Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s Another Study Showing Introns Are Not Random


Evolution is, as evolutionists like to say, a fact. But that conclusion comes from philosophical and theological reasoning. From a strictly scientific perspective evolution is problematic. Virtually every area of scientific evidence challenges evolution. Consider for example the introns—segments of DNA within genes in the higher organisms. When introns were discovered evolutionists, in typical fashion, figured that introns were non functional, biological junk. They reasoned that introns had been randomly inserted into genomes for no particular reason, and now they appear throughout the higher organisms in the usual common descent pattern. Even if all that was true (which it isn’t) it wouldn’t help, for introns fundamentally contradict evolutionary theory.  Read more

Microbiology has not been kind to evolutionary theory. Darwin didn't have to contend with these details of the complexity involved in how living organisms actually function, he could just focus on outward traits and draw his conclusions from the similarities between species and the minor variations within species. The neo-Darwininian synthesis has not fared much better. Piltdown2
Introns and horizontal gene sharing between distant branches of the tree of life fully falsify Darwinian evolution. Darwinists get away with this travesty because they control biology. Mapou
OT: photo - fluorescent neurons in the peripheral nevous system of an embryonic mouse http://prettyawfulthings.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/pns.jpg bornagain77
a few notes of related interest:
Matheson's Intron Fairy Tale - Richard Sternberg - June 2010 Excerpt: The failure to recognize the importance of introns "may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." --John Mattick, Molecular biologist, University of Queensland, quoted in Scientific American,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/mathesons_intron_fairy_tale035301.html How 'Junk DNA' Can Control Cell Development - Aug. 2, 2013 Excerpt: Researchers from the Gene and Stem Cell Therapy Program at Sydney's Centenary Institute have confirmed that, far from being "junk," the 97 per cent of human DNA that does not encode instructions for making proteins can play a significant role in controlling cell development.,, The researchers reached their conclusions through studying introns -- non-coding sequences which are located inside genes.,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130802101900.htm
This following paper highlights the regulatory role that the 'splicing code' has over the protein coding code:
Researchers Crack ‘Splicing Code,’ Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity Excerpt: “For example, three neurexin genes can generate over 3,000 genetic messages that help control the wiring of the brain,” says Frey. “Previously, researchers couldn’t predict how the genetic messages would be rearranged, or spliced, within a living cell,” Frey said. “The splicing code that we discovered has been successfully used to predict how thousands of genetic messages are rearranged differently in many different tissues. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505133252.htm
Moreover, the preceding study used what were supposedly 'junk intron sequences' to decode the splicing code,,,,
Canadian Team Develops Alternative Splicing Code from Mouse Tissue Data Excerpt: “Our method takes as an input a collection of exons and surrounding intron sequences and data profiling how those exons are spliced in different tissues,” Frey and his co-authors wrote. “The method assembles a code that can predict how a transcript will be spliced in different tissues.” http://www.genomeweb.com/informatics/canadian-team-develops-alternative-splicing-code-mouse-tissue-data
Moreover, these regulatory alternative splicing codes are now found to be species specific in that even supposedly closely related species are found to have very different splicing codes:
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
Yet changes to the regulatory coding pattern of Genes is found to always be catastrophic:
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 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/ When Theory Trumps Observation: Responding to Charles Marshall's Review of Darwin's Doubt -Stephen C. Meyer - October 2, 2013 Excerpt: No developing animal that biologists have observed exhibits the kind of labile developmental gene regulatory network that the evolution of new body plans requires. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/when_theory_tru077391.html
Thus, not only are introns not junk, but they are found to be involved in highly complex, species specific, regulatory networks that, if disturbed, produce catastrophic results. Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. Joy Williams - 2000 Decembers ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W8K3OhxVSw
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790313000523 from the paper's abstract:
Orthology assessment has relied heavily on the position of introns, but the basic assumption of low rates of intron loss and absence of convergent intron gains has not been tested thoroughly..... The hymenopteran F1 copy, which may or may not be unique to this order, apparently originated through retroposition and was originally intron free. During the evolution of the Hymenoptera, it has successively accumulated introns, at least three of which have appeared at the same position as introns in the F2 copy or in eEF1A copies in other insects. The sites of convergent intron gain are characterized by highly conserved nucleotides that strongly resemble specific intron-associated sequence motifs, so-called proto-splice sites. The significant rate of convergent intron gain renders intron–exon structure unreliable as an indicator of orthology in eEF1A, and probably also in other protein-coding genes.
If intron-exon structure is unreliable as an indicator for common descent in eEF1A, why should it be assumed for other genes? Indeed, the authors readily admit that it shouldn't be. If Evolution were a real scientific theory, a discovery like this would cause a commotion. But as more similar findings emerge, the evolutionists are simply shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well I guess a lot of the genotype is convergent also." No need to bring up the fact that such findings render one of their entire theoretical foundations (phylogenetics) to be non-falsifiable.. And they are just starting to look for this stuff... Get ready to hear much more about "convergent genetics" in the future, as Neo-Darwinism continues to burn to the ground. Oh yea.. and yet another thing Common Design proponents have been successfully predicting for decades: that shared genetic factors across higher level taxa are based on shared function, and not shared relation. lifepsy

Leave a Reply