Home
» Intelligent Design » The Origin of the DNA Code: Did Evolution Occur Between Neighbors?
The Origin of the DNA Code: Did Evolution Occur Between Neighbors?
| September 3, 2009 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
The DNA code is both nearly universal and nearly optimal. With the exception of minor deviations occasionally discovered, the same DNA code is found in all species. And that code is so efficient it is sometimes labeled as “optimal.” This is yet another simple example revealing the absurdity of evolutionary theory. Let’s see why. Read more
51 Responses to The Origin of the DNA Code: Did Evolution Occur Between Neighbors?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
jerry, #22
Darwin himself stated in Origins that different species evolve at different rates, so I don’t see how this was a failure on his part.
Can you identify another mechanism which has more influence on which organisms survive to reproduce?
Are you suggesting that organisms don’t compete for limited resources?
Since DNA supports the fossil record here, I would say he was probably right.
Since there are many natural explanations for the slightly accelerated pace of evolution in the early Cambrian, this is not quite the obstacle some would like it to be.
Cabal:
Natural selection in a nutshell- whatever survives, survives.
Cooperation is the rule. Competetion dwarfs in comparison.
How can DNA support the fossil record when we don’t even know if such transformation are even possible?
Not one scientifically testable explanation.
Joseph, #28
Phylogenetic reconstructions demonstrate perfectly how the genetic diversity we find today can arise from a common ancestor. It is even able to predict where missing intermediates should be which is how Tiktaalik roseae was discovered.
jerry writes:
One wonders why some of us even post anything here. When jerry specifically brought up the origins of complex adaptations like wings or multichambered hearts, I addressed both. I will address both again, just in case new readers think jerry’s lament is accurate:
Insect wings:
Averof M and SM Cohen (1997). Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills. Nature 385: 627-630.
From the abstract:
Not only that, but other complex systems (like the insect tracheal breathing system and spider’s spinnarets may also be descended from the gill:
Damen WGM, T Saradiki and M Averof (2002). Diverse adaptations of an ancestral gill: a common evolutionary origin for wings, breathing organs, and spinnerets. Current Biology12 :1711-1716
Multichambered hearts:
The fact is, we know empirically that subtle modifications of embryonic genes can result in novel traits. Is it hard to imagine the evolution of the multichambered vertebrate heart from a simple one-chamber precursor? Researchers have shown that a simple regulatory change (well within the power of a simple random mutation) during development can result in “an unexpected phenotype: transformation of a single-compartment heart into a functional multicompartment organ.” in the invertebrate tunicate Ciona intestinalis.
See:
Davidson B, WSJ Beh, L Christiaen, and M Levine (2006). FGF signaling delineates the cardiac progenitor field in the simple chordate. Ciona intestinalis. Genes and Development. 20: 27287-2738
.
Joseph (26),
“Is that why biologists have to keep reminding temselves tat what they are looking at is not designed?”
That’s your fantasy. In reality, none of the biologists I know do that at all. That’s because they understand they have evolved.
“What was the methodology used to make the determination that chance and necessity can account for all we observe?”
Actually, one could argue that it doesn’t – see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M....._synthesis
(I wrote) “Additionally, inferring design is a dead end. What research can be done after that? You can’t (according to ID theology) infer who the designer is, or when they did the design, or pretty much anything at all.”
(You wrote) “1- ID is only abouyt the DESIGN”
Exactly – a total dead end. Not science. Doesn’t even look at WHEN things might have been designed, despite the fact that the fossil record is there and they ought to be able to trace a design back to a particular geological time.
“2- Yes the design inference opens up new questions- those new questions are separate from the design inference (just as the OoL is held separate from evolution)”
Nonsense. If you infer design you can work out WHEN it was designed by looking through the fossil record to see when it was first designed. Just as evolutionists look through the geological record to see when a species first appeared. Why doesn’t ID do that? Because it doesn’t want to offend the fundamentalist Creationist element?
“3- No one is preventing anyone from trying to answer those new questions”
No IDist is doing the work either.
“4- Also reality tells us it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.”
Why?
“But you are right. No one has to listen to the design inference.
But it is worth noting those who don’t can’t substantiate the claims of their position.”
The evidnece for evolution is widely – essentially, universally – accepted in the scientific community. You IDists are the ones whoi have to come up with the evidence for your position. You haven’t (other than “it looks like its been designed so it’s reasonable to say it was designed”)
“If they could ID would go away.”
It never will. There will always be a religious core that needs it.
Dave Wisker,
Tell me why these are not “just so” stories with a little bit of science to support it. These are not coherent defenses of Darwinian macro evolution but mainly speculation. If you disagree then lay out your rationale. As I said before you tend to point to some study and that is it. Lay it out for us. If you cannot then we have to assume something.
Have to run for a day or so.
jerry,
You declare these as being incoherent. Incoherent in what way? Both examples show relatively simple genetic pathways to complex adaptations, requiring little extensive genetic changes (i.e, requiring little additional information). Since you insist on an iconoclastic definition of macroevolution as simply the development of complex adaptations, then both examples fit that criteria, and support a Darwinian view.
Your asking for additional information is fine, but to say nobody here has presented evidence that supports the Darwinian position and falling under your unique definition of macroevolution is both disingenuous and tiresome.
camaintx:
Phylogenetic reconstructions do not tell us anything about the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
Also they can be used as evidence for a common design and/ or convergence.
I am reading the book “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin.
Tiki was a vague prediction based on common descent.
However there still isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.
We should be able to take fish emryos, toy with them during deveoplment, and see if we can get a robust bone structure in the fins.
From there we can tinker away to see if we can get an air-breather- or go for air-breathing first.
But I bet we will find what Dr Denton already reported:
“Is that why biologists have to keep reminding temselves tat what they are looking at is not designed?”
Gaz:
Crick said it. Dawkins also said something very similar.
Also ID isn’t a dead end because once design is determined we still have to study it so that we can understand it.
I said:
“2- Yes the design inference opens up new questions- those new questions are separate from the design inference (just as the OoL is held separate from evolution)”
And you responded with:
How is that nonsense?
Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s), process(es) used, when, etc., is by studying the design in question.
So the correct order goes:
1- Determine design is present (or not)
2- Investigate accordingly so that we may answer any questions about it.
“3- No one is preventing anyone from trying to answer those new questions”
How do you know what IDists are and are not working on?
I would say with the very limited resources IDists are doing a good job at what they are doing.
“4- Also reality tells us it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.”
Because one can only understand something in light of how it arose.
Do you think geologists would understand Stonehenge? Or is it better for archaeologists to examine it?
Evolution isn’t being debated.
ID is not anti-evolution.
Nice try.
We IDists say if something looks designed we should be able to check into that possibility.
You and your ilk refuse to allow the design inference no matter what.
Also I understand the modern synthesis.
My question was:
“What was the methodology used to make the determination that chance and necessity can account for all we observe?”
Insect wings-
Scientists should be able to take developing crustys and modify them to get wings from gills.
Heck if they have the genes isolated what is keeping them from this test?
But the real question is:
What is the non-telic explanation for regulatory sequences?
Is there any science behind it?
Joseph, #39
They why are so many posts and comments here anti-Darwin? If ID is about the origin of life and not how one species evolves into another, shouldn’t you be trying to refute the work of Alexander Oparin instead?
camanintx:
Many of the posts are anti-Darwin because our beef is with the universality of the Darwinian model, not necessarily the universality of common ancestry (commonly defined as “the fact of evolution).
There is a vast chasm between the OOL question and the question of speciation. If natural speciation were proved it would hardly affect any of IDs core arguments. ID’s position (though that’s a bit of a broad statement because all telic non-Darwinians are IDers though we don’t all view ID the same) is that some phenomena of nature are not evolvable via the Darwinian mechanism, and that the only known mechanism that can evolve such things is “intelligence”.
Further on the OOL issue, there is a vast chasm between the hoped “because of such and such conditions in the prebiotic earth, a simple replicator started” to the simplest known form of life. That vast chasm is the proper study of evolutionary science, not OOL science.
David Wisker,
These are interesting articles but I do not see how they support Darwinian evolution. I believe the insect wing evolution is very speculative and any progress on the way to a fully functioning wing should have left many alternatives to live on into the future. There are a whole lot of wingless insects that exist today so why didn’t the winged intermediaries make it through.
Both the insect wings and the multi chambered heart seem to depend upon the finding of proteins used in the embryonic development of each entity. One would expect to find several proteins used to regulate the development of each so the finding of them is nothing unusual. Using these proteins to somehow stimulate an altered entity is also nothing new and what one would expect. However, the move from one form to a much more complex form requires more than just the expression or lack of expression of a couple of genes. It requires the coordination of a host of mechanism of which I would guess they do not yet know much about. And all of these intermediary steps had to be viable and many should have persisted.
Is there any evidence that these entities arose gradually and what are the intermediaries and how many organisms had these intermediaries or have them now in the world. We would expect thousands at a minimum. Otherwise they might as well have just “poofed” into existence.
I am far from an expert on these subjects and would welcome any insight you might have as to how these entities arose in the specific organisms. I can understand how natural selection would favor a wing or a four chambered heart but how did these complex systems arise to be selected? One cannot just say gills grew and then they eventually became wings. Or how did all the ancillary systems or parts arise for the four chambered heart. I don’t believe a four chambered heart is just an extra chamber or is it? All the extra plumbing and systems need an explanation or examples too. And where are they in today’s world or the fossil world?
As I said these appear to be interesting articles but it seems to me they beg the explanation (question). They all assume evolution by gradual means and then gear the discussion into this scenario with little evidence it actually happened this way.
Evolution isn’t being debated.
ID is not anti-evolution.
camanintx:
Darwinism is a specific form of evolution- one that mandates non-telic processes.
IDists understand that if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes there is no reason to infer non-telic processes are solely responsible for its diversity.
The debate is all about the mechanisms- direceted (ID) vs undirected.
Joseph,
That’s a question I am not qualified to answer, but there may perhaps be some problems involved with replicating a process of I don’t know how many steps?
If it were as easy as your questions implies, I am certain it would already have been done.
But, if you are so interested in the subject, what about a study of Sean B. Carrol’s Endless Forms?
Cabal,
I read “Endless Forms…” AND “Making of the Fittest”.
Carroll doesn’t shine any light on the dilemma.
The issue here is one of testability.
The premise of UCD is useless to science without it.
“what about a study of Sean B. Carrol’s Endless Forms?”
There is nothing in Sean Carroll’s Endless Forms book that is a threat to ID. He is essentially describing the process of gestation and how the very complicated process proceeds through a remarkable unfolding of events that is barely understood and how a series of switches lead to the final organism. At one point he says the code that controls human embryonic development is about 10,000 pages of small print long. One of the best arguments for design I have ever seen.
In his latter book which essentially presented no examples that are a threat to ID he again helps the pro ID cause. Thank you Sean Carroll for making the design argument. I know you have to say you are anti ID but keep on writing these pro ID books.
Is Sean B. Carroll a stealth ID supporter?
No, it is just that Carroll, all his colleagues and most other scientists are too stupid to understand what it is all about.
Maybe the effort of the ID movement should be directed at educating scientists instead of being directed at the general public?
But isn’t that the problem, what is there to teach?
I suggest stepping up the work in the ID labs.
Joseph (39),
“We IDists say if something looks designed we should be able to check into that possibility.”
For pete’s sake, of course you can! It’s a free country. No-one is trying to stop you – in fact we’d be delighted if you tried and then published the results for all to see and analyse. Our beef has always been that ID makes claims and comes up with no evidence for them – it’s basically just “if it looks designed then it’s reasonable to assume it was designed until proven otherwise”, occasionally coupled with incorrect calculations of probability. On that point, Gil Dodgen once mentioned a few weeks back that he started to doubt evolution on the basis of high-school level mathematics; but despite requests from several of us to share the math with us, we’ve seen nothing.
“No, it is just that Carroll, all his colleagues and most other scientists are too stupid to understand what it is all about.”
You are implying that is we who are stupid but all we ask is that someone explain it to us instead of pointing to some source and say it is there. Why is it for over four years no one is able to explain it to us. You do not seem to be able to do so. All you do is say it is so but can not say why it is so.
Give it a shot and see how you do instead of just pointing to others. Tell us what is in Sean Carroll’s books that should be considered that we are not already considering. I have his first book and can look at what you consider relevant. Others here also have his books.
Jerry writes:
You will have to justify expecting “thousands at a minimum”. Given the age of the lineages involved, extinction can be expected to whittle down many of them. It is well-known that older lineages have less species diversity than younger lineages for just that reason. As for your argument from incredulity (given your admitted lack of expertise, one can only say your argument is basically “I can’t imagine how this came about”) consider we do have extant species that are intermediate in nature: some species possess both gills that can function in and out of water, and wings which they do not use for flight, but for other purposes. So we know, developmentally, that these features can coexist in the same individual. And we have the genetic knowledge that all of the features are generated by proteins coded for by very similar genes. An example:
Marden JH & MA Thomas (2003). Rowing locomotion by a stonefly that possesses the ancestral pterygote condition of co-occurring wings and abdominal gills. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 79(2): 341-349