Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Making New Genes Just Got More Exotic—Yes They Evolve, But How?


Making new genes is not easy. For several decades now it has been thought that the only process for gene construction is to start by duplicating an existing gene and then making adjustments to it (it is not the only process, but that is another story). Naturally evolutionists interpreted this duplication process as another example of an evolutionary mechanism. What they don’t consider, however, is how subtle this process is.  Read more

gpuccio, thanks, but as with biology, there is always an information regress involved. Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin's Dilemma - Where did the information come from? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CTKKrtSc8k Dr. Werner Gitt, starting around the 2:00 minute mark of the following video, touches on how using the infinite regress argument from information confirms Theism: Dr.Werner Gitt Ph.D."In The Beginning was Information" Part 3 of 3 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWZpG0ye8KI In other words,, John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. bornagain77
BA: Thank you for the Neme Tautz paper reference. It's precious! You are, as usual, an extraordinary source of information (very intelligent, by the way, and extremely functional!) :) gpuccio
Dr. Hunter, I fail to see how this can be classified as a genuinely 'new' gene in that it is merely the duplication, and subsequent stability, (with perhaps modest modification) of a pre-existing sequence. ,,, I'm sure you are well aware of the search space problem for finding functional sequences. Stephen Meyer (and Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" Illustration - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8 Thus why did you say a 'new' gene evolved? For ID proponents, a genuinely new gene, from an existing gene, would entail traversing that vast sequence space to a brand new sequence (which even immunity responses can't do). ,,, The example you cite fits much more easily into Dr. Shapiro's falsification of the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism than it does to the claim that a 'new' gene evolved. Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigenetic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism. Revisiting Evolution in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hxTuFDEL_I How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 bornagain77
Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified - December 2010 Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110103a moreover, Phylogenetic patterns of emergence of new genes support a model of frequent de novo evolution - 21 February 2013 CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the overall trends of gene emergence are more compatible with a de novo evolution model for orphan genes than a general duplication-divergence model. Hence de novo evolution of genes appears to have occurred continuously throughout evolutionary time and should therefore be considered as a general mechanism for the emergence of new gene functions. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/14/117/abstract Yup, Orphan genes (comprising 10 to 30% of every new genome sequenced, including humans) can now just ‘poof’ into existence. That whole evolutionary model of functional sequences being selected for in small increments is no good anymore. Need a new gene? Just call on ‘de novo evolution’ to do your dirty work. Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY bornagain77

Leave a Reply