Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Same Old Darwinian Drivel

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A new study is out analyzing electric eel genomes. Guess what? The scientists are “shocked.” The results are “surprising.” If nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Darwinian evolution, then why are scientists always shaking their heads based on their latest findings in the lab?

Here’s some of the background to the study found in an
article from Phys.Org
:

The work establishes the genetic basis for the electric organ, an anatomical feature found only in fish and that evolved independently half a dozen times in environments ranging from the flooded forests of the Amazon to murky marine environments.
“These fish have converted a muscle to an electric organ,” explains Sussman, a professor of biochemistry and director of the UW-Madison Biotechnology Center, who first undertook the exploration of the electric organ almost a decade ago. The study published in Science provides evidence to support the idea that the six electric fish lineages, all of which evolved independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ
, needed for defense, predation, navigation and communication.

And the main findings from the same article:

“What is amazing is that the electric organ arose independently six times in the course of evolutionary history,” says Lindsay Traeger, a UW-Madison graduate student in genetics and a co-lead author of the new report along with Jason Gallant, an assistant professor of zoology at Michigan State University.
Adds Gallant: “The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same ‘genetic toolbox’ to build their electric organ,” despite the fact that they evolved independently.
Worldwide, there are hundreds of electric fish in six broad lineages. Their taxonomic diversity is so great that Darwin himself cited electric fishes as critical examples of convergent evolution, where unrelated animals independently evolve similar traits to adapt to a particular environment or ecological niche. The new work, which includes the first draft assembly of the complete genome of an electric fish, the South American electric eel, identifies the genetic factors and developmental paths the animals used to create an organ that, in some instances, can deliver a jolt several times more powerful than the current from a standard household electrical outlet.

Now, just ask yourself: if you believe that the theory of Intelligent Design best explains the functioning of biological organisms, would you be SURPRISED by these results? The answer is a resounding, “No.”

From the Science article itself (behind a paywall):

Our analysis suggests that a common regulatory network of transcription factors and developmental pathways may have been repeatedly targeted by selection in the evolution of EOs, despite their very different morphologies.

Repeatedly targeted by selection—the same, old Darwinian drivel.

Isn’t it AMAZING what the environment and random mutations can bring about? In fact, it brought it about SIX times, using “essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways. I tell you, Darwinian evolution is miraculous!!!

Comments
wd400:
Natural selection is not random...
In what way is it "non-random"? The way Mayr says it is non-random doesn't help you in any way.Joe
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
RodW:
Birds, bats and insects all converged on wings for flight but a close look at those structures shows clearly that they are modifications of preexisting structures.
That's the propaganda, anyway.Joe
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
I didn't say you were a YEC, I said you were making an argument as poorly thought out as those of your typical YEC. You have since compounded it in this thread. What is one to make of a sentence like "What is the probability that this ‘pathway’ will be found—at random—by NS?"? or the claim If, indeed, there is only ONE way for muscles to become electric organs, then this ONE way is specified by complex molecular interactions of all sorts. NS has no way of guiding, or “navigating,” these fish through the process leading from the one to the other. It is determined by the forces at work themselves. So NS navigates NOTHING These aren't even wrong. Natural selection is not random and you have nothing by assertion to suppoer your (ALL CAPS) claim above.wd400
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Mapou: Your use of "identical" was slightly off, but it in no way detracts from your fundamental argument. wd400:
Even if this work had proved there was only one way to get to the electric organs (rather that the evolution of electric organs ends up making similar gene have higher expression, which is quite different) selection doesn't have to understand anything to navigate a given pathway.
First of all, I'm not a YEC. So you're wrong in implying that I was trying to make a YEC argument. Second, using phrases like "evolution of electric organs ends up making similar genes have higher expression" is a simplistic understanding of what is at stake. Do you know how to make a house? Build four walls and a roof. Very simplistic, isn't it? Third, you have not engaged the import of my argument. If, indeed, there is only ONE way for muscles to become electric organs, then this ONE way is specified by complex molecular interactions of all sorts. NS has no way of guiding, or "navigating," these fish through the process leading from the one to the other. It is determined by the forces at work themselves. So NS navigates NOTHING. I think you're willing to admit this. But then you will go on to say that given enough 'chances', NS will work its magic. That is, if enough fish are born and reach adulthood---that is, if enough fish are born so that the ones that don't work die off, and so producing a "selective" effect (which is how NS works)---then this "necessary" pathway will be moved along. But I say, tell me, wd400, what does the math look like? What is the probability that this 'pathway' will be found---at random---by NS? Work out the numbers for us. You see, I just don't have enough 'faith' that you're right.PaV
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
So both ID and Darwinism predict lots of convergent evolution to take place. ID has genetic toolbox design and NeoDarwinism has appearance of genetic toolbox design. But isn't actual design a more elegant, a more scientific solution than appearance of design? Isn't appearance more like make believe?ppolish
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
IOW, there appears to be NO “random” way of switching the scheme for muscles to be electric organs. There is only ONE way. So, this means NS had to follow a pathway. Which means that the “pathway” is important, not NS. Intelligent agents understand the importance of “pathways,” but NS “understands” nothing
It's amazing how quickly these treads get back to YEC-101 arguments. Even if this work had proved there was only one way to get to the electric organs (rather that the evolutoin of electric organs ends up making similar gene have higher expression, which is quite different) selection doesn't have to understand anything to navigate a given pathway.wd400
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
RodW #18: Convergent evolution is relatively rare and when it does occur the thing that’s converging in 2 different lineages is only superficially similar.
So, in effect, you are saying that convergence in echolocation in bats and whales is the exception to the rule?
ScienceDaily: Only some bats and toothed whales rely on sophisticated echolocation, in which they emit sonar pulses and process returning echoes, to detect and track down small prey. Now, two new studies show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level.
Box
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
RodW:
All of you seemed to let pass a comment by the authors that should have caught your attention. They state that EO are clearly modified muscles. If, as you imply, the explanation for the convergence of gene expression is that the designer did it that way ( as designers are wont to do) then EOs cant be modified muscles, they must have been uniquely created.
Why? One of the sacred principles of intelligent design is to reuse existing structures as much as possible in new designs.Mapou
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
OK, after re-reading the article, I admit that I was wrong in my interpretation. "Same" does not mean "identical." The question is, why would all the electric fish lineages use quasi-identical transcription factors to arrive at an electric organ?Mapou
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
OK, well I really think you guys should have read the paper, because as with many things in biology, the devil is in the details. In this case, the details strongly support evolution. Convergent evolution is relatively rare and when it does occur the thing that’s converging in 2 different lineages is only superficially similar. Birds, bats and insects all converged on wings for flight but a close look at those structures shows clearly that they are modifications of preexisting structures. This is a constraint for evolution but theres no reason to expect a designer to do it this way. In the case of these electric fish there are a bunch of genes that have been upregulated or downregulated in independent lineages to form the electric organ( EO) Most of these genes would have to have their expression change to form a functional EO so this is not surprising – collagen genes to form insulation; ion pumps to recharge the battery. An evolutionary prediction would be that, barring constraints, the underlying mechanism for these changes in expression level will be different in different lineages. What would an IDer predict? Also, the similarity of expression is not complete, there are differences and the differences correspond to the relatedness of the different groups. The authors did not look at the most divergent electric fish; the torpedo rays that are more closely related to sharks. An evolutionary prediction would be that there will be less convergence and more underlying differences between convergences if one compares the rays to the teleost fish studied. What would an IDer predict? Although gene expression converged in the EO cell shape did not and cells of EO in even closely related fish can look completely different. The evolutionary explanation would be that as long as different shapes function well there would be little pressure for cell shape to converge. Whats the ID explanation? All of you seemed to let pass a comment by the authors that should have caught your attention. They state that EO are clearly modified muscles. If, as you imply, the explanation for the convergence of gene expression is that the designer did it that way ( as designers are wont to do) then EOs cant be modified muscles, they must have been uniquely created. If that’s the case then how do you explain the fact that the EOs of Mormydid fish have scattered non-functional sarcomeres ( structures in muscle that cause contraction) ? It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view but why would an intelligent designer put non-functional muscle specific structures in an EO and why would he/she do it in only one of 6 groups of electric fish? (I’m going to crosspost this on the new thread since this conversation might be dying)RodW
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Roy and Mapou: The genes are the 'same,' not 'identical.' But this only means that the genes from one species is slightly different from the 'same' gene from another species, and the difference being due to mutation. IOW, the 'same' genes are NOT highly-highly-conserved. This is no surprise. But let's look at Roy's approach. You nit-pick! They're not identical: yes. BUT, they are the same! Why does NS "need" to use the "same" genes? Isn't there other ways to do this? And, if not, why not? Roy, you seem to say: "Look, I've just pointed out that the glass is half-full. You said it was full. So I don't need to pay further attention." But, Roy, the glass still remains "half-full." You need to deal with the consequences of this. IOW, there appears to be NO "random" way of switching the scheme for muscles to be electric organs. There is only ONE way. So, this means NS had to follow a pathway. Which means that the "pathway" is important, not NS. Intelligent agents understand the importance of "pathways," but NS "understands" nothing.PaV
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Mapou: Then what about apps to do certain functions that are designed by individual programmers? It's interesting, though, that if a "certain length" of sequences is the same, then they assume it was 'copied;' that is, it didn't happen by 'chance.'PaV
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Roy:
The article states that electric capability was independently derived from the same set of genes that were present in their ancestral non-electricity-generating form in multiple diverse species. The article does not say anything about there being “Identical genes in distant species”. You made that up. The weaver of lies and deceptions in this case is you.
Wow. Talk about self-deception. Look in the mirror, buddy. If you are correct about your interpretation (or is it just the usual Darwinist spin?), why would that be surprising to the evolutionary biologists who conducted the study? Read it again:
Adds Gallant: “The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same ‘genetic toolbox’ to build their electric organ,” despite the fact that they evolved independently.
Nowhere does it say that the genetic toolbox was present in their ancestors. What the text clearly says is that the "genetic toolbox", i.e., the same set of genes used in making an electric organ, miraculously "evolved" independently. This completely falsifies darwinism. The Force is strong with the religious. It turns them into truth deniers, weavers of lies and deception. :-DMapou
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
@ Mapou:
What identical genes?
Are you being funny or are you just another weaver of lies and deception? It says right here in the article that the different lineages used the same genes. Read it and weep:
the six electric fish lineages, all of which evolved independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ
The article states that electric capability was independently derived from the same set of genes that were present in their ancestral non-electricity-generating form in multiple diverse species. The article does not say anything about there being "Identical genes in distant species". You made that up. The weaver of lies and deceptions in this case is you. RoyRoy
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
If you looked at three different “power point” presentations designed by, let’s say, Microsoft, Google and the PDF maker (can’t remember their name), since they all code digitally, and would be using, I presume ASCII and maybe Java, wouldn’t the three versions of a particular computer application have, at some point in their program, almost the same digital sequence?
you're talking multiple layers of abstraction here, which is addressed in Werner Gitt's theory of information. The similar presentations are produced by different authors with the same ideas and same conventions as to how to present those ideas (possibly copying from one another) The similar application programs used to prepare their similar presentations are written by different programmers possibly using different programming languages. These programs would exist as different files each with another file containing the presentations. If the application programs each are compiled to run on the same operating system, they probably use the same API's which are written by still other programmers each not caring what applications use them, nor even less, what ideas are conveyed by the presentations. Once each of the application programs are compiled, if they use the same API's it's likely you would find large segments of digitized sequences of code in both the application program file and even the presentation files. But notice every layer of abstraction requires minds that envision what the results are going to be, and have worked diligently even using trial and error to achieve those results. The author of life seems to have done this the right way the first time. Now He only has to deal with hackers who try to use His code for their own gain.awstar
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
StephenA:
No kidding. This also implies that the different lineages referenced in the OP were not just designed but had the same designer. (or at the very least, were made by designers working off the same ‘source code’)
Absolutely. And for Darwinists scientists to claim that complex identical genes were independently constructed by such a random process as evolution is not just blatant prevarication. It is an insult to the intelligence of the public who pay their salaries. I'd say it's time to cut their funding.Mapou
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
Adds Gallant: “The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same ‘genetic toolbox’ to build their electric organ,” despite the fact that they evolved independently.
I wish they'd call it a galvanic organ instead of an electric organ, which evokes mildly humorous images. But what exactly is a "genetic toolbox"? Anyone know? -QQuerius
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
neo-Darwinian evolution is the 'dog ate my evidence' child of modern science. No matter what the situation there is always an implausible excuse waiting to be employed by Darwinists. In the current study we find,,,
the six electric fish lineages, all of which evolved independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ,,,
When asked how did such stunning correlation happen?,, We are told by the Darwinists that,,,
that a common regulatory network of transcription factors and developmental pathways may have been repeatedly targeted by selection
Well that would seem to make selection very efficient for selecting certain genetic sequences. Except, of course, for the fact that, according to the math and the empirical evidence, Natural Selection is not very efficient for Darwinists:
Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.html Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012 Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (greater than 100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Lab%20papers%20fall%202010/Burke_et_al_2010.pdf Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012 Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html
also see genetic drift, junk DNA excuses etc.. etc..bornagain77
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
It’s impossible for two different designers to come up with the same exact code segments if the length of the complexity of the application reaches a certain trivial level. Corporations routinely and successfully sue one another for copyright infringement based on the finding of identical proprietary code segments in a competitor’s product.
No kidding. This also implies that the different lineages referenced in the OP were not just designed but had the same designer. (or at the very least, were made by designers working off the same 'source code')StephenA
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
PaV @6, It's impossible for two different designers to come up with the same exact code segments if the length of the complexity of the application reaches a certain trivial level. Corporations routinely and successfully sue one another for copyright infringement based on the finding of identical proprietary code segments in a competitor's product.Mapou
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
OldArmy94:
The article almost reads like The Onion. It would be laughable except for the fact that they are 100% serious.
They're serious about lying. They got a religion to defend. It has always been about religion.Mapou
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
I have a question for our computer coders: If you looked at three different "power point" presentations designed by, let's say, Microsoft, Google and the PDF maker (can't remember their name), since they all code digitally, and would be using, I presume ASCII and maybe Java, wouldn't the three versions of a particular computer application have, at some point in their program, almost the same digital sequence? Wonder if this could be tracked down. Then we would just have to compare how "intelligent" solutions, given the same constraints (same genetic code and cellular apparati in the case of biology), would be, in places, almost similar.PaV
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
The article almost reads like The Onion. It would be laughable except for the fact that they are 100% serious.OldArmy94
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
What identical genes?
Are you being funny or are you just another weaver of lies and deception? It says right here in the article that the different lineages used the same genes. Read it and weep:
the six electric fish lineages, all of which evolved independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ
Mapou
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
"Evolution is superstitious nonsense" that is putting it mildy ;) No matter how many surprises, faulty assumptions, fraud and failed predictions pop up, evolution must be true....if evidence contradicts or reflects badly on evolution it must be the evidence that's wrong. If the evidence is overwhelming and not easily discarded, stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the mantra "evolution is true...evolution is true".humbled
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
This fully falsifies Darwinian evolution. Identical genes in distant species is precisely what one would expect if living organisms were designed.
What identical genes? Or are you simply providing evidence for your final assertion? RoyRoy
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Adds Gallant: “The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same ‘genetic toolbox’ to build their electric organ,” despite the fact that they evolved independently.
This fully falsifies Darwinian evolution. Identical genes in distant species is precisely what one would expect if living organisms were designed. Evolution is superstitious nonsense. Why is it still part of science? Answer: Humans are not an honest species.Mapou
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply