Remember when evolution created all of biology one mutation at a time? That quaint idea from your high school biology class was about as likely as an alien world smashing into the Earth last Friday. But at least it had the virtue of not being circular. No such luck today as now evolution has to create itself. Call it evolvability, call it pre planned evolutionary pathways or call it just plain serendipity, it all means the same thing: Evolution must have constructed elaborate mechanisms and structures which then became crucial agents of evolution, creating all kinds of biological wonders. Simply put, evolution must have created evolution. In recent years such serendipity in the evolution narrative has skyrocketed. If it were a stock you would be a millionaire by now. And the latest IPOs are the spliceosomes and exons which, if evolution is true, must be crucial in the creation of, err, pretty much all the higher species. Read more
5 Replies to “Spliceosomes and Exons: The New Agents of Evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is interesting to point out just how hard the alternative splicing schemes/codes were to originally decipher:
Remember the German ‘Enigma”?,,,,,, now finding the alternative splicing ‘scheme/code’ to be species specific is extremely problematic for Darwinism (as if Darwinism did not already have devastating problems) because random changes in the ‘scheme/code’ regulating how genes in a species are expressed would be far more devastating to an organism than just single mutations to DNA (SNPs) would be. ,,, For a illustration of what I’m talking about, Richard Dawkins gives an example of what would happen if one were to make random changes in the regulatory structure of the genetic code here:
further notes:
Verse and music:
It is obvious then, isn’t it, that evolution can easily solve the search for a search problem.
True, but it depends on the rate of divergence of the traits relative to the branches in the evolutionary tree. For example, in this case
alternative splicing levels are changing more rapidly than the divergence times between the species studied.
OT: Sometimes Darwinists will try to say that synthetic proteins that are found to bind to ATP are proof that functional proteins are not as rare as Dr. Axe and others have found (1 in 10^64 to 1 in 10^77), but what the Darwinists conveniently fail to mention is that these synthetic proteins which bind to ATP (at a rate of 1 in 10^12) disrupt the cell. The following study is interesting for it studies the reaction of e-coli to one of these synthetic proteins that bind to ATP:
Related notes:
A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells – 2009
Excerpt: “Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division.”
http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0007385
How Proteins Evolved – Cornelius Hunter – December 2010
Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....olved.html