Intelligent Design

A Key Evidence for Evolution Involving Mobile Genetic Elements Continues to Crumble

Spread the love

It is difficult to keep track of all the studies indicating that junk DNA isn’t really junk DNA after all. I have no idea how much actual junk there is in our genomes, but evolution has a long history of failed claims of disutility, inefficiency and junk in nature’s designs. That is why I think Dan Graur took the wrong side of history in his “either the genome is mostly junk or evolution is false” proposition.  Read more

16 Replies to “A Key Evidence for Evolution Involving Mobile Genetic Elements Continues to Crumble

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Shapiro keeps getting vindicated:

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

  2. 2
    nightlight says:

    Of course he is on the right path, unlike the Discovery institute’s ID which is a philosophical / theological polemics, a hodge-podge complaints about unfairness of their infantile concept of a capricious part time designer being rejected as a part of natural science.

    In contrast, Shapiro’s ‘natural genetic engineering’, along with the related developments in the Complexity Science (mostly at Santa Fe Institute and by Wolfram’s NKS), where the designing intelligence evident in nature at all levels emanates and acts continuously from inside out, are increasingly becoming a seed for the ID as a genuine theory within natural science.

    While the DI seems bent on continuing boring everyone with their sad story of unfairness, neo-Darwinists have been gradually morphing their own story, embracing the latter developments and are on the verge of declaring, yeah, that’s what we always meant.

  3. 3
    DavidD says:

    Nightlite: “Darwinists have been gradually morphing their own story, embracing the latter developments and are on the verge of declaring, yeah, that’s what we always meant.”

    Yes, well said. It is actually the Theory of Evolution itself which has morphed and evolved more than anything found out in the natural world and I must say, they do so with all manner of purpose and intent, guidance and direction. Evolution is one religious concept which seems to be immune to evidence to the contrary. That’s what consensus does for you.

  4. 4
    Henry Crun says:

    Hunter:

    “I have no idea how much actual junk there is in our genomes”

    Perhaps astonishingly, there is vastly more junk in our genomes than in your blog posts.

  5. 5
    humbled says:

    nightlight, the irony of your statement is that it is the Darwin faithful who are the religious fundamentalists. Your cherished theory of evolution is nothing more than wishful thinking, faith and irrationality. Yours is a philosophical / theological position, you are simply to blind to recognise it.

    Does it not bother you that you have pledged your loyalty and commitment to a pseudo-religious theory based on circumstantial evidence and imagination? There is no direct evidence supporting Darwinian fairy-tales.

  6. 6
    humbled says:

    Henry Crun, outside of silly Darwinian fairy-tales and a fertile imagination, what evidence do you have to counter Dr Hunter’s claim(s)? Seems your reaction is an emotional one, perhaps cognitive dissonance?

  7. 7
    Paul White says:

    “It is actually the Theory of Evolution itself which has morphed and evolved more than anything found out in the natural world…”

    Scientists have a word for that: “progress”.

  8. 8
    DavidD says:

    Paul White: Scientists have a word for that: “progress”.

    I belief the actual religious affirmation they use when standing up on their soapbox pulpit is “Science is an ever evolving process and ever self-correcting mechanism” almost as if the word Science is like the word Evolution itself. However like the word evolution, Science is just a word which is incapable of doing anything without the manipulation and personal bias of those claiming to utilize it as a practice. Depending of the motives and prejudices of those involved, it doesn’t always self-correct. It can be as flawed or as honest as the researchers choose the direction they want to take it.

  9. 9
    Henry Crun says:

    Humbled @ 6,

    Are you actually arguing that there is more junk in Hunter’s blogs than there is in our genomes? If so, go ahead – I’m sure you can convince me.

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    Paul White- has evolutionism progressed to the point that we can test it? Until it does it ain’t science.

  11. 11
    Henry Crun says:

    Joe @ 10,

    Yes, and has been for a long time. It’s how Tiktaalik was found. And it’s “evolution” – no “ism”.

  12. 12
    Joe says:

    Henry Crun, how can we test the claim that Tiktaalik evolved via natural selection and/ or drift from some population(s) of fish that didn’t have robust fin bones?

  13. 13
    Joe says:

    And Dr. Behe once asked how can we test the premise that natural selection produced any bacterial flagellum?

  14. 14
    TSErik says:

    PaulWhite

    Scientists have a word for that: “progress”.

    No. This isn’t an example of “science is self-correcting”. It is an example of equivocation.

  15. 15
    tjguy says:

    ““It is actually the Theory of Evolution itself which has morphed and evolved more than anything found out in the natural world…”

    Paul White:
    “Scientists have a word for that: “progress”.

    Paul, how do you know that the current in vogue just so stories are any more reliable than those of yesteryear that were also believed to be true and used as evidence for evolution?

    You may believe it is progress, but how do you really know? Lacking the ability to run an experiment to confirm your hypotheses about various evolutionary changes, you are left clinging to your confidence in your interpretation of the evidence.

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    So Henry Crun sez that evolutionism is testable yet cannot say how to test it.

Leave a Reply