Human Genome Overturns The Philosophy of Biology

Good news coming from the 10th year anniversary of  the Genome project. In celebration of the remarkable work that was conducted, science has dedicated a number of interesting articles on the subject. Most of the articles go into great detail on the different findings that conflicted with their predictions based on evolution. The articles do not identify human evolution but what they do say, we have an incredible array of specified complexity behind our smiley faces!

John Mattick from the University of Queensland concludes

“These observations suggest that we need to reassess the underlying genetic orthodoxy, which is deeply ingrained and has been given superficial reprieve by uncritically accepted assumptions about the nature and power of combinatorial control.”

“As Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock wrote in 1950: “Are we letting a philosophy of the [protein-coding] gene control [our] reasoning? What, then, is the philosophy of the gene?  Is it a valid philosophy?” … There is an alternative: Human complexity has been built on a massive expansion of genomic regulatory sequences, most of which are transacted by RNAs that use generic protein infrastructure and control the epigenetic mechanisms underpinning embryogenesis and brain function. I see the human genome not simply as providing detail, but more importantly, as the beginning of a conceptual enlightenment in biology.”

The dogma of genetics in evolution tells of a story on how DNA is the master controller of heredity, translating its information into proteins that create our bones, feet, legs, hands and brains.  But what they discovered was the number of genes is far smaller than expected (only 1.5% of human DNA contains genes), and the rest is non-coding DNA which was assumed to be leftover junk that generates RNA, which regulates the expression of genes, especially during development.

Maynard Olson from the University of Washington, Seattle asked, “What Does a ‘Normal’ Human Genome Look Like?” He is alluding to what minor players are there in variation. Holders of the dogma of genetics in evolution might be a bit thrown back with this comment, “balancing selection, the evolutionary process that favors genetic diversification rather than the fixation of a single ‘best’ variant”; instead, he continued, this “appears to play a minor role outside the immune system.”

These are quite remarkable days in the history of science, the philosophy of biology (based on Darwinism) that ruled the 19th and 20th centuries is now considered invalid. When it comes to evolution, nothing in biology obtains clarity! It’s an endless search for answers that lead to nowhere. This is because evolution is the wrong framework. The human genome project confirms what the Bible says, and that is God created all things!   

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Human Genome Overturns The Philosophy of Biology

  1. When it comes to evolution, nothing in biology obtains clarity! It’s an endless search for answers that lead to nowhere.

    And yet, 2300 reviewed papers per years continue to publish results of evolutionary research that do seem to lead somewhere.

    Creationism, on the other hand, truly does lead nowhere. Against the 2300 papers that employ evolutionary principles to advance knowledge and provide applications, let’s see whether Michael can name ONE scientific advance that has EVER occurred by applying creationist principles.to an experimental result. Or, how about ONE subsequently verified prediction made from a theory of special creation?

    Michael’s entire argument here, as always, is that—
    (a) A scientist was shown to be wrong about some aspect of theory A;
    (b) Therefore, theory B must be correct.
    Anyone with a smattering of training in logic classifies this as a “false dichotomy,” which is a species of “non sequitur.”

    Of course, creationists have always been short on logic. In fact, the situation seems to be getting worse as creationists more and more crawl into their dark corner of ignorance. Shadows are their one remaining refuge, since knowledge continues to prove them wrong.

    Most of the articles go into great detail on the different findings that conflicted with their predictions based on evolution.

    Really?

    The articles do not identify human evolution but what they do say, we have an incredible array of specified complexity behind our smiley faces!

    Ah, I see. The articles don’t ACTUALLY conflict with evolution; we have to bend and twist them first, and then we have to make up things to read into them.

    .

    What happens if you’re wrong, Michael?

  2. @Michael,

    I notice you like to place terms such as “complexity” in bold when you give certain quotes… So I guess my question to you is this: What are you trying to imply with that? Are you trying to imply that complexity indicates design? — If so, then why don’t you explain why your logic is not a non-sequitor?

  3. One thing that I took away from Science was this, from “The landscape of Human Evolution”[1]

    Rather than examining single-candidate genes, [ten years ago] we can scan the entire genome to identify variants under natural selection. In the initial phase of the post-genomic era, we have confirmed earlier hypotheses of evolution for malaria resistance, skin pigmentation, and lactose tolerance, and we have identified new adaptations for the formation of hair, resistance to trypanasomes, and response to high altitude. The challenge now is to uncover how hundreds of newly discovered candidate loci have shaped our evolution. In my laboratory’s recent scans we have identified more than 200 loci with strong evidence of selection…..

    It is intriguing that whole new adaptive pathways are coming into view, such as those regulating sensory perception and thermoregulation in Asia, and metabolism and infectious diseases in all populations. In the next decade, scientists can look forward to investigating these pathways and many other new hypotheses being generated through genome scans to uncover the vast landscape of human evolution.

    .

    Michael, are you sure we’re reading the same journal?? That doesn’t sound like the death knell of evolution to me.

    ============

    [1] Science 331:690

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