Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Animal Body. So What?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Schimpanse_Zoo_Leipzig
Humans and chimpanzees are genetically similar. Some estimate the similarity at 98%. Others slightly less. A lot of ink has been spilt regarding this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the thousands of articles that have been written on the subject. What is all the fuss about?  It seems to me that much of the fuss is accounted for by the fact that whether they are in the ID or the creationist camp, many theists have an adverse visceral reaction to the data, and for that reason they work very hard to discredit or downplay it. I once felt this way. But as John Adams famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

The stubborn fact of the matter is that human bodies are very similar to chimpanzee bodies both morphologically and genetically. I have made peace with that fact, and to my theist friends who find the data troubling, I say calm down. Yes, you have an animal body that is more or less similar to the bodies of other animals. That your body is more similar to some animals – and in the case of the chimpanzee very similar indeed – is a fact of no great theological consequence, because you are not your body. Even if we were 99.999999999999% similar both genetically and morphologically to chimpanzees, it would not matter, because it is the difference that counts, and that difference is not a material difference. The difference is spiritual in nature, and because it is spiritual in nature material comparisons are not just misleading; they are completely irrelevant.

Paul wrote to his friends at Corinth: “I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” II Cor. 5:8. Who was going to be present with the Lord when Paul was absent from his body? Why, Paul of course. Paul understood that he, Paul, transcended his physical body, and one day he would be separated from that body. This dualism is nowhere more apparent than in Paul’s discussion of the never-ending war being waged within:

I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Romans 8:22-24.

I am not here arguing for any particular theory of how this dualism works out, such as Cartesian substance dualism or hylomorphism. My point is that scripture clearly teaches a distinction between body and spirit, and it is the spirit, not the body, that is of particular (indeed, eternal) consequence. Nor does the fact that I am conceding the similarity between the human body and the chimpanzee body mean I have conceded anything important to the materialists. I have an animal body. So what? Whoever said I didn’t? This does not necessarily imply common descent, much less Darwinian evolution. For purposes of the present discussion I am merely stating the obvious: I have an animal body, the Linnean taxonomic classification of which is:
Classification

As a theist (especially a Christian theist), I am not troubled by the fact that I have an animal body.  Yes, I am an animal, but I am not merely an animal. I have an eternal spirit, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Comments
The kingdom of darkness. But our bodies of death will be changed from the corruptible to the incorruptible. We are a new creation! Morphologically, our earthly bodies have a lot in common with and a lot distinct from ape bodies---it's a long list. -QQuerius
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Believers are in the Kingdom of God. Not sure what kingdom the rest fall under.Mung
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
I knew you were going to say that. So, humans are to be classified in a different kingdom than animals? -QQuerius
August 30, 2014
August
08
Aug
30
30
2014
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
Humans have a human body, obviously. ;)Mung
August 30, 2014
August
08
Aug
30
30
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Mung, Ok, I'll bite. What kind of a body do humans have? We're probably the most similar in appearance to apes of all other animals, but I'd agree that there's a still a huge gap. -QQuerius
August 30, 2014
August
08
Aug
30
30
2014
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Humans don't have an animal body.Mung
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
bornagain77, Yes, I noticed both the irony and the astonishing assumption on their part that simply disagreeing with us constitutes irrefutable evidence in of itself! Wow! The mechanisms of mutation attributed to driving evolution such as new body plans for example, has never been demonstrated to be adequate to the task, and fossil evidence numbering in the hundreds of millions have never provided satisfactory evidence of slow transitions as Darwin had hoped. But faith dies hard, and they grimly march on, flinging ad hominems at the doubters. For my part, I have no problem with a naturalistic mechanism for genetic change beyond natural selection, but random mutation, as both the math and the evidence suggests, is not it. Thanks again for posting the videos. I was amazed at the pervasiveness of modern-looking plants and animals through much of the fossil record. The evolution of bats was also intriguing. ;-) -QQuerius
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
So you have evidence of 'unguided' Darwinian processes producing highly sophisticated integrated complexity that easily trounces man's best achievements? i.e. there is a Elephant in the room sitting on your chest AB! :)bornagain77
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
BA77: "which is a deliciously ironic statement coming from a man who believes that the highly sophisticated integrated complexity found in life, that easily trounces anything man has ever built, can be had by random Darwinian processes." Ignoring the inaccurate use of the term 'Darwinian', who has ever said that evolution is a random process, other than creationists in a failed attempt to discredit evolutionary theory.Acartia_bogart
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
wd400 advises,,,
"Stop, consider the possibility that you are wrong,,,"
which is a deliciously ironic statement coming from a man who believes that the highly sophisticated integrated complexity found in life, that easily trounces anything man has ever built, can be had by random Darwinian processes.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the idea of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years: Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637 In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read. Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark): "Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010
Run that by us again wd400,,,
"Stop, consider the possibility that you are wrong,,,"
bornagain77
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
wd400:
If, after that, you are still incapable of seeing your own mistakes and updating your views, there is really no point in bothering with you.
I reached hat conclusion about Querius long ago.Acartia_bogart
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Querius, Read what I wrote. Stop, consider the possibility that you are wrong about this. Read Ohno again. If, after that, you are still incapable of seeing your own mistakes and updating your views, there is really no point in bothering with you.wd400
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
wd400, You wrote:
I genuinely find it amazing that someone who has so consistently been wrong (even in this thread, about a paper you’ve apparently read many times you claimed evolutionary biologists once thought “Non-coding DNA is junk that’s left over from evolution”
You haven't presented any evidence here, only a simple contradiction along with nasty accusations. However, if you actually read Dr. Ohno's paper, for which I provided the link, you might have noticed that on page 368, Dr. Ohno wrote: "Our view is that they are the remains of nature's experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?" Hmmm. Looks like you're dead wrong. And then you continued with
and that Ohno claimed “junk DNA can function as a sort of evolutionary scratch pad”, neither of which are true), and so consistently failed to admit it (I guess even to yourself?) would go on about it all this.
And again you're dead wrong! On page 369, Dr. Ohno wrote the following regarding this "junk" DNA: "It then follows that the creation of a new gene with hitherto nonexistent function is possible only if a gene becomes sheltered from relentless pressure from natural selection." In the future, you really need to start checking your facts before posting them. I think you owe everyone an apology. -QQuerius
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
The main problem with Allen McNeill’s “evolutionary mechanisms” is that neither Allen nor any other evolutionist can say whether or not they are blind watchmaker mechanisms, ie for unguided evolution. Not only that no one knows if those mechanisms can produce the observed diversity of life on Earth starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organisms.
I don't believe we have to go back to prokaryotes. I doubt if much of evolution can result from the 47+ engines but probably some did. If the bulk of evolution did, we would have heard a lot more about it in recent years. Maybe Allen will hang around here some time in order to discuss it. Radio silence from the evolutionary biologists is probably the best indication of what they know.jerry
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Querius, I genuinely find it amazing that someone who has so consistently been wrong (even in this thread, about a paper you've apparently read many times you claimed evolutionary biologists once thought "Non-coding DNA is junk that’s left over from evolution" and that Ohno claimed “junk DNA can function as a sort of evolutionary scratch pad", neither of which are true), and so consistently failed to admit it (I guess even to yourself?) would go on about it all this. As I say, if you have a case to make, make it. (to head off a distraction: Ohno claimed gene duplication could shield proteins from stabilizing selection, and since most duplicates would not acquire new functions the net result would be many broken genes (junk) and a few new functional ones. He was right about this (a famous paper on this topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11073452), but it turns out the junk includes much more than broken gene duplicates).wd400
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
The main problem with Allen McNeill's "evolutionary mechanisms" is that neither Allen nor any other evolutionist can say whether or not they are blind watchmaker mechanisms, ie for unguided evolution. Not only that no one knows if those mechanisms can produce the observed diversity of life on Earth starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organisms.Joe
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
Queryius: "Regarding my making an argument for ID on pragmatism, I’ve already made it several times, but I suspect you haven’t come to this site for illumination" Hey Query, I didn't think that any of us came here for illumination. I thought that we came here to discuss and debate. Have I been mislead?Acartia_bogart
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
Dionisio @86, Yeah, that's a very good point, too. There's also an emotional investment founded on years of hard study, research, and publishing as amply demonstrated by several people here. wd400,
You may be suprised, querius, to learn how little I care about your amateur psychology. If you have a good argument for why ID is more “pragmatic” or whatever make it, though your track record gives me little hope that you will.
No, I'm not surprised at all. Should I be? Actually I'm kind of amused that you rejected well-established psychological phenomena by mistakenly attributing it to me as “your amateur psychology.” But whatever. You will also probably not be interested in a different Darwinian environment called Marketing, where billions of dollars are continually at stake, and marketing professionals can never allow themselves the luxury of “marrying their ideas.” Not surprisingly, there's quite a bit of applicability to science: http://www.digitaltonto.com/2012/looking-for-support-rather-than-illumination/ I liked the warning in the article that
If you look hard enough, you’ll always be able to find something, somewhere that can back up virtually any argument. Yet by doing so, you are using data much like drunk uses a lamppost—for support rather than illumination.
Regarding my making an argument for ID on pragmatism, I've already made it several times, but I suspect you haven't come to this site for illumination, and I'm not surprised at how hard you're gripping the lampost. ;-) -QQuerius
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
I left out the Brosius article with Stephen Gould link http://www.pnas.org/content/89/22/10706.full.pdf Brosius is the lead author on this article.jerry
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Eric,
I don’t know about that characterization.
Here is an article from 2003 which lists his research as well as others going back into the early 90's. http://zmbe.uni-muenster.de/expath/articles/Genetica.retro.2003.pdf Here is his article with Stephen Gould from 1992 which develops the idea. For his latest, see his CV which contains all his publications. http://zmbe.uni-muenster.de/institutes/iep/Brosius_CV_AllPub.pdf Unlike people like Coyne, Dawkins, Miller, MacNeill or Moran, this guy is a serious researcher, probably one of the top ones in evolutionary biology. The others are just polemicists who make their name giving talks or writing books.
Are you referring to something else?
No, I am referring to Brosius. He is one of the top researcher or maybe even the top one in the field. Have you ever seen an ID person review his work? I haven't. In a memorial tribute to Stephen Gould, his article was the first one in the journal. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1666/0094-8373%282005%29031%5B0001%3ADAEBAC%5D2.0.CO%3B2 If you have access to a good university library, you may be able to get the pdf of it. Here is a key quote from this article.
An extension of Wally Gilbert’s metaphor “exons in a sea of introns” (Gilbert 1978). Functional nuons are is lands in a sea of nonfunctional (nonaptive) sequences. Nevertheless, any of those sequences has the potential to be exapted into novel functions (Brosius and Gould 1992; Balakirev and Ayala 2003). While “plate tectonics,” or exon shuffling, occasionally leads to rearrange ments of existing functional nuons (Gilbert 1978), retro position, the major force in the plasticity of genomes, which in our analogy is more akin to volcanic eruptions, frequently creates new nuons. Initially, most nuons (is lands) are barren (nonfunctional, nonaptive) but have the potential to be fertilized by some microevolutionary base changes or short indels and exapted as functional nuons. Nonfunctional nuons erode over time and the is lands disappear in the sea of anonymous sequences. An interesting example is the recruitment of part of an Alu retronuon as an alternative exon in an isoform of the cytokine tumor necrosis factor receptor. Insertion of the Alu element occurred after Anthropoidea split from pro simians and a subsequent point mutation generated an ATG start codon. This base substitution alone, however, was not sufficient for exaptation of the Alu element as a protein-coding exon, as this sequence is nonaptive (not used as part of an alternative mRNA) in Platyrrhini. Only two additional small changes in the lineage lead ing to Catarrhini including apes, a C->T transition to generate a GT 5? splice site and a 7-bp deletion to pro vide translation into the next exon in the correct reading frame, led to generation and exaptation of this alternative exon (Singer et al. 2004). ———- from another part of the article A nuon is any distinct nucleic acid, a defined sequence module (Brosius and Gould 1992). The term can be used with a prefix (e.g., retronuon) to designate any DNA module that was generated by retroposition. I prefer retronuon over retroposon and especially over transposable element (TE) or mobile element (ME). In fact, any RNA is a potential mobile element: if a segment of the genome is transcribed in the germline it has the potential to serve as template for retroposition (hence, RNA might be considered the ultimate selfish unit). However, upon integration into the genome, there is no guarantee for autonomous transcription in the germline, which results in a loss of mobility. The original transcript, how ever, can serve as a template for retroposition multiple times. In contrast to TE or ME, the term “retronuon” solely indicates the mode of origin, but not the potential for successive amplification. Only a minority of retronuons are true TEs or MEs, such as endogenous retroviruses or intact LINE elements [see Brosius 2003a]).
So it is clear what he thinks has caused macro evolution and he is quite cocky and arrogant about that and dismisses critics as know nothings. So I suggest that the ID brain trust review his line of research. It is here that the battle lines have to form and meet each other. My guess is that Brosius will not overcome the large number problem. He probably has a few good examples and that is all but someone with credentials has to review the research. It is extensive.jerry
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
"Anyway it is an area no one in ID has commented on even though the research has been around for over 20 years." I don't know about that characterization. I doubt anyone has gone through every one of Dr. MacNeill's engines of variation to address every single one. However, ID proponents have long talked about both (i) the implications of re-shuffling existing informational sequences, and (ii) the idea of junk DNA acting as a "scratch pad" for new functional sequences to arise through mutation. I haven't delved into Dr. MacNeill's or Dr. Brosius' work in enough detail to be able to ascertain whether everything they have argued has been addressed head on. But the idea that ID proponents have ignored the possibility of new information arising through shuffling and/or through mutations acting on non-coding regions is simply not correct. Are you referring to something else?Eric Anderson
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Eric,
What happens when the junk DNA scratch pad stumbles upon a useful protein? Does it stay there in the scratch pad, subject to all the changes acting on the scratch pad, or is it somehow protected by the cellular mechanisms once they “recognize” it as a useful protein? Can the protein, existing as it does in the mutation-zone scratch pad space, possibly exist long enough without mutating out of existence to be integrated into and spread throughout a population? Or does the new useful gene get shunted off into some more protected space outside the scratch pad? Are there any examples of new useful genes arising in the scratch pad that required more than one or two mutations to achieve it?
I believe the answer to this is that much of these segments are not in anyway protected and can mutate in and out of functionality if there is such a thing. But what happens is that there seems to be a process by which most of the genome gets transcribed into RNA and some then get translated (discovered by Encode). My guess is that some of these rna sequences then do something to the genome, or get translated and become a protein and do something. In that case they could be selected. Anyway it is an area no one in ID has commented on even though the research has been around for over 20 years. One interesting behavioral observation. Allen MacNeill brought this up over 5 years ago when he said Darwinian evolution was dead. But he never laid out the case for the alternative except to point to a a couple books which are best ambiguous and his 47+ engines of variation.jerry
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
You may be suprised, querius, to learn how little I care about your amateur psychology. If you have a good argument for why ID is more "pragmatic" or whatever make it, though your track record gives me little hope that you will.wd400
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
#79 Querius
As more research was completed, and more evidence was collected, weaknesses and paradoxes began to appear indicating that Darwinism was likely incomplete or incorrect. Nevertheless, because many people were so heavily invested ideologically, they tended to hang onto it beyond what the theory deserved.
