More Evidence for Intelligent Design- De Novo Origin of Genes
-
A new paper has been published- Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0822-5.
See the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" to give you a clue as to why blind and mindless processes are incapable of producing de novo genes- https://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501
A new paper has been published- Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0822-5.
New protein-coding genes that arise de novo from non-coding DNA sequences contribute to protein diversity.True, but if you are expecting blind and mindless processes to do that then you are dreaming. But this is what we would expect if organisms were designed to adapt and evolve.
See the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" to give you a clue as to why blind and mindless processes are incapable of producing de novo genes- https://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501
posted by Joe G @ 9:33 AM
20 Comments:
At 11:44 AM,
JV said…
Here's more from the abstract of the paper referenced:
"Here, we identify a large number of young de novo genes with discernible recent ancestral non-coding sequences and evidence of translation. Using pipelines examining the synteny relationship between genomes and reciprocal-best whole-genome alignments, we detected at least 175 de novo open reading frames in the focal species O. sativa subspecies japonica, which were all detected in RNA sequencing-based transcriptomes. Mass spectrometry-based targeted proteomics and ribosomal profiling show translational evidence for 57% of the de novo genes. In recent divergence of Oryza, an average of 51.5 de novo genes per million years were generated and retained. We observed evolutionary patterns in which excess indels and early transcription were favoured in origination with a stepwise formation of gene structure. These data reveal that de novo genes contribute to the rapid evolution of protein diversity under positive selection."
51.5 de novo genes per million years is a pretty good rate. If you think such things were guided then what physical evidence do you have to support that hypothesis?
At 11:46 AM,
Joe G said…
What physical evidence does blind watchmaker evolution have? The evidence they were guided is in the fact they exist and blind/ mindless processes are incapable.
At 8:19 AM,
JV said…
The evidence they were guided is in the fact they exist
Not the question, we all agree they exist.
and blind/ mindless processes are incapable.
Very contentious. But you do accept that you might be wrong about that?
At 8:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Until someone comes up with a way to test the claim and actually tests it, what I said is very, very safe.
I can also easily discount the scenario that all works of literature evolved from just one book via copying errors.
At 2:20 PM,
JV said…
I can also easily discount the scenario that all works of literature evolved from just one book via copying errors.
Not sure what your point is since books are not self-replicating things.
At 2:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm, books ARE copied, which means they are replicated. Or do you think there is only one copy of each book?
At 4:38 PM,
JV said…
Umm, books ARE copied, which means they are replicated. Or do you think there is only one copy of each book?
Not the point. Books require guided outside intervention to 'reproduce'; you can't just leave a book lying about with a bunch of resources and have it reproduce.
Living creatures don't require any guidance to reproduce. And the reproduction process isn't perfect so variation between generations is introduced. AND, eventually, the ancestral 'copies' stop reproducing so that the preponderance of new 'copies' come from later 'copies' with variations.
The book analogy just doesn't work.
At 5:00 PM,
Joe G said…
I forgot that you had reading issues. I said via copying errors- which means they are replicated. It does not matter if outside intervention is required. Read "Darwin's Ghost"- Dr. Jones uses manufacturing as an example of change via copying errors.
And biological replication is the very thing that your side cannot account for.
see https://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2016/12/an-evolutionary-tale-power-of.html
At 1:51 AM,
JV said…
I forgot that you had reading issues. I said via copying errors- which means they are replicated. It does not matter if outside intervention is required. Read "Darwin's Ghost"- Dr. Jones uses manufacturing as an example of change via copying errors.
Yes, I know what you said but the 'proofreading' and copying mechanisms exist within the life forms self-replicating whereas books are proofread and copied via mechanisms outside themselves.
Here's a difference: when a lifeform replicates it can check, to an extent, that the information necessary is copied faithfully but only back the one generation. A book copiest can potentially check as many generations back as are physically available. Also, a human copiest has the ability to see if the information in the book being copied 'makes sense' outside of the book itself. Biological systems don't have a sense of 'outside' and will sometimes make a copy so bad that the resulting life form doesn't survive.
Like I said, the analogy just doesn't work.
At 8:50 AM,
Joe G said…
You are totally fucked in the head. The book analogy is a perfect example of evolution by means of copying errors. You are just too dim to grasp that fact.
An Evolutionary Tale- The Power of Accumulating Mistakes
The link explains it rather well. So I am sure that Jerad will just ignore it, again.
At 11:01 AM,
JV said…
The story from Berlinski is a complete misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory says. But if you think it's useful then by all means take it seriously. No one else does though.
At 12:16 PM,
Joe G said…
That is your uneducated opinion. You definitely cannot support it. And no one takes blind watchmaker evolution seriously. No one uses it for anything.
At 2:20 PM,
JV said…
That is your uneducated opinion. You definitely cannot support it. And no one takes blind watchmaker evolution seriously. No one uses it for anything.
YOU don't take it seriously and YOU don't use it for anything. But neither of those facts mean it's not true.
At 4:31 PM,
Joe G said…
No one uses it for anything. It has never added anything to our understanding. Blind watchmaker evolution is the biggest ruse only believed by the biggest rubes.
At 5:21 PM,
JV said…
No one uses it for anything. It has never added anything to our understanding. Blind watchmaker evolution is the biggest ruse only believed by the biggest rubes.
Even if the above is true (and I clearly think it isn't) why do you think that's an argument against it being true? Do you use Fermat's 'Last' Theorem in your daily life? It's true regardless. Same with a lot of mathematics. Does it matter to you on a daily basis if there is an Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt? What about the number of moons of Jupiter? Or the history of ancient Rome? What about the methods used to build the Egyptian pyramids? Why some humans are lactose tolerant? Where Polio came from? How the Grand Canyon was formed? Is that stuff all just pointless speculation?
At 11:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Even if the above is true (and I clearly think it isn't) why do you think that's an argument against it being true?
If it was true it would be useful. And until someone can test its claim no one will know if it is true or not. It is useless.
At 4:52 PM,
JV said…
If it was true it would be useful. And until someone can test its claim no one will know if it is true or not. It is useless.
If I say Leonardo da Vinci was a great painter is that useful? Is it true?
Is it useful to know about plate tectonics? It's clearly true.
Newtonian physics is useful . . . is it true?
I think 'usefulness' and 'truth' are completely separate dimensions.
At 5:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, it is useful to know about the man.
Yes, it is very useful to know and understand plate tectonics.
Newtonian physics works fine. He just didn't grasp all of the interactions that apply. Now we know more.
At 10:58 AM,
JV said…
I think it's important to understand how human beings came into existence. It says a lot about where our values and cultures came from. It might cast light upon some of our deep base behaviours. Which might help us learn how to deal with some of the more unpleasant ones.
At 10:06 AM,
Joe G said…
And yet there exist a plethora of artifacts that we cannot say exactly when nor exactly how. And guess what? They do NOT stop being artifacts because of that.
I am sure that those questions will be addressed once ID is accepted and people are properly trained.
Post a Comment
<< Home