The Great Neglect: Studying Orphan Genes

Similarities between genomes has been so important for evolutionary science, it’s focus has been unreal through the years. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists paid little attention to “Orphan Genes” which present major problems for evolution because these genes have no evolutionary homology or kinship to genes from other lineages.

How do evolutionists explain animals who acquire these orphan genes? Where did they come from? They begin by sounding like creationists but instead of a brilliant designer, it’s the “genus” unthinking process which they claim is fine tuning the genes. Not surprising, skipping the origin part using phrases like “origins are often obscure” and “have most likely originated within the class.”

One asks again, where did these particular unique genes come from? Science Daily could only hope it would lead to a better understanding of evolution. In reality, they have no idea, but it even they make it sound miraculous in it’s emergence …Looking at the science paper, they claim…

“Our data indicate that novel genes may play a role in the creation of novel morphological features, thus representing one way how evolution works at the genus level.  Appearance of novel genes may reflect evolutionary processes that allow animals to adapt in the best way to changing environmental conditions and new habitats.”

“The data provide experimental support for the hypothesis that novel genes are involved in specific ecological adaptations that change over time and that such genes serve as the raw material for microevolutionary divergence…PLoS Biology

How common are orphan genes? With little study done on these particular genes, they found bacterial genomes have an abundance of these genes without homologs. Science Daily claims…

“However, every group of animals also possesses a small proportion of genes which are, in contrary, extremely variable among closely related species or even unique. For example, a gene may be present in one species or animal group, but not in any other.”

Evolution relies so heavily on genes passing on to one species to the next, but unique genes found in one animal and not in any other animal. Do you know what that means? Think! It’s showing evidence for the creationist model which states animals have limited variations within it’s own kind. Maybe this is one of the reasons why evolutionary scientists have had little interest in studying orphan genes through the years!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “The Great Neglect: Studying Orphan Genes

  1. Let me put this as bluntly as possible so that you won’t dance much around my words:

    “I don’t know where these genes originated from, hence they were designed” equals
    I don’t know the answer, but I’m willing to base, on this very ignorance, the positive assertion that it was magically created in a manner, time and by forces I have not the faintest idea about.

  2. Information is a non-material fundamental entity. Information has no mass, it’s not a physical phenomenon. Information contains no energy. Information is not even subject to physical laws. Information is required for life such as the creation of genes.

    While you know, I believe God is the originator and designer of that highly advanced and specified information contained in life including genes. On the other hand, evolution has many proposals or assumptions or other explanations about most things, but it doesn’t mean it’s a accurate picture of the phenomenon. They have a hard time predicting hurricanes paths let alone trying to predict the past conditions including life which they deem millions upon millions of years old.

  3. Biologically-relevant information is deleted, multiplied and added de novo on a regular basis. This has been seen, observed, documented, and is not a big deal. Not for evolutionary theory and not for people who believe in God. It’s only the insistence that somehow God would not allow his own creations to evolve, adapt, and produce information with the mechanisms He has given them that harms the name of God and when it is seen to be otherwise, the validity of creationism.

    Evolution, indeed, has a lot holes, just like reality, experience, and understanding do. I respect your belief in God as a key difference in our worldview, and can utter not a single word to discourage of it, but since you step on my turf when you claim that God somehow *explains* (and this is a key word) things better than our best attempts at approximating the truth of our universe, then you’re really out of line.
    God as a belief is fine and good as long as it doesn’t cause injustice (such as pontificating and dictating people to streamline as other believers, a la banning same-sex marriage etc.), but you cannot enter a debate about nature and how we as mere feeble humans try to explain it and offer God as an explanation. Militant atheists will call it “an excuse”, I won’t. I will simply call it irrelevant, because even though God is a good explanation to you, it’s not a good explanation for a person who’s never heard of God and doesn’t feel the same way about him. A Buddhist, a Hindu and an ancient Egyptian would benefit exactly the same explanatory reward from biology as you will, but adding God to the mix is not going to change anything, not in the real world.

    All it can do is change the way people feel about what they see, not how they may be able to predict it, and in science, ideas that don’t predict are rightfully discarded.

  4. I agree, storage and transmission of information requires a medium. Information rides on a DNA molecule, but it is no more an inherent property of physics and chemistry of DNA than a blackboard’s message (which came from an intelligent designer) was an intrinsic property of chalk.

    Those pagans gods of Egypt, Hinduism, and Buddhism in which you mentioned, are all from the same religion (Baal worship from Babylon), just variants in other cultures as they were passed on from generation to generation. But certainly, not related to Christianity. It’s very much in conflict with each other. In fact, when I was educated in the public school, I wasn’t allowed to learn about Jesus, but I was able to learn about the Greek and Roman gods…Some of it came from science of all places. In my astronomy class, I was given history on these pagan gods because stars were named after them.

    As far as adding God in biology, there is no addition, He was the originator. The basic concept of science is a structured discipline of systematic examination for the purpose of obtaining knowledge. It’s neutral, one can even explain biology without evolution or creationism. If I explained how the DNA works such as repairing itself, this would be considered a neutral teaching of biology. It’s the explaining where it came from conclusions, that is the debate or in some cases it’s the battlefield.

