Evolution By Gene Duplication Falsified

[Bruce V. 34]

One of the more interesting modern evolutionary theories is that gene (or DNA) duplications followed by mutations. The theory is that the original DNA can go about its business and the duplicated DNA could mutate and change into something useful without disrupting the organism. What made the theory attractive is that duplicated DNA could change into some thing significant, in one fell swoop, or one batch rather than by incremental processes.

 

The following web link discusses the paper.

 

Interesting quote.

 

The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around,but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality.  Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same themeâ€â€Âas with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys.  The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results i n the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original.

Evolutionist put a lot hope into this hypothesis.

 

What do you think?

[Ron 10]

I think that atheistic evolutionists totally miss the fact that their belief system relies on the illogical "something from nothing", or "it just is" paradoxes which begs the question "where did the FIRST gene (or DNA) information come from, before it could duplicate or mutate?"

 

And the theistic evolutionists totally miss the fact that there is not Biblical support for macro-evolution.

 

And ALL evolutionists miss the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence for Macro-evolution.

[Bruce V. 34]

This is another interesting point from the research article.

 

Any alternative/revision to Neo-Darwinism has to consider the holistic nature and organization of information encoded in genes, which specify the interdependent and complex biochemical motifs that allow protein molecules to fold properly and function effectively.

What do they mean by holistic nature and organization?

 

I don't see how a strand of DNA, which isn't being used, could morph into something useful. There is no natural selection to weed out the deleterious mutations or keep the useful ones. Without some filtering mechanism, we would see a hodgepodge of mostly non-useful mutations. Almost all mutations are nearly neutral to negative. What is the mechanism that makes this DNA useful other than random chance? Random chance is just fools gold IMHO.

 

This is more or less confirmed in the article.

 

A key problem associated with the Darwinian mechanism of evolution is that many of the putative incipient and intermediate stages in the development of a biological trait may not be useful themselves and may even be harmful.

After looking at the examples, he said, “de novo recruitment of noncoding DNA would seem extremely improbable and implausible".

[AFJ 33]

f

One of the more interesting modern evolutionary theories is that gene (or DNA) duplications followed by mutations.  The theory is that the original DNA can go about its business and the duplicated DNA could mutate and change into something useful without disrupting the organism.  What made the theory attractive is that duplicated DNA could change into some thing significant, in one fell swoop, or one batch rather than by incremental processes.

 

The following web link discusses the paper. 

 

Interesting quote.

Evolutionist put a lot hope into this hypothesis.

 

What do you think?

66600[/snapback]

I rarely hear any evos talk just straight molecular biology. If you remove the evolutionary gloss, you see functionality that makes sense. I've never heard one evo acknowledge or talk about "housekeeping genes." They are genes that are needed constantly for stasis, and there are many copies. For instance genes for ribosomes have many copies, because the cell needs them all the time.

 

So, my point is, there is just the simple obvious truth about multiple copies. The evos want to, as usual, take a simple empirical fact, and lay claim to it for evolution.

[Bruce V. 34]

f

I rarely hear any evos talk just straight molecular biology.  If you remove the evolutionary gloss, you see functionality that makes sense.  I've never heard one evo acknowledge or talk about "housekeeping genes."  They are genes that  are needed constantly for stasis, and there are many copies.  For instance genes for ribosomes have many copies, because the cell needs them all the time.

 

So, my point is, there is just the simple obvious truth about multiple copies.  The evos want to, as usual, take a simple empirical fact, and lay claim to it for evolution.

66616[/snapback]

Hi AFK,

 

Would you unpack this statement.

 

"housekeeping genes." They are genes that  are needed constantly for stasis, and there are many copies.  For instance genes for ribosomes have many copies, because the cell needs them all the time.

TY

 

Bruce

[AFJ 33]

I rarely hear any evos talk just straight molecular biology. If you remove the evolutionary gloss, you see functionality that makes sense. I've never heard one evo acknowledge or talk about "housekeeping genes." They are genes that are needed constantly for stasis, and there are many copies. For instance genes for ribosomes have many copies, because the cell needs them all the time.

Would you unpack this statement.

TY

 

Bruce

66625[/snapback]

By "unpack," do you mean elaborate?

 

 

Housekeeping genes are expressed in at least 25 copies per cell and sometimes number in the thousands.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housekeeping_gene

 

Wikipedia goes on to list specific proteins and enzymes that require housekeeping genes. They are under the categories of transcription factors, repressors, RNA splicing enzymes, translation factors, tRNA synthases, RNA binding proteins, ribosomal proteins (49 different proteins listed for just ribosomes!), RNA polmerase (makes mRNA transript from DNA), and more.

 

The above are just for ribosomal proteins, regulatory proteins, and enzymes necessary for gene expression. This is where I have often asked how did the DNA evolve? In order for DNA to replicate and express protein it has to have these regulatory molecules, but it is the one that encodes them!!! SO which came first the chicken or the egg?? I'm wondering if evos get this, or even pay attention to this very important question.

 

And that is really just the beginning. They go on to list the housekeeping genes necesary for metbolism, like citric acid cycle enzymes, 23 enzymes for carbohydrate metabolism, lipid metaboism, amino acid metabolism, neucleotide synthesis...and I just a hit something that may be worthy of a seperate post....

 

DNA housekeeping genes also encode for the very complex enzymes of the electron transfer chain located in the mitochondria. This is where and how ATP is produced.

 

1. NADH dehydrogenase has 8 different housekeeping genes listed at wiki. According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NADH_dehydrogenase

NADH dehy has 45 subunits in mammals!! Think of this. This is 45 different peptide chains all bonded together just right in order to catalyze the first chemical reactions in the electron tranfer chain, on it's way to ATP syntase.

 

2. Cytochrome C Oxidase has several very interesting facts.

It has 12 different housekeeping genes listed at wiki, three of which are encoded by mitochondrial DNA. I can tell you why I would not interpret this as a confirmation of the endosymbiosis theory, that the mitochondria was at one time an undigested bacteria swallowed into an ancestor cell. Namely because nuclear DNA (located in the nucleus) encodes for proteins that make up the mitochondria. You will find them in this same list--

 

Mitochrondrial Housekeeping Genes

ATP5A1[1]

ATP5D[1]

ATP5G1[1]

ATP5G3[1][5]

ATP5H[1]

ATP5I[1]

ATP5J2[1]

ATP5O

 

So we have nuclear DNA encoding for the mitochondrial protein/enzymes, and visa versa. Does anyone have a just so story for that one???

 

At any rate, Cyt C oxidase has 13 subunits, and produces the third step of the four in the electron transport chain-- just before ATP sythase.

 

3. ATP synthase--Produces the ATP molecule. Eight housekeeping genes listed. I'm assuming from the list of encoding genes under ATP synthase, human has 27 subunits. Although keep in mind this is a very "conserved" enzyme. DUH! It has the same function in bacteria as it does in us. It has to do the same chemical reactions in plants, as it does in us.

 

I found this very amusing under "The Evolution of ATP Syntase"

 

Wikipedia:ATP Synthase....

[The coming together of the subunits]....must have occurred early in the evolution of life as evidenced by essentially the same structure and processes of ATP synthase enzymes conserved in all kingdoms of life.

Say no more. It has to do the same thing, so it's built the same.

 

Well, I hope I unpacked it enough Bruce V. There's so much one do an indepth study on, but I think it easy to see that there is valid reason for duplication in genes. Namely, need. It seriously doubt it happened by unguided forces. All genes have copies, but those that are needed more are more numerous. This makes sense to me, and scores for design.

[Ron 10]

By "unpack," do you mean elaborate?

66627[/snapback]

Indeed, "unpack" is the new "elaborate"!

 

Some good friends of mine who work in various arenas of scholarship have been using the word "unpack" a lot lately! But, you are correct, that is what Bruce meant by that.

[Bruce V. 34]

Would you unpack this statement.

TY

 

Bruce

66625[/snapback]

 

By "unpack," do you mean elaborate?

Wikipedia goes on to list specific proteins and enzymes that require housekeeping genes. They are under the categories of transcription factors, repressors, RNA splicing enzymes, translation factors, tRNA synthases, RNA binding proteins, ribosomal proteins (49 different proteins listed for just ribosomes!), RNA polmerase (makes mRNA transript from DNA), and more.

 

The above are just for ribosomal proteins, regulatory proteins, and enzymes necessary for gene expression. This is where I have often asked how did the DNA evolve? In order for DNA to replicate and express protein it has to have these regulatory molecules, but it is the one that encodes them!!! SO which came first the chicken or the egg?? I'm wondering if evos get this, or even pay attention to this very important question.

 

And that is really just the beginning. They go on to list the housekeeping genes necesary for metbolism, like citric acid cycle enzymes, 23 enzymes for carbohydrate metabolism, lipid metaboism, amino acid metabolism, neucleotide synthesis...and I just a hit something that may be worthy of a seperate post....

 

DNA housekeeping genes also encode for the very complex enzymes of the electron transfer chain located in the mitochondria. This is where and how ATP is produced.

 

1. NADH dehydrogenase has 8 different housekeeping genes listed at wiki. According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NADH_dehydrogenase

NADH dehy has 45 subunits in mammals!! Think of this. This is 45 different peptide chains all bonded together just right in order to catalyze the first chemical reactions in the electron tranfer chain, on it's way to ATP syntase.

 

2. Cytochrome C Oxidase has several very interesting facts.

It has 12 different housekeeping genes listed at wiki, three of which are encoded by mitochondrial DNA. I can tell you why I would not interpret this as a confirmation of the endosymbiosis theory, that the mitochondria was at one time an undigested bacteria swallowed into an ancestor cell. Namely because nuclear DNA (located in the nucleus) encodes for proteins that make up the mitochondria. You will find them in this same list--

 

Mitochrondrial Housekeeping Genes

ATP5A1[1]

ATP5D[1]

ATP5G1[1]

ATP5G3[1][5]

ATP5H[1]

ATP5I[1]

ATP5J2[1]

ATP5O

 

So we have nuclear DNA encoding for the mitochondrial protein/enzymes, and visa versa. Does anyone have a just so story for that one???

 

At any rate, Cyt C oxidase has 13 subunits, and produces the third step of the four in the electron transport chain-- just before ATP sythase.

 

3. ATP synthase--Produces the ATP molecule. Eight housekeeping genes listed. I'm assuming from the list of encoding genes under ATP synthase, human has 27 subunits. Although keep in mind this is a very "conserved" enzyme. DUH! It has the same function in bacteria as it does in us. It has to do the same chemical reactions in plants, as it does in us.

 

I found this very amusing under "The Evolution of ATP Syntase"

Say no more. It has to do the same thing, so it's built the same.

 

Well, I hope I unpacked it enough Bruce V. There's so much one do an indepth study on, but I think it easy to see that there is valid reason for duplication in genes. Namely, need. It seriously doubt it happened by unguided forces. All genes have copies, but those that are needed more are more numerous. This makes sense to me, and scores for design.

66627[/snapback]

 

Hi AFK,

 

Thank you for your elaborating. Many Evo's believe that if we can figure out how DNA evolved then we know how life came from non life. But as you showed, DNA is not enough. DNA is only the information but for it work it requires an integrated system: ribosomes, housekeeping genes, ATP,enzymes... Evo's get around this by starting evolution after abiogeneis.

[Seth 1]

This is why it amazes me how many evolutionists considered gene research the holy grail of evolutionary (macro) study. When in fact it's the atomic bomb to the whole idea.

 

Continue "unpacking"

[AFJ 33]

  Indeed, "unpack" is the new "elaborate"! 

 

Some good friends of mine who work in various arenas of scholarship have been using the word "unpack" a lot lately! But, you are correct, that is what Bruce meant by that.

66628[/snapback]

Ron, it was so fun to unpack! I'll think I'll stay for awhile.

[Bruce V. 34]

Another interesting discussion of the paper. link

[Ron 10]

  Indeed, "unpack" is the new "elaborate"! 

 

Some good friends of mine who work in various arenas of scholarship have been using the word "unpack" a lot lately! But, you are correct, that is what Bruce meant by that.

66628[/snapback]

Ron, it was so fun to unpack! I'll think I'll stay for awhile.

66639[/snapback]

 

I guess it's fitting... Unpack is what I usually do after a long trip... Then I relax for a while.