Paper Falsifies Hypothesis For Gene Duplication

A system of flexibility is required in order for evolution to work. Gene Duplication has been structured to fit a particular system which advocates that duplicated genes have the flexibility to evolve new functions without affecting the primary gene. It’s been a long-held belief in evolution which has been recently put to the test by taking the best examples evolutionary gene duplication had to offer as well as the best information on how genetic information is supposed to arise which was described by scientists that was cited in various journals.

The first part of this paper begins with a major blow to natural selection as being the leader for creating new information…

“Research into the evolution of genes has shown that the peptides they code for are of a finicky and precarious nature, both marginally stable and prone to aggregation.  Protein folding happens to be a highly complex and synergistic process, involving a number of epistatic relationships among many residues.”

“This phenomenon, compounded with the issue of interactions between protein molecules, can significantly complicate adaptive evolution such that in the majority of cases the overall effects on reproductive fitness are very slight. Many arguably “beneficial” mutations have been observed to incur some sort of cost and so can be classified as a form of antagonistic pleiotropy. Indeed, the place and extent of natural selection as a force for change in molecular biology have been questioned in recent years.”

“Moreover, several well-known factors such as the linkage and the multilocus nature of important phenotypes tend to restrain the power of Darwinian evolution, and so represent natural limits to biological change. Selection, being an essentially negative filter, tends to act against variation including mutations previously believed to be innocuous.”

Wait a minute, hold the phone, stop the presses! Isn’t evolution supposed to have the ability to tinker with gene duplication without affecting the function of the original?  All this negative selection is not good for understanding evolution, benefit is required! Did the research turn up any? Let’s take a look…

Were selection to be completely relaxed and any manner of changes permitted, this would only serve to guarantee complete degeneration.  It would invariably lead to the introduction of null and nonsense mutations, scrambling the open reading frame (ORF), and degrading the cisregulatory elements involved in transcription—leading to the gene’s pseudogenization.  Thus, a measure of purifying/stabilizing selection seems necessary for duplicate preservation, and any evolutionary divergence would proceed under a relaxed regime rather than none at all.”

The primary purpose of this research was to see if novel genetic information can arise by gene duplication using the best available information on evolutionary gene duplication! Even with it’s best explanation and examples, it fails to pass the test! “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.”

Where is this flexible system that evolution is suppose to work under? It’s sure not showing up with new observations concerning tested data!  The paper concludes by noting that accidental gene duplication adds to the size of some genomes.  “However, in all of the examples given above, known evolutionary mechanisms were markedly constrained in their ability to innovate and to create any novel information, he said.  “This natural limit to biological change can be attributed mostly to the power of purifying selection, which, despite being relaxed in duplicates, is nonetheless ever-present.”

This falsification of gene duplication has been advocated for decades among creationists and the modern intelligent design movement. It is interesting to note that the lead researcher Bozorgmehr, an evolutionist who came up with the same conclusion about natural limits to biological change that creationists and ID proponents have been saying!  You see, interpreting evolution as “just happens” is one thing, but testing it is quite another! The research verifies the creationist model, variants within it’s own kind while nature is in a pattern of going in reverse.  

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Paper Falsifies Hypothesis For Gene Duplication

  1. @Michael,

    You ask Wait a minute, hold the phone, stop the presses! Isn’t evolution supposed to have the ability to tinker with gene duplication without affecting the function of the original?

    No, Michael, it has never been proposed that Darwinian evolution is not suppose to “tinker” with the original gene. It has long been proposed that the proginal gene may become obsolete and even get routed out by natural selection if, for example, the new gene is more affective than the original one.

    Quite frankly. nothing that you have quote mined is news.

    The abstract of the very paper you are citing says: “Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms”

    Well, Duur!!!! — the point of the paper is ONLY to say that gene duplications ALONE isn’t enough…Well, I got news for you, Michael…NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT IT WAS!! –Gene duplication is ONLY A PART of the process. Goes to show you don’t unserstand what you are reading.

  2. Since Michael is trying (and failing) to show that gene duplication is a viable mechanism for Darwinian evolution, then perhaps it would interest him to learn that OVER 97% of ALL human genes ARE DUPLICATES!!!

    Link: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/50/19027.abstract

    Perhaps it would also interest him to learn that duplicate genes also is one of the criteria of DIFFERENT kinds of bacteria:

    Link: http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/46

    The fact is, even if the paper Micheal links were calling gene duplication into question, as far as being an evolutionary mechanism is concerned, it would not discount the fact that we now know of new function observed in duplicate genes as well.

  3. In the last post, I ACCIDENTELY said “Michael is trying (and failing) to show that gene duplication is a viable mechanism for Darwinian evolution.” . . .I accidentely left out the word “not.”…As in Michael is trying to show gene duplication is NOT a viable mechanism…My bad.

  4. The cited article is not available to the public. However, it is uniformly the case that creationists misread or distort the conclusions of scientific papers. Because their goal is not truth but orthodoxy. Therefore, we can be fairly certain that this paper did not mean what Michael says it means, merely on general principles.

    @Michael: “This falsification of gene duplication has been advocated for decades among creationists and the modern intelligent design movement.”

    The above quote bears out the misreading. Michael’s statement is incorrect even from the few snippets of the article that he did include. This paper simply does not falsify gene duplication.

    @Michael: “The primary purpose of this research was to see if novel genetic information can arise by gene duplication using the best available information on evolutionary gene duplication! Even with it’s [sic] best explanation and examples, it fails to pass the test! “

    Really? I can give you a recent example where duplications produced beneficial results. A year or so ago (sorry, i can’t pull up the ref from memory) a paper outlined the evolution of color vision in humans. This was a mystery because, although some mammals in our lineage do have color vision, our closest relatives do not. The paper laid out a process of several duplications of opsin genes which then mutated to provide sensitivity to different wavelengths. Another group then looked at this paper, and made a prediction from it—If the duplication scenario is correct, then a few female chimpanzees would in fact have color vision. This prediction was surprising, because everyone had previously thought that no apes could see colors. Nevertheless, experiments confirmed that the evolutionary prediction was correct; a small number of chimps did possess color vision, and they were all females.

    So once again Michael twists the words of a reference to fit his blinkered views. This proclivity underscores Michael’s utter lack of understanding of how science operates. We ascribe this to abyssal ignorance. However, until Michael backs up his own challenge from last February and sets out his qualifications, we cannot be sure whether he is untutored and ignorant, or knowledgeable and lying to us.

    @Michael: “The first part of this paper begins with a major blow to natural selection as being the leader for creating new information.”

    No evolutionist has ever made that claim. Mostly because it is wrong It is ridiculously wrong. Even William Dembski and Stephen Meyer would agree that Michael is speaking through his chapeau on this claim.

    @Michael: “Wait a minute, hold the phone, stop the presses! Isn’t evolution supposed to have the ability to tinker with gene duplication without affecting the function of the original? All this negative selection is not good for understanding evolution, benefit is required!”

    Michael seems to think that the authors’ mention of antagonistic pleiotropy ‘proves’ that duplication can never produce any good results. Let’s try an example of antagonistic pleiotropy in another setting: Michael wants to buy a house (a positive change from his present squalid apartment), but he would have to take out a mortgage (a negative change that will require him to get a job). Michael’s argument would say that he should never buy the house, because doing so would require a negative change as well. The paper’s authors, however, would consider buying th house if the positive outweighs the negative.

    In short, Michael has misread this paper, just as he does many others in order to shoehorn them into his preconceived belief system. Are we surprised? YES. But the reason for this surprise is that, with 50 evolution papers per week rolling off the scientific press, it is astounding that creationists can find only one or two that can be distorted to align with their views.

    In short: Fail.

  5. An update on my conversation with Sean Pitman:

    He suspended comments on his website. http://educatetruth.com for the holidays, but he now has now ended the website since he feels that it has run it’s course…Too bad.

    The purpose of the website was to engage in a witch hunt at La Sierra University (a school owned and run by the Seventh-Day Adventist church) against professors there that have been teaching Evolution. The purpose was to alert the church leadership about the teaching of Darwinian evolution there…

    The last post he published on the site shows a real irony and double standard on his part though….His last-ever post on the site is about how at the University of Kentucky Martin Gaskell is being “persecuted” for having doubts about Evolution…Though Sean doesn’t come out and say that the university is unfair in their witch hunt,….this makes me wonder….He is involves in the same kind of witch hunt….just on the reverse side of the coin. Is such a “persecution” okay when the Creationists are the dominant force, but not okay when the “evolutionists” are in charge? Does the “teach the contraversy” only apply when the Creationists do not have the upper hand?

    (Personally, I am not happy with the way the University of Kentucky handled the situation, BUT my only problem with them has to do with some minor statements they made…Gaskell, however, has committed several mistakes of his own which, in my judgement, were….shall I say…more unwise than anything those at the University had made.)

    Apparently, I am not the only SDA not happy with with Sean Pitman’s “witch hunt.” –Apparently, even several SDAs that ARE still clinging to Young Earth Creationism go as far as to say that Pitman’s crusade is stupid… I talked to one that even accused Pitman of heresy because of the way he goes on apologetics.

    Well, I’ll give Sean this much…At least he didn’t unjustly bann me from commenting for the duration his blog was in use….That’s the only good thing I have to say about him.. But several statements he made about the professors there at LSU I find really stupid and even offensive…He made statements that those professors were committing fraud and basically stealing from the church…..His justification for the charge was that they were being paid by the church even though they were teaching what the church did not approve and therefore were doinf the church a disservice….

    When he said that, I basically asked him what was worse: Doing God a disservice, or doing the church a disservice…I said that these teachers obviously believed what they were teaching their students…so if they were to have taught Creationism instead, then wouldn’t that have made them liars? Wasn’t lying in the name of the Church and in the name of God still a sin? — Sean never answered that particular comment …

    But for some reading on the witch hunt: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/05/29/unravaling_witch_hunt_la_sierra_under_seige

  6. @Kris: “Is such a “persecution” okay when the Creationists are the dominant force, but not okay when the “evolutionists” are in charge?”

    The term “persecution” only applies when the persecuted are the creationists. Going the other way, we call it “purification.”

    One thing I’ve noticed in reading histories of creationism is the prominent part played by the SDA, right from the inception. Yet there is an ironic twist, as well—Later (1930-1960) creationist leaders continually worried that the SDA was becoming too powerful in the movement, and were even out-creationing the other creationists. (Although it may be that Ronald Numbers, the lengthiest historian, is somewhat biased, as an ex-SDA himself.)

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