    In the US there is a diverse population with many different faiths. To dictate or force one to learn about evolution in a certain way and the supernatural is to be viewed as disproved by science, goes against not only the beliefs of certain children, but their parents in the US who help pay for the government schools too. This is so wrong!

    Since science’s basic principle is neutral, it’s quite possible to teach it in the public schools without attacking their religious beliefs. On the other hand, private schools and homeschooling provide a more diverse education, without being influenced by special interest groups, or people of non-faiths, to tell them what they should learn.

  5. Science is not neutral about everything. Science demands methodological materialism. This is simply what goes with the definition of science. God is an explanation, but not a scientific explanation, and that said, you can’t say that “both views should be taught”, because one view is not a scientific one. Saying something is “scientific” doesn’t automatically make it “right” or even “better” than any other explanation.

    In a lot of cases, you simply assume from the onset that God exists and then work your way from there. This is not a problem in any other place other than science. You could always go backwards and backwards in time and say that there’s no explanation for this or that and use God as an explanation. This is not a problem, but it’s useless from a scientific viewpoint.

    Saying that evolution is not necessary for biology is utterly ridiculous, and goes against even what prominent creationists say. Evolution elegantly explains a lot of the phenomena we see today in the natural world, and had countless times helped predict what we will find, before we found it. Creationism is an explanation that can explain everything, which is why it’s scientifically useless, but only scientifically.

    You could say that God is the “originator” of biology and this statement, however impossible to falsify, is scientifically pointless. Biology still operates under observed laws and patterns, and these patterns point to evolution and common descent.

  6. Biology originated before Darwin and owes nothing to his theory. Did you know medical schools and pharmaceutical companies do not have divisions of evolutionary science?

    Experimental biology has a core dependence on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not by an intensive immersion of evolutionary theories.

    Macro-evolution is not observable, what scientists do is study all the known functions by which living organisms maintain their stability, without evolving. When new discoveries of functions are found, the studies approach remains. It’s been this type of research in which science has lead to very good, viable information without the help of evolution. This is neutral science! Trying to evoke evolution into experimental biology because you claim science demands it, is nonsense.

    One more thing, when your demands of science claims it can falsify God, pointing out it’s limitations that science has no ability to falsify God is meaningful.

  7. Mathematics originated before Newton and own nothing to his differential math.
    If you understand how absurd that is, be aware that this can applied just as easily to your first sentence.

    Medicine and pharmaceutics are not the only fields in biology. The suggestion that they are is narrow-minded and disingenuous.

    Macro evolution is observable, and predictions regarding it have been confirmed time and again. You do not believe only in things you’ve witnessed personally, otherwise solving crimes would be impossible. A logical, responsible man extrapolates, uses evidence, detects patterns and reaches conclusions. You wouldn’t listen to any of the evidence simply because it interferes with a decision you’ve made before you looked into any evidence: the bible is literally true.

    Evolution is extremely useful as a tool for understanding the relationship between organisms, and as such, can be useful for any biological field. Saying that it’s useless just because it’s not all-encompassing (as if anything in any other scientific field is!) is again, extremely dishonest, and, quite frankly, embarrassing to read.

    If anything is nonsensical, it is mocking the idea of using evolution for experimental biology just out of ignorance of it being used. Firstly, it doesn’t even matter if it’s useful or not, and second, it is useful. You use evolutionary principles in a lot of experiments in microbiology, animal behavior and even genetics. I’ve had the honor of being attached to a researcher who dealt specifically with the latter. Evolution is often a key principle in aiding the researchers to focus their research on certain things.

    The last two sentences are complete a non sequitur. I made it clear that science cannot falsify God and that’s exactly why God is not a scientific explanation. It can, however, falsify positive claims about God, such as “God created the universe 6,000 years ago”, which is utterly and irrevocably falsified when faced with the enormous body of evidence that suggests that the universe is infinitely older. You could say “God created it then”, but it’d still falsify an important factual statement in the bible. You cannot believe in it literally without ignoring real-world evidence.

  8. Isaac Newton was a brilliant scientist and even has been deemed much more influential than Albert Einstein. The invention of calculus was astounding to say the least. Math is generally neutral. You can teach the same calculus in religious schools as one could in public schools. Unlike evolution or creationism. Not really sure where you were trying to go with that one.

    Evolution has no usefulness in the current structure of animals. You are referring to historical evolutionary science which is not observational with current living things as stated before.

    I believe there is evidence for a younger universe. The concept on how old the universe actually is can be debated in scientific terms. In fact I have outline some of the newer discoveries in this blog about the age of the Universe.

    Also creationists have published predictions about the strengths of planetary magnetic fields which are much different than evolutionary assumptions, and these predictions were confirmed by NASA which is hardly the HQ for creationism.

    If you believed hydrogen is vital to the formation of stars, it was just discovered by evolutionary scientists that 11.5 billions miles away, no hydrogen was detected. Wouldn’t that falsify the theory of gas cloud formation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s