Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: Uncharted genetic territory offers insight into human-specific proteins

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When researchers working on the Human Genome Project completely mapped the genetic blueprint of humans in 2001, they were surprised to find only around 20,000 genes that produce proteins. Could it be that humans have only about twice as many genes as a common fly? Scientists had expected considerably more.

Now, researchers from 20 institutions worldwide bring together more than 7,200 unrecognized gene segments that potentially code for new proteins. For the first time, the study makes use of a new technology to find possible proteins in humans—looking in detail at the protein-producing machinery in cells. The new study suggests the gene discovery efforts of the Human Genome Project were just the beginning, and the research consortium aims to encourage the scientific community to integrate the data into the major human genome databases.

Note that so-called orphan genes have been discussed in-depth at Evolution News:

Orphan genes (sometimes called ORFan genes in bacteria) are those open reading frames that lack identifiable sequence similarity to other protein-coding genes. Lack of similarity is hard to prove, given the size of the genomic universe. Methods vary from researcher to researcher, so each study needs to be evaluated carefully. There is also always the possibility that any given ORF has no function. No doubt some orphan genes will prove to be artifacts of incomplete evidence (see below). But orphan genes are a reality, nonetheless, based on numerous and substantial studies.

Thus, the existence and prevalence of orphan genes raises a number of significant questions.

Then there is the elephant in the room that evolutionary biologists don’t want to acknowledge. Perhaps we see so many species- and clade-specific orphan genes because they are uniquely designed for species- and clade-specific functions. Certainly, this runs contrary to the expectation of common descent.

Continuing with the Phys.org article…

New gene sequences remained out of reach

In the past few years, thousands of frequently very small open reading frames (ORFs) have been discovered in the human genome. These are spans of DNA sequence that may contain instructions for building proteins.

Traditionally, protein-coding regions in genes have been identified by comparing DNA sequences from multiple species: the most important coding regions have been preserved during animal evolution. But this method has a drawback: coding regions that are relatively young, i.e., that arose during the evolution of primates, fall through the cracks and are therefore missing from the databases.

So now the task is to integrate the largely ignored ORFs into the largest reference databases, because researchers have so far had to specifically search for them in the literature if they wanted to study them.

ORFs likely play a role in common diseases

Dr. Sebastiaan van Heesch, group leader at the Princess Máxima Center for pediatric oncology, says that their “research marks a huge step forward in understanding the genetic make-up and complete number of proteins in humans. It’s tremendously exciting to enable the research community with our new catalog. It’s too soon to say whether all of the unexplored sections of DNA truly represent proteins, but we can clearly see that something unexplored is happening across the human genome and that the world should be paying attention.”

“It is especially remarkable that most of these 7,200 ORFs are exclusive to primates and might represent evolutionary innovations unique to our species,” reports Jorge Ruiz-Orera, an evolutionary biologist working in Hübner’s lab at the MDC. “This shows how these elements can provide important hints of what makes us humans.”

Read the complete article at Phys.org.

Another “elephant in the room” is the question of how did the significant amount of information needed for novel protein-coding regions arise without intelligent design?

Comments
LCD
The only problem is that in normal conditions this ability become a disability and this bacteria can’t compete anymore with normal bacteria.
That's not a problem; that is a fact. Glad you are beginning to grasp how adaptive evolution works. The niche is everything.Alan Fox
July 20, 2022
July
07
Jul
20
20
2022
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT
That is "ID does not evaluate evidence of whether the creator is perfect ..."Silver Asiatic
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Seversky
the much bigger problem for ID/creationists is why we should observe any variation at all in what should be the perfect creations of a perfect creator
ID does evaluate evidence of whether the creator is perfect or imperfect. To me your argument reveals that you don't have a scientific rebuttal but you have to turn to an anti-religious one.Silver Asiatic
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Seversky at 76, The more I read - here - the less plausible "evolution" becomes. Do you believe your computer was designed and built by nobody? How about living cells?relatd
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734509 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734512 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734527 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734569 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734622 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Dec. 2021 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/maori-creationism-is-okay-in-new-zealand-schools-objectors-could-be-booted-from-nzs-royal-society/#comment-741814 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. December 2021 - https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-jonathan-bartlett-will-the-sokal-hoaxes-worsen-the-academic-echo-chamber/#comment-742455
bornagain77
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Defense of each claim
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734315 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Dec. 2021 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/could-newly-hatched-pterosaurs-fly/#comment-743728 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Dec. 2021 - https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/could-newly-hatched-pterosaurs-fly/#comment-743732 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Dec. 2021 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/could-newly-hatched-pterosaurs-fly/#comment-743740 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Dec. 2021 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/could-newly-hatched-pterosaurs-fly/#comment-743796 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. (partial defense) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734735 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734506
bornagain77
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Bornagain77/61 "Once more unto the breach … "
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.
You should at least try to understand the basics. Darwin knew nothing about the genome so had nothing to say about whether mutations were random or directed. And, no, the vast majority of mutations in the genome are not found to be "directed", certainly not in the sense you are implying, they are neutral.
Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.
Darwin's theory of natural selection offered a naturalistic alternative to creationism which was the only credible explanation for the appearance of design up to that point. It may well be that natural selection is no longer considered to be the primary engine of variation but the much bigger problem for ID/creationists is why we should observe any variation at all in what should be the perfect creations of a perfect creator.
Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.
Once again, Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He did not propose that "brand new" species would arise just from mutations. He simply argued that descendent species could arise from natural selection acting on variations in the parent species. That said, plenty of experimental evidence has accumulated subsequently for mutations in DNA having dramatic effects on the phenotype.
Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever
Whether or not you agree with it, you should at least be aware that current thinking holds that the majority of mutations are neutral or nearly-neutral in effect, a much smaller number are detrimental and an even smaller number still are beneficial. The theory argues that natural selection will tend to filter out the detrimental leaving only the beneficial to have any long-lasting effect, the neutral mutations being effectively invisible to selection.
Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late)
Darwin was aware that fossilization was a rare occurrence so gaps were to be expected. The sudden appearance of some species could simply be an artefact of the coarse-grained image preserved in the fossil record. On the other hand, significant environmental changes could allow life to flourish relatively rapidly which could appear as an "explosion" even though it lasted for tens of millions of years. As for transitional fossils, there are plenty to be found in the literature. You could start here if you are actually interested.
Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
Axe's case is simply another variant of the argument from incredulity. He can't imagine genetic or protein fold pathways that could have led to complex organs so they could not have happened. But neither Axe's knowledge nor that of any other researcher in this field is exhaustive. Put another way our ignorance is not evidence of impossibility.
Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”
Do you have any examples of an organ formed by one species that is exclusively for the benefit of another species and confers no benefit whatsoever on the species which evolved it. How does Loennig show that all these plant species generated organs purely for the benefit of other species rather than for themselves?
Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.
Red herring. Darwin's theory was about how living things could have varied and diversified over time through natural processes, it says nothing about the origins of "life, the Universe and everything". David Chalmers referred to the hard problem of consciousness not the insoluble problem of consciousness. No, we do not have a materialistic explanation for consciousness - yet - but our ignorance does not mean that there isn't one. Abd the "ugly fact" remains that when the brain stops working the associated consciousness disappears irretrievably.
Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!
The theory of evolution is about living organisms. It says nothing at all about the ontology of mathematics or Platonic realms. Another red herring.
Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.
Is a map an illusion? It is certainly not a one-to-one representation of all the features of a landscape but, as a model created from the abstraction of salient features, it is nonetheless a very useful tool for navigating around it. As for the existence of objective reality being observer-dependent, that is but one interpretation. And you still haven't answered the obvious objection of, if nothing exists before it is observed, what is being observed in the first place? In those terms, the idea is absurd.
The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.
What is meant by "information" here because it sounds very much like you are equivocating between different usages? What version is being used? You also need to explain how information can be both "immaterial" and a "distinctive physical entity" at one and the same time with out it being a contradiction.
Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!
Science does not deal in "truth" but in explanations. In the correspondence theory of "truth" the truth-value of an explanation lies in the extent to which it is observed to correspond to the phenomena for which it is intended to provide an account. If you are working with a different theory of truth you need to explain it.
Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
The difficulty of explaining scientific concepts in non-teleological terms most probably arises from humans, being social animals, having evolved languages originally to explain and describe the activities of purposive agents like human beings and other animals. The need for non-teleological terminology is a much more recent requirement. While it is possible, with some difficulty, to formulate accounts using a non-teleological vocabulary, it is all to easy to revert to default teleological forms. Your problem is that, while there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered, none of the objections listed above, especially those of more tangential relevance, taken either singly or together, amount to anything like irrefutable falsification of the theory of evolution.Seversky
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Lenski's e-coli provided evidence alright. It provided clear evidence that Darwinists are desperately dishonest. (see LCD at 71).bornagain77
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Alan Fox/68
The Lenski long term experiment. Is fascinating. There are twelve separate strains of E. coli bacteria, kept and allowed to grow and reproduce in identical deliberately sparsely simple environments. The only selection that can take place is intra-species. It tests whether evolutionary change is convergent or divergent in an identical niche. One amazing result is mutation and selection producing the ability to metabolise citrate aerobically in one of the twelve strains yet not in the other eleven. There is much much more detail available if you are interested.
I wonder how many UDs we'd have to set up and how long they'd have to run before one of them "mutated" to become tolerant of evolution?Seversky
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
ET: No. Humans can still think, plan and react. Nylonase was less than 100 years ago. Epigenetics still holds sway. Okay. But lots of big changes (new body plans, new families or orders) are unlikely?JVL
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
JVL:
So, such experiments are doomed to failure?
What failure?
At the risk of you accusing me of being some kind of imbecile . . . do you think that whatever design was initially present has run its course and what we see now are just examples of degradation? That whatever was the goal of the designer(s) that’s been met and it’s now down to us to control what happens subsequently?
No. Humans can still think, plan and react. Nylonase was less than 100 years ago. Epigenetics still holds sway.ET
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Alan Fox thinks however the semantic obfuscation played over the word “code” is silly.
Please explain this alleged "semantic obfuscation". The only people I see doing that are evolutionists. It's as if they can't stand it that life is ruled by coded information processing systems.ET
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Lenski's LTEE shows the severe limits of evolutionary processes. The E coli already had the ability to digest citrate. It's just that in an aerobic environment the gene for transporting the citrate across the cell membrane was not expressed. O2 switched it off. What happened was that gene for the citrate transport protein was duplicated and put under the control of a promoter that was not switched off in the presence of O2. No new genes were formed in the LTEE. No new proteins were formed. No new multi-protein complexes were formed.ET
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Alan Fox The Lenski long term experiment. Is fascinating. There are twelve separate strains of E. coli bacteria, kept and allowed to grow and reproduce in identical deliberately sparsely simple environments. The only selection that can take place is intra-species. It tests whether evolutionary change is convergent or divergent in an identical niche.
Yep, absolutely fascinating a bacteria become bacteria.
One amazing result is mutation and selection producing the ability to metabolise citrate aerobically in one of the twelve strains yet not in the other eleven. There is much much more detail available if you are interested.
:lol: Yep, amaaazin' a normal bacteria transforms into (a crippled) bacteria . Another darwinist stunt. That "ability" is activated in only 14 days(not decades :lol: ) . It's not about new ability it's about losing the function of a control element in presence of oxygen(like saying that incontinence resolve the problem of going to toilet) . An "ability" aquired in repeated experiments only after 14 days means that no random mutation is involved but the functional code of different strains resolved the survival math problem by finding same result again and again (damaging a control element for survival purpose ) . The only problem is that in normal conditions this ability become a disability and this bacteria can't compete anymore with normal bacteria. Van Hofwegen, Hovde, and Minnich demonstrated this through do-or-die experiments with E. coli, which led to the bacteria developing the capacity not in years or decades, as in the Lenski experiment, but in 14 days, in as little as 100 generations.
Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513–518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/biologist-dustin-van-hofwegen-punctures-claims-for-lenskis-long-term-evolution-experiment/
Lieutenant Commander Data
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
Alan Fox: The Lenski long term experiment. Is fascinating. Yes, it is. I am quite familiar with it and have referenced it in discussions here in the past. Not that it changed anyone's mind of course.JVL
July 19, 2022
July
07
Jul
19
19
2022
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
The paper Es58 posted will give you a lot to argue against.
Not seeing anything in that paper that contradicts the point I've been making that there is no mechanistic model for a "glycan code".Alan Fox
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
JVL The Lenski long term experiment. Is fascinating. There are twelve separate strains of E. coli bacteria, kept and allowed to grow and reproduce in identical deliberately sparsely simple environments. The only selection that can take place is intra-species. It tests whether evolutionary change is convergent or divergent in an identical niche. One amazing result is mutation and selection producing the ability to metabolise citrate aerobically in one of the twelve strains yet not in the other eleven. There is much much more detail available if you are interested.Alan Fox
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
” Dawkins makes the same point he has often made; namely, that this is a real code just like any other code.”– Larry Moran. Larry also says the genetic code is a real code.
Alan Fox agrees. Alan Fox thinks however the semantic obfuscation played over the word "code" is silly.Alan Fox
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Yes, and that’s also assuming that the previous forms were designed to evolve – which I disagree with. That was directed at ET who has made such statements in the past. It’s an interesting idea and I don’t see a problem with that view. It does seem to match what we observe. We find fully sophisticated organisms in the fossil record and we also know that mutations do, indeed degrade them and not build new features. Which is why I was asking ET if that was his view. It seems a reasonable conclusion based on his previous stated views and observations.JVL
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
JVL
So, where are we right now then: the existing biological lifeforms are not the ones designed to evolve.
Yes, and that's also assuming that the previous forms were designed to evolve - which I disagree with.
That whatever was the goal of the designer(s) that’s been met and it’s now down to us to control what happens subsequently?
It's an interesting idea and I don't see a problem with that view. It does seem to match what we observe. We find fully sophisticated organisms in the fossil record and we also know that mutations do, indeed degrade them and not build new features. So, with design goals met, humans now take on a new role in nature as caretakers and even innovators (artificial selection, hybrids, etc). The designer planned this transition and it's the human task to work against degradations, and we do this because we appreciate what was designed. We also emulate and build on the original design. If it was otherwise, we wouldn't care or pay any attention or have a sense of awe and respect for the design we observe.Silver Asiatic
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
ET: Lenski has. And it hasn’t. So, such experiments are doomed to failure? So, where are we right now then: the existing biological lifeforms are not the ones designed to evolve. It may have been a long time since those lifeforms existed. (But that programming still permeates the cell? I guess it wouldn't have just disappeared.) At the risk of you accusing me of being some kind of imbecile . . . do you think that whatever design was initially present has run its course and what we see now are just examples of degradation? That whatever was the goal of the designer(s) that's been met and it's now down to us to control what happens subsequently? It's an interesting hypothesis which is why I'm asking about it.JVL
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
JVL:
Why don’t you set up an experiment or simulation to see if that leads to anything?
Lenski has. And it hasn't.ET
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Earth to Alan Fox: " Dawkins makes the same point he has often made; namely, that this is a real code just like any other code."- Larry Moran. Larry also says the genetic code is a real code. The genetic code is evidence for a common design. There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life.ET
July 18, 2022
July
07
Jul
18
18
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
AF: "I think it’s pretty amazing and conclusive evidence for common descent." Save, of course, for when it isn't.
Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011?Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal: "The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (Dawkins - 2009, p. 409-10 - The Greatest Show On Earth)?OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 19 variants of the genetic code). Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 19? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two.?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html Universal Genetic Code? No! - January 18, 2016 Excerpt: “To date, the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which houses all published DNA sequences (as well as RNA and protein sequences), currently acknowledges nineteen different coding languages for DNA… “,,, This was a shock to me. As an impressionable young student at the University of Rochester, I was taught quite definitively that there is only one code for DNA, and it is universal. This, of course, is often cited as evidence for evolution.,,, In the end, it seems to me that this wide variation in the genetic code deals a serious blow to the entire hypothesis of common ancestry, at least the way it is currently constructed. Perhaps that’s why I hadn’t heard about it until reading Dr. Rossiter’s excellent book. http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14280 The Genetic Codes http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi?mode=c podcast 2017 - Brian Miller interviews Paul Nelson on universal common ancestry. Listen in as Nelson describes how common descent predicts one – and only one – genetic code. Yet, this is not what we find. https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2017-04-10T14_52_38-07_00 There are now many variants of the “universal” genetic code - June 13, 2018 Excerpt: – From Theistic Evolution (2017): “Perhaps the most common argument for universal common ancestry encountered by students in college-level biology textbooks is the universality of the genetic code- the claim that all life uses the same nucleotide triplets to encode the same amino acids. 5° However, the genetic code is not universal; many variants in the genetic code are known among various organisms. note 51 [51 For a list of known variants to the standard genetic code, see Andrzej (Anjay) Elzanowski and Jim Ostell, “The Genetic Codes,” Taxonomy Browser, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCB!), accessed October 25, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govfraxonomyltaxonomyhome.htmllindex.cgi?chapter=cgencodes. See also Robin D. Knight, Stephen J. Freeland and Laura F. Landweber, “Rewiring the Keyboard: Evolvability of the Genetic Code,” Nature Reviews Genetics 2 (January 2001): 49- 58.]” https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/there-are-now-many-variants-of-the-universal-genetic-code/
Question for you AF, is there ANY finding that could ever falsify Darwinian evolution?
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” - Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
As Denis Noble noted, “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble - President of International Union of Physiological Sciences https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
Here is a short list of falsifications of Darwin's theory that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory.
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
AF Answering my question I believe you're saying: Yes a code exists in nature: the DNA storage retrieval system. However, glycan structures, or as you call it "a system involving polysaccharides" are not code because they're not a storage retrieval system. So, you define "code" as a storage-retrieval system. The paper Es58 posted will give you a lot to argue against.Silver Asiatic
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
This ? https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-02934-0es58
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
@SA The genetic code is shorthand for the DNA storage retrieval system involving the the 64 triplet codons. I think it's pretty amazing and conclusive evidence for common descent. There is no question that the system is present in all extant living organisms. On the other hand, there is no evidence I can find for a system involving polysaccharides that looks like a storage and retrieval system.Alan Fox
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
AF
Glycan code. Exists biologically? Evidence?
Where in nature do you accept the existence of a code? If anywhere, what evidence do you have? If nowhere, where do you accept that a code exists anywhere at all?Silver Asiatic
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Translation, hyperskeptical dismissiveness and highlighting the secondary and potentially distractive while side stepping the central and decisive on the merits.kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Have you published a cogent refutation or substantial dismissal?
The first time I heard of the glycan code was in a comment addressed to me on this site. I've yet to find any substance to the idea so I don't feel the need to rebut anything. On the contrary, it may be a new and fascinating avenue of research. Why can't anyone tell me about it?Alan Fox
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply