Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New mechanism of evolution — POOF

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Each species has large numbers of unique genes that seem to have magically arisen without any ancestor. Evolutionists are saying they essentially POOFed into existence. These genes are referred to as ORFans or orphan genes. From the Max Plank Institute:

However, with the advent of sequencing of full genomes, it became clear that approximately 20–40% of the identified genes could not be associated with a gene family that was known before. Such genes were originally called ‘orphan’ genes
Evolutionary Origin of Orphan Genes

20-40% of the genes discovered cannot be explained by common ancestry or common descent. So what mechanism is left to explain it? Special creation? But evolutionists can’t accept special creation, so they just pretend they’ve made a discovery of a new mechanism of evolution that can work just as well. They haven’t given it a name yet, so let us call it POOF. What is POOF? POOF is the mechanism by which proteins can easily arise out random nucleotide sequences like a poem can emerge out of randomly tossed scrabble letters. I bold one of their euphemisms for the POOF mechanism in the following paragraph:

Orphan genes may have played key roles in generating lineage specific adaptations and could be a continuous source of evolutionary novelties. Their existence suggests that functional ribonucleic acids (RNAs) and proteins can relatively easily arise out of random nucleotide sequences, although these processes still need to be experimentally explored.

😯

The reasoning they use goes like this, “we have all these genes that can’t be explained by slight successive modifications, so they must have arisen spontaneously out of nowhere. Because evolution is fact, this implies evolution can just take random material and create functional systems in a flash. We’ve made a fabulous discovery about the miracles of evolution even though we can’t demonstrate it experimentally.”

Experiments actually refute such assertions, but that won’t stop evolutionists from promoting demonstrably false ideas as some new discovery! And it’s not only the genes but the regulatory mechanisms that poof into existence:

On the other hand, there is now little doubt that new genes have arisen throughout the phylogenetic history and the general model of de novo evolution of genes appears to be well supported by now. However, this also raises several new questions. The foremost one is the question of how new promotors with a defined regulation can arise.

“de novo evolution of genes” is also another euphemism for the POOF mechanism.

But it’s not just the genes and regulatory regions, but also developmental mechanisms that deploy these novelties to create radical new species (like multicellular ones from single cellular ones).

gene lists can be associated with major evolutionary steps, such as the origin of germ layers, or the origin of multicellularity . Interestingly, this approach showed also that younger genes tend to be increasingly more developmentally regulated compared with evolutionary older genes

Not only do the orphan genes emerge, they emerge with the most infrastructure to integrate them into the POOFED species. So genes, proteins, and developmental mechanisms, and new species also POOFED into existence. They sound almost like closet creationists!

The evolutionists conclude, evolution can do far more than we ever supposed because evolution can POOF thousands of genes and regulatory mechanisms into sudden existence rather than through slight successive modifications of an ancestor. What a wonderful discovery. 🙄

NOTES

1. Behe, who accepts common descent, is said to have jokingly used the phrase, “puff of smoke” to describe the mechanism that can create irreducible complexity. In internet debates, the phrase got converted to “POOF” to emphasize the magical character of the mechanism. It seems now, evolutionary biologists are seriously resorting to Behe’s POOF mechanism whether they want to admit it or not.

How did Behe arrived at the POOF mechanism which evolutionary biologists are now only discovering?

I lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe’s lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various “irreducibly complex” mechanisms that cannot–according to Behe–be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: “A puff of smoke!”

Larry Arnhart
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/09/has-anyone-seen-evolution.html

2. Orphan genes have made the Irreducible Complexity argument that much stronger.

Comments
I cleaned up the link to the paper so you can click on it now. Here is the quote that acknowledges that math says novel proteins are combinatorially improbable. Yet, because we have orphan genes that were discovered via "the breadth of genomic comparison", combined with the fact evolution is true, then the combinatorial math must have been wrong! :shock:
The de novo evolution model constitutes the largest conceptual step forward in our understanding of gene evolution. On the basis of simple combinatorial considerations, it seemed initially very unlikely that functional proteins could arise out of essentially random sequences (Jacob, 1977). However, direct and indirect evidence for de novo evolution has quickly accumulated in the past years, due to the breadth of genomic comparisons that are now available;
scordova
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Why couldn't a random amino acid polymer produce a functional protein? And the longer the chain of this random polymer, the more likely a functional domain may be somewhere in there, no?AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
AVS: Thank you Frank, that was lovely. Do you have anything else to add?
Sure. Functionality of small proteins and peptides is an important part of the argument.
sal: I was referring to functional proteins, not random amino-acid polymers, or do you not understand the difference?
You'll need to define functionality as it pertains to your argument. for example plasma proteins contribute to osmolality, binding of protons is also an important function of proteins in maintaining pH homeostasis, and allosteric binding of CO2 (and protons) is an important function of hemoglobins. To think that all function must be catalytic is naive and misses a great deal of what biochemistry is all about.franklin
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Ok so lets take a random 1200 nucleotide sequence (400 amino acids), now lets say this new gene is expressed….guess what? We’ve yielded a brand new protein.
I was referring to functional proteins, not random amino-acid polymers, or do you not understand the difference? :roll:scordova
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
Thank you Frank, that was lovely. Do you have anything else to add? I realize there are proteins of less than 100 amino acids, but for the purpose of this little chat, I do not want to use an extremely small protein.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
<blockquote.AVS: 100 amino acid protein? No thanks? Way too small. I dunno about that. Metallothioneins are often less than 100 residues in length.franklin
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Ok so lets take a random 1200 nucleotide sequence (400 amino acids), now lets say this new gene is expressed....guess what? We've yielded a brand new protein.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species - Branko Kozuli? PhD. Biochemistry Excerpt: Horizontal gene transfer is common in prokaryotes but rare in eukaryotes [89-94], so HGT cannot account for (ORFan) singletons in eukaryotic genomes, including the human genome and the genomes of other mammals.,,, The trend towards higher numbers of (ORFan) singletons per genome seems to coincide with a higher proportion of the eukaryotic genomes sequenced. In other words, eukaryotes generally contain a larger number of singletons than eubacteria and archaea.,,, That hypothesis - that evolution strives to preserve a protein domain once it stumbles upon it contradicts the power law distribution of domains. The distribution graphs clearly show that unique domains are the most abundant of all domain groups [21, 66, 67, 70, 72, 79, 82, 86, 94, 95], contrary to their expected rarity.,,, Evolutionary biologists of earlier generations have not anticipated [164, 165] the challenge that (ORFan) singletons pose to contemporary biologists. By discovering millions of unique genes biologists have run into brick walls similar to those hit by physicists with the discovery of quantum phenomena. The predominant viewpoint in biology has become untenable: we are witnessing a scientific revolution of unprecedented proportions. http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0025v1.pdf Of Note: Branko Kozulic is on the editorial team of BioComplexity http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialTeamBio/23 Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htmbornagain77
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
Here's lifepsy's video and a few notes: Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhYbornagain77
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
A 100 amino acid protein? No thanks? Way too small.
Why is it too small? If it's too small, provide a number that you think is right, then provide what you think is a probability. You boast about all the evidence for evolution, here is your chance to shine and prove there actually is evidence for evolution. Evolution implies random process can manufacture novel features. So here is your chance to explain how a novel feature can suddenly emerge. Recall, by definition, the orphan is presumed not to have an ancestor and emerged very quickly and not by slow successive variation. So provide a number that a random nucleotide sequence can yield a protein. Think I'm asking too much, this is exactly what this paper claims (despite the mathematical hurdles):
proteins can relatively easily arise out of random nucleotide sequences
Elsewhere in the paper they point out it was believed based on math, that such orphans can't arise, but now that we've found orphans, they assume there must have been something wrong with the math!scordova
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
A 100 amino acid protein? No thanks? Way too small.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
I dont see why not.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
AVS, Provide for the reader the probability that a random nucleotide sequence of 300 nucleotides will code for a functional protein. Recall we are talking about orphans that have no discernible common ancestor so we can't just take an existing functional protein and make a slight modification to it, we have to start from scratch. Provide for the reader your estimate. Feel free to justify how you arrived at that number. You brag about your deep knowledge of biology, so now you'll have a chance to showcase just how much molecular biology you actually understand. :-)scordova
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
“de novo” means arising from non-coding DNA, which is a the majority of your DNA by the way.
So you think random sections of non-coding DNA can make a new protein. :-) Did you notice they admitted they need experimental proof that this can happen, so at this stage it's just an assumption.scordova
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
You know evolution is a really great theory because it will not be hindered by meddlesome falsifiability that drags down all of the weaker theories. Gee whiz, roughly a third of all the animals' genes have no trace of common ancestry whatsoever, completely contradicting evolutionary expectations and predictions. But evolution theory thrives under such conditions. Homology-free 'de novo' function of Orphan genes has just become assimilated. Orphans can now be used as evidence for evolution. Thank goodness for this new research that sheds more light on how evolution is a fact.lifepsy
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
" “de novo evolution of genes” is also another euphemism for the POOF mechanism." No, its not. They clearly state in the abstract that genes arising "de novo" means arising from non-coding DNA, which is a the majority of your DNA by the way. Nice job guys.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply