Molecules Gone Wild
We recently reported that the common squid, Doryteuthis pealeiirecodes, uses massive, tissue-specific, RNA editing to modify many of its proteins. One evolutionary explanation for this apparent intelligent design would be that the editing machinery is merely an uncontrolled, random process. This would be in keeping with evolution’s view of life as a train off the tracks. Indeed, many past findings were initially described as vestigial or junk, until the design could no longer be denied. One current example is the finding that most of the human genome is transcribed. Apparently it is functional, and so isn’t mostly junk. But one evolutionary explanation that continues to have currency is that the transcription machinery is uncontrolled and has gone wild.Well this “Molecules Gone Wild” explanation won’t work this time, for several reasons. First, the RNA editing is not only tissue specific, but also is protein specific. Certain proteins, such as those working on the squid nervous system, undergo much more editing than the other proteins. This doesn’t look like a random, uncontrolled, editor.
Furthermore, the RNA edits cause changes to the resulting protein amino acid sequence at a rate far higher than would be expected from random edits. And, just as striking, that non random rate is highly correlated with the editing level of the RNA site. In a given RNA transcript, some sites are found to be edited more often than others. The level of editing can range from a percent up close to 100%. And as that editing level increases, the rate at which the edits deviate from the randomly expected rate of changing the resulting protein amino acid sequence increases as well. The correlation is striking, as the graph below shows.
The horizontal red line shows the rate of amino acid sequence change that would result from random RNA edits. As you can see, for those sites that are more consistently edited, the rate increasingly rises above that red line. Something very non random is going on there, and evolution has no explanation for it aside from, “Wow, an incredibly complex design happened to arise by chance, and then it was maintained by natural selection.” That’s not science.
Editing requires knowledge- knowledge of what to edit and how to edit it are the minimum knowledge required.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean that for every editing events the designer is in action ?
DeleteThis universe was created in an instant from zero energy, matter, and time. It is now 14 billion years old and nearly infinite in matter. The fine tuning of the initial ratio of matter is 1 in 10**10**28. If God could do this then he shouldn't have much of a problem designing life on earth.
DeleteCal:
DeleteDo you mean that for every editing events the designer is in action ?
Is a programmer present every time someone uses a computer? Is the compiler programmer present every time someone compiles a program? Is a speller present every time someone uses spellchecker?
Peter:
DeleteIf God could do this then he shouldn't have much of a problem designing life on earth.
And that would be why it can splice and edit- it was designed to do so. The knowledge was programmed in.
So you mean there is a hidden program, designed long time ago, that guides every mutations ever made on all living organisms ?
DeleteIt would mean that design accounts for all great realisations (what you guys consider complex stuff) and also for big failure like species going extinct due to inbreeding or genetic diseases.
To use you computer analogy, what would you make of a bug? Something big enough you need to call a specialist to repair you computer.
So is the designer always in action or not ? what do you guys think ?
Cal:
DeleteSo you mean there is a hidden program, designed long time ago, that guides every mutations ever made on all living organisms ?
That doesn't follow from what I said. I was talking about editing and splicing.
To use you computer analogy, what would you make of a bug?
Entropy- effects from accidental changes. We see a doctor for that.
So is the designer always in action or not ?
It isn't required.
That doesn't follow from what I said. I was talking about editing and splicing.
Delete"Editing" and splicing all depends on the DNA sequence. Splicing sites are mostly consensus sequences that can be predicted (http://www.fruitfly.org/seq_tools/splice.html lots of work are done on drosophila about splicing and molecular genetic in general). So DNA mutations can affect splicing sites. So on what is acting this hidden program ?
You don't think that using the law of physics is a simpler alternative to understand and predict molecules interactions in living organisms ?
To use you computer analogy, what would you make of a bug?
Entropy- effects from accidental changes. We see a doctor for that.
So there is flaws in the design since "accidents" can happen and "break" the designed material.
It isn't required Where do you get that ? Any sources, ID litterature maybe ?
Cal:
Delete"Editing" and splicing all depends on the DNA sequence. Splicing sites are mostly consensus sequences that can be predicted (http://www.fruitfly.org/seq_tools/splice.html lots of work are done on drosophila about splicing and molecular genetic in general). So DNA mutations can affect splicing sites. So on what is acting this hidden program ?
Your question doesn't make any sense.
You don't think that using the law of physics is a simpler alternative to understand and predict molecules interactions in living organisms ?
Physics can't explain editing and splicing. It can't explain DNA.
So there is flaws in the design since "accidents" can happen and "break" the designed material.
Why does that = flaws? All designs deteriorate.
Where do you get that ?
My ability to think and reason.
Any sources, ID litterature maybe ?
There isn't one that says the designer needs to be active today.
Calamity, "Do you mean that for every editing events the designer is in action ?"
