Intelligent Design and Common Descent

Feel free TJ. I’d like to hear more.

2 Likes

Well I think first things first some really aren’t orphans and this is due to sampling. We just haven’t sequenced enough genomes yet. I recall reading that when H. influenzae was first sequenced, 64% of its ORF’s were orphans. Now it’s like 5 percent (I will track this down.) So some are just singleton genes (I believe this is the right term) so they may seem to not be related to any other genes but over time that could change as it has for other possible orphans. Then I think there could be technological reasons why we can’t detect their relatives. Then I also think horizontal gene transfer and gene loss could also explain them. Doug Axe used gene loss as an explanation for a de novo protein that Venema referenced in a review of Doug’s book. Though the paper’s author did rule out gene loss. So I think there are other reasons for the appearance of orphans or at least what seem to be orphans besides de novo gene origination.

2 Likes

So even if we were able to show a mutation occurring in real time that did produce a new gene with function it would still be argued that it is not evidence for evolution, but for Intelligent Design?

Design if it does, design if it doesn’t. Seems rather circular to me.

Go figure. Scientists are incorporating new information into the theory of evolution. Most of us thinks this is how science and theories should work.

3 Likes

Orphan genes are identified by RNA, not by DNA. For many human orphan genes there is known orthologous DNA in the chimp genome with the difference being a lack of transcription of the chimp DNA.

All genes are made of DNA, but not all DNA is made up of genes.

1 Like

That seems to be the case here as well:

2 Likes

It isn’t circular. It is just a catch-22:

1 Like

I’m starting to see the evolutionary process as much like a Sierpinski triangle and a round of the chaos game, which is of course designed. I got chills playing. Beauty and elegance.

http://thewessens.net/ClassroomApps/Main/chaosgame.html

1 Like

In order to test universal common descent we would first need to know what it is that determines final developed form. What determines the destiny of the developing embryo?

Is it determined by the genome? If so how can we test that especially in the face of researchers who say genomes do not determine what develops. Genes influence and control development but do not determine what develops. Much like an assembly line doesn’t determine what they are assembling but each step controls and influences what will be assembled.

If it is the genome and there is only a less than 2% genetic difference between humans and chimps, one would think we should be able to link the genetic differences to all of the observed anatomical and physiological differences. If we can’t then clearly genetic change is not the mechanism for diversification.

1 Like

No, that is just a side effect.

I think scientists agree that environment and genes interact to produce the final product. This doesn’t change the fact that humans look like humans because of their DNA, and humans and chimps look different because our DNA is different. Why do identical twins look identical? Because their DNA is identical.

Perhaps a non-scientist would think that we should know what every gene does, but scientists don’t think that. Figuring out what each gene does is hard work. We are talking about thousands and thousands of genes interacting with one another to produce any given structure. It isn’t as simple as “gene A makes an eye” or “gene B makes an arm”. That’s not how it works.

2 Likes

All this time I’ve been taught the process of evolution had a random component (genetic variation) and a non-random component (feedback from selection pressures). Now ID tells me evolution is completely random. Won’t all those evolutionary biologists who have been studying the subject for 150+ years be surprised! :slightly_smiling_face:

4 Likes

“Easy” is a relative term. Many anatomical differences between humans and chimps have indeed been linked to specific genetic differences. What else, outside of genetics/epigenetics, do think is responsible for the anatomical differences between humans and chimps?

I think you’re forgetting the ethics and logistics involved here. Chimps aren’t fruit flies or mice.

2 Likes

Planet of the Flies?

1 Like

@Agauger

How can you argue for an old earth but reject the idea of (or be uninterested in) God designing with old earth processes like evolution and its corollary, design through common descent?

Isnt Behe’s whole thrust that God didnt exercise a series of separate creations?.. that God DESIGNED the hard steps of evolution?

1 Like

How about smoking?

1 Like

Those differences are so small as to be ignored. The reason that identical twins look like each other is that their genomes look like each other, wouldn’t you agree?