From the Biologic Institute, “A Facebook Dialogue”

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 12, 2012

News}

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

Ann Gauger posted an amusing facebook dialogue on the blog of the Biologic Institute: “Sometimes it might be a good idea to actually read what ID proponents write before critiquing it.” Click here to read the rest.

Comments

Moreover, Transcription Factors: More Species-Specific Biology - Cornelius Hunter - October 2011 Excerpt: In fact, the binding sites are often so-called “lineage-specific,” meaning that the transcription factor binds to a section of DNA that is unique to that species. As one writer explained: "Remarkably, many of these RABS [repeat-associated binding sites] were found in lineage-specific repeat elements that are absent in the comparison species, suggesting that large numbers of binding sites arose more recently in evolution and may have rewired the regulatory architecture in embryonic stem cells on a substantial scale." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/10/transcription-factors-more-species.html Humans, Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA but Not Gene Regulatory Mechanisms - (Nov. 6, 2012) Excerpt: Dr. Gilad reported that up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.,,, Dr. Gilad also determined that the epigenetics process known as histone modification also differs in the three species. The presence of histone marks during gene transcription indicates that the process is being prevented or modified. "These data allowed us to identify both conserved and species-specific enhancer and repressor regulatory elements, as well as characterize similarities and differences across species in transcription factor binding to these regulatory elements," Dr. Gilad said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106201124.htm The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - No Evidence For Body Plan Morphogenesis From Embryonic Mutations - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/ Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress - Paul Nelson - April 7, 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.htmlbornagain77_{November 12, 2012
November
11
Nov
12
12
2012
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

"there is not any particular reason to think, that entire new binding sites are required between humans and chimps." That is a false statement: “Museum of Comparative Anthropogeny” Human Uniqueness Compared to "Great Apes" (Hundreds of differences listed between humans and 'great apes' with references for each difference listed) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dx8I5qpsDlsIxTTPgeZc559pIHe_mnYtKehgDqE-_fo/edit To focus on the male reproductive system. It is completely different and would have required an entire reworking of many binding sites: Ian Juby's sex video - (Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve?) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM A False Trichotomy Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/ as well: From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. As to the "ridiculously pessimistic model Gauger is trying to fool her readers with." The Real Barrier to Unguided Human Evolution - Ann Gauger - April 25, 2012 Excerpt: Their results? They calculated it would take six million years for a single base change to match the target and spread throughout the population, and 216 million years to get both base changes necessary to complete the eight base binding site. Note that the entire time span for our evolution from the last common ancestor with chimps is estimated to be about six million years. Time enough for one mutation to occur and be fixed, by their account. To be sure, they did say that since there are some 20,000 genes that could be evolving simultaneously, the problem is not impossible. But they overlooked this point. Mutations occur at random and most of the time independently, but their effects are not independent. (Random) Mutations that benefit one trait (are shown to) inhibit another (Negative Epistasis; Lenski e-coli after 50,000 generations). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/the_real_barrie058951.html etc.. etc..bornagain77_{November 12, 2012
November
11
Nov
12
12
2012
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Ugh. Ann Gauger's/BioLogic Institute's posts on this thread, just linked from the DI blog, are silly. (1) They have presented no evidence, and there is not any particular reason to think, that entire new binding sites are required between humans and chimps. Ditto for multiple-mutations-required-before-function mutations. What is the evidence that *any* of these would have been required? (2) Even the source they cite, Durrett and Schmidt 2007, notes that they are only talking about one very specific sort of change, and most of the changes between humans and chimps were neutral (and thus fix at much higher rates, basically equal to the mutation rate), that many more mutations happen than fix, and that each for the sorts of changes they are talking about, they could have happened in less than 1% of the 20,000+ genes in the human genome, which significantly changes the odds and times even on the ridiculously pessimistic model Gauger is trying to fool her readers with.NickMatzke_UD_{November 12, 2012
November
11
Nov
12
12
2012
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply