Home » Intelligent Design » Scientific American: The Banality of Evil (ution)

Scientific American: The Banality of Evil (ution)

Katherine Pollard’s Scientific American article from last year, about what makes humans different from chimpanzees, is an unfortunate example of the banality of evolution. Charles Darwin’s theory, updated to account for a variety of surprise evidences, is taken as fact and this leads to a remarkable level of credulity. Whatever we find in biology, it must be the product of evolution. This leads evolutionists away from a whole range of possible investigations and interesting questions. Instead, they drone on with the same, tired, evolutionary explanations that are so predictable. Here are a few passages of note from Pollard’s article:  Read more
  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

3 Responses to Scientific American: The Banality of Evil (ution)

  1. 1
    Granville Sewell

    Cornelius,

    Thanks for this post.

    It has always seemed to me that DNA couldn’t possibly be “the whole story.” 3 billion letters, with a 4 letter alphabet: that’s only 6 billion bits of information, less than 1 gigabyte. You can’t possibly code all the information necessary to reconstruct a human being into 1 Gb, that seems obvious.

  2. I liked this quote from your article Dr. Hunter:

    “Furthermore, these typos simultaneously must have altered two other genes which overlap with HAR1. That’s right, HAR1 lies in a region of overlapping genes. Imagine typing a paragraph which contains one message when read normally and a different message when read backward. Not only must evolution have created all of biology’s genetic information, but it composed the information in overlapping prose. Someday evolutionists will figure out how.”

    Actually the poly-functional complexity of some portions of DNA has been shown to have many more levels of “overlapping information” than the two or three levels you listed for HAR1; i.e. Imagine writing a paragraph that had 12 different messages encoded within it!

    John Sanford, a leading expert in Genetics, comments on some of the stunning poly-functional complexity found in the genome:

    “There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns – which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture – which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes Trifinov). (Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005)

    Comprehensive Mapping of Long-Range Interactions Reveals Folding Principles of the Human Genome – Oct. – 2009
    Excerpt: We identified an additional level of genome organization that is characterized by the spatial segregation of open and closed chromatin to form two genome-wide compartments. At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....6/5950/289

    Here is a site that gives a clear example of what Dr. Sanford means by Poly-Functional equals Poly-Contrained:

    Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....Zmd2emZncQ

  3. reference:

    Astonishing DNA complexity update
    Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.
    http://creation.com/astonishin.....ity-update

Leave a Reply