Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Gene Regulation Not Enough in Human Evolution


One of the favorite proof texts for evolution are the genome comparisons between species, in general, and the human-chimpanzee comparison in particular. As the Smithsonianexplains:  Read more

F/N: 35 mn single nucleotide changes, implies a config space for the changes of:
4.971*10^21,072,099 possibilities
The scope of space to be searched for that is beyond the resources of the observed cosmos by so far that our blind search capacity is effectively zero. Where, recall, we are talking or reworking the whole posture of the skeleton to enable upright walking, and the creation of linguistic ability and ability to vocalise. The OBSERVED evidence for that actually being seen to be happening incrementally step by step in 6 mn years is _______________? KF kairosfocus
These numbers are staggering, and certainly do not lead to a conclusion of the wall between man and ape being breached.
A bakery always comes to mind. Many cakes are comprised of the same ingredients. And often even share many of the same preparation, mixing, and cooking steps. I can imagine on a show like Cake Boss where Buddy (the cake boss) is incensed when a customer comes in demanding that he pay the same for a giant, custom, exquisitely decorated specialty cake as he would one of the small, premade, standard issue cakes that are on the shelf in boxes. "They are 99.8% the same thing! Why do you insist that there is something special about the big, sophisticated, colorful cake? Why do you insist that it is worth 50x more?" MrMosis
What a strange quote from the Smithsonian:
the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached.
Although the genetic difference between chimp and man DNA is cited as 1.2% (plus another 4 or 5% if you consider the entire genome) I was interested in just how many changes this equated to. Followed the Smithsonian link to a 2005 article by The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium where they had counted the changes and found
approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
These numbers are staggering, and certainly do not lead to a conclusion of the wall between man and ape being breached. Piltdown2
Bornagain77 do you have a email where I can discuss these subjects with you or a website. Jaceli123
sixthbook helped you Jaceli123, I merely added a few notes to his excellent reference. There are millions of atheists out there Jaceli123, some of them slicker than others (such as Nick Matzke), that try very hard to fool people into thinking they got something. But it is all, every bit of it, bluff and bluster, as to explaining how information can arise by material processes. i.e. they have no observational evidence whatsoever! bornagain77
Bornagain and queries thanks for the help. Im not in distress or have no answers just needed some quick and good answers. By the way what is the casiopedia project on youtube. It's all over atheist and darwinian channels. If you would like to see where my friend got all his questions from heres a link he showed me yesterday of all the Darwinian and Athiest youtube channels. http://introducedrat.com/evolution.htm heres the link! Jaceli123
JLAfan2001 I see what your saying but from what I've been researching for a year now on Darwinian evolution and all of its claims are the same old recycled arguments over and over again. I don't give up when something questions my faith and that to me seems what has happened to you. I was a darwinist and let me tell you its a miserable existence when you believe in evolution. They argue about the existence of morality when in a darwinian and atheistic view there is no morality, im sorry but we can argue about this for days but it makes no sense no god no rules. Its a simple as that. Jaceli123
a few notes; New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life - September 13, 2013 Excerpt: But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today. "The RNA world hypothesis is extremely unlikely," said Carter. "It would take forever." Moreover, there's no proof that such ribozymes even existed billions of years ago. To buttress the RNA World hypothesis, scientists use 21st century technology to create ribozymes that serve as catalysts. "But most of those synthetic ribozymes," Carter said, "bear little resemblance to anything anyone has ever isolated from a living system.",,, The (current) study leaves open the question of exactly how those primitive systems managed to replicate themselves—something neither the RNA World hypothesis nor the Peptide-RNA World theory can yet explain. http://phys.org/news/2013-09-assumptions-life.html The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory for the early evolution of life (except for all the others) - July 2012 Excerpt: "The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis" - Eugene Koonin “The RNA world hypothesis has been reduced by ritual abuse to something like a creationist mantra” - Charles Kurland "I view it as little more than a popular fantasy." - Charles Carter http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-7-23.pdf An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just-So Story (And Then Made Up Another to Replace it) - March 2012 Excerpt: "I'm convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct," Caetano-Anollés said. "That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.",, The ribosome is a "ribonucleoprotein machine," a complex that can have as many as 80 proteins interacting with multiple RNA molecules,,,, Furthermore, "you can't get RNA to perform the molecular function of protein synthesis that is necessary for the cell by itself."… It appears the basic building blocks of the machinery of the cell have always been the same from the beginning of life to the present: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/evolutionist-just-gave-up-on.html Dr. Stephen Meyer: Chemistry/RNA World/crystal formation can't explain genetic information - video Excerpt 5:00 minute mark: "If there is no chemical interaction here (in the DNA molecule) you can't invoke chemistry to explain sequencing" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLeWh8Df3k8 Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis for the Intelligent Design Inference - video http://vimeo.com/32148403 Infographic - Intelligence is the most causually adequate explantion for irreducible complexity and specified complexity (functional information) in biochemistry http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/post_41077191.html To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU) Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design - Rabbi Moshe Averick - August 2011 Excerpt: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/ “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28. (Sourced Quote) etc.. etc.. bornagain77
JLAfan2001, Strange as it will seem to you, I once believed in the theory of evolution. I lost my last vestiges of faith in it in college once I became familiar with the incredible complexity of all the chemical cycles, the DNA code, the cell as being an extremely complex nanotech city with chemical, manufacturing, and transportation complexes, exposure to "living fossils" that mysteriously failed to evolve, polystrate fossils, and many other oddities that needed---and got---complex explanations, which stretched credibility beyond the breaking point. I'm now of the opinion that Darwinism was a reasonable but obsolete 19th-century theory that's outlived its usefulness. It made sense at the time to try to categorize life morphologically---after all, the basic building block of life was the cell, which was simply filled with undifferentiated protoplasm---and then use that taxonomic structure to extrapolate organisms filling ecological niches by small, successive approximations from breeding and culling through natural selection (I imagine that Darwin must have believed in an infinite genetic variability potential for the earliest life, not being familiar with the pathetically inadequate mechanism of mutation). I don't want to hurt your faith either, but it's time to start prying Darwin's cold, dead, hands from your throat to discover better naturalistic mechanisms that start with RNA, DNA and epigenetics. -Q Querius
Jaceli123: This doesn't directly answer either of those videos but it shows that abiogenesis isn't nearly as easy as those videos claim: Steve Benner on the four abiogenesis paradoxes: "Steve Benner: We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we're up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past. The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA." From: http://huffpost.com/us/entry/4374373 sixthbook
Jaceli123 Based on your posts, it seems you are in the same place I was a few years ago. You are coming face to face with the fact of evolution and you are starting to question your faith. You have come here to UD to ask questions and receive some hope to cling onto your faith. Dump it. I have learned that evolution is a fact. There is much evidence that can only be explained by Darwinian evolution. The IDists and Creationists try to explain away and come up with other interpretations because it threatens their faith. You are being shown these videos and I think that deep inside you know that they are true because they make sense. They are reasonable. Embrace Nihilism because it's more real than any other god that man makes up. JLAfan2001
Hi recently a friend of mine showed me a video about abiogenesis. In the video his evolutionist claimed that creationists or ID proponents put abiogenesis in analysis like this: From simple chemicals to bacteria. He said this is how it really is from simple chemicals to polymers to replicating polymers then to the hypercycle then to protobionts and finally bacteria. Then my friend showed me another video about micelles and their formation in hydrothermal vents and that these micelles can form other complex molecules which then creates life. I need help debunking these videos and claims. Heres the videos if your curious: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GdNaP5BYaeU Jaceli123
Can a few DNA swaps here and there make a human from an ancient primate?
If it can, then evolutionists are saying that evolution got 99% of the way to humans, but stopped for a long time at chimps and apes. Then a few more mutations, and it arrived at us. That's like saying we were just a few transistors short of making a personal computer...in 1960. Amazingly blind faith they have. EDTA
To clarify a bit just how difficult developmental Gene Regulatory Networks (dGRNs) have been for the neo-Darwinian paradigm, in chapter 13 of 'Darwin's Doubt', on page 268, it is stated:
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Darwin's Doubt (Part 8) by Paul Giem - developmental gene regulatory networks and epigenetic information - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLl6wrqd1e0&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=8
If fact alternative splicing patterns/codes, which are part of the extremely complex developmental Gene Regulatory Networks, 'are very different even between humans and chimpanzees':
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
In fact, contrary to the impression Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings may have left on some people,,,
Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's Fraudulent Embryo Drawings - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY
,,,despite that, developmental Gene Regulatory Networks (dGRNs) are very different between all species:
The mouse is not enough – February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/
Yet plasticity in these developmental networks are precisely what Darwinism needs to be plausible:
Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress – Paul Nelson – April 7, 2011 Excerpt: The problem may be summarized as follows: – There are striking differences in the early (embryonic) development in animals, even within classes and orders. – Assuming that these animals are descended from a common ancestor, these divergences suggest that early development evolves relatively easily. – Evolution by natural selection requires heritable variation. – But heritable variations in early development, in major features such as cleavage patterns, are not observed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.html Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html

Leave a Reply