Intelligent Design

About That Squid and its RNA editing …

Spread the love

We recently reported that the common squid, Doryteuthis pealeiirecodes, uses massive, tissue-specific, RNA editing to modify many of its proteins. One evolutionary explanation for this apparent intelligent design would be that the editing machinery is merely an uncontrolled, random process. This would be in keeping with evolution’s view of life as a train off the tracks and many past findings were initially described as vestigial or junk, until the design could no longer be denied. One current example is the finding that most of the human genome is transcribed. Apparently it is functional, and so isn’t mostly junk, but one evolutionary explanation that continues to have currency is that the transcription machinery is uncontrolled and has gone wild.  Read more

2 Replies to “About That Squid and its RNA editing …

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    One would think, just by looking at how flexible squids/cephalopods are in their anatomy,

    Invisible Octopus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX3kYk3WtAA

    Mimic Octopus – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-LTWFnGmeg

    One would think, after seeing how flexible they are, that perhaps Squids/cephalopods would be extremely plastic in their basic morphology through time and therefore be good examples of demonstrating Darwinian macro-evolution through time.
    Yet, contrary to that initial assumption, we find that Cephalopods have now been reported very early in the fossil record. Even extending to the Cambrian explosion:

    Fossil Finds Show Cambrian Explosion Getting More Explosive – May 2010
    Excerpt: Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....n_exp.html

    As well, contrary to evolutionary thought, we find that giant squids are very resistant to speciation:

    Giant Squid (caught on camera): Mighty to Resist Speciation – March 26, 2013
    Excerpt: Giant squid, dispersed across the oceans of the world, now turn out to come in just one species: Architeuthis dux, initially described in 1857. Reporting in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers used genetic analysis on 43 samples to arrive at their result,,,
    ” the level of nucleotide diversity is exceptionally low. These observations are consistent with the hypotheses that there is only one global species of giant squid,”
    That’s surprising — once, it was thought there could be 21 species or more,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....70391.html

    Here are a few more related notes on the inability of ‘bottom up’ Darwinian explanations to explain the ‘form’ and/or body plan of a creature:

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video
    https://vimeo.com/91322260

    Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

    The insurmountable problem of ‘form/shape’ for ‘bottom up’ neo-Darwinian explanations has now been demonstrated by a few of different methods. – May 2015
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-566667

    Darwin’s Doubt narrated by Paul Giem – The Origin of Body Plans – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?l.....page#t=290

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: The brain’s autofocus system helps stabilize vision despite motion – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Much like the automatic focus of a camera, our eyes and brains must constantly recalibrate so that we can get a clear view of the changing—and always moving—world around us. Recently, two studies funded by the National Eye Institute (NEI) show how the circuitry for this eye-brain coordination is assembled during early embryonic development.
    “Sensors in the eye detect movement and connect to the brain in just the right way to tell your eyes to move in the right direction without blurring images,” ,,,
    Say, for example, that you are running to catch your very fast, very small pet gerbil. The gerbil is moving and you are moving, so in order to focus on the gerbil, your eyes need a system to compensate for both sources of movement. This ability to compensate for movement is derived from the accessory optic system. The accessory optic system orchestrates the conversation between the brain and certain cells in the retina that detect movement, called direction-selective retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). Each direction-selective RGC is stimulated by visual motion in a specific direction and inhibited by motion in other directions.,,,
    Using a mouse model with a mutated Contactin-4 gene, they showed that Contactin-4’s function is very specific to direction-selective RGCs. In those mice with mutated Contactin-4, the direction-selective RGCs in the eye didn’t talk to the brain correctly. Likewise, in the absence of amyloid precursor protein, which binds to Contactin-4, normal eye and brain connections did not occur.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....otion.html

Leave a Reply