Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From The Scientist: Genome Reveals Clues to Giraffes’ “Blatantly Strange” Body Shape

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An updated giraffe genome, published March 17, 2021 in Science Advances, reveals new insights into how the species accommodates a “blatantly strange body architecture.” 

Author, Amanda Heidt writes…

With their long necks, giraffes are a poster child for evolutionary oddities, but scientists know very little about the genetic underpinnings of such an extreme adaptation. An updated giraffe genome, published March 17 in Science Advances, reveals new insights into how the species accommodates what Rasmus Heller, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen and an author on the new study, calls a “blatantly strange body architecture.” Giraffe’s bones grow faster than any other animal, for instance, and the blood pressure required to pump blood up its six-foot neck would be fatal to humans.

Unlocking giraffeness 

When the team probed the genome further, they identified almost 500 genes that are either unique to giraffes or contain variants found only in giraffes. 

giraffe, genetics & genomics, CRISPR, gene editing, genome, physiology, hypertension, bone growth, techniques, mouse model

A functional analysis of these genes showed that they are most often associated with growth and development, nervous and visual systems, circadian rhythms, and blood pressure regulation, all areas in which the giraffe differs from other ruminants. As a consequence of their tall stature, for example, giraffes must maintain a blood pressure that is roughly 2.5 times higher than that of humans in order to pump blood up to their brain. In addition, giraffes have sharp eyesight for scanning the horizon, and because their strange bodies make it difficult for them to stand quickly, they sleep lightly, often standing up and for only minutes at a time, likely a result of changes during evolution to genes that regulate circadian rhythms.

Within those hundreds of genes, FGFRL1 stood out. In addition to being the giraffe’s most divergent gene from other ruminants’, its seven amino acid substitutions are unique to giraffes. In humans, this gene appears to be involved in cardiovascular development and bone growth, leading the researchers to hypothesize that it might also play a role in the giraffe’s unique adaptations to a highly vertical life. 

The Scientist

Note that seven amino acid substitutions needed to form a unique, functional gene is highly unlikely to occur naturally. Consider the following quote from Michael Behe:

Any particular adaptive biochemical feature requiring the same mutational complexity as that needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria is forbiddingly unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes and fixed in the population of any class of large animals (such as, say, mammals), because of the much lower population sizes and longer generation times compared to that of malaria…. (By “the same mutational complexity” I mean requiring 2-3 point mutations [amino acid substitutions]…)

Evolution News–Behe

Repeatedly, further research in a given field tends to reveal greater evidence for intelligent design, not less.

Comments
No one at Biologos has any idea how terrestrial mammals evolved into whales.ET
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
A biologist, a biochemist or a Fred Hickson ... does not matter All of you guys don’t understand what are you talking about (when talking about design)... By the way, how did you Hickson like my blog?martin_r
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
A biologist, a biochemist or a Fred Hickson ... does not matter All of you guys don’t understand what are you talking about (when talking about design)martin_r
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
After all, he is a biologist, i am an engineer.
Michael Behe is a biochemist though he hasn't published a scientific paper in the last decade. Engineers are fine people.Fred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
I don’t think we’ll hear another response from the Darwinian critics.
Why not? That's the first time I've seen that video. Who is it intended for? If its purpose is to demonstrate a difficulty regarding what the fossil evidence and molecular phylogeny show? *Googles* Ah, all becomes clear. https://biologos.org/articles/defending-the-tale-of-the-whaleFred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Hickson
Goodness me, Martin_r, no matter how many times I repeat it, this doesn’t seem to sink in: Mutations are random but selection is non-random. The niche environment is the designing element in evolution.
i am so tired of people like you ... HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT IT, because it does not seem to sink in ... FIRST YOU HAVE TO HAVE MUTATIONS and then something can be selected ... THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO YOUR CRAZY ABSURD THEORY, RANDOM MUTATIONS CREATE SPECIES .... NATURAL SELECTION ONLY DECIDES WHICH DESIGN/SPECIES (CREATED BY THOSE RANDOM MUTATIONS) IS THE FITTEST ONE to select it ... OR DID I GET SOMETHING WRONG ???? and, let me repeat what i wrote above, YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE, that mutations 'overlooked' by all those checkpoints, proofreadings, repairs, genetic recombination etc, those ones created millions of species :))))))))) how perverted one has to be to believe such absurd things ? PS: in regards to Behe, he is a nice guy, i like to listen to his lectures, however, there are things i don't agree with Behe. After all, he is a biologist, i am an engineer.martin_r
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
The problem is we don't even know what determined a whale would develop. The issue of what determines biological form remains. It can't be the genome (DNA). True, DNA is an information carrier. It's just doesn't carry any blueprint for biological form.ET
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
In a back-and-forth on an ID video on whale evolution (which was strong enough to get a lot of responses from the evolution community), Darwinists claimed that there were errors in the dating of the fossils in the ID presentation. Here's the response: Whale Evolution: A Further Rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCM1MjEFvqE I don't think we'll hear another response from the Darwinian critics. (141 comments on YouTube and I didn't see one evolutionist counterpoint.)Silver Asiatic
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Bumblebees:
It was in 1934, French entomologist Antoine Magnan and his assistant calculated that bee flight was aerodynamically impossible. From then onwards, the bees have been defying the laws of nature as we know.
ET
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
On whales- There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing whales from terrestrial mammals. So, that would be a huge problem especially for a mechanistic position.ET
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
On whales Molecular phylogenetics indicates that the closest living relatives to cetaceans are hippopotamuses. Kind of obvious with hindsight.Fred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
On bees The whole class is fascinating, showing many variations between solitariness and eusociality.Fred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Martin_r- Hickson the clown is Alan Fox the clown.ET
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
To gain their attention, ID proponents have to do more than claim evolution is a bad model for biological reality.
What? Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. Why do you continue to equivocate?
They need to propose better models.
There aren't any models for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Natural selection is both blind and mindless. It does not have any purpose. No goals. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes. ID's evolutionary concepts are very useful. Natural selection is non-random ONLY in that not all variants have the same probability of being eliminated. It is nothing more than contingent serendipity. There isn't any evidence that the niche environment does any designing. Only Alan Fox pushes such drivel. It isn't in evolutionary textbooks. Maybe, someday, Alan will produce a model. Doubtful.ET
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
LCD: "If you want to become polar bear just go to North Pole,,, This idea should become a meme." Or, if you are a bear and want to become a whale, just start swimming.
Charles Darwin wrote in the first edition of The Origin of Species that North American black bears had been seen "swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."1 Critics laughed at this, and Darwin removed it from later editions of his book, though he continued privately to believe it.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/from-bears-to-whales-a-difficult-transition/
Gullible is too mild a word for such thinking.bornagain77
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
BA77's references to studies on bumblebees in #56 are remarkable enough and those do not touch on just the simple facts around the organization of bee colonies with division of labor and efficiencies - as well as their beautiful products of honey and wax, all produced and kept safe in sealed hexagonal containers with anti-bacterial protection from propolis.Silver Asiatic
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
FH
The story is that aeronautical engineers did the math and bumblebees hovering was impossible according to their model. Now I’ve seen bumblebees hover. So I think that the aeronautical engineer’s model is inaccurate rather than me hallucinating.
Our best math and technological expertise couldn't even explain what they were observing. But we're supposed to believe that we have an explanation for the origin of bumblebees? The fact that you see this amazing thing happen and yet at the same time, assert that it came about by a blind mechanism (and niches are as blind as mutations) might lend you to think that yes, maybe that you could think you are hallucinating. Again, just because something exists does not mean that is proof the evolution caused it.Silver Asiatic
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
FH
Would you feel more comfortable pretending that there isn’t a mainstream of science flowing blithely on which is utterly unconcerned and uninterested in the pronouncements of Michael Behe?
The "Two mutations" paper was an attempt by mainstream science to refute Michael Behe. But that attempt failed and therefore the next part of the strategy was to simply ignore him. But the truth will win out, whether it is popular with mainstream science or not.Silver Asiatic
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
FH
Behe is ignored by the mainstream basically because his arguments about an edge to evolution etc do not prevent a bumblebee from flying. The scientific mainstream flows on. I’m sorry that this is bad news to ID enthusiasts here.
That's a common argument. "Bees fly, therefore evolution did it and evolutionary theory is proven correct by that fact.". But Behe was merely showing that getting two mutations was an improbable event. His critics came up with a "refutation" which was eventually overturned.
So, Michael Behe Was Right After All; What Will the Critics Say Now? https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/ What we’ll probably get is nothing more than PZ Myers’s concession, offered in the context of the rant quoted above:
Fair enough; if you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.
So, yes - Michael Behe is ignored, and yes evolutionists simply assert that for any biological organism "since it exists, then it evolved that way". But that's not a good reason to ignore Behe's argument - and moreso, he offered an open challenge that if they don't like his calculations, they can provide better ones.Silver Asiatic
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson<The niche environment is the designing element
:))) Yep North pole designs polar bears .If you want to become polar bear just go to North Pole because niche environment will redesign your DNA and cell codes . Not DNA and cell codes make you human but environment says Fred Hickson. This idea should become a meme. PS: It's like saying that the ambient temperature in your room literally designs the air conditioner just because air conditioner reacts by changing its own "states" to an ambient temperature value and having "the goal" to maintain a constant temperature in the room.Lieutenant Commander Data
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Goodness me, Martin_r, no matter how many times I repeat it, this doesn't seem to sink in: Mutations are random but selection is non-random. The niche environment is the designing element in evolution.Fred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Regarding bumblebees, that was a metaphor I thought people might already be familiar with. The story is that aeronautical engineers did the math and bumblebees hovering was impossible according to their model. Now I've seen bumblebees hover. So I think that the aeronautical engineer's model is inaccurate rather than me hallucinating. So the advice is if a model analysis says something is impossible yet we see it happen, we should suspect our model first, rather than reality.Fred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
PS: there are many means how a cell is preventing mutations ... from DNA proofreading and repair to DNA recombination during sexual reproduction. Yet, Darwinists BELIEVE, that mutations created millions of species on this planet ... this theory can't be more absurd ... Darwisnists completely deny reality ... Darwinists living in some fantasy world ...martin_r
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
I'm sorry I upset you, Martin_r. I do wonder though what it is that upsets you so. Would you feel more comfortable pretending that there isn't a mainstream of science flowing blithely on which is utterly unconcerned and uninterested in the pronouncements of Michael Behe? To gain their attention, ID proponents have to do more than claim evolution is a bad model for biological reality. They need to propose better models.Fred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
ET @60
LoL! Mainstream doesn’t have any idea how bumblebees came to be.
Mainstream has no idea how anything that flies evolved... insects, dinos, birds, mammals. Hickson is trying to ridicule me (@ 57) These Darwinian clowns have no clue why there is sexual reproduction at all (they call it a mystery), they have 20 hypothesis as to why there is sex. reproduction. TWENTY HYPOTHESIS :))))))) And this clown is trying to ridicule ME ?????? https://theconversation.com/why-did-sex-evolve-researchers-edge-closer-to-solving-longstanding-mystery-55407 PS: ET, i have to say, i admire you that you even reply to Hickson. This clown is much worse than Seversky.martin_r
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
The paper presents a mathematical model. All models are wrong but some are useful, someone said. Models are always simpler than reality.
Evos loved the paper when they thought it refuted one of Behe's claims. But now that they see it also kicks their asinine claims to the gutter it's only a model. Yet models are used because evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is total untestable nonsense unless you are discussing genetic diseases and deformities.ET
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
Behe is ignored by the mainstream basically because his arguments about an edge to evolution etc do not prevent a bumblebee from flying.
LoL! Mainstream doesn't have any idea how bumblebees came to be. They don't even know what determines biological form. They cannot explain how meiosis arose via blind and mindless processes. It looks like mainstream ignores the mandates of science which state the concepts must not only be testable but tested and confirmed. Mainstream doesn't have that.ET
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
TestingFred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
FH: "The (two mutations) paper presents a mathematical model. All models are wrong but some are useful, someone said. Models are always simpler than reality." HUH? What in the world are you going on about? Behe chastised Durrett and Schmidt precisely because they favored their mathematical model over what the empirical evidence itself was actually saying, i.e. "The difficulty with (mathematical) models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model. That is why experimental or observational data on the evolution of microbes such as P. falciparum are invaluable,,,"
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. Generally, when the results of a simple model disagree with observational data, it is an indication that the model is inadequate.,,, The difficulty with (mathematical) models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model. That is why experimental or observational data on the evolution of microbes such as P. falciparum are invaluable,,, http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
Also of note, despite being contradicted by empirical evidence at every turn, FH, like other dogmatic Darwinists, apparently still believes Darwinian evolution to be 'true' no matter what the empirical evidence says to the contrary. Yet the reductive materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution itself is what prevents Darwinian evolution from actually ever being 'true'. Simply put, 'truth', like mathematics and logic, (see bottom of post 31), is also immaterial in its foundational essence,
“Truth is immaterial and can be seen using an open mind that voluntarily follows evidence regardless.” – Andrew Fabich – Associate Professor of Microbiology – Truett McConnell University – 2016
The entire concept of Truth is an abstract property and/or definition of the immaterial mind that cannot possibly be reduced to any possible materialistic explanations. i.e. How much does the concept of Truth weigh? Does the concept of Truth weigh more in English or in Chinese? How long is the concept of Truth in millimeters? How fast does the concept of Truth go? Is the concept of Truth faster or slower than the speed of light? Is the concept of Truth positively or negatively charged? Or etc.. etc.. ?.. As John_a_designer explains, “Obviously, these questions are absurd because propositions, (truth claims), are not physical. But if the physical or material is all that exists as the materialist claims, which is by the way a propositional truth claim, how can such a proposition be true? How can something that doesn’t really exist, as the materialist claims, be true? Obviously that is self-refuting.”
“Truth claims are propositional. That is, truth claims are stated in the form of a proposition. But what is a proposition? Where do propositions exist? What do they look like? Where are they located? How much space do they take up? How much do they weigh? How long have they existed? How and where did they originate? Obviously, these questions are absurd because propositions are not physical. But if the physical or material is all that exists as the materialist claims, which is by the way a propositional truth claim, how can such a proposition be true? How can something that doesn’t really exist, as the materialist claims, be true? Obviously that is self-refuting.” – John_a_designer
And since Truth is obviously immaterial in its foundational essence then, as John_a_designer pointed out, it necessarily follows that Darwinian materialism can never possibly be true., (And this falsification of Darwinian evolution as being true comes way before we even start evaluating the myriad of falsifications of Darwin’s theory from empirical science). Moreover, since 'immaterial' truth can only be appreciated by the immaterial mind, and since the human mind is obviously not eternal, then immaterial “Truth” can only ever be properly grounded within the Mind of God, i.e. within Theism:
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God – Peter Kreeft 11. The Argument from Truth This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine. 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
You don’t have to take my, (or John_a_designer’s), word for the fact that Darwinian evolution undercuts itself with its implicit denial of the existence of 'truth'. Postmodern pragmatists themselves, via their Darwinian presuppositions, have been claiming that objective truth does not actually exist for over a century now, ever since Darwin’s theory first made it to the shores of America. As Professor Nancy Pearcey explains in this following excellent article, (an article which traced the progression from Darwinism to postmodern pragmatism), “If all ideas are products of evolution, and thus not really true but only useful for survival, then evolution itself is not true either,,,, In short, naturalistic evolution is self-refuting.”
How Darwinism Dumbs Us Down by Nancy Pearcey Excerpt: I once presented this progression from Darwinism to postmodern pragmatism at a Christian college, when a man in the audience raised his hand: “I have only one question. These guys who think all our ideas and beliefs evolved . . . do they think their own ideas evolved?” The audience broke into delighted applause, because of course he had captured the key fallacy of the Darwinian approach to knowledge. If all ideas are products of evolution, and thus not really true but only useful for survival, then evolution itself is not true either–and why should the rest of us pay any attention to it? Indeed, the theory undercuts itself. For if evolution is true, then it is not true, but only useful. This kind of internal contradiction is fatal, for a theory that asserts something and denies it at the same time is simply nonsense. In short, naturalistic evolution is self-refuting. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/how-darwinism-dumbs-us-down/
The denial of the existence of objective truth, as is implicit in the atheistic materialism of Darwinian evolution, (besides undercutting any claim that Darwinian evolution itself can possibly be true), also undercuts rationality altogether. As John C Wright succinctly explained, “A statement that there is no truth, if true, is false. We know this truth is basic because without it, no question can be answered, not even the question of whether or not truth is true.”
The Self Evident — A Reminder – John C. Wright – 2019 From time to time it is useful for sane men in an insane world to remind themselves of basic truths. The first truth is that truth is true. A statement that there is no truth, if true, is false. We know this truth is basic because without it, no question can be answered, not even the question of whether or not truth is true. Truth is a subtle and complex topic, but what we mean by the word can be said in a short sentence using words of one syllable: Truth is when one says ‘it is’, and it is as one says. The second conclusion springs immediately from the first. We know that truth is true because to say truth is untrue is illogical. A statement that truth is true is a self-evident statement, hence a true one. A statement that truth is untrue is a self-contradiction, hence false. http://www.scifiwright.com/2019/10/the-self-evident/
Of course, despite whatever self-refuting absurdities Darwinists are forced to believe because of their dogmatic atheism, (i.e. for instance, the denial of the existence of 'truth' itself),, 'the truth' really does exist. And 'the truth' turns out to be far more wondrous and amazing than Darwinists have ever dared imagine in their nihilistic worldview. Verse:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. “If you were to take Mohammed out of Islam, and Buddha out of Buddhism, and Confucius out of Confucianism you would still have a faith system that was relatively in tact. However, taking Christ out of Christianity sinks the whole faith completely. This is because Jesus centred the faith on himself. He said, “This is what it means to have eternal life: to know God the Father and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent” (John 17:3). “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Buddha, before dying, said in effect, “I am still seeking for the truth.” Mohammed said in effect, “I point you to the truth.” Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Jesus claimed to not only give the truth, but to be the very personal embodiment of it.” http://commonground.co.za/?resources=is-jesus-the-only-way-to-god Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE
bornagain77
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Exactly….It is obvious, that the main reason why there is a sexual reproduction is to prevent/minimize any mutations, thank to DNA recombination… Of course, there might be some other reasons, e.g. to create some variety … e.g. humans… there are 6 billions of people and no one looks the same, of course, this is not a coincidence… this was intentional … by design….
Against arguments of this calibre, I'm lost for words. ;)Fred Hickson
May 30, 2022
May
05
May
30
30
2022
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply