Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Sound of Circular Reasoning Exploding

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Alternate Title: Of Mice and Men and Evolutionary Dogma

Explosion
“There has been a circular argument that if it’s conserved it has activity.” Edward Rubin, PhD, Senior Scientist, Genomics Division Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Recent experiments cause a central tenet of NDE to miss the prediction. Large swaths of junk DNA (non-coding, no known function) were found to be highly conserved between mice and men. A central tenet of NDE is that unexpressed (unused) genomic information is subject to relatively rapid corruption from chance mutations. If it’s unused it won’t do any harm if it mutates into oblivion. If it’s unused long enough it gets peppered with mutations into random oblivion. If mice and men had a common ancestor many millions of years ago and they still have highly conserved DNA in common, the story follows that all the conserved DNA must have an important survival value.

A good experiment to figure out what unknown purpose the non-coding conserved pieces are doing would be to cut them out of the mouse genome and see what kind of damage it does to the mouse. So it was done. Big pieces of junk DNA with a thousand highly conserved regions common between mice and men was chopped out of the mouse. In amazement the mouse was as healthy as a horse (so to speak). The amazed researchers were in such a state because they were confident NDE predicted some kind of survival critical function and none was found.

This is a good avenue for positive ID research. If the function of any of those regions were preserved because they could be of important use in the future… well that would pretty much blow a hole in the good ship NDE the size of the one that sunk the Titanic. Maybe not that big, but it would be taking on water – natural selection can’t plan for the future. Planning for the future with genomic information is the central tenet of ID front loading hypothesis. Lack of any known means of conserving non-critical genetic information is the major objection lobbed at the front loading hypothesis. Evidently there is a means after all.

Life goes on without ‘vital’ DNA

16:30 03 June 2004
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.
Sylvia Pagán Westphal, Boston

To find out the function of some of these highly conserved non-protein-coding regions in mammals, Edward Rubin’s team at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California deleted two huge regions of junk DNA from mice containing nearly 1000 highly conserved sequences shared between human and mice.

One of the chunks was 1.6 million DNA bases long, the other one was over 800,000 bases long. The researchers expected the mice to exhibit various problems as a result of the deletions.

Yet the mice were virtually indistinguishable from normal mice in every characteristic they measured, including growth, metabolic functions, lifespan and overall development. “We were quite amazed,” says Rubin, who presented the findings at a recent meeting of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York.

He thinks it is pretty clear that these sequences have no major role in growth and development. “There has been a circular argument that if it’s conserved it has activity.”

Use the link above for the full article.

Comments
"How does Darwinism conserve backup or contingency functions?" I'm not sure this is particularly problematic. In some environments, backups and contingencies are really quite important. The details will vary from case to case, but only under the best possible circumstances will backups and contingencies be "practically invisible to selection."Reed Orak
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Jehu: " True. How does Darwinism conserve backup or contingency functions?" Ah, but you underestimate the truly magical powers of Natural Selection. Does it not seem obvious that those creatures posessing mutations which produce biological systems capable of conserving and maintaining backup and contingency functions will be favoured over those lacking such systems? Why limit the powers of natural selection to only "first order" adaptations? :)SCheesman
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Jehu, I obvously glossed over your link too quickly, thanks again. Reading the paper hardly suggests that the scientists were shocked at their findings. Dacook, I did a dilligent search through the annals of NDE predictions, and I did not find this one. In fact, this is solidly negatively predicted by the theory. Does anybody know off hand when how long ago man and mouse diverged? How random should DNA be if it is submitted to unselected random mutation?bFast
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
"“We were quite amazed,” says Rubin" Darwinists are frequently amazed by the real world.dacook
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
I think this is one of the most promising ideas yet. If you could show a future blueprint and uncover the mechanisms to make it unfold, well that would change everything.jmcd
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
bfast, It's free at that link.Jehu
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Jehu, thanks for the link. This one may be worth buying.bFast
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
How does Darwinism conserve backup or contingency functions?
Exactly. Kind of hard to conserve something that's practically invisible to selection.scordova
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Sal,
If the function is some sort of backup, contingency, or even artifacts of front-loading, this would favor ID far above neo-Darwinism.
True. How does Darwinism conserve backup or contingency functions?Jehu
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
"Planning for the future with genomic information is the central tenet of ID front loading hypothesis. Lack of any known means of conserving non-critical genetic information is the major objection lobbed at the front loading hypothesis. Evidently there is a means after all." I'm a big fan of front-loading as an avenue of ID research, so these results are especially intriguing. Of course, if these "non-coding" regions of the genome actually turn out to be the location for the front-loaded material, that still doesn't explain how they are preserved. If knockout experiments don't reduce the viability of the organism, then we should expect that random mutations would have substantially altered those portions of the genome. But they haven't, so there must be some (as yet unknown) mechanism preventing mutations from occurring. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm also not a genetics researcher.Reed Orak
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
bfase, You can download the Nature article pdf here: http://www.stanford.edu/class/bio203/NobregaGeneDesertsNature.pdf In contrast to the New Scientist article, the Nature article does not discuss the significance of nonfunctional genes being conserved. The article states that 1,243 sequences conserved between human and mouse were deleted. Each segment being at least 100 base pairs and having 70% identity.Jehu
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
I pointed out why knock-out experiments may be ineffective ways to determine function. See: Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail. If the function is some sort of backup, contingency, or even artifacts of front-loading, this would favor ID far above neo-Darwinism. I had commented on this at KCFS and ARN several times. I pointed out repeatedly all the circular reasoning out there in Darwinist circles. I'm glad to see some sane voices finally speak out.scordova
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I know that you are a fan of Dr. Davison's PEH hypothesis dispite the fact that he is a grade 'A' putz in a discussion forum. This is the kind of data that one would expect if the PEH were valid. PEH, and the Kruze/Mike Gene hypothesis of "front-loading", of course are kissing cousins. I will admit, however, that this data is also consistent with a 6000 year old biosphere. I mastered arithmetic before I ran out of fingers showing people my age. Within the current NDE paradyme, this doesn't add up -- no way! The huge question I have on this one is how this data could have been initially brought forth in June, 2004? Has the scientific community been hiding this finding?bFast
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Wow!!bFast
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply