Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another Day; Another Bad Day for Darwinism: Pt. 43

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This is from a new study published in Nature Communications, and talked about at Phys.Org.

Oh, how difficult it is these days to be an “intellectually fulfilled” neo-Darwinian:

Humans don’t like being alone, and their genes are no different. Together we are stronger, and the two versions of a gene – one from each parent – need each other. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin have analysed the genetic makeup of several hundred people and decoded the genetic information on the two sets of chromosomes separately. In this relatively small group alone they found millions of different gene forms. The results also show that genetic mutations do not occur randomly in the two parental chromosome sets and that they are distributed in the same ratio in everyone.

Ouch!!!!!

The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.

Uh oh. What happened to “purifying selection”? Ouch!!!!

According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,” says Hoehe. The 60:40 distribution ratio appears to be essential for survival. “This formula may help us to understand how gene variability occurs and how it affects gene function.”

Double Ouch!!!!!

The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. “We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time. Moreover, the conventional view of individual mutations is no longer adequate. Instead, we have to consider the two gene forms and their combination of variants,” Hoehe explains. When analysing genomes, scientists should therefore examine each parental gene form separately, as well as the effects of both forms as a pair.

What’s that you say? Oh, you’re going to take your bat and go home now? I understand.

Yikes!!! Could it get any worse for the Darwinists? Just wait for tomorrow. . . . .

Comments
ringo: It's not really simple. I am trying to analyze the paper in depth. In brief, as a very quick summary, I would tentatively point to at least two important aspects: a) The genome and proteome exhibit important variations in a normal, rather homogeneous population. That is not really news, but it is very important to have quantitative data about that point. b) The distribution of that variation between the two alleles of each gene seems to be non random, and to have functional importance. That adds a new layer of complexity to the big problem of biological individuality and of functional regulation.gpuccio
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
ringo "could you explain the implications of this paper in laymen terms? Thank you" OK I'll try, let's see,, how to put this simply??,,, MMMM, how about this short video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic The bomb is this evidence. The blown up building is Darwin's theory. The man denying the destruction of the building is a Darwinist! :)bornagain77
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
PaV: Extremely interesting. Thank you! :)gpuccio
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Dionisio:
They ain’t seen nothing yet. The party is just starting, the funniest part is still ahead.
Bidirectional associative memory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_associative_memoryGary S. Gaulin
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
Ringo There is no such thing as random mutations or natural selection, Alfred Wallace is right that it is a guided process.Andre
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
Born Again, Barry or anyone else - could you explain the implications of this paper in laymen terms? Thank youringo
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Unguided evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life..... Keith S debunked by scientific observation amongst other refutations.... HeheheAndre
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
So mutations are not random after all? NS + RM is a big lie? Our kids were forced for decades, under penalty of law, to be indoctrinated in the state religion only to discover that the state religion was a pile of BS. I say it's time we ejected the science deniers from our schools.Mapou
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Another prediction of the ID theory (and Genesis) is proving to be true! This is fantastic news!!Gary S. Gaulin
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Absolutely fascinating! Thank you. -QQuerius
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
OT: podcast - "The Universe Next Door: Dr. Paul Nelson" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-11-28T18_17_19-08_00 hear Dr. Paul Nelson's latest discussion with Tom Woodward on The Universe Next Door. Nelson and Woodward talk about what can be conceptualized about the origin of life from the story of Humpty Dumpty; Dr. Nelson's experience in graduate school, and his recent visit to the intelligent design community in Brazil; and finally, current research around self-replicating RNA and the origin of life.bornagain77
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
They ain't seen nothing yet. The party is just starting, the funniest part is still ahead. :)Dionisio
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
I actually was going to use your line for this paper PaV when I listed it earlier,,, glad you did it instead,,,, so much better to hear it from the horses mouth! I've already had two atheists on FB saying that this supports evolution,,, :) ,,, just blocked them instead of arguing,,, I figured anyone who would claim that was not worth the trouble of correcting,,bornagain77
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
And this:
This dual gene and protein arrangement has the advantage that it allows the activity of genes to be more flexibly adjusted and altered. By using the more favourable variant, the body is better able to adapt to changes in its own processes and to environmental conditions. If the duality of genes goes awry and the wrong protein form is used, this can trigger pathogenic mechanisms. This is probably why those 4,000 genes include many disease genes.
So much for RV+NS. This describes a more Lamarckian form of inheritance, and an adaptive process that can take place epigenetically---------------and quickly!PaV
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
There is also this statement at the end:
So far, researchers have estimated the risk of disease only by the presence or absence of mutations. However, there is evidence that in cancer, for example, the severity and course of the disease is determined by the wrong distribution of a mutation. The location of mutations therefore needs to be considered in the diagnosis, prediction and prevention of diseases in future.
If, indeed, the "location" of a mutation is determinative of "fitness," then the discussion that took place on this board years ago regarding the ill use of a UPD for the genome is in many ways undermined---something to be added to the weaknesses that have already been pointed out.PaV
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply