Evolutionists: We Now Have Empirical Evidence For the Evolution of Kin Recognition

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 25, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

In a new study out of the University of Liverpool evolutionists now say they have found empirical evidence that a genetic complex, involving dozens of protein-coding genes related to altruism, can evolve. Such a finding would be truly ground-breaking given that, at least up until now, the evolution of even a single protein has been found to be scientifically unlikely. It would be astonishing if now evolutionists have overturned a substantial body of work establishing molecular evolution to be effectively impossible. But of course evolutionists have done no such thing. There was no finding of molecular evolution, no new proteins or genes, no empirical evidence, nothing. Just another ridiculous claim made by evolutionists. It’s the same old pattern—evolutionists look at profoundly complicated biological structures, assume they evolved, and then claim they have found evidence of evolution. Read more

Comments

Zachriel:
In organisms which disperse slowly, proximity is sufficient to allow for kin selection
Are you saying that in those populations don't recognize their kin? What's your evidence for that?Virgil Cain_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

The only figure in Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, showed how he envisioned species branching off of one another. Similar species have a relatively recent common ancestor and have had limited time to diverge from each other. This means that their genes should be similar. Entirely new genes, for instance, would not have enough time to evolve. As François Jacob explained in an influential paper from 1977, “The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero.” (Jacob) Any newly created gene would have to arise from a duplication and modification of a pre-existing gene. (Zhou et. al.; Ohno) But such a new gene would retain significant similarity to its progenitor gene. Indeed, for decades evolutionists have cited minor genetic differences between similar species as a confirmation of this important prediction. (Berra, 20; Futuyma, 50; Johnson and Raven, 287; Jukes, 120; Mayr, 35) But this prediction has been falsified as many unexpected genetic differences have been discovered amongst a wide range of allied species. (Pilcher) As much as a third of the genes in a given species may be unique, and even different variants within the same species have large numbers of genes unique to each variant. Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. (Daubin and Ochman) Significant genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. (Levine et. al.) As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” (Le Page) These novel genes must have evolved over a few million years, a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. (Begun et. al.; Chen et. al., 2007) Initially some evolutionists thought these surprising results would be resolved when more genomes were analyzed. They predicted that similar copies of these genes would be found in other species. But instead each new genome has revealed yet more novel genes. (Curtis et. al.; Marsden et. al.; Pilcher) Next evolutionists thought that these rapidly-evolving unique genes must not code for functional or important proteins. But again, many of the unique proteins were in fact found to play essential roles. (Chen, Zhang and Long 1010; Daubin and Ochman; Pilcher) As one researcher explained, “This goes against the textbooks, which say the genes encoding essential functions were created in ancient times.” (Pilcher) References Begun, D., H. Lindfors, A. Kern, C. Jones. 2007. “Evidence for de novo evolution of testis-expressed genes in the Drosophila yakuba/Drosophila erecta clade.” Genetics 176:1131-1137. Berra, Tim. 1990. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Chen, S., H. Cheng, D. Barbash, H. Yang. 2007. “Evolution of hydra, a recently evolved testis-expressed gene with nine alternative first exons in Drosophila melanogaster.” PLoS Genetics 3. Chen, S., Y. Zhang, M. Long. 2010. “New Genes in Drosophila Quickly Become Essential.” Science 330:1682-1685. Curtis, B., et. al. 2012. “Algal genomes reveal evolutionary mosaicism and the fate of nucleomorphs.” Nature 492:59-65. Daubin, V., H. Ochman. 2004. “Bacterial genomes as new gene homes: The genealogy of ORFans in E. coli.” Genome Research 14:1036-1042. Futuyma, Douglas. 1982. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books. Jacob, François. 1977. “Evolution and tinkering.” Science 196:1161-1166. Johnson, G., P. Raven. 2004. Biology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Jukes, Thomas. 1983. “Molecular evidence for evolution” in: Scientists Confront Creationism, ed. Laurie Godfrey. New York: W. W. Norton. Le Page, M. 2008. “Recipes for life: How genes evolve.” New Scientist, November 24. Levine, M., C. Jones, A. Kern, H. Lindfors, D. Begun. 2006. “Novel genes derived from noncoding DNA in Drosophila melanogaster are frequently X-linked and exhibit testis-biased expression.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 9935-9939. Marsden, R. et. al. 2006. “Comprehensive genome analysis of 203 genomes provides structural genomics with new insights into protein family space.” Nucleic Acids Research 34:1066-1080. Mayr, Ernst. 2001. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books. Ohno, Susumu. 1970. Evolution by Gene Duplication. Heidelberg: Springer. Pilcher, Helen. 2013. “All Alone.” NewScientist January 19. Zhou, Q., G. Zhang, Y. Zhang, et. al. 2008. “On the origin of new genes in Drosophila.” Genome Research 18:1446-1455. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/similar-species-share-similar-genes
bornagain77_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Kin recognition in bacteria? Bonnie Bassler studies how bacteria can communicate with one another, through chemical signals, to act as a unit.Mung_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Alicia Cartelli: Somebody should probably let all the evolutionary biologists know too.. They already know. You need to go find out why they haven't let you in on it.Mung_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 1
It turns out that there are many more ‘species specific’ genes than Darwinists had first presupposed and/or predicted
Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions – Similar species share similar genes – Cornelius Hunter PhD.
Since neither Darwin nor the science of his day knew anything about genes - “species specific” or otherwise - it was hardly a failed prediction. In other words, BA77 and Hunter are talking crap and we know where that comes from.Seversky_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter: you can’t even get to kin selection without kin recognition. That is incorrect. In organisms which disperse slowly, proximity is sufficient to allow for kin selection. Cornelius Hunter: First, it means that kin selection hinges on several proteins working together. They're just markers. Cornelius Hunter: Second, the genetic cluster is species-specific. Apparently there is no common kin recognition mechanism across the vertebrates as evolutionists had assumed. So? Humans use facial recognition. Mice use pheromones.Zachriel_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

I’m afraid you are simply talking out of your rear-end.
Is this actually a self indictment?jerry_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Scientists like a good laugh too, Eug.Alicia Cartelli_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

"Somebody should probably let all the evolutionary biologists know too.." Is there any point?EugeneS_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 1, 2012 Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21. http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.long These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2199970 And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519377900443 Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000096 These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/now-evolution-must-have-evolved.html?showComment=1354423575480#c6691708341503051454
What makes matters much worse for the materialist, besides the inability of unguided material processes to generate new proteins, is that existing functional proteins of one structure/function are also shown to be highly constrained in their ability to evolve into other highly similar proteins.
"Enzyme Families -- Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - December 4, 2014 Excerpt: If enzymes can't be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,, Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn't test the right mutation(s), and that we didn't use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF's entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine. Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It's because modern enzymes can't be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don't evolve! That is precisely the point we are making. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/a_new_paper_fro091701.html "Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - January 1, 2015 Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/happy_new_year092291.html
bornagain77_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

OT: SEATTLE CREATION CONFERENCE September 25-26, 2015 - watch online tonight and tomorrow http://cedarpark.churchonline.org/ Schedule http://nwcreation.net/conference/schedule/index.htmlbornagain77_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

"substantial body of work establishing molecular evolution to be effectively impossible?" Can someone point me to some references that back this claim? Somebody should probably let all the evolutionary biologists know too.. "Evolve just one protein and you still don’t have kin recognition." How do you know this? Jut because this complex of proteins controls kin recognition, does not mean that a simpler system couldn't do the same. I'm afraid you are simply talking out of your rear-end.Alicia Cartelli_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

as to this statement of yours Dr. Hunter:
Second, the genetic cluster is species-specific. Apparently there is no common kin recognition mechanism across the vertebrates as evolutionists had assumed.
It turns out that there are many more 'species specific' genes than Darwinists had first presupposed and/or predicted:
Darwin's (Failed) Predictions - Similar species share similar genes - Cornelius Hunter PhD. Excerpt: As much as a third of the genes in a given species may be unique, and even different variants within the same species have large numbers of genes unique to each variant. Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. (Daubin and Ochman) Significant genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. (Levine et. al.) As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” (Le Page) These novel genes must have evolved over a few million years, a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. (Begun et. al.; Chen et. al., 2007) Initially some evolutionists thought these surprising results would be resolved when more genomes were analyzed. They predicted that similar copies of these genes would be found in other species. But instead each new genome has revealed yet more novel genes. (Curtis et. al.; Marsden et. al.; Pilcher) Next evolutionists thought that these rapidly-evolving unique genes must not code for functional or important proteins. But again, many of the unique proteins were in fact found to play essential roles. (Chen, Zhang and Long 1010; Daubin and Ochman; Pilcher) As one researcher explained, “This goes against the textbooks, which say the genes encoding essential functions were created in ancient times.” (Pilcher) https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/similar-species-share-similar-genes
As alluded to above, and completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life:
Can new genes arise from junk DNA? - August 2015 Excerpt: Researchers are beginning to understand that de novo genes seem to make up a significant part of the genome, yet scientists have little idea of how many there are or what they do. What’s more, mutations in these genes can trigger catastrophic failures. “It seems like these novel genes are often the most important ones,” said Erich Bornberg-Bauer, a bioinformatician at the University of Münster in Germany.,,, “How does novel gene become functional? How does it get incorporated into actual cellular processes?” McLysaght said. “To me, that’s the most important question at the moment.” https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/can-new-genes-arise-from-junk-dna/ Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm
And as problematic as the large percentage of essential species specific genes are turning out to be for Darwinian explanations, it turns out that the regulatory regions of the genome, which are involved in controlling how and when the genes get used, are even more 'species specific' than the protein coding genes are.
Evolution by Splicing - Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. - Ruth Williams - December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization between different species) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve? SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-and-science-in-conflict/
Moreover, whereas there is a fair amount of tolerance for mutations to protein coding genes, mutations to dGRNs (developmental gene regulatory networks) are found to be 'always catastrophically bad'.
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson - developmental biologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html
Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be 'always catastrophically bad'. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome. If Darwinism were a normal science, instead of being basically a unfalsifiable 'blind faith' religion for atheists, this finding, by itself, should have been more than enough to falsify neo-Darwinian claims.bornagain77_{September 25, 2015
September
09
Sep
25
25
2015
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply