berlinski as Berlinski takes MickM to task over jingwei and sdic.
ReplyDeleteJoe, do you think it is reasonable to conclude that side and jingle I originated naturally, or not? Berlinski and Behe say yes - what do you think?
DeleteDesign is natural, Nick. The output of a computer originates naturally in that it doesn't require the supernatural, however it is still artificial
DeleteThe question is can blind watchmaker-type processes produce genes or does it require guidance? Neither Behe nor Berlinski say.
Dodge. I win.
DeleteLoL! The "dodge" is all your, NickM.
DeleteGreat, NickM falsely calls "dodge" because I pointed out the facts and then he runs away.
Delete