Not what Darwinists expected: Critical genes evolve in “genome’s junkyard”

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 17, 2020

'Junk DNA', Darwinism, Genomics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

They said it. We didn’t. “Blowing the dogma out of the water”:

Essential genes are often thought to be frozen in evolutionary time — evolving only very slowly if at all, because changing or dying would lead to the death of the organism. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution separate insects and mammals, but experiments show that the Hox genes guiding the development of the body plans in Drosophila fruit flies and mice can be swapped without a hitch because they are so similar. This remarkable evolutionary conservation is a foundational concept in genome research.
But a new study turns this rationale for genetic conservation on its head. Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle reported last week in eLife that a large class of genes in fruit flies are both essential for survival and evolving extremely rapidly. In fact, the scientists’ analysis suggests that the genes’ ability to keep changing is the key to their essential nature. “Not only is this questioning the dogma, it is blowing the dogma out of the water,” said Harmit Malik, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator who oversaw the study.
Viviane Callier, “Scientists Find Vital Genes Evolving in Genome’s Junkyard” at Quanta

The paper is open access.

Of course, the universe might be a great thought, rather than a great machine, as Sir James Jeans said, in which case this sort of thing makes a lot of sense. Thoughts are more adaptable than machines.

Meanwhile, should we encourage the formation of a group for recovering Darwinists, on the Twelve Steps model? Like, we could leave out most of the religious stuff if it bothers them. They can think that the higher power is within them or within the group if they like. But… really, it’s only fair to offer the help.

Comments

Moreover, the failure of the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself. In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics', which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
In short, Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply are not even on the right playing field in the first place in order to be able to explain how any organism achieves its basic biological form. Whereas, on the other hand, especially with recent advances in Quantum Biology, Intelligent Design advocates are very much shown to be on the right track. Supplmental notes:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate (27:15 minute mark – how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology) https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1635 Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
Verses:
Psalm 139:13-18 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand— when I awake, I am still with you. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{November 18, 2020
November
11
Nov
18
18
2020
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

As to, “Not only is this (research) questioning the dogma, it is blowing the dogma out of the water,”,,, “you really begin to question everything you think about in terms of biology, because you’re like, ‘Wait a minute. What is this?’,,,
Scientists Find Vital Genes Evolving in Genome’s Junkyard - Nov. 2020 Excerpt:,,, Essential genes are often thought to be frozen in evolutionary time — evolving only very slowly if at all, because changing or dying would lead to the death of the organism.,,, This remarkable evolutionary conservation is a foundational concept in genome research.,,, “Not only is this (research) questioning the dogma, it is blowing the dogma out of the water,”,,, “you really begin to question everything you think about in terms of biology, because you’re like, ‘Wait a minute. What is this?’,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-find-vital-genes-evolving-in-genomes-junkyard-20201116/
After reading statements like that in that article, an ID proponent may be inclined to believe, 'Hey, they're finally beginning to question their belief in Darwinian evolution.",, But alas, you would be wrong. Further down the paper they, predictably, make up 'just so stories' to 'explain away' why these new genes are found to be essential,,,
,,, It’s also paradoxical: If new genes are essential, how did previous organisms live without them? Malik sees two possibilities. One is that an ancestral gene ceded its function to a new gene. The other is that the new gene performs a function that ancestral organisms didn’t need. Species today face problems that their ancestors didn’t, and those new problems require new solutions.,,,
,,, In Darwinian thinking, no matter how counterintuitive a finding may be to Darwin's theory, scientific evidence is simply never allowed to bring into question the Darwinist's belief that 'evolution is a fact'. In other words, to question whether evolution is even true of not is simply not a question that Darwinists will ever honestly ask themselves. Darwinists, without any actual scientific evidence that evolution is even remotely feasible, simply assume that evolution is an undeniable fact, and then they mold any contradictory evidence that may come along to accord to their unproven assumption that evolution is unquestionably true. As Dr. Hunter has pointed out numerous times before, "Their (the Darwinists's) analysis (of the evidence) is deeply influenced by their dogmatic assertion that evolution is a fact."
Carl Zimmer Doubles Down on Chromosome Two Lies and Misdemeanors - July 22, 2012 Excerpt: When predictions turn out to be false we are told they were soft and not binding. Evolutionists reassure us that it is all a part of science following the data as the theory is contorted yet again. But when predictions turn out to be true we are told they were hard and binding. An evolutionist once told me that evolution certainly would be falsified by the finding of functionally unconstrained yet conserved DNA sequences. That was before the finding of functionally unconstrained yet conserved DNA sequences.,,, ,,, evolutionists are essentially incapable of such a dispassionate analysis where presuppositions and evidences are clearly laid out. Their analysis is deeply influenced by their dogmatic assertion that evolution is a fact. For evolutionists it is a metaphysical certainty and they simply are unable to evaluate the evidence from a theory-neutral perspective. All of this results in a stubborn type of circular reasoning where evolution is presupposed, evidence is interpreted accordingly, and the results then service evolutionary apologetics as though they were obtained from objective science. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/carl-zimmer-doubles-down-on-chromosome.html
Again, in the minds of Darwinists, their belief that evolution is a fact is simply never allowed to be questioned by the scientific evidence itself. But for those of us who are not so enamored with evolution, the scientific evidence unequivocably shows us that evolution is certainly NOT a unquestionable fact. In fact, the scientific evidence itself unequivocably shows us that evolution is NOT a fact but that it is instead a false pseudoscience. ,,, A false pseudoscience on a scale that would make other pseudosciences, (i.e. astrology, alchemy, etc.), seem like hard sciences in comparison. Here are a few falsifications of evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their unquestioned, even dogmatic, belief in evolution,
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
One of the main false assumptions that the Darwinists assume, (an assumption that is absolutely central to their theory), is that body plans are, ultimately, reducible to DNA, or more specifically, Darwinists falsely assume that body plans are, ultimately, reducible to mutations in DNA Yet, that central assumption of Darwinists is now shown to be a false assumption,,, As Jonathan Wells states in the following article, "Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly."
Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form - March 31, 2014 Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/ Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. 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–,,, (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly; A defective fruit fly; or A dead fruit fly. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
And here is an excellent powerpoint presentation by Dr. Jonathan Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark, showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876 Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution - podcast - April 15, 2016 On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses a popular claim, which he describes as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”—or, every organism contains a program for itself in its DNA. Though this view fits neatly with the perspective of Darwinian evolution, it has been shown to be incorrect at every step. Listen in as Dr. Wells explains. https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2016/04/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/
Darwinists simply have no clue how any organism might achieve its basic biological form and/or body plan. In fact, besides DNA not determining how any organism might achieve its basic biological form, it is now known that DNA is very much a passive player in an organism rather than DNA being a dictator of an organism as Darwinists had falsely assumed it to be. As Dr. Wells goes on to note, “I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
bornagain77_{November 18, 2020
November
11
Nov
18
18
2020
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

The word 'junkyard' leads to a thought. The epigenes are unquestionably the Variables section of the program, open to switching and changing values The other part of the genome is the Constants, declared once and protected from change. In the world of automobiles, junkyards are constant. Cars in junkyards are not moving or carrying people around. They're no longer serving a PURPOSE. They're just rusting and gradually losing parts to scavengers and squirrels. Which part of the genome is rusting and gradually losing pieces? It's the section we call the highway, not the section we call the junkyard. Maybe we've got it all backwards.polistra_{November 18, 2020
November
11
Nov
18
18
2020
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply