Home » Cambrian explosion, Evolution, News » Convergent evolution: Fungus and insect proteins identical

Convergent evolution: Fungus and insect proteins identical

Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful (Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology)

Some friends have been reading George McGhee’s book, Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful. If there was ever a Darwinclog-free look at the evolution of life forms, well, this is a contender, for example …

Rey et al. (1998, 6212) report an “unexpected homology” found in comparing a fungal and an insect protein: fully 25.3 percent of the amino acid sequence is identical in the fungal Qid74 protein and the insect BR3 protein. The fungal protein is used in cell wall construction, whereas the insect protein is secreted in the midge’s saliva, and is used in constructing external tube walls within which the insect lives. Rey et al. (1998, 6215) note that the two genes coding for the two proteins, one fungal and one insect, had to have originated independently of each other, and that the “ancestor of each new gene created de novo has to be a
noncoding DNA sequence that abounds in every eukaryotic genome”; furthermore, the observed protein convergence “was not between the genes but between the similar noncoding repeats whence the two [new] genes sprung quite independently of each other.

That suits design better than Darwinism because an intelligent agent would know what had worked before, and could use it again.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

4 Responses to Convergent evolution: Fungus and insect proteins identical

  1. This is a clear falsification of the common descent and nested hierarchies prediction. Darwinian evolution is thus falsified. But I am not holding my breath that Darwinists will acknowledge this falsification.

  2. Rey et al. (1998, 6215) note that the two genes coding for the two proteins, one fungal and one insect, had to have originated independently of each other, and that the “ancestor of each new gene created de novo has to be a
    noncoding DNA sequence that abounds in every eukaryotic genome”; furthermore, the observed protein convergence “was not between the genes but between the similar noncoding repeats whence the two [new] genes sprung quite independently of each other.

    It’s not like a “each new gene created de novo has to be a noncoding DNA sequence” is an unheard-of occurrence. Fact is, this sort of thing happens rather frequently. (Of course, “frequently” is a relative term …)

  3. Yes, it happens, Art. But does it happen by accident or by design?

  4. 4

    Convergent evolution is the soft underbelly of error in evolutionism.
    The more accurate research that is done the more will be found a constant theme of like need equals like reply in common principals in biology.
    Just as it would be if there was a creator with a original design program that later was knocked about but still its basics can be seen.
    Unlikely if evolutionary mutationism was the rule or ever did anything at all.

    The need to invoke convergent evolution is because of unlikely convergence in nature if things were unrelated and evolving from this to that.
    They have to say convergence is real and great and then they have to say nature has its limits on options in biology.
    Options in a theory about mutations as the origin for the fantastic complexity , concepts, and ideas in nature.
    The math don’t work.

Leave a Reply