Intelligent Design

Evolutionists are Doubling Down on De Novo Gene Evolution

Spread the love

How can a new protein-coding gene emerge from a random stretch of DNA? According to evolutionists this occurs via the usual random mutations and natural selection. In fact, as I explained last time, evolutionists are saying this is “basically a solved problem.” But such de novo gene evolution is not anywhere close to a solution. Even evolutionists, only a few years ago, agreed this was a heroic idea and that such genes could not have evolved, at least in the usual way. In typical fashion they pushed the problem into the recesses of deep time where anything can happen by mysterious mechanisms that no longer are present and so cannot be critiqued. That narrative serviced evolutionary thought for many years until the evidence for unique, so-called “orphan,” genes became undeniable.  Read more

3 Replies to “Evolutionists are Doubling Down on De Novo Gene Evolution

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Dr. Hunter you may find this following short interview interesting,,,

    An Interview with Kazutoshi Mori and Peter Walter – video
    http://www.laskerfoundation.or.....w_mori.htm

    Body Wonders at the Cellular Level – September 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Two scientists (Kazutoshi Mori and Peter Walter) won the Lasker Prize,, for discovering how cellular machines in the endoplasmic reticulum (are regulated to correct misfolded) proteins.,,
    One of the researchers, Kazutoshi Mori, described his feelings at the wonder of discovery:
    “We wanted to find the molecular machinery that allows one component of the cell to talk to another. There was virtually nothing known about what was taking place.,,,
    The deeper we dove, however, the more complex it became and the more beautiful it became.…
    We discovered machinery by which the cell has the capacity to fold the protein properly and pathway by which this happened. We mapped the components of the pathway and everything turned out to be more exciting than we could have hoped for.”
    http://crev.info/2014/09/body-.....lar-level/

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    But when I pointed out the circular reasoning, the failed expectations, and the lack of any real solution beyond hand-waving, the evolutionist doubled down. He cited an 11 year old irrelevant paper (which repeats the now discounted refrain that “the true de novo origination of new genes from previously non-coding sequences is rare”). He also cited two proteins, neither of which are even examples of de novo gene evolution.

    And so there we have it. Another evolutionary victory snatched from the jaws of defeat.

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but I love you Dr. Hunter. 😀

    I only hope another book is in the works.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    1. Does Stephen Meyer exaggerate the nature of the rethinking going on in mainstream evolutionary developmental biology?

    I don’t think so. Many evolutionary developmental biologists think that we are on the verge of a significant re-organization in our thinking about the mechanics of macro-evolution. The much respected developmental biologist Scott Gilbert states: “If the population genetics model of evolutionary biology isn’t revised by developmental genetics, it will be as relevant to biology as Newtonian physics is to current physics.”

    That and many other similar statements that I’ve seen in the literature[1] really do suggest that we are on the cusp of some major rethinking about the forces at work in macro-evolution.

    Darrel Falk

    Perhaps that’s why Nick Matzke is delaying the release of his book on macro-evolution.

Leave a Reply