[_ Old Earth _] Multifunctional Genes Indicate Ingenious Programming

[Crying Rock]

Computer programs are written in coded computer languages, and sometimes the same piece of code can be reused in different programs to perform new functions. This way, programmers save time and energy by not having to invent new code. For this to work, however, the programmer must intentionally specify how each program will use the recycled code to perform the designated functions.

Genes can be compared to computer codes. The same gene or set of genes can be used to build different parts of an animal based on how those genes are incorporated with the many other genes (“computer codesâ€Â) that are used to develop those features. Evolutionary biologists have believed that “fundamental genes do not acquire new functions.â€Â1 Such genes were thought to be off-limits to developing new functions, since they affect so many important processes that any change might disrupt the normal development of the organism...

Creation science would call the genes multifunctional, indicating wise engineering.

http://www.icr.org/article/4708/

"Evolutionary biologists have a good idea of what it takes to change the shape of a wing, the length of a leg, or the anatomy of an eye," Moczek said. "What we have struggled with, though, is how these traits originate in the first place. How do you evolve that first wing, limb or photoreceptor from a flightless, limbless and blind ancestor?"

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/10818.html

 

[Barbarian]

Genes can be compared to computer codes. The same gene or set of genes can be used to build different parts of an animal based on how those genes are incorporated with the many other genes (“computer codes â€Â) that are used to develop those features. Evolutionary biologists have believed that “fundamental genes do not acquire new functions.â€Â1

You're saying that scientists do not think that genes for say, fins could be used to form legs? That's demonstrably wrong. We know that they do. And I don't know any biologist who doesn't think so.

Such genes were thought to be off-limits to developing new functions, since they affect so many important processes that any change might disrupt the normal development of the organism...

Sound pretty odd to me. As far back as Darwin, it was pointed out that evolution works by reworking old functions and structures to new uses. This is another of those "ICR moments" when creationists make up stories about what scientists believe, and insist that means scientists are wrong.

Creation science would call the genes multifunctional, indicating wise engineering.

Since evolutionary processes have been directly observed to do this, it's a moot point. No engineering required.

"Evolutionary biologists have a good idea of what it takes to change the shape of a wing, the length of a leg, or the anatomy of an eye," Moczek said. "What we have struggled with, though, is how these traits originate in the first place. How do you evolve that first wing, limb or photoreceptor from a flightless, limbless and blind ancestor?"

In the case of an eye, it merely requires a pigmented spot at the start.

Try this: On a hot sunny day, have someone paint a black spot about 6 inches in diameter on the middle of your back. Walk shirtless into the sun and turn your back to it. You'll find that you have a more sensitive light detector. Would you like to learn how to make it more useful than a mere detector?

Wings merely require a minor reworking of reptilian forelimbs, or in the case of insects, a modification of existing biramous appendages. Would you like to learn about the evidence for this happening?

 

[Crying Rock]

“…Genes can be compared to computer codes. The same gene or set of genes can be used to build different parts of an animal based on how those genes are incorporated with the many other genes (“computer codes â€Â) that are used to develop those features. Evolutionary biologists have believed that “fundamental genes do not acquire new functions…â€Â

http://www.icr.org/article/4708/

B wrote:
You're saying that scientists do not think that genes for say, fins could be used to form legs? That's demonstrably wrong. We know that they do. And I don't know any biologist who doesn't think so.

I didn’t say anything. However, Moczek et al. said:

“…A tenuous consensus among evolutionary biologists was that such genes -- upon which so many different and important processes depend -- could not be easily modified, because any modification would affect countless aspects of the insect's development, any one of which could be bad for the individual insect, reducing its fitness relative to its peers…â€Â

“…Moczek and Rose's PNAS paper confirms one aspect of this idea. All three genes were sequenced and found to be highly conserved, or unchanged, not only among the individuals of each beetle species they examined, but also between the two species, Onthophagus taurus (Italy) and Onthophagus binodis (South Africa), whose lineages diverged about 24 million years ago…â€Â

"…The evolution of novel features does not require the evolution of novel genes," Moczek said. "A lot of innovation can grow from within the organism's genetic toolbox…"

Or a lot of variation already exists within the organism’s “genetic toolboxâ€Â.

“…Now that we know fundamental development genes can acquire new and diverse functions with relative ease, pleiotropy may not be nearly as constraining as we have thought…"

Or the so-called “new and diverse functions†are just part of the original variation contained within the organism’s genome.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/10818.html

“…Such genes were thought to be off-limits to developing new functions, since they affect so many important processes that any change might disrupt the normal development of the organism...â€Â

http://www.icr.org/article/4708/

B wrote:

Sound pretty odd to me. As far back as Darwin, it was pointed out that evolution works by reworking old functions and structures to new uses. This is another of those "ICR moments" when creationists make up stories about what scientists believe, and insist that means scientists are wrong.

Email Moczek et al. and Indiana University Bloomington your objections:

“…A tenuous consensus among evolutionary biologists was that such genes -- upon which so many different and important processes depend -- could not be easily modified, because any modification would affect countless aspects of the insect's development, any one of which could be bad for the individual insect, reducing its fitness relative to its peers…â€Â

“…Moczek and Rose's PNAS paper confirms one aspect of this idea. All three genes were sequenced and found to be highly conserved, or unchanged, not only among the individuals of each beetle species they examined, but also between the two species, Onthophagus taurus (Italy) and Onthophagus binodis (South Africa), whose lineages diverged about 24 million years ago…â€Â

“…Moczek also says the PNAS paper may compel evolutionary biologists to revisit pleiotropy, the foundational concept of one gene influencing many traits. "It may be that our understanding of pleiotropy is too simplistic," Moczek said…â€Â

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/10818.html

Here’s the email address: brickerd@indiana.edu

The ICR author, Thomas, is simply reviewing their paper and Indiana University Bloomington’s article.

“…Creation science would call the genes multifunctional, indicating wise engineering…â€Â

http://www.icr.org/article/4708/

B wrote:
Since evolutionary processes have been directly observed to do this, it's a moot point. No engineering required.

Email your gripes to Thomas.

"…Evolutionary biologists have a good idea of what it takes to change the shape of a wing, the length of a leg, or the anatomy of an eye," Moczek said. "What we have struggled with, though, is how these traits originate in the first place. How do you evolve that first wing, limb or photoreceptor from a flightless, limbless and blind ancestor?.."

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/10818.html

B wrote:

In the case of an eye, it merely requires a pigmented spot at the start. Try this: On a hot sunny day, have someone paint a black spot about 6 inches in diameter on the middle of your back. Walk shirtless into the sun and turn your back to it. You'll find that you have a more sensitive light detector.

Email Moczek et al. and Indiana University Bloomington. They may find your idea intriguing.

B wrote:

Would you like to learn how to make it more useful than a mere detector?

No, but thank you.

B wrote:

Wings merely require a minor reworking of reptilian forelimbs, or in the case of insects, a modification of existing biramous appendages. Would you like to learn about the evidence for this happening?

No, but thank you.

 

[Barbarian]

Or the so-called “new and diverse functions†are just part of the original variation contained within the organism’s genome.

Sounds like a testable theory. Show me how stem vertebrates have genes for legs. Your sources seem to depend on conflating the existence of homobox genes with the evolved changes in them.

Perhaps you should read Sean Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" to see why it's such a foolish misrepresentation.

 

[Crying Rock]

Or the so-called “new and diverse functions†are just part of the original variation contained within the organism’s genome.

Sounds like a testable theory...

Perhaps you should email Moczek et al.:

brickerd@indiana.edu

“…A tenuous consensus among evolutionary biologists was that such genes -- upon which so many different and important processes depend -- could not be easily modified, because any modification would affect countless aspects of the insect's development, any one of which could be bad for the individual insect, reducing its fitness relative to its peers…â€Â

“…Moczek and Rose's PNAS paper confirms one aspect of this idea. All three genes were sequenced and found to be highly conserved, or unchanged, not only among the individuals of each beetle species they examined, but also between the two species, Onthophagus taurus (Italy) and Onthophagus binodis (South Africa), whose lineages diverged about 24 million years ago…â€Â

“…Moczek also says the PNAS paper may compel evolutionary biologists to revisit pleiotropy, the foundational concept of one gene influencing many traits. "It may be that our understanding of pleiotropy is too simplistic," Moczek said…â€Â

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/10818.html

They might be quite interested in your input. Ya'll could co-author a paper.

"...All three genes were sequenced and found to be highly conserved, or unchanged, not only among the individuals of each beetle species they examined, but also between the two species..."

"…The evolution of novel features does not require the evolution of novel genes," Moczek said. "A lot of innovation can grow from within the organism's genetic toolbox…"

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/10818.html

CR wrote:

Or the so-called “new and diverse fuctions†are just part of the original variation contained within the organism’s genome.

 

[Barbarian]

Not much point in telling Moczek, as he didn't make your assertions. You've misconstrued what his article is about. Meantime, if you think your interpretation is correct, you should be able to show gene for legs in stem vertebrates.

If you can't, that would be rather convincing evidence that your interpretation of his work is wrong.

 

[Crying Rock]

Not much point in telling Moczek, as he didn't make your assertions. You've misconstrued what his article is about.

What assertions have I made that misconstrue Moczek's paper and Indiana University Bloomington's article?

 

[Barbarian]

I'd be interested in seeing where he says that there were genes for legs in stem vertebrates. Can you show me that one?

If you're right, they'd have to be there.

 

[Crying Rock]

I'd be interested in seeing where he says that there were genes for legs in stem vertebrates.

How does that answer my question: "...What assertions have I made that misconstrue Moczek's paper and Indiana University Bloomington's article..."?

 

[Barbarian]

Such genes were thought to be off-limits to developing new functions, since they affect so many important processes that any change might disrupt the normal development of the organism...

That would be extremely odd, since evolutionary theory, from Darwin on, emphasizes that evolution works by modification of existing functions. After genetics, it became clear that genes are modified by random changes, with natural selection culling out harmful ones and preserving useful ones.

Creation science would call the genes multifunctional, indicating wise engineering.

It's valid religious belief. But it's bad science, since the evidence shows that it occurs by random mutations and natural selection. Would you like to see some examples of that in developmental genes? Turns out that creation is much, much greater than "wise engineering."

Creationists are uncomfortable with a Creator who can make nature so such things proceed from the original creation, and so have demoted Him to "engineer" or "designer." They want Him limited to the things humans can do.

 

[Crying Rock]

CR quotes ICR's article reviewing Indiana University Bloomington's article and Moczek et al. recent paper:

...Such genes were thought to be off-limits to developing new functions, since they affect so many important processes that any change might disrupt the normal development of the organism...

http://www.icr.org/article/4708/

B wrote:

That would be extremely odd, since evolutionary theory, from Darwin on, emphasizes that evolution works by modification of existing functions. After genetics, it became clear that genes are modified by random changes, with natural selection culling out harmful ones and preserving useful ones.

CR quotes Indiana University Bloomington's article reviewing Moczek et al. recent paper:

“…A tenuous consensus among evolutionary biologists was that such genes -- upon which so many different and important processes depend -- could not be easily modified, because any modification would affect countless aspects of the insect's development, any one of which could be bad for the individual insect, reducing its fitness relative to its peers…â€Â

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/10818.html

“…Creation science would call the genes multifunctional, indicating wise engineering…â€Â

http://www.icr.org/article/4708/

B. wrote:

...It's valid religious belief. But it's bad science, since the evidence shows that it occurs by random mutations and natural selection. Would you like to see some examples of that in developmental genes?..

No, but thank you.

 

[Barbarian]

That one didn't last very long...

 

[Crying Rock]

It was just a review.

Nothing earth shattering.