Intelligent Design

This Didn’t Evolve a Few Mutations At a Time

Spread the love

Are there long, gradual, pathways of functional intermediate structures, separated by only one or perhaps a few mutations, leading to every single species, and every single design and structure in all of biology? As we saw last time, this has been a fundamental claim and expectation of evolutionary theory which is at odds with the science.* If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen. Let’s have a look at an example: nerve cells and their action potential signals.

[* Note: Some evolutionists have attempted to get around this problem with the neutral theory, but that just makes matters worse].

Nerve cells have a long tail which carries an electronic impulse. The tail can be several feet long and its signal might stimulate a muscle to action, control a gland, or report a sensation to the brain.

Like a cable containing thousands of different telephone wires, nerve cells are often bundled together to form a nerve. Early researchers considered that perhaps the electronic impulse traveled along the nerve cell tail like electricity in a wire. But they soon realized that the signal in nerve cells is too weak to travel very far. The nerve cell would need to boost the signal along the way for it to travel along the tail.

After years of research it was discovered that the signal is boosted by membrane proteins. First, there is a membrane protein that simultaneously pumps two potassium ions into the cell and three sodium ions out of the cell. This sets up a chemical gradient across the membrane. There is more potassium inside the cell than outside, and there is more sodium outside than inside. Also, there are more negatively charged ions inside the cell so there is a voltage drop (50-100 millivolt) across the membrane.  (read more …)

20 Replies to “This Didn’t Evolve a Few Mutations At a Time

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    The evolution literature is full of teleology, and for good reason. Evolutionists are unable to formulate and express their ideas without it. The ever-present infinitive form is the tell-tale sign. Aristotelianism is dead—long live Aristotelianism.

    teleology
    tel·e·ol·o·gy
    nounPHILOSOPHY
    the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.
    THEOLOGY
    the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.

    The fact that Darwinists themselves have to constantly invoke ‘design’ language to try to explain away design is one of the best evidences that life is actually designed.

    Darwinists are always invoking agent causality where they have no right to invoke it.

    First off, Darwinsts invoke natural selection as the supposed designer substitute

    “The Third Way”
    “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.”
    http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

    Graur and Martin Explain Monumental Failure in Molecular Clock Uncertainty Estimate – January 9, 2017
    Natural selection cannot “adapt” anything. Natural selection kills off the bad designs. It cannot influence the random mutations which must, somehow, come up with such amazing designs. This is the hard reality, but in order to rationalize the evidence, evolutionists must resort to this sort of teleological language, personifying and endowing natural selection with impossible powers. As usual, the infinitive form (“for similar lifestyles”) is a dead giveaway. Natural selection becomes a designer.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ental.html

    Can Darwinian Evolutionary Theory Be Taken Seriously?
    – Stephen L. Talbott – May 16, 2016
    What we do have is a god-like power of natural selection whose miracle-working activity in creating ever-new organisms is vividly clear to eyes of faith, but frustratingly obscure to mere empirical investigators. This is not a science ready for submission to a larger public along with a demand for acquiescence. Not if this public has yet to dull its sensitivity to fundamental questions in the way that the research community seems to have done.
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ogy_30.htm

    And yet, although Darwinists often speak of natural selection as a creative agent, natural selection is mathematically shown to be grossly inadequate as a ‘designer substitute’,,,

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    “many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection”
    Michael Lynch
    The Origins of Genome Architecture, intro

    Secondly, the improper invoking of agent causality, where it ought not be invoked, does not stop with natural selection. Darwinists, although they hold life to be driven by, and the result of, undirected randomness are, none-the-less, forced to constantly invoke the language of agent causality when describing the molecular complexities of life.

    The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
    Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1.
    One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

    “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”
    – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.
    http://www.thebestschools.org/.....interview/

    But Darwinists are not the only ones guilty of improperly invoking agent causality where it ought not be invoked. Physicists are also guilty of improperly invoking agent causality where it ought not be invoked.

    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
    Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
    If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
    The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
    – per underground Thomist

    And although Darwinists, and physicists, have no problem whatsoever invoking agent causality, or teleology, where it ought not be invoked, Darwinists seem completely blind to their own agency which they witness first hand. In fact, they hold their own agency to be an ‘illusion’.

    “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.”
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    “The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak.”
    [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide To Reality, Ch.9]

    Thus, the foundational insanity within the atheist’s worldview is this, ‘Everything in reality is given agent causality within atheistic naturalism save for causal agents themselves.’

    Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm,,

    The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....qlE#t=746s

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen.

    Indeed. And I don’t know of anyone who has seriously claimed that this is how evolution occurs.

  3. 3
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H:

    I think you may have read my old challenge, presented many times and never answered by anyone here.

    I post it again here, in case someone cares to give it a try!

    Will anyone on the other side answer the following two simple questions?

    1) Is there any conceptual reason why we should believe that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

    2) Is there any evidence from facts that supports the hypothesis that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

    If you believe in evolution by small gradual selectable mutations, I would appreciate your take on the above.

    On the other hand, and just to understand better what you think, if evolution did not occur by gradual selectable mutations, then how did it occur?

  4. 4

    Bob O’H @ 2: “Indeed. And I don’t know of anyone who has seriously claimed that this is how evolution occurs.”

    Well then. Why don’t you tell us exactly how Darwinian evolution works. You can start by answering Gpuccio @ 3.

    This should be interesting.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    There isn’t any way in this universe that blind and mindless processes could produce functioning nerves. Well heck, there isn’t any way in this universe that said processes could produce a living organism.

  6. 6
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H:

    And of course , as usual, you are invited to have a look at my recent OP about the Ubiquitin System, here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/

    It’s always good to keep in mind what evolution is supposed to have done, when discussing how it could have done it! 🙂

  7. 7
    Cornelius Hunter says:

    Bob @2:

    Please read my previous post here:

    https://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/02/here-is-how-evolutionists-respond-to.html

    Where it explains:

    ======================
    Second, another common answer is to cast the problem as a strawman argument against evolution, and appeal to gradualism. Evolutionists going back to Darwin have never described the process as “poof.” They do not, and never have, understood the process as the simultaneous origin of tens or hundreds, or more mutations. Instead, it is a long, slow, gradual process, as Darwin explained:

    “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. But I can find out no such case […] Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.”

    The Sage of Kent could find “no such case”? That’s strange, because they are ubiquitous. And with the inexorable march of science, it is just getting worse. Error correcting mechanisms are just one example of many. Gradualism is not indicated.

    What if computer manufacturers were required to have a useful, functional electronic device at each step in the manufacturing process? With each new wire or solder, what must emerge is a “long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor.”

    That, of course, is absurd (as Darwin freely confessed). From clothing to jet aircraft, the manufacturing process is one of parts, tools, and raw materials strewn about in a useless array, until everything comes together at the end.

    The idea that every single biological structure and design can be constructed by one or two mutations at a time, not only has not been demonstrated, it has no correspondence to the real world. It is just silly.

    What evolution requires is that biology is different, but there is no reason to believe such a heroic claim. The response that multiple mutations is a “strawman” argument does not reckon with the reality of the science.
    ======================

  8. 8
    Nonlin.org says:

    It’s much simpler – gradualism fails: http://nonlin.org/gradualism/

    Gregor Mendel observed the discrete nature of biology as early as 1865 in the inheritance of dominant and recessive alleles. Darwin might have learned that from Mendel’s papers sent to him, had he read and correctly interpreted the results. To be fair, Darwin’s gradualism was in line with the incorrect view of his times that considered matter a continuum. Only in the late 1800s the true discrete nature of matter started to become common knowledge. However, more than a hundred years later everyone knows, yet the gradualism hypothesis remains central to evolution despite being utterly baseless.

  9. 9
    polistra says:

    This is one of the few cases where a nice direct mechanical analogy is available. Long telephone or broadband cables have amplifiers every mile or so. The need for relays and amplifiers was realized soon after telegraph wires went beyond a mile.

    Why didn’t relays evolve? After all, wires stretch and break just like membranes. Why didn’t the relay evolve on its own to splice those broken wires, and then evolve further into vacuum-tube amplifiers when the wires started to carry alternating current for telephones, and then evolve again into digital boosters when the wires started to carry digital signals? If it worked that way in nerves, why not in copper and silicon?

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    of supplemental note to Darwinists invoking agent causality where they have no right to invoke it.,, i.e. post 1

    “,, intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred because an intelligent agent has done what only intelligent agents can do, namely, make a choice. If intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, the same cannot be said for the phrase natural selection. The second word of the phrase natural selection, is of course a synonym for choice. Indeed the l-e-c in selection is a variant of the l-e-g that in the Latin lego means to choose or select, and that also appears as l-i-g in intelligence. Natural selection is therefore an oxymoron. It attributes the power to choose, which properly belongs to intelligent agents, to natural causes, which inherently lack the power to choose.”
    – William Dembski – Science and the Myth of Progress – pg 294 – 2003
    https://books.google.com/books?id=9w53fjGdnAoC&pg=PA294

  11. 11
    LocalMinimum says:

    When writing software, you try to make the steps between functioning forms as small as you can manage. The reasoning being, of course, that things reliably go wrong even with intention and direction, and they go wronger the thinner you spread your attention, and finding them goes from hard to impossible real fast with the exponential bloom in potential failures.

    So a lot of the actual designing is spent planning steps, and breaking them down into smaller steps. Actively looking for that next simplest step. Also, building parallel systems that replicate functionality to scaffold simpler steps into the main circuit from. Guided co-option, truely.

    The process steps themselves offer no advantage over the original function; in fact, you’ll often get bottlenecked, forced to drop some functionality or even drop all but the most minimal demonstrative functionality and restore the rest somewhere on the other side.

    The beef is that the transition itself is a complex system with complex components, often more complex than the target modification; that even a purposeful, focused designer can get lost in mapping; and offers no selective advantage at pretty much any stage. Also, it’s this way in every direction that offers improvement. The more functionality intrinsic to the system, the deeper the well you have to climb out of to add more. If simple, useful, functional modifications were everywhere…well, the difficulty curve in writing increasingly complex software would be pretty linear, or even logarithmic! Software-writing-software would be buckets easier to design, to!

    And our programs are toys in comparison with the self 3D printing, self tuning, fully integrated hardware/software suites that are biological systems. That accidentally wrote themselves from early DOS to strong general AI.

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    Cornelius @ 7 – thanks, but I think that rather backs up my point: not even you are able to point to anyone who seriously suggests that that is how evolution occurs. So your calculations are pointless. The rest is just an argument from incredulity. You could try actually doing the hard work of showing that evolutionary pathways are actually impossible, rather than just declaring it so.

    Nonlin.org @8 – your argument was demolished almost exactly 100 years ago by R.A. Fisher (before he did that it was taken as a serious criticism of Darwinism). Basically, with several or lots of genes acting on a trait, it can look like ti is continuous.

  13. 13
    Molson Bleu says:

    Cornelius, I used the link to read your entire article and obtained this message:

    This blog is open to invited readers only

    Is your blog actually restricted access, or is it just my computer?

  14. 14
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H (to Cornelius Hunter):

    “You could try actually doing the hard work of showing that evolutionary pathways are actually impossible, rather than just declaring it so.”

    Strange, I thought that science should work the other way round: you propose an explanation, and it’s you who have to show that it is not only possible, but probable, maybe even real.

    I must be too attached to old ways of thinking! 🙂

    However, I have tried to argue about why evolutionary pathways are, if not impossible, certainly not a credible scientific explanation.

    For example here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/

    and here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/

    and here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-spliceosome-a-molecular-machine-that-defies-any-non-design-explanation/

    and, most recently, here:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/

    Well, maybe those OPs are not good at all, but believe me, they have been “hard work”, each one of them.

    OK, to say that there has not been a lot of debate from the other side would be a true euphemism! Especially from those who are often complaining that there is not enough scientific discussion here at UD. 🙂

    I have also repeatedly proposed a very clear and explicit challenge, even to you (see comment #3 here), without anyone ever trying to answer it.

    Is this the way scientific debate should be? Just to know.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this claim from Bob (and weave) O’Hara:

    “with several or lots of genes acting on a trait, it can look like ti is continuous.”

    And this helps establish Darwinian evolution as scientific, instead of pseudo-science, how exactly? It is impossible to mathematically model ‘lots of genes’, much less test such a scenario in the lab.

    The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard – 2011
    Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation..
    http://www.biosignaling.com/co.....X-9-30.pdf

    Gene previously linked to obesity is unrelated – June 29, 2015
    Excerpt: … in the real world of careful analysis, scientists are just not finding the “genes” that the headline writers need. British geneticist Steve Jones points out that most human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect:
    “We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height … That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for “scientists find the gene for” shows. The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics.”
    And the craze is not harmless, he warns. …
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....unrelated/

    Perhaps Bob O’Hara should concentrate on scientifically proving that DNA controls morphology, (i.e. that DNA reductionism is true) in the first place, before he tries to work out that intractable math? It might just save him years of chasing his tail in a circle mathematically. But alas, Darwinian evolution was never about the science was it Bob O’Hara?

    With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory – November 2011
    Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52821.html

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Genes and Organisms: Improvising the Dance of Life – Stephen L. Talbott – Nov. 10, 2015
    Excerpt: The performances of countless cells in your body are redirected and coordinated as part of a global narrative for which no localized controller exists. This redirection and coordination includes a unique choreography of gene expression in each individual cell. Hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences move (or are moved) within vast numbers of cell nuclei, and are subjected to extraordinarily nuanced, locally modulated chemical activity so as to contribute appropriately to bodily requirements that are nowhere codified — least of all in those DNA sequences.,,,
    DNA in its larger matrix
    You may recall from my earlier article, “Getting Over the Code Delusion” (Talbott 2010), that packing DNA into a typical cell nucleus is like packing about 24 miles of very thin, double-stranded string into a tennis ball, with the string cut up (in the normal human case) into 46 pieces, corresponding to our 46 chromosomes.
    To locate a protein-coding gene of typical size within all that DNA is like homing in on a one-half-inch stretch within those 24 miles. Or, rather, two relevant half-inch stretches located on different pieces of string, since we typically have two copies of any given gene. Except that sometimes one copy differs from the other and one version is not supposed to be expressed, or one version needs to be expressed more than the other, or the product of one needs to be modified relative to the other. So part of the job may be to distinguish one of those half-inch stretches from the other. “Decisions” everywhere, it seems.
    But no such decisions are made in a vacuum. As it happens, the chromosome does not consist of a naked DNA double helix. Our DNA, rather, is bound up with a massive, intricate, and dynamic protein-RNA-small molecule complex (called chromatin) that is as fully “informative” for the cell as the DNA sequence itself — and, you might say, much more active and directive.,,,
    the cell, by managing the shifting patterns of the chromatin infrastructure within which DNA is embedded, brings our chromosomes into movement on widely varying scales. These include large looping movements that put particular genes into connection with essential regulatory sequences and with other, related genes (that is, with other one-half inch stretches of our “24 miles of string in a tennis ball”).,,,
    A gene is not in any case the kind of rigidly defined entity one might hope to calculate with. As a functional unit appropriate to current circumstances, it must be cobbled together by the cell according to the needs of the moment. There is no neatly predefined path to follow once the cell has located the “right” half inch or so of string, or once it has done whatever is necessary to bring that locus into proper relation with other chromosomal loci participating in the same “dance”.
    One issue has to do with the fact that there are two strands in the DNA double helix and, starting from any particular point, it is possible to transcibe either of two DNA sequences in either of two directions: “forward” along one strand, or “backward” along the other. This yields two completely different products. One of them is very likely not even a protein-coding RNA, and yet it may still play a vital role in gene expression and in cellular processes more generally.
    And even when the cell would proceed in one particular direction, it must “choose” the exact point in the genetic sequence at which to begin. Different starting points can yield functionally distinct results. “Many studies focusing on single genes have shown that the choice of a specific transcription start site has critical roles during development and cell differentiation, and aberrations in . . . transcription start site use lead to various diseases including cancer, neuropsychiatric disorders, and developmental disorders”.8,,,
    The (protein) enzyme that transcribes DNA into RNA is RNA polymerase12. The enzyme certainly does not work alone, however, and its task is by no means cut-and-dried. To begin with, its critical interactions with various elements of the pre-initiation complex help determine whether and exactly where transcription will begin, if it is to begin at all. Then, after those “decisions” have been made, RNA polymerase moves along the double helix transcribing the sequence of genetic “letters” into the complementary sequence of an RNA.
    Throughout this productive journey, which is called elongation, the RNA polymerase still keeps good and necessary company. Certain co-activators modify it during its transit of a genetic locus, and these modifications not only enable transcription elongation to begin, but also provide binding sites for yet other proteins that will cooperate throughout the transcription journey.,,,
    Finally — and mirroring all the possibilities surrounding initiation of gene transcription — there are the issues relating to its termination. Again, they are far too many to mention here. Transcription may conclude at a more or less canonical terminus, or at an alternative terminus, or it may proceed altogether past the gene locus, even to the point of overlapping what, by usual definitions, would be regarded as a separate gene farther “downstream”. The cell has great flexibility in determining what, on any given occasion, counts as a gene, or transcriptional unit.
    The last part of the transcribed gene is generally non-protein-coding, but nevertheless contains great significance. Examining this region in a single gene, a research team recently identified “at least 35 distinct regulatory elements” to which other molecules can bind.13 Further regulatory potentials arise from yet more binding sites on the customized “tail” that the cell adds to the RNA immediately upon conclusion of its transcription.
    Proteins and other molecules that bind to the various regulatory elements of the non-protein-coding portion of the transcript do so in a context-sensitive manner, where cell and tissue type, phase of the cell cycle, developmental stage, location of the RNA within the cell, and environmental factors, both intra- and extra-cellular, may all play a role. These converging influences can change the stability of the RNA, change its localization within the cell, and change the efficiency of its translation into protein, among other possibilities.,,,
    What is generally considered the post-transcriptional modulation of gene expression actually begins during transcription proper. A prime example has to do with what happens partly as a result of the pauses during elongation.
    Cells don’t just passively accept the RNAs that emerge from the transcription process, but rather “snip and stitch” them via an elaborate procedure known as RNA splicing. It happens that the cutting out and knitting together of selected pieces typically begins before the RNA is fully transcribed, and the rhythm of pauses during elongation has an important influence upon which pieces form the mature transcript.
    This splicing operation, which is applied to nearly all human RNAs, is performed by the spliceosome, consisting of a few non-protein-coding RNAs and over 300 cooperating proteins, and is hardly less exacting in its requirements than, say, brain surgery.
    For the vast majority of human genes the operation can be performed in different ways, yielding distinct proteins (called isoforms) from a single RNA derived from a single DNA sequence. This is called alternative splicing, and it would be hard to find anything in human development, disease etiology, or normal functioning that is not dependent in one way or another on the effectiveness of this liberty the cell takes with its gene products.
    But RNA splicing is hardly the end of it. Through RNA editing the cell can add, delete, or substitute individual “letters” of the RNA sequence.15 Or, leaving the letters in place, the cell can chemically modify them in any of over one hundred different ways.16 ,,,
    Eventually, a protein-coding RNA needs to be translated into protein. This happens by means of large molecular complexes called “ribosomes”. Just as with gene transcription, there are many associated factors that must work together to bring about the initiation of translation, many that cooperate with the ribosome during translation, and yet others that play a role in modifying, localizing, or otherwise regulating the newly produced protein.
    The overall picture of gene expression is one of unsurveyable complexity in the service of remarkably effective living processes.,,,
    A decisive problem for the classical view of DNA is that “as cells differentiate and respond to stimuli in the human body, over one million different proteins are likely to be produced from less than 25,000 genes”.30 Functionally, in other words, you might say that we have over a million genes.,,,
    http://www.natureinstitute.org.....nes_29.htm

  16. 16

    Bob O’H @ 12: Please answer gpuccio @ 3 and 14.

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    gpuccio @ 14 – the way science works is that the person making the claim is meant to supply the evidence. Cornelius is making a claim, therefore he should provide the evidence.

  18. 18
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H:

    “the way science works is that the person making the claim is meant to supply the evidence. Cornelius is making a claim, therefore he should provide the evidence.”

    That’s may be the way a blog works! 🙂

    OK, let’s forget Cornelius Hunter for a moment. Let’s say that you are saying, if I understand well your #2, that evolution does not work creating 100 specific mutations at a time.

    But the fact remains that it seems to create hundreds of specific mutations.

    So, I suppose that you are sponsoring the idea of gradualism and, if I guess right, of natural selection of gradual steps.

    So, here it’s you who are making a claim, even if very indirectly and with some apparent reluctance.

    So, I would ask you if my intepretation of your thought is right, or, if you prefer, just what your thought is, and then if possible to provide your evidence for that idea.

    So, if your idea is gradualism thorugh NS, I think a good start would be to answer my “challenge”. Which I copy here again, for your convenience.

    Will anyone on the other side answer the following two simple questions?

    1) Is there any conceptual reason why we should believe that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

    2) Is there any evidence from facts that supports the hypothesis that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

    And, of course, you are always invited to comment in my threads, about the Ubiquitin system or any other recent topic. I would be honoured! 🙂

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    A Darwinists asking for evidence,,, that takes the cake.

    I’ve been asking Darwinists for evidence to back up their claims for years. Not only do they not provide evidence, they ignore any and all evidence that falsifies their claims,,, for instance:

    Darwin vs. Microbes – video
    https://youtu.be/ntxc4X9Zt-I
    paper
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/16umLl1dnEuGcRfGqErD_XzZXVbOxcAJmIRPaF7PBOVg/edit

    Given that Darwinian evolution, at least how Darwinists treat it, is impervious to empirical falsification, then Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science but is, by all rights, more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience:

    Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology – video
    https://youtu.be/KeDi6gUMQJQ
    Paper:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aT_Thrfqs9sdT0Hsg2y3hxhTDntCD8mypi2AO_Rjee8/edit

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    – paper
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/15p_qQGjQE-2-Q60Hsh513Beb3sISPHyOtaM1olPw1OM/edit

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    the way science works is that the person making the claim is meant to supply the evidence.

    Except for evolutionists, right? They never support their claims.

Leave a Reply