Kevin Middlebrook is Still Obsessed and Still Willfully Ignorant

 -

Lowlife and pathetically obsessed loser, Kevin Middlebrook just can't help itself. For some unknown reason it thinks it is being clever by quoting me . I had said:

seeing that DNA does not determine biological form, changes to DNA cannot produce different body plans.

Seems pretty obvious. On the Problem of Biological Form supports my claim that DNA doesn't determine biological form. That and everything we know about DNA supports my claim. DNA is just a template for RNAs. Only mRNA codes for something that influences development. In other words DNA just holds the information for the raw materials needed to build and maintain an organism. DNA doesn't even have anything to do with how the proteins fold. Chaperones take care of that. The fact that silent mutations can cause a protein to mis-fold proves that protein formation isn't just a product of its sequence. DNA doesn't tell the proteins how to assemble.

With the advent of the human genome project scientists have known that there isn't any blueprint for body plans. HOX genes control and influence development. They only determine if the organism will develop properly or not. But Kevin is ignorant of that. It can't think for itself. It is going to stick with the evo-illusion that DNA is a magical organism forming and sustaining molecule, despite the fact all evidence says otherwise.

EvoTARDs are so desperate they will continue to cling to the debris of their failed nonsense all the while denying their failure.

I have been posting the following for years:

To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2 

 We do NOT know what makes an organism what it is. That is we do not know what determines   biological form. So we don't have any idea what, if anything, has to be changed in order to produce new body plans. And I understand why Kevin doesn't understand that.