Darwinism

From Science Daily: New genes as essential as old ones

Spread the love

Evolutionary biologists have long proposed that the genes most important to life are ancient and conserved, handed down from species to species as the “bread and butter” of biology. New genes that arise as species split off from their ancestors were thought to serve less critical roles — the “vinegar” that adds flavor to the core genes.

But when nearly 200 new genes in the fruit fly species Drosophila melanogaster were individually silenced in laboratory experiments at the University of Chicago, more than 30 percent of the knockdowns were found to kill the fly. The study, published December 17 in Science, suggests that new genes are equally important for the successful development and survival of an organism as older genes. (Dec. 16, 2010)

For more, go here.

This snippet underlines a key problem with Darwinism: When Darwinists make predictions that don’t pan out, their theory is by no means considered a less certain central dogma; rather, it elasticizes and expands to retrodict what happened. Each instance creates information loss for the theory.

Thus, the Darwinist can tell the public, in apparent good faith, that “overwhelming evidence” supports the theory. By “evidence” is meant only the decades-long series of special pleadings and patches, and occasional purgings of dissent.

Fruit fly: The fruit fly image was taken by Muhammad Mahdi Karim in Dar es Salaam and is offered here under the Gnu Free Documentation License.

7 Replies to “From Science Daily: New genes as essential as old ones

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    I sent this article to Dr. Paul Nelson when it came out. He has done a lecture on the challenge this presents to Darwinism:

    ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – short version – video
    http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

  2. 2
    Collin says:

    In other words, all of the genes have to work together, as if the fruit fly were the intended end.

  3. 3
    gpuccio says:

    Very interesting.

    That clearly suggests that a new species requires a lot of new, specific information to be shaped.

    I think that the more we know about how things really work, the more we will find that even what seemed relatively simple is indeed very complex.

    The constant emergence of ever new layers of complex organization in biological beings, of which there seems to be no end in sight, is one of the most amazing facts in favor of design. Whatever darwinists may try to argue.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    Key excerpt:

    _____________

    >> The indispensable nature of new genes also questions long-held beliefs about the shared features of development across different species. In 1866, German zoologist Ernst Haeckel famously hypothesized that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” after observing that the early steps of development are shared by animals as different as fly and man.

    Biologists subsequently predicted and confirmed that the same ancient, essential genes would be the conductors of this early development in all species. This principle enabled the use of model organisms, including flies, mice, and rats, to be used for research on the mechanisms of human disease.

    Intriguingly, in the new study, deleting many of the new genes causes flies to die during middle or late stages of development, while older genes were lethal during early development. So while ancient genes essential for the early steps of development are shared, newer genes unique to each species may take over the later developmental stages that make each species unique. For example, many new genes in the study were found to be involved with metamorphosis, the mid-life stage that drastically transforms the body plan in animals.

    “This may change the way we view the developmental program,” Long said. “Each species has a different species-specific developmental program shaped by natural selection, and we can no longer say that from Drosophila to humans the development of different organisms is just encoded by the same genetic program. The story is much more complicated than what we used to believe.” >>
    _____________________

    Interesting spin that. Irreducible complexity being confirmed, we dismiss it without further mention.

    Moreover, it is astonishing to see Haeckel’s embryonic development claims resurfacing!

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: happy new year GP, long time no see at UD.

  6. 6
    jstanley01 says:

    This snippet underlines a key problem with Darwinism: When Darwinists make predictions that don’t pan out, their theory is by no means considered a less certain central dogma; rather, it elasticizes and expands to retrodict what happened. Each instance creates information loss for the theory [emphasis added].

    Interesting parallel with what Behe, discussing loss of function and how absent intelligent intervention organisms must degrade, illustrated by citing the disappearing act of Carroll’s Cheshire Cat.

    Methinks however, in the Darwinists’ case, that in the end all that will be left is their frown.

  7. 7
    gpuccio says:

    kf:

    Happy new year to you too!

    Well, I have been somewhat busy elsewhere (on Mark’s blog). Interesting experience, however.

Leave a Reply