DeleteFirstly, let us propose that the designer is God as Max Planck defines him:
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
If so, then the positive answer to your question is not unreasonable. Show us the mutations that are the reasonable result of unguided accident, and I'll show you the mutations that do not require the direct input of the designer.
To Joe G :
DeleteIf think you have no clues about what DNA is. It's still molecules that bind together. Nucleic acids have physico-chemical properties and it from it you explain all DNA/protein interaction.
How do you think Franklin, Crick and Watson discovered DNA ? by reading the bible ? They used crystallography method to find out the 3D structure of DNA. Saying physics can explain editing, splicing or DNA is plain wrong.
So there is flaws in the design since "accidents" can happen and "break" the designed material.
Why does that = flaws? All designs deteriorate.
Seems weird to me that the almighty god of the bible could let his design deteriorate.
Would it make sense that all deleterious mutations are accidents and all adaptive ones are design in action ?
Any sources, ID litterature maybe ?
There isn't one that says the designer needs to be active today.
There is actually no ID scientific litterature at all talking about it precisely.
For bFast:
I think what I answered Joe G could apply here. Let's say that deleterious mutations are the product of unguided evolution (example : any de novo mutations causing diseases like the Kabuki or Proteus syndrome).
The adaptive ones are the result of guided evolution (adaptation of different coat colors in the deer mice http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/08/mice-living-in-sand-hills-quickly-evolved-lighter-coloration/ )?
Maybe you could expand on the mutation that do not require the direct input of the designer.
Cal:
Deletet's still molecules that bind together. Nucleic acids have physico-chemical properties and it from it you explain all DNA/protein interaction.
Your position cannot account for DNA nor protein/ DNA interaction.
Saying physics can explain editing, splicing or DNA is plain wrong.
Saying physics can explain DNA editing and splicing is a big fat LIE.
Seems weird to me that the almighty god of the bible could let his design deteriorate.
Was that supposed to be a refutation? Really?
And there aren't any mutations that require direct input from a designer.
Yeah you could at least provide some explanations as why I am telling lies. When you start telling your contradictors they lie, that's not argumenting anymore.
DeleteFor your information there are proteins that binds to DNA using their active sites. Heard about Zinc fingers ? They don't bind because the designer is pushing molecules together, it's because of non-covalent interactions.
So again, physics can explain DNA/protein interaction, protein/protein interaction.
There is even people working on the modelling of those interactions, but the computing power needed is tremendous.
You can ask Dr Hunter, he knows about the subject.
Calamity, "Let's say that deleterious mutations are the product of unguided evolution....The adaptive ones are the result of guided evolution."
DeleteNot so much. I'm happy to suggest that deleterious mutations are unguided. However, I am quite content to suggest that individual mutational events that "at least do no harm" are reasonably unguided "accidents".
However, in "Edge of Evolution" Behe presents the science that establishes that if two mutations are required, where neither offers advantage on its own, the chance of the two happening within mammalian life is pretty much zero. If three are required, a miracle has been recorded -- a certifiably guided event.
Cal:
DeleteFor your information there are proteins that binds to DNA using their active sites.
I know that. That doesn't mean that physics can account for proteins and DNA.
Your lie is saying tat physics can explain editing and splicing.
Calamity
ReplyDeleteDo you mean to say that for every editing event it was just an accident in action?
It's not what I said. I am asking if for every editing events the designer was behind it.
DeleteThe designer's program is behind it, just as the program is behind spellcheck.
DeleteHow would you be able to detect this program then ? Can it be measured ?
DeleteWe detect it via our observations of cellular processes.
DeleteThat's a vague answer. So you "observe" a cellular process and you can guess there is design ? What are the signs ?
DeleteCellular chemical machines certainly operate on controlled, sequential and logical principles. There is no question about it, just study some cellular processes to learn that. You seem positive that such organized system came about by series of fortunate accidents. For you liberal/atheist readers the question is this: can organized system like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner come about by series of fortunate accidents or it has to be assembled in some logical fashion.
DeleteCellular chemical machines certainly operate on controlled, sequential and logical principles.
DeleteHow can you be certain of that ? If you have no proof, no evidence, then it's just faith.
The theory of evolution provide a full framework to understand how humans came to existence. Just read about it.
There isn't any theory of evolution.
DeleteYeah sure. Constructive argument as usual.
DeleteLoL! Typical substance-free response
DeleteI wonder how many kilograms of 'chance' does it take before natural selection can go to work effectively?
ReplyDeleteIn light of Larry Moran's "neutral theory", selection has very little pull on "slightly beneficial" mutations, and is willing to "fix" slightly deleterious mutations. Therefore, just because a mutation offers a wee bit of benefit, means nothing. Therefore, quite a significant benefit must be had before natural selection will care. Highly unlikely in a single mutation, more likely a few kilograms of lucky accidents will be needed before "evolution" can operate. Oi, what a mess of a theory.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete