Home » Intelligent Design » De Novo Genes: What We Know and Don’t Know

De Novo Genes: What We Know and Don’t Know

I once debated an evolutionist who listed a dozen or so major areas of evidence he said proved evolution. The problem was each of the areas of evidence was problematic for evolution. True, one could find within those areas, as he did, supportive evidences. But the story was not so simple. In fact the areas of scientific evidence, when carefully examined from a theory-neutral perspective, reveal all kinds of problems for evolution. Is evolution false? Is it true? The answer is there are no easy answers. There certainly are substantial scientific problems with Darwin’s idea—that much we do know. If evolution is true then there is much we have to learn about science. But the scientific evidence can tell us something else, and with far more certainty. It tells us that we should not turn to evolutionists for a serious evaluation of the scientific evidence.  Read more

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

18 Responses to De Novo Genes: What We Know and Don’t Know

  1. I do find it a bit strange that we have evidence for mutations breaking things but not building complex protein machinery and changing body plans.

    You would think that would count against the theory of evolution, however FAITH and FAITH alone keeps it alive.

    Faith that someone someday will find those Magical Mystery Mutations.

  2. We keep on asking for evidence for naturalistic evolution and the anti ID people keep on debating minutaie on the periphery. Just look on any thread here now to see evidence for that. You would think they would be embarrassed but they are not. I always maintain the most interesting thing is not the debate over evolution but why people with good brain power enter into such practices. What is their motivation? To go up against the supposedly rubes of society and lose an intellectual debate every time. What drives them to exhibit such intellectual bankruptcy.

  3. Cornelius, I discuss these matters – details, going from non-descript non-coding DNA to protein-coding expressed gene, probabilities (in an informal sense), and the like – here, here, here, here, here, and here.

  4. Arthur Hunt:

    The UD comment-mangler has hit your last two links, it seems. Best to post them as text rather than relying on the <a> tag.

  5. Art keeps trumpeting Turf 13 even though it does not refute anything Dr Behe claims.

    It doesn’t refute anything about ID.

  6. Cornelius,

    In a design scenario would “de novo genes” be OK?

    I was under the impression that it was about blind and undirected processes vs directed and target-oriented processes- meaning that blind and undirected processes would have a hard time doing such a thing for the reasons provided in “Waiting for Two Mutations”.

  7. Jerry,

    You are right that the threads on this blog are debates on the periphery, but otherwise I think you have things the wrong way around. There is plenty of evidence for naturalistic evolution which appears to be non-controversial to most ID supporters (although you will no doubt say you are talking about “macro” evolution). There are vast amounts of real work being carried out in the biological fields concerned with evolution by thousands of legitimate and dedicated scientists. What you have here is tinkering around the edges by a tiny minority convinced of a grand conspiracy.

  8. zeroseven,

    1- If you mean that “naturalistic evolution” equals blind and undirected processes, I would say you would have a tough time providing a working/ testable hypothesis based on that.

    2- There is plenty of evidence that “evolution” produces a wobbling stability. That is about it.

    3- Look at Art’s examples.

    If after 150+ years of research that was the best I could offer, I would think my position was in serious trouble.

    Yet Art trumpets it as if it is his postion’s saviour.

    Go figure…

  9. ” I think you have things the wrong way around.”

    Well any time you can present something, you are welcome to do so. So far several evolutionary biologists who have come here have not been able to present anything. Be the first.

    “There are vast amounts of real work being carried out in the biological fields concerned with evolution by thousands of legitimate and dedicated scientists.”

    All is micro evolution which ID has no problem with.

  10. jerry:

    “There are vast amounts of real work being carried out in the biological fields concerned with evolution by thousands of legitimate and dedicated scientists.”

    All is micro evolution which ID has no problem with.

    And yet, have we uncovered any evidence of non-human intelligence involved in any of this work? Any signs of a micro-evolution mechanism that would cause us to pause and look for explanations outside the naturalistic world?

  11. There is plenty of evidence that “evolution” produces a wobbling stability. That is about it.

    Could that be because wobbling stability is a pretty good definition of evolution?

  12. The history of life on this planet is most definitely not one of ‘wobbling stability’. What is wrong with looking at the fossil record and recognising it as evidence for evolution? I thought ID doesn’t dispute evolution?

    fG

  13. faded_glory,

    ID is not anti-evolution.

    Also all we have evidence for- observational and experimental- is for that wobbling stability.

    Also the vast majority of the fossil record(>95%) is of marine invertebrates and there isn’t any sign of Common Descent to be found in that vast majority.

  14. mikev6,

    You are confused.

    The naturalistic world needs to look beyond itself for its origins.

    That is because natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins.

    Now if you want evidence for ID just read a biology textbook.

    You will read about processes like transcription and translation with their proof-reading and error-correction, both which require knowledge to pull off.

    Where/ how do blind molecules get that knowledge?

  15. Joseph:

    You are confused.

    Nope. ID posits a non-human intelligence involved in the biological process. ID accepts micro-evolution and all the work done in that area. I am asking if any evidence of that non-human intelligence have turned up in all that work. Asking for evidence doesn’t seem too much of a stretch.

    Now if you want evidence for ID just read a biology textbook.

    Ahh – so a textbook that doesn’t mention a non-human designer is evidence for ID?
    How so? To quote Cornelius:

    …who listed a dozen or so major areas of evidence he said proved evolution. The problem was each of the areas of evidence was problematic for evolution.

    The lack of any day-to-day evidence for a designer is certainly a problem area for ID.

    The naturalistic world needs to look beyond itself for its origins.

    Sure – how? Let’s cut to an example. Lenski’s E Coli developed the ability to consume citric acid. Was this natural evolution, or the designer? How should Lenski structure his experiment to separate the two? What mechanism did the designer use to impact the experiment?

    Where/ how do blind molecules get that knowledge?

    I don’t know, but I’m more comfortable with that until someone can demonstrate that a designer actually exists.

  16. …but I’m more comfortable with that until someone can demonstrate that a designer actually exists.

    Perhaps the designer no longer exists. If so, you would be asking for the impossible, and staking your beliefs on the fact that no one can perform an impossible task to your satisfaction.

    now, we know that past cultures existed, which no longer exist. And you, by analogy, would refuse to recognise the artifacts of such a culture as being evidence of that culture, unless someone could resurrect the members of that culture and show them to you.

    But even if someone did so, you would still deny that they were the “designers” in question.

    Let’s say this designer you’re asking about does exist. Let’s say you were allowed to meet him/her/it. What would then convince you that this particular designer, was the designer of whatever it is that you think you need a demonstration of the designer’s existence in order to accept that it was designed?

    No one on the ID side that I know of takes your sort of argument seriously, because it’s hard to think that it’s even rational.

  17. mikev6:

    ID posits a non-human intelligence involved in the biological process.

    No it does not.

    ID does not require a still active designer.

    The lack of any day-to-day evidence for a designer is certainly a problem area for ID.

    You ignored the day-to-day evidence I provided.

    Do you think your ignorance is meaningful?

    I don’t know, but I’m more comfortable with that until someone can demonstrate that a designer actually exists.

    Just as Stonehenge is evidence for a designer’s existence so to is transcription and translation.

Leave a Reply