Here’s That New Paper Showing the Genetic Regulation Hiearchy
| September 23, 2012 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
Ever since Mendelian genetics was incorporated into Darwinism, evolutionists have believed that the gene is king. Genes, they thought, determine an organism’s design or, in technical jargon, the genotype specifies the phenotype. This fit their view that the species originated from the natural selection of biological change which did not arise initially as a consequence of need but rather as a consequence of random, spontaneous events. Those random, spontaneous, events were, for example, mutations in the genes. And later when the genetic code, which translates the information in those genes into proteins, was found to be essentially universal throughout biology, the story seemed complete. For if the species were designed why would their genetic codes be identical? But today, so many problems with this story have emerged it is difficult to keep track. And new research continues to add yet more problems. Read more
11 Responses to Here’s That New Paper Showing the Genetic Regulation Hiearchy
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
as to this:
Different hierarchies of regulation networks that specify cell type, sub cell types, as well as specifying the specific cell type’s response to differing environmental conditions??? As PaV would say, “another day, another extremely bad day for Darwinism!”
If all that was not bad enough for Darwinists and their ‘bottom up’ molecular reductionism model:
OK where is the phenotype (body-plan) information coming from if it is not coming from the genes (genotype)??? also of related note,
Here are two articles that gives a small glimpse at the extreme organizational complexity, that is thus far completely unaddressed by the genetic reductionism model of neo-Darwinism, that goes into crafting all the cells into one human body:
Moreover there another whole level of information on a cell’s surface that is scarcely even beginning to be understood:
Since the ‘bottom up’ molecular reductionism model of neo-Darwinism is a complete failure as to explaining body-plan morphogenesis,,,
,,, I think it would be helpful to elucidate a basic sketch of the actual ‘top down’ hierarchy of information being found in life. There are three distinct levels of information in the cells of life. The very top level of information found in life is ‘quantum’ information:
First, ‘spooky action at a distance’ (as Einstein called it) quantum entanglement/information, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the ‘true’ description of reality (Bohr, Einstein, Bell, Aspect, Zeilinger, etc..), is now being found in molecular biology on a massive scale!
Quantum Entanglement/Information is confirmed in DNA and proteins by direct observation here;
Moreover:
The second level of information in the overall hierarchy of information in the cell is the ‘biophoton’ information:
The following video gives a ‘jaw dropping’ look at the biophotonic information in action:
and lastly, The third ‘bottom’ level of information found in life is the ‘classical information’ which is encoded onto the material/molecular substrates of the cell (DNA, RNA and proteins). Furthermore, the hierarchical organization of this ‘bottom level’ of information is anything but simple, with at the very bottom of the organization structure being the linear (one dimensional) sequences of DNA:
Of course all this could be further hashed out in far more detail, but for now, I think this basic overview gives a good brief outline as to just how far detached from reality the ‘bottom up’ model of neo-Darwinism is:
footnote:
,,,Encoded ‘classical information’, such as what Dembski and Marks demonstrated the conservation of, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following proof:,,,
I am absolutely sure that the network of transcription factors in the cell will be shown to be a level of complex integration of extreme functional complexity. This is the true new frontier of biological research.
Transcription factors will give us a window onto what has been completely missing in our undertsanding of genomic information: the procedures. Protein coding genes are only the final effectors of cellular functional complexity, and yet they cannot be explained by neo darwinian theory, not even a single one of them. But if and when we understand how different procedures are implemented in the genome and the cell, we will have a completely new level of integrated design. Papers like the one referenced here are the promising start of a new biological era.
And guess which theory is going to benefit from all that?
Can someone here list the five (5) criteria that Dr. Don Johnson insists that something must satisfy in order to be validly termed as “information”, more specifically, “genetic information”?
dennis clarke, I don’t remember anything specifically about 5 criteria, then again it’s been a while since I have read any of his work, but this is Dr. Johnson’s main site that has all his major work listed where you might find what you need:
Perhaps the information you need is in this lecture video of Dr. Johnson’s:
I recall that Dr. Don Johnson explains the difference between Shannon Information and Prescriptive Information, as well as explaining ‘the cybernetic cut’, in this following Podcast:
here is a video along the same lines:
As to broadly classifying sequential information, perhaps this is what you are looking for???
Supplemental notes:
Here is a very well done video (with animations) that was made using one of Dr. Johnson’s books as its basis:
Here is a chapter Dr. Johnson had in David Abel’s book ‘The First Gene’:
Here is a interesting paper that Dr. Johnson coauthored with Dr. Abel where they found, from a information point of view, that The ribosome of the cell to operate very similarly to a CPU in a electronic computer:
Hope you find what you need dennis clarke:
dennis, is this something you recall from one of his books?
I have them, but glancing through I don’t immediately find anything clearly laid out in terms of 5 requirements for genetic information.
We could probably come up with 5, though I don’t know if they would match Dr. Johnson’s.
http://www.scienceintegrity.org/
http://www.scienceintegrity.net/
of semi-related note, this video was recently uploaded:
I’m sorry for any confusion I may have caused, but I posted the preceding video before watching it, and it appears the video, for whatever reason, is not at all what it was described to be in the video description. In fact the video appears to be a rehash of one of Sanford’s talks from a few years earlier on the ’4 pillars of atheism’.
of related interest:
I like the analogy in the preceding video of comparing the genetic text in the DNA to the written text of humans, but I would hold that the regulation of genes they have uncovered by the ENCODE project, thus far, is much better to be compared to as constructing entire paragraphs, whole cloth, complete with punctuation and spelling, from a dictionary of a very basic set of 23,000 ‘gene words’. That would be much more realistic to what ENCODE has actually found!