“Grabbed by Evolution”
How would you explain the evolution of a small set of genes that are expressed for but a few brief hours—when we consist of only 8-16 cells—in a finely-tuned choreography unique to placental mammals? The answer, of course, is to use teleological language because the evolutionary explanation is so transparently unrealistic. To wit, Ignacio Maeso explains:It was really shocking to find these genes are only read for a pulse of a few hours in our entire lifetime. … They are found on chromosome 19, known to be an unstable part of our genome. Think of it as a bubbling cauldron of DNA, with individual bits of DNA being added and taken away, occasionally forming whole new genes. At the dawn of placental mammals, 70 million years ago, these genes emerged and were grabbed by evolution to perform a new task, acting to control what cells do in the earliest stages of development.
As usual, the infinitive form tells the tale.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Could this finding tie in with this? (electric face of the tadpole): http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/face-frog-time-lapse-video-reveals-never-seen
ReplyDeleteGenes are turned on, in fact, whole structures are controlled by electrical charges. But what controls the electrical charges? This is evidence of a complexity exponentially greater than a "simple" genetic code.
Oh, you're just a liar ...
DeleteDr Hunter, I'm a bit baffled at your response to Mad Doc. His link is interesting, and potentially relevant. Now the video doesn't discuss how electrical charges are controlling frog faces, but they are bringing in a whole new level of complexity to the challenge of developing a vertibrate.
DeleteAgreed bFast. The trolls hadn't showed up, so I was filling in for them.
DeleteWhat fun would it be without knee-jerk, fact-free, ad hominem comments defending evolution against the science?
DeleteCornelius
DeleteThere is discussion going on at TSZ on the junk DNA debate. A question I have not had answered is how much DNA is dedicated to development that may appear to be junk because it is being measured after its function is completed. Do you have any thoughts on this?
CH: "What fun would it be without knee-jerk, fact-free, ad hominem comments defending evolution against the science?"
DeleteAww, you miss us.
LOL!
DeleteBTW, there was a post on that cool electric face finding:
Deletehttp://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-face-rendering-worth-thousand.html
Bill, I think that is a good point, and one in a long list of candidate functions for DNA segments that have, or likely will, be discovered. I have no problem with there being junk DNA, but it's a dangerous bet to make. The history of science shows this abundantly. Regarding DNA used only in development and so not showing function after that, yes, that sounds like a good point.
DeleteI can't get really worked up about junk DNA. It is not a prediction of evolution.
DeleteSounds like selective amnesia, with a good helping of revisionism.
DeleteJunk DNA was certainly used as evidence for Evolution -
In 1994, Biologist Kenneth Miller argued that; ".. the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design." ("Life's Grand Design," (1994) Pg.24-32)
Again, Richard Dawkins likewise wrote in 1998 that "… creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.” ("The Information Challenge," (1998) The Skeptic, Pg.18)
Francis Collins expressed it this way in his 2006 book, “The Language of God” – “…. within the genome, Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function (namely those located in “junk DNA”) will accumulate steadily over time.” (Pg.129-130).
Again, (on Page 136) Collins claimed that some "Mammalian genomes are littered with AREs, with roughly 45 percent of the human genome made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam." (Flotsam and jetsam, of course, is useless trash floating in the ocean).
…………………………………
At least some are honest enough to admit they were wrong in their assumptions.
John Mattick is the director of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research as of January 2012. His research led to the discovery of the function of Non-coding DNA, for which he earned a top award for genetics. He made the following comment on Junk DNA.
“The failure to recognize the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down I think as the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (ABC Catalyst: GENIUS OF JUNK (DNA) - 10th July, 2003)
…………………………………
How many other bogus argument exist, that rely upon the “authority” of famous scientists, but may rather be proved to be based upon the assumptions that Neo-Darwinian Theory?
Oh my. Smoke is still coming out of the wreckage.
DeleteJunk DNA is more evidence against design than it is for evolution. In early days, any appreciable amount of junk DNA was thought to be a problem for evolution because it was metabolically inefficient and would be quickly weeded out by selection. Current thought is that evolution is relatively indifferent to junk DNA. Some genomes appear to be awash in junk and there appears to be very little in other genomes.
DeleteID, on the other hand, predicts that there should be no junk DNA, or at least very little. Humans carry the gene for the production of vitamin c. Yet we are incapable of producing it. There are two possibilities for this. 1) a mutation in a common anscestor that deactivated this gene became fixed in the human genome, or 2) it was placed there by the designer for future use. But, regardless which of these is correct, at present, and for all of recorded history, that gene is non-functional. Junk.
As I said. I can't get too worked up about it because evolutionary theory does not hinge on whether or not there is junk DNA. ID, on the other hand...
Well there isn't a scientific theory of evolution. And no one can say how much, if any, junk there is in ten genome. Do you think histone octamers just evolved so the extra DNA could get spooled and not be a big problem? Or do you not have any idea what those are?
DeleteIgnacio Maeso gives a great narrative. He should be writing science fiction stories.
ReplyDeleteAgreed bFast. The trolls hadn't showed up, so I was filling in for them.
ReplyDeleteheh