A friend who knows the scene writes: First, their findings run counter to classic theory with respect to depression caused by inbreeding. Second, no beneficial mutations are discussed, only benign ones, and then deleterious mutations of varying degrees. Much as in Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves.
Genetics
A 2010 Oxford U Press book on “unintelligent design” seems so dated now
Now that the very concept of “junk DNA” is being officially retired, this all seems pretty stale. Note: Well yes, there is still Nathan Lents and Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes: Still wrong about sinuses but still writing about them.
On the preprint server: Human micro proteins that sprang from nothing
Researchers: ” Given their short length it is plausible that some of these functional microproteins have recently originated entirely de novo from non-coding sequence. Here we test the possibility that de novo gene birth can produce microproteins that are functional ‘out-of-the-box’. ” So is everybody a creationist now but some people are in denial about it?
What happens when DNA snaps?
At Evolution News: “When both DNA strands break (the “double-stranded break” crisis, or DSB), a cell can die. Molecular machines fly into action as the strands flail about, threatening genomic catastrophe. The repair crew has an additional problem: unlike the bridge cable, the DNA strand is made up of a sequence of code that needs to match what was there before the DSB. In a process called homologous recombination, the machinery searches for a template to rebuild the broken sequence.”
Another Truism Dies
A new paper can be found at Phys.Org undermining the idea that what drives evolution is the “decoupling” of DNA with phylogenic structures. This idea is implicit in the twin ideas of pseudogenes and gene duplication: both allow the DNA to become “uncoupled” from the structures they code for and so RM becomes permissible. Well, Read More…
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne says they’ll never clone a herd of mammoths
Coyne: What they’d get would be a genetic chimera, an almost entirely Asian elephant but one that is hairier, chunkier, and more tolerant of cold. That is NOT a woolly mammoth, nor would it behave like a woolly mammoth, for they’re not inserting behavior genes.
Genes respond to coded information in signals
The point here is that genes, like fungi, are not intelligent but — like mechanical devices — they can respond to signals. The reason the confusion arises is that establishment science does not want to admit that creative intelligence underlies the universe. Forced into a corner, some will even pretend that mushrooms think and genes have “behavior,” the way a dog would.
Mind Matters News: Our brains break DNA in order to learn more quickly
MIT News: Neurons and other brain cells snap open their DNA in numerous locations — more than previously realized, according to a new study — to provide quick access to genetic instructions for the mechanisms of memory storage. – David Orenstein, “Memory-making Involves Extensive DNA Breaking” at Mit News (July 14, 2021)
ID theorists were right about junk DNA. Now here is an ID prediction about CRISPR gene editing
William Dembski: The big question, then, is whether CRISPR gene editing will allow for huge improvements of human and other animal forms via genetic enhancements. My prediction is that it won’t. Specifically, I predict that attempted enhancements of the human germ line using CRISPR gene editing will (1) quickly hit an “enhancement boundary” beyond which enhancements are no longer feasible and (2) prove self-canceling in the sense that intended benefits will be undone by unintended deficits.
Only a small portion of the human genome is unique
It’s interesting but why should it be a surprise? Only a small portion of the English language is unique, for example. Almost all of it depends on previous languages. And all languages depend on previous languages, going back to …
Central principle of biology challenged? Human cells write RNA sequences into DNA
Researchers: In a discovery that challenges long-held dogma in biology, researchers show that mammalian cells can convert RNA sequences back into DNA, a feat more common in viruses than eukaryotic cells.
Human cells write RNA sequences into DNA
Challenging, they say, a central principle in biology.
Bees thrive by cloning selves as exact duplicates
“For the Cape honeybees, the cloning is perfectly in keeping with evolutionary theory, says Laurent Keller at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. ‘Evolution is just selecting what’s doing well at a given time.’” But wait. Did any evolution pundit claim that one bee cloning itself many millions of times (identical copies) would be an example of evolutionary fitness? If evolutionary fitness is whatever happens to “be doing well” at a given time, there is no theory. How does it differ from “whatever happens”?
Central Dogma: Reasons for Further Thought
For about a year now, from reading various news items on newly published science articles, I’ve begun to consider not DNA, but RNA, the real driver of life. I think that DNA’s essential role is that of information storage–a hard drive, while RNA is like the BIOS system–it tells the “system” what it should be Read More…
Study: Animals do not usually try to avoid mating with their own kin
Thing is, it was never clear exactly what the mechanism is supposed to be for animals to try to avoid mating with kin. So it’s no surprise that most aren’t really doing that anyway.