Kirk Durston: Information decrease falsifies essential Darwinian prediction

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 26, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News}

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

Mounting evidence that the digital information that encodes all of life is steadily degrading, falsifies a key prediction of the theory of neo-Darwinian macroevolution and verifies a prediction of intelligent design science.

Longer:

I was struck, but not surprised, by a statement made a few days ago by Neil Turok, Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics here in Waterloo, Ontario. Speaking of the apparent collapse of evidence for a critical component of the Big Bang theory, he responded, ‘even though hundreds or thousands of people are working on an idea, it may still be wrong.’

His statement is a harbinger of a much greater collapse looming on the scientific horizon, also involving thousands of scientists. There is mounting evidence that most, if not all the key predictions of the neo-Darwinian theory of macroevolution are being consistently falsified by advances in science, several of which I will discuss in later posts. Here, we look at a fundamental prediction Darwinism makes regarding the increase of genetic information.

Computer information is digitally encoded using just two symbols (‘1’ and ‘0’). We now know that the instructions for the full diversity of life, are digitally encoded in the DNA of all living things using a four-symbol alphabet. In more technical terms, this is referred to as functional information.

In the neo-Darwinian scenario for the origin and diversity of life, the digital functional information for life would have had to begin at zero, increase over time to eventually encode the first simple life form, and continue to increase via natural processes to encode the digital information for the full diversity of life.

An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.

Interestingly enough, a prediction of intelligent design science is quite the opposite. Since information always degrades over time for any storage media and replication system, intelligent design science postulates that the digital information of life was initially downloaded into the genomes of life. It predicts that, on average, genetic information is steadily being corrupted by natural processes. The beauty of these two mutually incompatible predictions in science is that the falsification of one entails verification of the other. So, which prediction does science falsify, and which one does science verify? More.

Actually, it no longer matters whether Darwinian evolution has any relationship to fact. Airheads believe it, judges enforce it, union teachers spout it, students know they had better absorb it—a combo like that doesn’t need facts or evidence, and is in fact hostile to them. They are unwelcome intruders into a System That Works for its proponents.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

KD
If one insists that at least some of the information that specifies a given life form is external to all DNA (including maternal), then the onus is on the believer to flesh this out without embracing vitalism.
Interesting comment. From my reading of it, 'vitalism' is the view that living organisms include some immaterial aspect that distinguish them from non-living. Modern science opposes that view with the idea that there is no such distinction between living and non-living things. In other words, living things are entirely reducible to matter. There is no 'vital' (immaterial) element. The question regarding the statement: "the instructions for the full diversity of life, are digitally encoded in the DNA" seems to be focused on 'encoding', and thus all the information (instructions) for life are reducible to encoded information in DNA. But as discussed, the similar DNA sequences produce vastly different results (chimp vs human) because of RNA controls. It might be true that the logic switches and control functions are not 'encoded', but they are instructions which produce the diversity of life. DNA alone cannot explain this. Additionally, as BA77 has mentioned often, DNA sequences do not sufficiently explain information on protein folding (for example) which is the result of quantum entanglement -- a non-sequential, non-linear process. Again, this seems to be quite a large space for non-DNA information and again, we might also say non-coded information. (Informational instructions do not necessarily need to be encoded anywhere). That's where the comment regarding vitalism comes in. Is it possible that there is, indeed, an immaterial aspect to life that distinguishes it from non-life? That may, indeed, be 'vitalism', or perhaps something like 'dualism'. Or at least, could biological information simply exist that is non-coded but still providing information for functions? An example in computers might be something like volitile RAM - where data is not stored on a hard-drive but only exists electronically through high-speed transfers. Once the power is turned off, the information disappears.Silver Asiatic_{July 4, 2015
July
07
Jul
4
04
2015
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Dr. Durston, I trust that being without access to the internet is exactly what you needed! Thank you for clearing a few things up. I was accused of taking you too literally but you have confirmed that it is in fact your position that it all comes back to the DNA. Frankly I don't know why this even needs to be a premise of young earth creationism. But given that at the least it is a premise of your argument, then you just do not have the luxury of shifting the burden of proof on to those who do not accept the truth of the premise. That said, all sorts of activities take place with incomplete information, and there's no reason to think that this is not true at the cellular and developmental levels of organisms. Think about it, what would it take to specify, exactly, every single detail of a living organism in it's DNA? Bottom Line: nature is destroying biological life, not creating it. Biological life is not separate from nature. You may as well argue that biological life is destroying biological life. Organisms are not passive systems who have no say in their survival or the survival of their species.Mung_{July 4, 2015
July
07
Jul
4
04
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

as to:
"5. If one insists that at least some of the information that specifies a given life form is external to all DNA (including maternal), then the onus is on the believer to flesh this out without embracing vitalism. Some have been hammering this home, I see. Right on!"
The insurmountable problem of ‘form/shape’ for reductive materialistic explanations has now been demonstrated by a few different methods. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/schopenhauers-cycle-completed-july-1-2015/#comment-570759 i.e., there simply is no materialistic explanation for 'non-local' quantum entanglement/information in DNA and proteins! A beyond space and time cause must be appealed to in order to explain the non-local effect!bornagain77_{July 4, 2015
July
07
Jul
4
04
2015
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

I have been relaxing at a cabin in the northern Canadian wilderness where there was no cellphone or internet, so was unaware of this discussion until I got back into civilization today. I have skimmed all the comments and have a few short points to make by way of response. 1. ‘functional information’ as used in my post is mathematically defined in the paper I linked to in my post. (for all the links, see goo.gl/2ji22e ) 2. A major point of discussion seems to centre around my statement that ‘… the instructions for the full diversity of life, are digitally encoded in the DNA of all living things …’. One must not forget that maternal effects such as the egg-cell wall may be encoded in the DNA of the mother. Thus we still are forced back to the DNA. 3. When I speak of the functional information required to build an organism, I am not just speaking of the coding regions as some have assumed. It is becoming more obvious that some non-coding regions can be important as well. Again, we are back to the DNA. 4. A point that seems to be missed in the ‘comments’ discussion is the distinction between the information required to build a system and information being fed into that system which the system processes and which affects the output. For example, the instructions required to build a fully functioning notebook computer should not be confused with the information that the fully functioning computer processes. Same goes for biological life. It may be the case that when an organism is being built that the exact outcome is influenced by non-maternal environmental input, but the instructions on how to modify the output given a range of inputs must already be encoded in the maternal DNA or the DNA of the progeny (i.e., the capability for variation is already encoded in the genomes of life, but which type or variety is ‘chosen’ may depend upon external inputs). 5. If one insists that at least some of the information that specifies a given life form is external to all DNA (including maternal), then the onus is on the believer to flesh this out without embracing vitalism. Some have been hammering this home, I see. Right on! 6. Even if we granted for the sake of argument that some of the functional information is encoded somewhere else, the fact still remains that the general trend in information duplication and storage in this universe, without exception, is error accumulation and deterioration whether we are speaking of DVD’s, flash drives, paper, magnetic tape, stone carvings or DNA. It takes a lot of work by intelligent data technicians to preserve data or at least slow down the information loss. Neo-darwinism makes the quite fantastic prediction, contra everything else we see in science, that this is not the case for biology, but all the experimental evidence we have seen thus far says otherwise (one commenter seems to have missed this point, as well as the paper discussing the deterioration of the human genome). 7. Natural selection will eliminate non-functional DNA, tending to leave the more genetically fit organisms alone, but our observations reveal that the remaining DNA still nudges steady deterioration. A lot of errors can occur before an area becomes non-functional and, by then, it may be too late to restore the lost information, especially since the rate of destruction exceeds the rate of repair for damaged genes, as my own work reveals (to be discussed in a future blog post). 8. Yes, there are repair mechanisms but it is obvious that in spite of those impressively designed little nano-machines, information degradation is still marching on. In this world, there is no such thing as a perpetually perfect replicating machine. Everything in the universe slowly runs down. Life is no exception. 9. Note in my article that I never said that novel information or functions cannot be obtained. It is just simply that the rate of degradation will exceed the rate of improvements on average over time. This is true in every area of information, and biology is no exception. The LTEE is an example of this. One cobbled together function so far, but during this experiment, I have heard that it has also lost about 8 percent of its DNA (I was told this by a biology professor, but do not have a reference, so I stand to be corrected). 10. I plan to do a special blog post on the Lenski experiment, showing that if we use published methods for determining the change in functional information, the gain in information was trivial, well within the realm of no statistical significance. 11. I plan to do a blog post on natural selection and what we can learn about it from the field of genetic algorithms. For those who cannot wait, natural selection works wonders for hill-climbing problems such as fine-tuning the fitness of existing organisms (microevolution), but it is utterly useless for needle-in-the-haystack problems such as searching sequence space for protein families with stable repeatable folds. All the sophisticated GA’s produced today are examples of intelligent design in action. Bottom Line: nature is destroying biological life, not creating it. I am on semi-vacation over the next month or so, so I will not likely be able to respond to new ideas in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, the post being discussed here is only one in a series that I will be writing. Even if I cannot respond, I see the above 'comments' discussion as a healthy exchange of ideas.KD_{July 4, 2015
July
07
Jul
4
04
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

OT: Earth’s Biosphere Is Awash in Information – June 29, 2015 I think it's all that junk DNA that is causing global warming!Mung_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Box, I answered you on the other thread.jerry_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Jerry,
Jerry: And I have been asking for years about what causes the organism to unfold in such a way during gestation to provide the final form.
Part of the answer is: Embryonic Electric Fields; see #42, #60 - - -
Box: Every once in a while an evolutionist enters the debate claiming that there is evidence for his position—while we all know that there is none.

Jerry: I would not get too cocky. I spent a lot of this thread about a research program that thinks that naturalized evolution is a slam dunk and has a research trail that supposedly supports that position.
I’m not worried at all. I’m sure that on closer inspection there is absolutely nothing there.
Jerry: In it Brosius is incredibly cocky and condescending to anyone who does not believe in naturalized evolution. He trashes Simon Conway Morris for suggesting there may be a God.
Motivated by envy, no doubt. Unlike evolution, there is actually strong evidence for the existence of God. Guys like Brosius—who you yourself call a ‘low life’ back in 2009—excel at wishful thinking, being “cocky” and “condescending”.Box_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

as to jerry at 116: "Nothing I have said or have pointed to is a threat to or contradicts anything Axe, Gauger or Behe has said." Yet, jerry at 66 stated "It is absurd to think that no new information will be created by these processes over billions of years." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kirk-durston-information-decrease-falsifies-essential-darwinian-prediction/#comment-570135 of note: “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 Stephen Meyer Critiques Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" Illustration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8bornagain77_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

"So just leave it and you can ignore my comments." No thank you. Not as long as you try to defend the indefensible!: "There is nothing incoherent in anything I have said." You position, contrary to how enamored you are with your own position, is incoherent. You claimed that they have proven their point by merely comparing sequences and claim this comparing of sequences is real time 'empirical evidence'. Excuse me, that is 'not even wrong': per wiki
Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
i.e. 'Real time' Empirical evidence, which is what I consistently asked you for, is going into the lab and performing experiments to prove your point. They have done no such thing. Not even close! They, in their 'standard practice in genetic research' have merely assumed Darwinian evolution as true at the outset and tried to reconstruct a narrative by comparing sequences to fit their desired conclusion. It is an absolutely horrid way to practice science and is certainly not 'real time' empirical science in any meaningful sense of the term! This same disingenuous practice of science of assuming your conclusion into your starting assumptions, which you apparently agree 100% with as valid empirical science, was the same disingenuous method by which Darwinists tried to dismiss the real time empirical research of ENCODE which had found widespread functionality across the entire genome.
DNA mostly 'junk?' Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is 'functional', study finds - July 24, 2014 Excerpt: To reach their (8.2%) figure, the Oxford University group took advantage of the ability of evolution to discern which activities matter and which do not. They identified how much of our genome has avoided accumulating changes over 100 million years of mammalian evolution -- a clear indication that this DNA matters, it has some important function that needs to be retained. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724141608.htm
i.e. So according to these Darwinian critics of the ENCODE study, which found widespread functionality for 'junk' DNA by direct experimental research, functionality does not determine if a sequence is actually functional, only 'conservation of sequence' determines what is functional? So basically, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true at the outset will these Darwinists be willing to accept accept that a given sequence of 'junk' DNA may be functional!,, That is called 'assuming your conclusion into your premise' and is absolutely horrible science! So jerry, Do you agree with the 8% figure derived by comparing sequences or do you agree with the 80% figure derived by actual experimental work? The only one who has cited any actual real time empirical evidence in our exchange thus far, jerry, to support their position, has been me when I cited Behe, Axe and Gauger, (whose work on enzymes you apparently blew off as irrelevant. of note: It is not irrelevant in that it directly addresses functional conversion instead of being merely hypothetical as your, 'ahem', empirical evidence is) As well, apparently you did not read the entire link I provided on the falsification threshold of neo-Darwinism: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yes-they-do-cling-to-the-multiverse-because-it-conforms-to-their-favored-narrative-or-at-least-they-think-it-does/#comment-569958 This is of particular interest to you:
“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 https://vimeo.com/106012299 On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Pt 2. – Richard Sternberg PhD. Evolutionary Biology Excerpt: “Here’s the interesting thing, when you look at the protein coding sequences that you have in your cell what you find is that they are nearly identical to the protein coding sequences of a dog, of a carp, of a fruit fly, of a nematode. They are virtually the same and they are interchangeable. You can knock out a gene that encodes a protein for an inner ear bone in say a mouse. This has been done. And then you can take a protein that is similar to it but from a fruit fly. And fruit flies aren’t vertebrates and they certainly are not mammals., so they don’t have inner ear bones. And you can plug that gene in and guess what happens? The offspring of the mouse will have a perfectly normal inner ear bone. So you can swap out all these files. I mentioning this to you because when you hear about we are 99% similar (to chimps) it is almost all referring to those protein coding regions. When you start looking, and you start comparing different mammals. Dolphins, aardvarks, elephants, manatees, humans, chimpanzees,, it doesn’t really matter. What you find is that the protein coding sequences are very well conserved, and there is also a lot of the DNA that is not protein coding that is also highly conserved. But when you look at the chromosomes and those banding patterns, those bar codes, (mentioned at the beginning of the talk), its akin to going into the grocery store. You see a bunch of black and white lines right? You’ve seen one bar code you’ve seen them all. But those bar codes are not the same.,, Here’s an example, aardvark and human chromosomes. They look very similar at the DNA level when you take small snippets of them. (Yet) When you look at how they are arranged in a linear pattern along the chromosome they turn out to be very distinct (from one another). So when you get to the folder and the super-folder and the higher order level, that’s when you find these striking differences. And here is another example. They are now sequencing the nuclear DNA of the Atlantic bottle-nose dolphin. And when they started initially sequencing the DNA, the first thing they realized is that basically the Dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome. That is, there are a few chromosome rearrangements here and there, you line the sequences up and they fit very well. Yet no one would argue, based on a statement like that, that bottle-nose dolphins are closely related to us. Our sister species if you will. No one would presume to do that. So you would have to layer in some other presumption. But here is the point. You will see these statements throughout the literature of how common things are.,,, (Parts lists are very similar, but how the parts are used is where you will find tremendous differences) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/
also of note:
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/
bornagain77_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Do I really have to point out the incoherence of your position?
There is nothing incoherent in anything I have said. You constantly bring up irrelevant examples (enzyme origins which are interesting but not comparable to the example I point to), blithely say something is not true when it is (comparing coding and non-coding regions is not empirical evidence when it is a standard practice in genetic research) and misrepresent what I say. Nothing I have said or have pointed to is a threat to or contradicts anything Axe, Gauger or Behe has said.
It might interest you to know that your falsification threshold has been met and exceeded:
The discussion by Hunter is interesting (which is all about the comparison of coding with non coding regions or the lack of similar regions in other species) but it is only a small bit of what has to be done. So while of value it doesn't come close to all that is necessary. But it is an example of what will eventually be evidence for how new species must have arisen. When this is eventually done, Darwinian evolution will be dead. But it is several years off. I have been making my claim for quite awhile and have been on record on this site for about 9 years that the origin of new alleles is at the heart of the evolution debate. I have since expanded that to include the origin of control regions. And I have been asking for years about what causes the organism to unfold in such a way during gestation to provide the final form. It is now clear that no one knows the answers to any of these questions. All very coherent questions based on an analysis of the data. So just leave it and you can ignore my comments.jerry_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

OT:
Earth's Biosphere Is Awash in Information - June 29, 2015 Excerpt: In this remarkable paper, Landenmark, Forgan, and Cockell of the United Kingdom Centre for Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh attempt "An Estimate of the Total DNA of the Biosphere." The results are staggering: "Modern whole-organism genome analysis, in combination with biomass estimates, allows us to estimate a lower bound on the total information content in the biosphere: 5.3 × 10^31 (±3.6 × 10^31) megabases (Mb) of DNA. Given conservative estimates regarding DNA transcription rates, this information content suggests biosphere processing speeds exceeding yottaNOPS values (10^24 Nucleotide Operations Per Second).,,," ,,,let's ponder the scale of this information content and processing speed. A yottaNOPS is a lotta ops! Each prefix multiplies the prior one by a thousand: kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zetta, yotta. A "yottabase" doesn't even come close to the raw information content of DNA they estimate: 10^31 megabases. That's the same as 10^37 bases, but a yottabase is only 10^24 bases (a trillion trillion bases). This means that the information content of the biosphere is 50 x 10^13 yottabases (500 trillion yottabases). They estimate that living computers perform a yottaNOPS, or 10^24 nucleotide operations per second, on this information. You can pick yourself off the floor now. "Storing the total amount of information encoded in DNA in the biosphere, 5.3 × 10^31 megabases (Mb), would require approximately 10^21 supercomputers with the average storage capacity of the world's four most powerful supercomputers." How much land surface would be required for 10^21 supercomputers (a "zetta-computer")? The Titan supercomputer takes up 404 m2 of space. If we assume just 100 m2 for each supercomputer, we would still need 10^23 square meters to hold them all. Universe Today estimates the total surface of Earth (including the oceans) at 510 million km2, which equates to 5.1 x 10^14 m2. That's 9 orders of magnitude short of the zetta-computer footprint, meaning we would need a billion Earths to have enough space for all the computers needed to match the equivalent computing power life performs on DNA! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/earths_biospher097221.html
That finding, gentlemen, has John 1:1-4 written all over it!bornagain77_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

SA: The gap between human and chimp just in terms of rationality alone is infinite. Else chimps would be known as the rational animal or we would be known as chimps.Mung_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

What expresses the proteins is separate from the DNA itself and what constructs the body plans is also separate. The latter is almost unknown at present.
I think the answer to what distinguishes humans from non-human ancestors is unknown also. Things like levels of self-consciousness and the human mind which commands and controls it's own mind, recognition of truth, goodness, moral awareness and growth, purpose and identity are irreducible to physical components alone. They cannot be explained even by RNA differences. The gap between human and chimp just in terms of rationality alone is infinite. Obviously, the 1% difference in DNA explains almost nothing in that regard.Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Jerry on another thread you claimed that "Darwinism can be falsified" by "an examination of genomes and a determination of what is different between two different populations and if there is similarity between non coding areas with coding areas" It might interest you to know that your falsification threshold has been met and exceeded: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yes-they-do-cling-to-the-multiverse-because-it-conforms-to-their-favored-narrative-or-at-least-they-think-it-does/#comment-569958bornagain77_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

"They are showing that new coding regions arise in various species over time." They are 'showing' nothing of the sort. They PRESUPPOSE it must have happened by unguided material processes and try to reconstruct a narrative that fits their presupposition. i.e. They have ZERO actual empirical evidence! "From what I read of Axe, he would not disagree either. I believe his work is on the origin of novelties, or completely new independent coding regions." Axe (and Gauger's) most recent work, which I referenced and you apparently did not bother to read, deals with exceedingly trivial transmutation of a existing protein into a similar protein of a similar, but different, function. Unguided material processes were found to be grossly inadequate for the trivial transmutation by a factor of trillions of years! "And that the process that generates the new coding regions is great design." So you cite no actual empirical evidence that transmutations are possible for unguided material processes, but that if they did happen by unguided material processes, which you apparently hold that it did, it would be great design? Do I really have to point out the incoherence of your position?bornagain77_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

You apparently disagree with me (and mung, Behe, Axe and Gauger),
Are you sure you want to include Mung? Let him speak for himself. I am not sure that Behe, Axe and Gauger should be included also since they have not commented specifically on the research. When they do, I will look at it as quickly as I learn about it. What they say will be of great interest. Please do not unleash another set of quotes. Let's wait till someone deals with the specific research of Brosius and his colleagues. They are showing that new coding regions arise in various species over time. Most of it a long time ago. This was dealing with the premise of the OP which I believe is false. From what I read of Axe, he would not disagree either. I believe his work is on the origin of novelties, or completely new independent coding regions. Most of Brosius' work, as best as I can see, is on the modification of coding regions with inputs from non-coding regions. And I have said several times if not hundreds, that it may not be close enough to be meaningful. And that the process that generates the new coding regions is great design. And I maintain that this research process is what will falsify Darwinian evolution. Disagree, fine. I have no problem with that. I believe my assessment is the most logical there is out there and nothing you have presented shows me otherwise.jerry_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

So, not correct to state that the full diversity of life can be traced to DNA encoding.
I would say that this is obvious. My guess is that Durston's comment is about the available proteins for each species and he would not deny any form of epigenetics. What expresses the proteins is separate from the DNA itself and what constructs the body plans is also separate. The latter is almost unknown at present.
And the follow-up question should be on the origin of those millions of unique RNA transcripts.
Yes, but my guess is that the number is overstated. But I am not one to judge at this moment. Maybe it is millions.jerry_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

jerry
Most of the difference are in control mechanisms that affect expression of proteins in the brain. See Wilcox
RNA control mechanisms. As Wilcox states in the cited article:
Most of these unique RNA transcripts - and there are thousands, if not millions of them - are uniquely active in developing human neural tissue – uniquely active compared to their activity in chimpanzees, much less other primates or mammals. It is the new epigenetic world.
So, not correct to state that the full diversity of life can be traced to DNA encoding. And the follow-up question should be on the origin of those millions of unique RNA transcripts.Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

jerry, you have yet to provide any real time empirical evidence for your position. The two papers you said 'look promising' are a farce as far as empirical science is concerned. They are sequence comparisons that assume the conclusion of Darwinian evolution into the reconstruction of a supposed mutational pathway with no real time empirical demonstration that the supposed transmutation is possible in reality. Whereas I cited Behe, Axe, and Gauger's actual empirical work that shows even exceedingly trivial transmutations are impossible for unguided material processes (over time frames that exceed hundreds of millions of years and even the age of the universe itself!). You have, apparently, minus any actual empirical evidence, opted to believe neo-Darwinists must have some empirical evidence somewhere. As I said earlier, the empirical evidence simply does not exist! You apparently disagree with me (and mung, Behe, Axe and Gauger), but it is a disagreement based on a unfounded belief you have since you have, thus far, cited no actual experimental work showing that the unguided material processes of Darwinian evolution are capable of what you apparently believe they must be capable of.
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
bornagain77_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Every once in a while an evolutionist enters the debate claiming that there is evidence for his position—while we all know that there is none.
I would not get too cocky. I spent a lot of this thread about a research program that thinks that naturalized evolution is a slam dunk and has a research trail that supposedly supports that position. After Mung asked me about some articles, I found about 30 journal articles on how new coding regions arose in the past in various species. I have no way of assessing this research but someone who is knowledgeable in genetics/micro biology should review the research. I was at Research Gate and many of the works of Juergen Brosius and his colleague Juergen Schmitz are available for download. The article that started me looking, however, was not available there for download. In it Brosius is incredibly cocky and condescending to anyone who does not believe in naturalized evolution. He trashes Simon Conway Morris for suggesting there may be a God. We have not addressed anything like them on this site nor does the average commenter here have the ability to do so. Maybe we could get gpuccio but he may not have the background to do so. Probablay Axe, Behe and Gauger could give it a go to say what is actually there. My guess it is interesting but not enough to explain much. But they act as if it explains everything and is the basis for punctuated equilibrium. Here is what Brosius said about Simon Conway Morris
Although it is highly beneficial to occasionally challenge entrenched concepts, I wonder whether this a poorly disguised attempt to let religion participate in evolutionary thought: if you can't fight evolution?join it? Instead of catering to the ultra-naive creationists, Conway Morris (2003) appeared to target a more intelligent segment of our non-rationalist population, perhaps those who should know better but cannot liberate themselves from infantile imprinting and religious indoctrination, those who seem to possess a full deck of cards but are unable or unwilling to use them all?at least in certain games.
jerry_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Roy, did it escape your notice that I was completely vindicated in my assessment of exactly what type of evidence that jerry must referring to? (i.e. referring to unsubstantiated sequence comparisons), Or does your fundamentalist atheism inflict such blindness on you that not even that development, which is there for all to read, is able to be fairly evaluated by you? As well, I noticed that you conveniently, and completely, ignored these two posts which decimate your atheistic naturalism as being a, 'ahem', rational scientific worldview: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kirk-durston-information-decrease-falsifies-essential-darwinian-prediction/#comment-570207 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kirk-durston-information-decrease-falsifies-essential-darwinian-prediction/#comment-570208 Perhaps you should worry about the beam in your own eye before you worry about a splinter in mine?
Matthew 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
bornagain77_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

I never claimed to have read the paper in this thread, and certainly never gave the impression that I had read it.
Are you capable of actually addressing what people say, or have you spent so long ducking, dodging and weaving that erecting scarecrows is first nature? I didn't say you gave the impression of having read that paper. I said you were giving the impression that you hadn't. Which you have now confirmed. You have also confirmed that you rejected the paper unread. So when I suggested that you had rejected that paper without bothering to read it I was 100% correct. Any claims you have made about the contents of that paper (or indeed any other paper) can be immediately rejected on the grounds that you literally do not know what you are talking about. Perhaps in ID circles it is acceptable to comment on the contents of something one has not read, but in most endeavours it leads to complete loss of credibility and instant derision.Roy_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Every once in a while an evolutionist enters the debate claiming that there is evidence for his position—while we all know that there is none. It's like taking candy from a baby.Box_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Roy, your excuses are pitiful. I never claimed to have read the paper in this thread, and certainly never gave the impression that I had read it. In fact, I have been pressing jerry for ANY substantiating real time evidence from that paper or any other paper he cited. No real time evidence came from that paper. In fact, jerry did not even try to cite from it. Moreover, the papers that jerry finally did end up citing to support his position were merely sequence comparisons, not real time demonstrations, just as I had originally assumed the papers would be! Disingenuous sequence comparisons that assume the desired conclusion of Darwinists into the premises of their hypothetical reconstruction of a sequence, with never an actual demonstration of the feasibility of the mutational pathway by undirected material processes! It is an absolutely dishonest way to try to establish the feasibility of a transformation that I hold, from a empirical basis (i.e. Behe, Axe, Gauger), to be impossible. For you to even ask the question of if I had read the paper was completely pointless, since it was clear I had not. The only reason you would even ask such a stupid question is because you were trying to play rhetorical tricks instead of trying to find the actual truth of the matter. Moreover, I rejected the article based on what I do know to be true already about reality. Number one, the inherent capabilities of undirected material processes are to degrade functional complexity, (in fact I listed many, many, empirical evidences supporting this position, which is far more than I can say for Darwinists doing for their position) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kirk-durston-information-decrease-falsifies-essential-darwinian-prediction/#comment-570044 and, number two, I based my rejection on the fact that out of all the claims I've seen from Darwinists in the past, All the grand claims always have turned out to be based on unconstrained imagination, not on any substantiating empirical evidence that would support the grand claim. If anyone has ever been guilty of the 'unwarranted extrapolation', as you accuse Durston of being guilty of, it would be Darwinists themselves. It is pure intellectual hypocrisy on your part to accuse Durston of something, i.e. 'unwarranted extrapolation', that Darwinists are absolutely dependent on to try to make their case.
"Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? - Michael Behe - March 10, 2015 Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke's 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it's terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That's one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution -- to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/finally_a_detai094271.html
bornagain77_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Roy, so you don’t provide any evidence for your position because you say it will be ignored? how convenient
My position here is that you rejected an article without reading it. My evidence is that 1) You only pasted the freely available abstract, and nothing from the less-accessible the main text 2) Despite replying multiple times you have carefully avoided answering the direct question "Did you read the full paper?" I did post earlier about Durston's essay being an unwarranted extrapolation, but you don't seem interested in that. Everything else you have asked about is a diversion - a dishonest attempt to get me to defend claims I have not made.Roy_{June 29, 2015
June
06
Jun
29
29
2015
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

jerry in your first example, that is NOT real time empirical evidence but is a just so story that was made up out of comparing sequences: Many more examples of Darwinists doing the same type thing, with other sequence comparisons, are found here and are refuted: Hopeless Matzke – David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton (Refutation of all popular examples purporting to show the origination of new information by Darwinian processes) – August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html The second paper you cited jerry looks to be in the same vein as the first paper. Moreover, if they did demonstrate the feasibility of their scenario in the lab, (which I doubt they did), they almost certainly accomplished the transformation by purposely changing what they wanted to change and certainly did not sit around and wait for it to just accidentally happen! I suggest you look more closely at Behe, Axe, and Gauger's work so as to give you a bit more proper context as to how far off the base these Darwinian explanations are so that you won't be so easily led astray in the future by these 'just so' stories of Darwinists:
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
Of note: although Dr. Behe had been mercilessly vilified by neo-Darwinists for daring to suggest that there could possibly be an ‘Edge’ to evolution (i.e. possibly be a limit to what Darwinian processes could be expected to accomplish), Dr. Behe’s was vindicated and his 10^20 number was recently verified in the lab.
The Vindication of Michael Behe – podcast/video - 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itkxFbyzyro An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 Dear Professors Miller and Myers, Talk is cheap. Let's see your numbers. In your recent post on and earlier reviews of my book The Edge of Evolution you toss out a lot of words, but no calculations. You downplay FRS Nicholas White's straightforward estimate that -- considering the number of cells per malaria patient (a trillion), times the number of ill people over the years (billions), divided by the number of independent events (fewer than ten) -- the development of chloroquine-resistance in malaria is an event of probability about 1 in 10^20 malaria-cell replications. Okay, if you don't like that, what's your estimate? Let's see your numbers.,,, ,,, If you folks think that direct, parsimonious, rather obvious route to 1 in 10^20 isn't reasonable, go ahead, calculate a different one, then tell us how much it matters, quantitatively. Posit whatever favorable or neutral mutations you want. Just make sure they're consistent with the evidence in the literature (especially the rarity of resistance, the total number of cells available, and the demonstration by Summers et al. that a minimum of two specific mutations in PfCRT is needed for chloroquine transport). Tell us about the effects of other genes, or population structures, if you think they matter much, or let us know if you disagree for some reason with a reported literature result. Or, Ken, tell us how that ARMD phenotype you like to mention affects the math. Just make sure it all works out to around 1 in 10^20, or let us know why not. Everyone is looking forward to seeing your calculations. Please keep the rhetoric to a minimum. With all best wishes (especially to Professor Myers for a speedy recovery), Mike Behe http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway – Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe – April 2011 Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1 "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 When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/
bornagain77_{June 28, 2015
June
06
Jun
28
28
2015
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

roy, a more direct example of how naturalism undercuts rationality is in the following example. Anybody in their right mind would readily admit that the human brain was created by God:
The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution - DONALD DeMARCO - 02/06/2015 Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates. Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies! A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another. Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers. The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution/ "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
Roy, IMHO, for you to insist that the human brain is the product of mindless undirected material processes is not only irrational but is sheer insanity.bornagain77_{June 28, 2015
June
06
Jun
28
28
2015
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Roy, so you don't provide any evidence for your position because you say it will be ignored? how convenient. Actually, despite your denials to the contrary, neo-Darwinism, since it assumes naturalism as true and denies free will as being real, does undercut rationality. Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain. (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/bornagain77_{June 28, 2015
June
06
Jun
28
28
2015
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

So Roy, perhaps you can point out the exact experimental evidence that I missed...
Why should I waste time providing another reference that you can dismiss unread?*
...instead of just pronouncing that the pseudo-science of Darwinism is science and ID is not?
That may be the shortest example of double standards that I've ever seen. On which topic it is discrediting that you of all people would be complaining about being offered a "myriad of links"
of note: You do realize that Darwinism undercuts scientific rationality in the first place don’t you?
1) It doesn't, and 2) that's a blatant attempt to change the subject. *Also, UD's recent policy means there's no point attempting anything unsuperficial here anywayRoy_{June 28, 2015
June
06
Jun
28
28
2015
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Mung,
Not being critical or implying it doesn’t exist, just asking. Truly curious. Thanks
Here are two
Singer, S. S., D. N. Männel, T. Hehlgans, J. Brosius, and J. Schmitz. 2004. From “junk” to gene: curriculum vitae of a primate receptor isoform gene. Journal of Molecular Biology 341:883–886. Exonization of Alu retroposons awakens public opinion, particularly when causing genetic diseases. However, often neglected, alternative “Alu-exons” also carry the potential to greatly enhance genetic diversity by increasing the transcriptome of primates chiefly via alternative splicing. Here, we report a 5? exon generated from one of the two alternative transcripts in human tumor necrosis factor receptor gene type 2 (p75TNFR) that contains an ancient Alu-SINE, which provides an alternative N-terminal protein-coding domain. We follow the primate evolution over the past 63 million years to reconstruct the key events that gave rise to a novel receptor isoform. The Alu integration and start codon formation occurred between 58 and 40 million years ago (MYA) in the common ancestor of anthropoid primates. Yet a functional gene product could not be generated until a novel splice site and an open reading frame were introduced between 40 and 25 MYA on the catarrhine lineage (Old World monkeys including apes).
I found the pdf here: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8382797_From_junk_to_gene_curriculum_vitae_of_a_primate_receptor_isoform_gene If you or anyone have an opinion on this, I would be curious. And
Biochimie. 2011 Nov;93(11):1928-34. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2011.07.014. Epub 2011 Jul 26. Exonization of transposed elements: A challenge and opportunity for evolution. Schmitz J1, Brosius J. Abstract Protein-coding genes are composed of exons and introns flanked by untranslated regions. Before the mRNA of a gene can be translated into protein, the splicing machinery removes all the intronic regions and joins the protein-coding exons together. Exonization is a process, whereby genes acquire new exons from non-protein-coding, primarily intronic, DNA sequences. Genomic insertions or point mutations within DNA sequences often generate alternative splice sites, causing the splicing system to include new sequences as exons or to elongate existing exons. Because the alternative splice sites are not as efficient as the originals the new variants usually constitute a minor fraction of mature mRNAs. While the prevailing original splice variant maintains functionality, the additional sequence, free from selection pressure, evolves a new function or eventually vanishes. If the new splice variant is advantageous, selection might operate to optimize the new splice sites and consequently increase the proportion of the alternative splice variant. In some instances, the original splice variant is completely replaced by constitutive splicing of the new form. Because of the fortuitous presence of internal splice site-like structures within their sequences, portions of transposed elements frequently serve as modules of exonization. Their recruitment requires a long and versatile optimization process involving multiple changes over a time span of millions, even hundreds of millions, of years. Comparisons of corresponding genes and mRNAs in phylogenetically related species enables one to chronologically reconstruct such changes, from ancient ancestors to living species, in a stepwise manner. We will review this process using three different exemplary cases: (1) the evolution of a constitutively spliced mammalian-wide repeat (MIR), (2) the evolution of an alternative exon 1 from an alternative 5'-extended primary transcript containing an Alu element, and (3) a rare case of the stepwise exoniztion of an Alu element-derived sequence mediated by A-to-I RNA editing.
I was able to get this through a college library and could not find a pdf on the internet. Most of the rhetoric in this article implies these things are a done deal. They may not be which is why some high level talent above my pay grade has to decipher what is probably correct and what is speculative.jerry_{June 28, 2015
June
06
Jun
28
28
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply