Home » Intelligent Design » Where Did Sea Anemones Get Human Genes?

Where Did Sea Anemones Get Human Genes?

Another surprise for Darwinists has been found in the genome of the lowly, primitive sea anemone.

In an article published in Science and summarized here
we discover that:

The newly decoded DNA of a few-centimeter-tall sea anemone looks surprisingly similar to our own, a team led by Nicholas Putnam and Daniel Rokhsar from the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, California, reports on page 86. This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures.

The work is truly stunning for its deep evolutionary implications,” says Billie Swalla, an evolutionary developmental biologist at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Ill say it is. Just how the heck is the Darwinian paradigm going to explain this? Advanced genetic programs installed before there was any chance of natural selection acting on them. Yikes! Another finding in the real world not predicted by, or even possible within, the Darwiniam paradigm. Another surprise for Darwinists.
Sooner or later they’ve GOT to start questioning underlying assumptions. (Naive, ain’t I?)

One of the big surprises of the anemone genome, says Swalla, is the discovery of blocks of DNA that have the same complement of genes as in the human genome. Individual genes may have swapped places, but often they have remained linked together despite hundreds of millions of years of evolution along separate paths, Putnam, Rokhsar, and their colleagues report.

To repeat the obvious question, where the heck did these codes come from?

Moreover, the anemone genes look vertebratelike. They often are full of noncoding regions called introns, which are much less common in nematodes and fruit flies than in vertebrates. And more than 80% of the anemone introns are in the same places in humans, suggesting that they probably existed in the common ancestor.

Inrons again. Funny how these sections of “junk DNA” keep turning up, conserved over hundred of millions of years, with no physical expression of them for natural selection to work on.

Finnerty and his graduate student James Sullivan also looked in the anemone genome for 283 human genes involved in a wide range of diseases. They will report in the July issue of Genome that they found 226. Moreover, in a few cases, such as the breast cancer gene BRCA2, the anemone’s version is more similar to the human’s than to the fruit fly’s or to the nematode’s.

I didn’t even know anemones had breasts. :)

As a bottom line for the implications of this research, this line bears repeating:

This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures.

I need not add (but will anyway, for anyone who needs it spelled out) that Darwinism has NO explanation for where these complex genes came from. How can you have a program to build complex multicellular creatures before there are any such creatures for natural selection to work on? How can you select mutations and build gene programs before there is expression of the genes? Hmmmm?

We see complex programs available and installed BEFORE any expression that could be acted on by natural selection.

As the genius in Princess Bride liked to say; “Inconceivable!”

At least if you’re a Darwinist.

(Acknowledgment to Brig Klyce’s website for pointing out this very interesting article.)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

37 Responses to Where Did Sea Anemones Get Human Genes?

  1. Thank you Dr. Cook!

    Great article that goes to show there might be something other than evolution at play. In fact, I was looking around for a sea anenome article for some pro-ID stuff, so thank you for the links

    PS

    Can you get me an Ortho residency :P

  2. [off topic]

    Sorry to ask, but is there a way to get the blogs to come directly to my email inbox? Not just the link, but the actual article?

    thx

  3. Good find dacook.

    “How many times can we be surprised/
    At what we find in the lab/
    Oh, how many times can our theory guess wrong/
    Before we admit we were scammed/
    And how many times can we count on the courts/
    To shelter our theory from the banned/
    The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind/
    The opposite of inherit the wind…”

  4. ex-xian,

    I don’t think you fully get it. Those of us at UD (for the most part) have been following the NDEvo/creo and now NDEvo/ID debates for a long time. We are well versed in NDE and have long been making predictions of these sorts of things. Dembski and others have been doing the theoretical work which was dismissed by NDE proponents.

    So when we see stories such as this, they are just more emprical findings confirming predictions of ID. We see these sorts of stories all the time. Some of them, when contested, are read thoroughly and discussed in detail. Others are just “Ok, so Darwinism is surprised again, what else is new?”

    Neo-Darwinism is already falsified (in myriad ways…stick around and pay attention); new findings are fun, because they show just how “onto something” ID really is.

  5. ex-xian asked
    “…do people actually read the articles before declaring they falsify evolution?”

    I wasn’t aware that anyone made such a claim. Perhaps you’d like to rephrase?

  6. Sooner or later they’ve GOT to start questioning underlying assumptions. (Naive, ain’t I?)
    LOL
    You Know a while back I would of said you had a shot at convincing, or at least raising some suspicion, in some evolutionists but now I realize that the brainwashing in truly deep in some of these people and no amount of clear reasoning can get through to them.

  7. Here’s two stunning quotations from the article:

    We cannot rule out the possibility,
    however, that such apparently animalspecific
    introns were indeed present in the last
    common ancestor of plants, fungi, and animals, but
    were convergently lost in both plants and fungi.

    And, then, later on:

    Where did the eumetazoan gene repertoire come
    from? Nearly 80% (6182 out of 7766) of the
    ancestral eumetazoan genes have clearly identifiable
    relatives (i.e., proteins with significant sequence
    homology and conserved domain architecture)
    outside of the animals, including fungi, plants,
    slimemolds, ciliates, or other species available from
    public data sets (32). These are evidently members of ancient eukaryotic gene families that were already established in the unicellular ancestors of the Metazoa and are involved in core eukaryotic cellular functions.

    Plant genes in the anemone? How do you spell F-R-O-N-T-L-O-A-D-I-N-G?

  8. I think that what this paper shows is that it is not the protein genes that make the phenotype.

    Most of the structural and assembly information is in the non coding DNA. The same building blocks can be used to build a house that can build a sky scraper. All it takes is different architectural plans.

    I am not sure if this strongly supports front loading. All the genes in the anenome have useful functions in the anenome and have been preserved for a very long time.

  9. This is off topic but anyone has done research on validity of Smith’s HIV post on pandas thumb and her picture evolution of HIV in her blog?

    http://endogenousretrovirus.bl.....o-vpu.html

    It seems to be strongest case against Edge of Evolution I was able to find and the only one that actually is still standing somewhat. Or is it?

  10. innerbling

    The chart on Smith’s blog is unsourced. The conclusions appear to be speculative. In a quick check of published literature of Vpu phylogeny in SIV/HIV the origin of the gene is unknown.

    It’s well known that many closely related species exist that differ by anywhere from miniscule to monumental differences in genotype. The question isn’t whether these evolved from a common ancestor. Behe acknowledges that common descent is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. The question isn’t did they evolve but rather how they evolved. SIV/HIV mutates randomly more times every year than all the mammals that have existed since they branched off from reptiles. What has all that mutation done for the HIV virus? Undergoing the same amount of random mutation SIV *maybe* (pending a source from Smith) picked up one new host species that was the most closely related species possible and mutated in some other subtle ways that changed no essential character in it. Meanwhile, with the same number of random mutations, we (mammals) went from a cold blooded lizard to human beings picking up thousands of new genes and built hugely complex new organ systems (including an immune system that can defeat hundreds of thousands of different species and subspecies of viral and bacterial parasites like HIV).

    What we observe random mutation accomplishing in the world when given trillions of chances is a far, far cry from what it is imagined it accomplished in the past with less opportunity.

  11. I have read some of her posts and my impression is taht she is actually not smart enough to understand the actual arguments that Behe raises. At least she fails to address them.

    For one thing, viruses can pick up entire genes in a single event through recombination. We don’t know the probablity of the mutations she outlines, they could be single mutation events which makes her whole point mute.

    Another thing, the HIV virus is a mutation superstar. The astronomical number of reproductive events that HIV enjoys and its high mutation rate make it able to cross distances that even malaria could not. It is safe to say that in the time that HIV evolved all of the traits that Smith outlines, it had experienced exponentially more reproductive events than all the mammals that ever lived.

    Finally, we don’t know the validity of the phylogenetic tree she outlines. Often such trees are nothing more than an imposition upon the data by an algorythm. If there were multiple conflicting trees we would never know.

    So really I see a picture with color bars and no relevant supporting data. Apparently Smith and her loyal readers don’t even understand the argument that Behe has raised.

  12. dacook

    Good find.

    Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of front loading.

  13. Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of design and purpose, regardless of how it was planned and implemented.

  14. Innerbling– Short answer- No. Long answer- Yes, a couple have people have given half-hearted efforts, but they dont refute a word I typed. I address them on my blog.

    DS– Why dont you try reading my post?

    Behe is wrong. His ‘argument’ was fatally flawed, and as a ‘professional bichemist’, he had the ability to see this error before a kid pointed it out to him. End of story.

    Jehu– That link is a baby picture drawn specifically for Casey Luskin, as Casey attempted to ‘refute’ what I wrote, and failed miserably. Please see the above link for my original post.

  15. Great evidence for common design.

    It also supports geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti who tells us in his book “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, that the big differences are not due to genes (chapter X).

    In chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title), he states:

    The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

    As for:

    This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures.

    Why can’t it be that today’s anemone evolved those genes (by design)? We have no idea what genes ancient anemones had.

    Does anyone else find it interesting that we know of many genes that can cause diseases if mutated, yet we don’t know (for example) what genes give us the ability to walk upright on two legs or anything about the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans?

    On another note:

    When HIV “evolves” into a self-containg living organism- that is able to survive and reproduce without a host- evolutionists will have something.

  16. When HIV “evolves” into a self-containg living organism- that is able to survive and reproduce without a host- evolutionists will have something

    And, as others have pointed out, in the meantime HIV has produced more offspring that the entire mammalian line.

  17. I don’t know if this helps the HIV topic but this was posted on DI’s web site:

    Pandas Thumb Fails to Refute Michael Behe on HIV Evolution

    edgeofev.jpgPandas Thumb guest contributor Abbie Smith has posted an alleged refutation of Michael Behe. Behe stated in The Edge of Evolution that “in just the past few decades HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have endured since the beginning of the world.” However, Behe then observed that “those mutations, while medically important, have changed the functioning virus very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery.” Smith claims that Behe’s statement is refuted, but her evidence is nothing more than the fact that Human HIV-1 has a gene called Vpu which was present in HIV when it first infected humans, and that this gene can perform 2 functions. In fact, the only basis of evidence for the “evolution” of Vpu that Smith provides entails sequence comparison between human HIV 1′s copy of Vpu and Chimpanzee SIV’s copy of Vpu. Behe provides a lucid rebuttal to this assumption-based argument in The Edge of Evolution: “modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation.” (pg. 95) Since Vpu apparently existed when HIV infected humans, it’s not clear how this evidence refutes anything Behe said.

    The best argument Smith makes for the power of Darwinian evolution is the observation that the Vpu proteins found in different strands of HIV can reside in different parts of the cell (she observes, “Subtypes [sic] B Vpu prefers … to be in the Golgi, helping degrade CD4, while Subtype C Vpu prefers to be in the plasma membrane, assisting with the release of new viruses”). Does this imply that Vpu recently evolved a new function? Hardly. As this paper from Klaus Strebel, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, explains, Vpu generally performs both functions Smith cites: “Vpu has two primary biological activities. These include the degradation of CD4 in the endoplasmic reticulum and the augmentation of virus secretion from the plasma membrane.” Strebel’s paper continues:

    Vpu consists of an N-terminal hydrophobic domain, that functions as membrane anchor, and a hydrophilic cytoplasmic domain. … The cytoplasmic domain contains sequences critical for CD4 degradation while the membrane anchor domain has a critical function in regulating virus release and plays an important role in the formation of cation selective ion channels.

    In other words, Vpu has two different protein domains, each of which performs one of the functions cited by Smith. Thus, neither Vpu protein in the two strains of HIV acquired any new function, for as far as we can tell, both Vpus in both strains of HIV generally perform both tasks.

    There appears to be no hard evidence that Vpu acquired any new functions since it infected humans. Since all Behe stated is that since HIV has infected humans, it has “changed … very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery,” it appears that Behe was refuted in no way, shape, or form by Abbie Smith. Smith provides no evidence for any type of HIV evolution beyond what Behe already acknowledges has taken place.

    Finally, Smith claims that Behe says that “HIV has not evolved biochemically.” But this is not true. As noted, Behe actually stated, “HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have endured since the beginning of the world.” But Behe observes that all these random mutations have resulted in no new genes or functions since HIV infected humans. And Smith provides no evidence to show Behe is wrong. Apparently Smith considers insignificant changes that do not generate new genes or new biological functions to be impressive examples of biochemical evolution. Such examples of evolution will never explain the full complexity of the cell or answer the arguments made by Behe.

    Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/

  18. bornagain77 and dacook wrote,
    >> Sooner or later they’ve GOT to start questioning underlying assumptions. (Naive, ain’t I?)
    > LOL

    Guys, while I have every sympathy for this sentiment… and it is true to a degree… I have to say that when I see the same kind of smug “the other guys are hopeless idiots, unlike us enlightened folks” attitude on Darwinist sites, it doesn’t attract me to their cause at all. Quite the reverse.
    Let’s remember that while we may be right on this point, it’s not necessarily because we’re smarter.
    “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

  19. I admit confusion as to the concept of front-loading, and why it seems so prevalent among us IDiots. I think saying things like “plant genes in a sea anemone” is a little silly. We still understand very little about how genes actually work, and I think it likely that this falls under the common toolkit model of classic ID as opposed to the idea that the ancestors of both Cnidaria and Plantae were pre-programmed to become those taxonomic categories all on their own. What is wrong with an interventionist designer, who came in and altered organisms as needed/desired?

  20. And, as others have pointed out, in the meantime HIV has produced more offspring that the entire mammalian line.

    Pfft. Obviously they just haven’t undergone the “right” mutations. ;) :):)

    Charles Foljambe asks a valid question:
    What is wrong with an interventionist designer, who came in and altered organisms as needed/desired?

    I say “Nothing”.

    The question then would be- “how can we tell?”

    I believe the point is ID does not require an “interventionist designer”. However if one is found ID would not try to deny it exists.

  21. I just let comment #15 through moderation, which is apparently from Abbie Smith. Sorry for the delay.

  22. I just made a post on Abbie’s blog. I’ll probably get reemed for it, but here are the contents:

    “Um… all I see is that you found a gene that wasn’t there before. You didn’t see that it evolved, just that it’s there. Its existence does not, in and of itself, give any information as to its creation. Behe’s book was mostly about malaria, not HIV, and perhaps he was wrong on this point. I would hope he’d take the time to respond, rather than having Casey Luskin do it for him. In any case, there is no refutation here of Behe’s main point, that certain changes are beyond the reach of Neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Correct me if scientists actually watched this gene evolve in a lab. Otherwise, the only way this is a blow against ID is if you take the philosophical stance that a Designer would not intentionally make diseases more effective against humans.”

  23. I don’t think we should be jamming DA Cooks thread with the HIV topic. I’ll start one HIV.

    Salvador

  24. Sorry for infecting this topic with HIV. :(

  25. [...] Recent Comments scordova: I just despammed 2 comments. Akismet gets “trained” by each de-spamming, and hopefully it will… scordova: Phineas, Sorry for the inconvenience. Askimet sometimes catches things, and we have no idea why. It might… Phinehas: I tried posting a comment twice to this thread, but it isn’t showing up. I didn’t include any… Charles Foljambe: I’m not implying that you’re fragile, Bill. It’s just a joke. Charles Foljambe: I’m glad your arrangement of matter was amused. http://outrageoracle.blogspot. com/ tribune7: Hey, Charles, you should go on Google images and see what they other side has done with my image — They… William Dembski: Hey, Charles, you should go on Google images and see what they other side has done with my image… shaner74: “I must admit, I’m beginning to be puzzled. Why do Darwinists believe something for which there is… StephenB: Hi Religious Prof, It is clear from your comment on biblical literalism that you do not understand the… Innerbling: Sorry for infecting this topic with HIV. :( Charles Foljambe: Shoot. Apparently, I can’t load pictures. Well, it’s not my blog, so I guess that makes… Charles Foljambe: Um, Mr. Dembski, no offense, but people who live in glass houses… Joseph: Does anyone know where the salted moths rest? :) scordova: I don’t think we should be jamming DA Cooks thread with the HIV topic. I’ll start one HIV…. scordova: So good to see you Paul! Great find. Hope you swing by more often. Sal [...]

  26. So as to alleviate Dr. Cook’s thread, I’m invite further discussion of ERV’s post here ERV’s Challenge to Michael Behe

  27. [...] Seriously when a commenter asked: I’m still new here, but I can’t help but ask…do people actually read the articles before declaring they falsify evolution? [...]

  28. “Just how the heck is the Darwinian paradigm going to explain this? Advanced genetic programs installed before there was any chance of natural selection acting on them.”

    But, of course there was a chance for natural selection to act on them. Why could it not act on them in the common ancestor of humans and anemones? Clearly they could have had a function in that ancestor and then continued to have a function in the ongoing evolution to humans or anemones, allowing selection to work on them from then until now. If they were (are) useful than they would be selected for, if not they would be lost. Quite possible within the “Darwiniam paradigm”

    “To repeat the obvious question, where the heck did these codes come from?”

    They were in the common ancestor of course. How did they get there? It seems likely that insertions, duplications, etc. (I’m sure you know the list) resulted in them being formed through random mutations, natural selection, etc. (I’m sure you know the list) until they were present in that common ancestor.

    “Inrons again. Funny how these sections of “junk DNA” keep turning up, conserved over hundred of millions of years, with no physical expression of them for natural selection to work on.”

    Intronic sequences can effect the splicing of exons (leading to different protein isoforms). Furthermore, introns can become exons and vice versa. “Junk” DNA is not junk.

    “need not add (but will anyway, for anyone who needs it spelled out) that Darwinism has NO explanation for where these complex genes came from. How can you have a program to build complex multicellular creatures before there are any such creatures for natural selection to work on? How can you select mutations and build gene programs before there is expression of the genes? Hmmmm?”

    You seem to be under the impression that 1. the common ancestor was unicellular which it wasn’t. The ‘program’ wasn’t in place, it evolved along with the multicellular organism. 2. That these genes were not expressed in the common ancestor, which it seems very likely that they were. At least there is no reason to believe they were not.

  29. Kipper:

    You seem to be under the impression that 1. the common ancestor was unicellular which it wasn’t.

    Where did I say that, and what difference does it make?

    2. That these genes were not expressed in the common ancestor, which it seems very likely that they were. At least there is no reason to believe they were not.

    Perhaps you missed this part:

    This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures.

    What sort of primitive common ancestor would you like to postulate that expresses “most of the genes necessary to build today’s sophisticated multicellular creatures?”
    Where is the record of this ancient marvel, with sophisticated features NOT PRESENT in its descendants UNTIL the emergence of humans and other advanced organisms?
    Are you really claiming that these features were phenotypically expressed anciently, evolved to an advanced state, then somehow disappeared phenotypically but stayed present in the genome for hundreds of millions of years virtually unchanged?

    The “reason to believe they were not” is that there is no record of them, and according to the Darwinian paradigm of gradually increasing complexity there is, in fact, no reason to believe that they existed or reasonably could have existed.
    Your argument takes Darwinian Apologetics to a new level of absurdity.

  30. How do we know that the genes aren’t used in some way by the anemone? It wouldn’t be the first time the same set of genes were involved in the expression of a very different phenotype. Further, just because the anemone is small and “primitive” doesn’t mean it isn’t astoundingly complex. Maybe I’m just missing the point here, and I certainly don’t mean to support the Darwinian faith, but I would think that the real question is not, “Why do anemone’s have such complex genes when they don’t need them?”, because they probably do, but rather, “Just how quickly does Darwinism claim to work in producing such complex genes in such an early form of animal life?” But then, I still don’t really understand front-loading, at least as to why folks think it’s needed. Why think that the designer would intervene only at one point?

  31. It seems likely that insertions, duplications, etc. (I’m sure you know the list) resulted in them being formed through random mutations, natural selection, etc. (I’m sure you know the list)

    What’s the justification for calling gene duplications, insertions- you know the list- random?

    If you are going to say the source of the change is a point mutation you could say it is random.

    But just because we don’t know why or how these other genetic movements occur does not mean they are random.

    For all we know these are “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetener’s non-random evolutionary hypothesis.

    And if you are going to use genetic similarity as evidence for common ancestry you had better be prepared to explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    Similarities can be explained by processes other than descent with modification.

    Intronic sequences can effect the splicing of exons (leading to different protein isoforms). Furthermore, introns can become exons and vice versa. “Junk” DNA is not junk.

    Meaning that the genome is more intricate and specified than once thought. That blind watchmaker is getting squeezed out of the picture with every experiment.

  32. Charles:
    But then, I still don’t really understand front-loading, at least as to why folks think it’s needed.

    It’s not “needed”. But how could we tell if there was an intervention short of direct observation?

    Why think that the designer would intervene only at one point?

    Intervention only occurs after something starts. Front loading doesn’t require any intervention just a first cause.

  33. dacook:
    “You seem to be under the impression that 1. the common ancestor was unicellular which it wasn’t.

    Where did I say that, and what difference does it make?”

    You do state “How can you have a program to build complex multicellular creatures before there are any such creatures for natural selection to work on?” Of course, there wasn’t a pre-existing program. It seems likely that the transition was gradual. We certainly see organisms today that can go from unicellular to multicellular. It certainly did not have to happen all at once.

    “What sort of primitive common ancestor would you like to postulate that expresses “most of the genes necessary to build today’s sophisticated multicellular creatures?””

    Why must ancient mean primitive? I don’t see why the common ancestor couldn’t be a “sophisticated multicellular creature.” There is nothing to indicate it wasn’t. Indeed, terms like primitive and sophisticated must be used very cautiously.

    “Where is the record of this ancient marvel, with sophisticated features NOT PRESENT in its descendants UNTIL the emergence of humans and other advanced organisms?”

    According to whom? They may be lost in some descendants and present in others. Why is that hard to believe?

    “according to the Darwinian paradigm of gradually increasing complexity there is, in fact, no reason to believe that they existed or reasonably could have existed.”

    That’s not a ‘Darwinian paradigm’! Noting in evolutionary theory predicts increasing complexity.

  34. Joseph:
    “What’s the justification for calling gene duplications, insertions- you know the list- random?”

    True enough, and I never did.

    “And if you are going to use genetic similarity as evidence for common ancestry you had better be prepared to explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed”

    As we know, small changes in the genome can cause very significant phenotypic changes. Likewise, you can be phenotypically similar without being genetically so (Grand and simple example being the rise of placental mammals mimicking the rise of the marsupial – phenotypically similar in some respects, very different in others but those similarites and differences make sense when looking at the genomes) Obviously it is safest to use all facets, though not everything havs to be treated equally.

    “Meaning that the genome is more intricate and specified than once thought. That blind watchmaker is getting squeezed out of the picture with every experiment.”

    I guess that is your opinion, though I don’t see it born out by that facts in this case. Personally, I disagree.

  35. Innerbling asked about Abbie Smith’s response to Behe on Panda’s Thumb. For those who are interested, I blogged a response to Abbie Smith, here. As I hereconclude:

    There appears to be no hard evidence that Vpu acquired any new functions since it infected humans. Since all Behe stated is that since HIV has infected humans, it has “changed … very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery,” it appears that Behe was refuted in no way, shape, or form by Abbie Smith. Smith provides no evidence for any type of HIV evolution beyond what Behe already acknowledges has taken place. … Apparently Smith considers insignificant changes that do not generate new genes or new biological functions to be impressive examples of biochemical evolution. Such examples of evolution will never explain the full complexity of the cell or answer the arguments made by Behe.

    Some of you might also find Ms. Smith’s personal blog interesting where she says, “I. Hate. Missionaries. Hate. Them.” (Source, emphasis in original) I’m not necessarily much of a Jerry Falwell fan myself, but some of you might find it interesting that Smith states, “Falwell is an a**. His family is a bunch of little a**ho**s. Im glad Falwells dead, and I wish he took his poor little family with him.” Smith goes on to state that she is, “Fantasizing about them all driving off a cliff…” (Source)

  36. It must very scary for Ms. Smith, with all her hatred of religuos people, that in all of natures she cannont find a single observeable instance of evolution beyond the edge outlined by Behe. If Darwinist evolution really were possible we should be surrounded by millions of observeable examples in rapidly reproducing organisms such as bacteria, plasmodiums, or viruses. Instead, we have nothing. She is sadly reduced to trotting out vpu in HIV as the Golden example of her faith.

  37. #36 Casey, thanks for your last response, which is (such as all the other you have written) very clear end precise. Concerning the kind of language used by the other side I begin to supect that it is not a matter of discussion anymore but of behavior analysis.

Leave a Reply