Darwinism Evolution

It Seems Frontloading is Everywhere

Spread the love

It seems like every other day there’s an article where scientists are discovering the presence of genes thought to have arisen late in evolution to be already present in ancient forms, so-called “living fossils”. In this case what we see in this particular “living fossil”, the shark, is the presence of genetic activity that is associated with ‘digit formation’ in limbed animals. Previously, scientists thought that there was some late phase additional activity which, we may say, was ‘added onto’ fin development.

Here’s a quote: “We’ve uncovered a surprising degree of genetic complexity in place at an early point in the evolution of appendages,” said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D.”

As I say, these types of articles seem commonplace, yet NDE keeps on chugging along as if all of this fits in nicely with Darwinism. Just think, ‘limb-like’ genetic activity before ever there was a limb. And, so, would it be rude if we asked our Darwinist brethren: “So how did it evolve when it was present before ever it was needed?”

Here’s the article from PhysOrg.com. It’s a quick read.

24 Replies to “It Seems Frontloading is Everywhere

  1. 1
    PaV says:

    I posted in haste. AND, left out the best quote of all:

    ““Genetic processes were not simple in early aquatic vertebrates only to become more complex as the animals adapted to terrestrial living. They were complex from the outset. Some major evolutionary innovations, like digits at the end of limbs, may have been achieved by prolonging the activity of a genetic program that existed in a common ancestor of sharks and bony fishes.”

  2. 2
    Atom says:

    PaV, NDT expected this all along, even though we said things contrary to that. It is just like how we always expected all organisms to share the same set of organic molecules, even though we wrote that we expected different molecules for different animals.

    The lesson to be learned: What NDT expected is always what happens to be the case now. We just didn’t realize we expected it before.

  3. 3
    DaveScot says:

    Why is it that chance worshipping biologists are continually surprised at what they discover but design advocates aren’t surprised at all?

  4. 4

    Don’t ask me no questions. I’ll tell you no lies.

  5. 5
    Mathetes says:

    Teleology is inescapable, and no one proves this more than darwinists.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    I would like to point out that instead of the “frontloading” scenario, it is still very likely that the genetic information is misinterpreted and not fully understood to its deepest levels yet. Remember the first interpretation of the Genetic data did come from evolutionists so their interpretation of genetic data is biased towards that end and will most likely cloud what the true function is.

  7. 7
    rrf says:

    Why is it that chance worshipping biologists are continually surprised at what they discover but design advocates aren’t surprised at all?

    Because they are unrepentant materialists and must deny that all things are possible with God. IDers have no such ideological blinders.

  8. 8
    PaV says:

    DaveScot [#3]: Amen.


    When I use the concept of “frontloading”, I don’t feel as though I’m using it in a precise way, simply because I don’t think we know enough right now as to what and how frontloading is and operates. For me, the essential point is that this notion of information (complexity, if you will) being present in the genome, and, in this case, OPERATING, before it’s eventual full deployment in organisms—thus a time wherein the forces of NS could not even hypothetically be at work—completely undermines the whole notion of RM+NS. If St. George Jackson Mivart were now alive, he would have a field-day.

    But, that said, there are still other questions as to when, and how, this information/complexity arose. And, until such time as these questions can be reasonably answered, in my mind at least, I use the term “frontloading” in a somewhat tentative way. IOW, my use of “frontloading” in no way is meant to undermine a “six days of Creation” scenario–though I must add, I am not one who sees the need to unnecessarily straightjacket ourselves that way as Christians. Let’s face it, the “six days of Creation”, I’m rather sure, was just a way of either defending Protestantism from Catholicism, or Christianity from Darwinism; I don’t think we reason at our best when we become “defensive”; we have simply to note, in this regard, the Darwinist reaction to what modern biology reveals.

    My personal understanding of the “first” Creation account is that God brought the world as we know into existence from “nothing”, that He brought it about in an orderly way, and in a way that included some kind of temporal order. When it comes to salvation, what more do we need to know than that? [Having said all of this, I’m not anxious to get into a discussion of ID/Creationism,etc.—I’m just clarifying my own personal position; which position, of course, constrains no one else in the least]

  9. 9
    mjb2001 says:

    I suppose I would be labeled a “Darwinist” here, but I will admit that I am intrigued by the idea of front-loading. It seems to me the closest ID has come to a notion of a mechanism of design.

    I would like to point out, however, where I think that this is not all that shocking to evolutionary theory in general; it is time scale. To be sure, sharks are old. But they aren’t that old, relative to life on the planet. And they are still vertebrates, a rather small subset of life.

    What I think this demonstrates is the power of epigenetics more than it does design. One expects HOX and HOX like genes in all organisms with polarization. If they were found in worms in some form, I wouldn’t be too surprised. What would really clinch front-loading would be something like a limb-forming gene in an urchin or a jellyfish, with a much more primitive body-plan, or in a single-celled organism.

    The “surprise” from these scientists is really a bias towards genes per se, rather than gene regulation as being a powerful evolutionary mechanism.


  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Can you site a mutation to DNA that has not in fact degraded preexisting information?

  11. 11
    mjb2001 says:


    I’m not exactly sure how to answer your question; what do you mean by “degrade[] preexisting information”? There are many notable examples of gene duplication followed by modification of the duplicated gene (or sometimes both genes). Are those degradation of pre-existing information? Are single point mutations degradation?

  12. 12
    Charlie says:

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    I mean a demonstration of functional genetic information that does not in fact degrade preexisting molecular abilities such as we find in bacterial resistance to antibiotic. When you state evidence for gene duplication I assume that you are looking at similarities between different genomes and saying of course one came from the other because of you preconceived materialistic bias and are not referring to actual lab work.
    Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy) that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias. For example, naturalists say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered “conclusive” scientific proof. For starters, preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 96%. Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity may actually be closer to 85% to 90%. Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005). As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? No, of course not!! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from! Clearly, we must find if the DNA is flexible enough to accommodate any type of mutations happening to it in the first place. This one point of evidence, (The actual flexibility of DNA to any random mutations), must be firmly established, first and foremost, before we can draw any meaningful inferences from the genetic data we gather from organisms!! Fortunately we, through the miracle of science, can now establish this crucial point of DNA flexibility. The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or fatal to the life-form having the mutation (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)! Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

    “It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation” H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA)
    “But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.” Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology)

    Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter. Since, it is an established fact that at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to DNA will be harmful and/or fatal, then it is also an established fact that there is at least a 999,999^30,000,000 to one chance that the monkey will fail to reach man by evolutionary processes. The monkey will hit a dead end of harmful/fatal mutations that will kill him or severely mutilate him before killing him. The poor monkey barely even gets out of the evolutionary starting gate before he is crushed by blind chance. This would still be true even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but monkeys to begin with! This number (999,999^30,000,000), is fantastically impossible for any hypothetical beneficial mutation to ever overcome! Worse yet for the naturalists, mathematician William Dembski PhD. has worked out the foundational math that shows the mutation/natural selection scenario to be impossible EVEN IF the harmful/fatal rate for mutation to the DNA were only 50%. The naturalist stamps his feet again and says that symbiotic gene transfer, cross-breeding (yes they, desperately, suggested cross-breeding as a solution), gene duplication and multiplication of chromosomes, alternative splicing etc .. etc .. are the reasons for the changes in DNA between humans and apes. They say these things with utmost confidence without even batting an eye. Incredibly, this is done in spite of solid evidences testifying to the contrary. Indeed, even if a hypothetical beneficial mutation to the DNA ever did occur, it would be of absolutely no use for it would be swallowed in a vast ocean of slightly detrimental mutations that would be below the culling power of natural selection!
    “The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information” Ray Bohlin, (PhD. in molecular and cell biology)

    “Evolution through random duplications”… While it sounds quite sophisticated and respectable, it does not withstand honest and critical assessment” John C. Sanford (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic “gene gun” process! Holds over 25 patents!)

    The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses in complexity any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (Trifonov, 1989)! No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). Further evidence for the inherent complexity of the DNA is found in a another study. In June 2007, a international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study that indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. This “complex interwoven network” throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005). This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code. Thus even though a random mutation to DNA may be able to change one part of an organism for the better, it is now proven much more likely to harm many other parts of the organism that depend on that one particular part being as it originally was. This “interwoven network” finding is extremely bad news for naturalists!

  14. 14
    Borne says:

    DNA is the OS
    The language of novelty is already in there.
    DNA has been programmed differently for different species.

    Programming implies a programmer. No way out.

    Complex coded information systems do not arise naturally. They require abstract conceptualizing and communication protocols. Conceptualizing can ONLY be done by cognizant beings with a degree of intelligence that allows abstraction.

    Thus the only possibilities are some supernatural programmer or some super intelligent alien life form programmer(s).

    The latter pushes the origins questions back one step further – what are these aliens made of and what made them?

    You can see why panspermia is an attractive alternative to strict Darwinian fundamentalism. It allows the materialist to admit Darwinism can’t work in the earth/life time frame but still deny any god being.

    They are just so insecure!

  15. 15
    Collin says:


    I would love to see a short book written to the lay person (me) fleshing out the points you made in your recent post.

  16. 16
    bill Me says:

    Tell me how time exists without memory.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Hi Collin,
    A easy to read book by J.C. Sanford called “Genetic Entropy” is what I recommend for the “lay” person such as myself. He is a leading expert in the field of Genetics. His credentials are truly impressive. He sites many studies to set the foundation for his arguments for the gradual degradation of the genome. The only place I have a problem with his book is I believe he tries to stretch the evidence a bit to far to fit the YEC scenario, but that one criticism aside, the evidence he lays out is absolutely devastating to the evolutionary scenario with hard empirical evidences that cannot be refuted. And will give you much devastating ammunition to debate Darwinists with. Here is the link to the site:


  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    I would also like to point out that Genetic Entropy does explain the many (over 90%) mysterious extinctions in the fossil record very well.

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:


    PaV, 8: If St. George Jackson Mivart were now alive, he would have a field-day.

    Calling Galapagos Finch et al: Let’s channel him! (Or better yet, do an interview on the balcony of heaven!]

    GEM of TKI

  20. 20
    Joseph says:

    I said this before and I will say it again:

    Just because today’s shark has X genetic qualities does NOT mean that earlier generations also had those same qualities.

    IOW the genome of today’s shark evolved those genetic qualities over the generations.

    What I think this does demonstrate is an ignorance of what genetic segments actually do.

    We don’t know what makes a shark a shark other than a shark is born when two other sharks successfully mate.

    IMHO this is an example of common design. That is a designer re-using the same part for different applications.

    We see that in every-day designs. A resistor in a feedback loop in one circuit is used as a voltage divider in another.

    To MJB2001:

    Design is a mechanism.

    Front end loading is one specific mechanism, as is Dr Spetner’s “built-in responses to environmental cues” (1997).

  21. 21
    Janice says:

    Fascinating! I mean both bornagain77’s comment and the PhysOrg article.

    I wonder if what’s going on is not frontloading but overloading, as in Java. Maybe DNA codes methods something like Vertebrate.makeRearAppendages(seaCreature, shark). Then you could also have Vertebrate.makeRearAppendages(landCreature, cow) and so on and so forth.

    Hope that makes some sense to skilled Java programmers. It’s been several years since I got to write any.

  22. 22
    PaV says:


    Here’s a link to a PLoS Biology article about mice coloration. Seems like all you see is a “single” mutation. I think it’s interesting in light of Behe’s EoE. Maybe someone wants to start a thread on it.

    Here’s the link.

    And here’s the “Author Summary”:

    “The tremendous amount of variation in color patterns among organisms helps individuals survive and reproduce in the wild, yet we know surprisingly little about the genes that produce these adaptive patterns. Here we used a genomic analysis to uncover the molecular basis of a pale color pattern that camouflages beach mice inhabiting the sandy dunes of Florida’s coast from predators. We identified two pigmentation genes, the melanocortin-1 receptor (Mc1r) and its ligand, the agouti signaling protein (Agouti), which together produce a light color pattern. We show that this light pigmentation results partly from a single amino acid mutation in Mc1r, which reduces the activity of the receptor but does not affect the gene’s expression level, and partly from the derived Agouti allele, which shows no change in protein sequence but does exhibit an increase in mRNA expression. We also show that these two genes do not act additively to produce pale color; rather, the derived Agouti allele must be present to see any effect of Mc1r on pigmentation. Thus, the light color pattern of beach mice largely results from the physical interaction between a structural change in a receptor (reducing Mc1r activity) and a regulatory change in the receptor’s antagonist (increasing Agouti expression).”

  23. 23
    Atom says:


    Hope that makes some sense to…Java programmers.

    It does. You may be on to something.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Doesn’t the mutation in mice actually lose information in the genome? Isn’t there less color variation in the mice than what was present in the “unmutated” genome on the mouse.
    I think this falls in line with the fact that “younger” races of humans have less variation for color than the original humans that are thought to have migrated out of east Africa 50,000 years ago.

Leave a Reply