...and financially too: Their reprinted textbooks keep bringing in income from fees. Their names may appear as coauthors in papers they have not worked on. Their opinions and presentations are on demand. Their authority is undisputable. Their participation in boards that approve grants for research can influence on the resources available to researchers whose work might threaten the old theories [source: my scientist friends in Northern Europe and Canada told me all that in our personal conversations]Dionisio
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Gpuccio, I am just telling you what some major university evolutionary biology departments are teaching about macro evolution. I am not defending it. Brosius has tons of research on this. So all I am suggesting is that someone who is qualified review his and his colleagues research. He is very sure of himself. Here is a cartoon he had drawn about himself on this topic. I am not sure I understand exactly what it means but it points to his thesis that occasionally a part of the Junk DNA gets used for something. http://zmbe.uni-muenster.de/institutes/iep/iepcartoon.htmjerry
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
jerry: MacNeill's arguments are at best confused. One thing os to generate new complex functional information. Another thing is to shuffle existing information around. His example of the “hybridization” of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the collected works of Anthony Trollope is revealing. What would that be? Just the mix of two existing big pieces of complex functional information. How would MacNeill explain the origin of Trollope's works? As the hybridization of Little women with Shaw's Pygmalion? Nobody is denying that shuffling can use functional parts to build a new complex structure. That's one way design works, it's called object oriented programming. Even that cannnot, IMO, come out of mere random variation. It's very difficult to design functional structures by the mere random assembly of simpler functional structures. In extreme, ad hoc cases, that could work. But again, could MacNeill (or anyone else) please explain how ATP synthase (a basic constituent of practically all the phenotypes we know) came into existence by any of his 47 engines of variation? (or 100, or 1000... just listing variations of random variations does not add anything: the only important variable is the number of new states that a random system can test in a definite time).gpuccio
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
jerry @77:
In it, you’ll also see that he proposes that “junk” DNA can function as a sort of evolutionary scratch pad, sheltering hopeful genes from relentless Darwinian competition.
It is an interesting idea, which certainly raises its own questions. Have they identified what is sheltering junk DNA from the "relentless Darwinian competition"? Are they arguing that using up the bulk of the cell's transcription resources transcribing junk is something natural selection is blind to? And the tremendous additional effort and resources to reproduce 9x more DNA than needed upon cellular reproduction is also invisible to this incredible "relentless Darwinian competition"? Doesn't seem particularly relentless or competitive. What happens when the junk DNA scratch pad stumbles upon a useful protein? Does it stay there in the scratch pad, subject to all the changes acting on the scratch pad, or is it somehow protected by the cellular mechanisms once they "recognize" it as a useful protein? Can the protein, existing as it does in the mutation-zone scratch pad space, possibly exist long enough without mutating out of existence to be integrated into and spread throughout a population? Or does the new useful gene get shunted off into some more protected space outside the scratch pad? Are there any examples of new useful genes arising in the scratch pad that required more than one or two mutations to achieve it? Anyway, I realize you don't have the answers to these questions. I'm just throwing out a few things that jump immediately to mind from the idea. There are probably dozens of additional questions that could be raised if we thought it for a bit.Eric Anderson
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
why does Allen MacNeill belief that his 47 mechanisms are able to generate phenotypic variation?
You will have to ask him. He is rarely here. He has his own site but I do not know how much he pays attention to it these days. My point is that there are evolutionary biologists who are very confident that this process explains things. I have no way of evaluating Brosius's research which is prolific. My guess is that it will sound good but not really explain much. He is arrogant and not a nice person and very cocky. But he is unlike Dawkins or Coyne. He does research, lots of it.jerry
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Jerry, why does Allen MacNeill belief that his 47 mechanisms are able to generate phenotypic variation? Without fitting regulatory networks already in place the most blessed genetic mutation is still good-for-nothing; completely ineffectual with regard to the phenotype. The simple notion that regulatory networks are essential is often ignored by Darwinists.Box
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Jerry, Thanks for the comment. It makes much more sense to me to have such a more-protected mechanism than to depend on the unlikely appearance of a set of mutations, each of which confers some sort of evolutionary benefit. In my opinion, this mechanism mitigates one of Michael Behe's objections in the Edge of Evolution to a small degree. I don't think it's adequate to address the cumulative probabilities of multiple mutations, however. -QQuerius
August 24, 2014
August
08
Aug
24
24
2014
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply