And yes ID had predicted greater functionality in DNA years before. There is now no part in DNA that can safely be declared non-functional.
Information: The Foundation of Life - M. Behe
- Thread starter Cisco Qid
- Start date
A straight copy-and-paste from here, with no link to your source? Okay... Let us see how the Discovery Institute decided to spin this.
The most impressive evolutionary experiment to my knowledge so far reported was carried out by an international team using Salmonella enterica. On October 22, 2012 a report claimed that this was the first time a group demonstrated the origin of a new gene. In reality a gene with a weak side-activity was duplicated and the side-activity was strengthened. Intriguing, but nothing more — and nothing new.
Originally there was one gene with a weak side effect. Afterwards there were two genes; the original one with the weak side effect and the second with a strengthen effect.
In what sense is the second gene not "new"?
This is how evolution works. It is small increments.
Yet what follows is how the work was described in the popular press (emphasis added to show where intelligent engineering was introduced into the experimental environment):
“Researchers engineered a gene that governed the synthesis of the amino acid histidine, and also made some minor contributions to synthesizing another amino acid, tryptophan.
Why did they put that word in bold? Is this supposed to refute the claims? The experiment was set up by people, and part of that set up was modifying the gene. Unfortunately this underhand tactic is all too common. IDists demand an experiment that shows evolution, and when one is presented they object because an intelligent agent was involved in setting up said experiment.
Kind of pathetic really.
They then placed multiple copies of the gene in Salmonella bacteria that did not have the normal gene for creating tryptophan. The Salmonella kept copying the beneficial effects of the gene making tryptophan and over the course of 3,000 generations, the two functions diverged into two entirely different genes, marking the first time that researchers have directly observed the creation of an entirely new gene in a controlled laboratory setting.”
There it is again. They highlight that the experiment was set up by people, as though that somehow undermines the conclusion. Utter nonsense, but it seems to fool the stupid.
Nothing in what they quote undermines the claims. This was a new gene. The gene was not there before, it was there after. And the new gene was not the result intelligent design.
There has been another interesting evolution experiment carried out using E. coli. ...
So now the text is discussing another experiment altogether! Do you think that that experiment proves a new gene was not created in the experiment by Näsvall et al? If so, do please say why, and we can discuss (but be warned, Gauger states elsewhere that it does not). However, I am guessing you just copy-and-pasted a wall of text without bothering to read it too carefully.
I will quote the last sentence, as it again makes a big deal about the experiment being intelligently designed.
So, while the described experiments are often promoted as evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, they either (a) are intelligently designed and do not accurately reflect what happens in nature, or (b) underscore the narrow limits of neo-Darwinian evolutionary change.
I guess you are claiming this is a bold prediction of ID. If that is so, please show the reasonong. Show how the percentage of junk DNA (or range thereof) is a necessary consequence of ID.
I am sure you cannot, as we have been through this before. All you have is that ID predicted less. If you actually go through the logic, it is clear that ID would predict virtually zero junk DNA. "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good."
And yet the reality is that there is a shed load of junk in there. Now as much as once thought, but still a lot. It is a fact that onions have DNA five times as long as people, because there is so much junk in there.
So IDists know they cannot predict how much junk DNA there will be because they will be wrong. This is definitely no prediction by ID, not in the scientific sense.
Predictions in the plural? What is the other one?
Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. That prediction works. There are getting on for 9 million species of plants and animals, and as far as we can tell they all fit into a nested hierarchy. No mermaids. No centaurs.
How does ID explain the nested hierarchy? The usual; "God did it".
So talk me through how ID explains the viruses embedded in human DNA.
Remnants of ancient viral pandemics in the form of viral DNA sequences embedded in our genomes are still active in healthy people, according to new research my colleagues and I recently published.
HERVs, or human endogenous retroviruses, make up around 8% of the human genome, left behind as a result of infections that humanity’s primate ancestors suffered millions of years ago. They became part of the human genome due to how they replicate.
Ancient Viral DNA Plays a Role in Human Disease and Development
Viral remnants make up 8 percent of the human genome, and a new study finds that these sequences are still active in healthy people.
www.the-scientist.com
The virus is a simple but powerful form of life. With the very smallest and most basic of genomes they can live and reproduce – effectively by slipping into host cells and hijacking their machinery to make new viruses. Some of the very smallest viruses, such as retroviruses, go one further – not just entering the cell but actually inserting their own genome into that of the cell, the better to exert control.
In fact, some of the inactive DNA in any human genome derives from viral DNA. These human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are ancient viruses that integrated into an ancestral human genome long ago – sometimes dubbed ‘fossil viruses’. Usually they lose parts of their original sequences over time, due to mutations in the DNA sequences, but some retain whole genes that specify the production of viral proteins. They persist because they were inserted into human reproductive cells (a rare event) and thus passed on to new generations of humans.
We have accumulated quite a few ancient viruses, it seems; estimates vary between about 4 and 8% of the total human genome, but identifying individual HERVs is difficult because most of them are very rare. However, new research examining the genomes from around 2,500 people of varied ethnic origins found a total of nineteen new different HERVs or viral DNA sequences. Most of these were incomplete, but there was one full viral genome sequence among the new HERVs – only the second ever to be identified. Seventeen previously described viral sequences were also found.
Hidden viruses in the human genome - Genomics Education Programme
As research reveals ancient viruses lurk in our DNA, can genomics provide the missing link in treatment of modern disease?
www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk
Did God design our DNA with those viruses embedded in them?
Of course it was a new gene that researchers engineered and that governed the synthesis of amino acid histidine, and some tryptophan and was inserted into the cell. This goes exactly with what I stated earlier that unless the information is already in the genome there is no evolution. In this case, it was interjected by bio-engineers. Placing genes in the cell does not explain new genes.
Engineering a gene and placing it in the cell goes beyond an experimental set up. It has intelligent design hand prints all over it. And on top of the of that the modification was amplified in number. The purpose of that was to overcome the DNA repair system which filters out both deleterious and beneficial mutations. I hope you realize the implications of that little morsel.
Nuff said.
You have very selective memory. So I will simply attempt to repeat what was covered during our last discussion. During the lambasting of DNA era by secularists, it was known that only between 1 to 2 percent of DNA coded for protein. The rest was viewed as a wasteland of discarded junk DNA supposedly due to the stochastic nature of random processes. This was viewed as a problem for ID and a falsification of ID by others. Mean while the Discovery Institute predicted that future research would show much more function in DNA because functionality is a direct result of intelligent design. The 80 percent mark revealed by ENCODE with only 147 cell types was more that anyone had anticipated. It turns out that coding for protein is just a small part of DNA's function. It also needs instructions on how to assemble these proteins into diverse cells, enzymes, etc, along with the tools and nanotechnology to do the assembly. A 100 percent functionality rate is not feasible in light of the fact that genes can break and that useless DNA sequences can be imported by virus. A precise number for functionality can only be achieved by a precise mathematical model. So far, I don't believe that neither evolution or ID have achieved that.
In his book Stephen Meyer has something in order of 13 predictions by ID.
Your have an ordered hierarchy that does not agree with the tree predicted by the genes. And your can't pre-order required species for falsification but you do have the equivalent. They're called transitional fossils which have fully developed traits and no ancestors. Those are your mermaids and centaurs.
rossum
Well-known member
Both mermaids and centaurs are designed, by humans. They are examples of intelligent design, and have never been found in reality. A good example of the scientific viability of the ID hypothesis.
No it was not! The situation was set by intelligent agents, but the gene evolved, it was not engineered.
This is a fundamental error on your part, and is exactly what the Discovery Institute want you to think. They have successfully mislead you. Read the paper again. See if you can quote the bit where they engineer the DNA.
No it was not. It evolved. read the paper.
Agreed. And that is certainly NOT what happened in the experiment.
To be clear, the bacteria's DNA was (I think) engineered prior to the experiment as part of the set up. The new gene evolved subsequent to that.
They grew one strain missing a gene key for expressing the essential amino acid tryptophan. The strain needed to rely on another gene, which had a primary job but also a weak ability to take on the missing gene's work. The researchers encouraged the bacteria to duplicate the overworked gene, and its copies gathered mutations—some of which enhanced tryptophan production. At the end of a year's time (3,000 generations later) the bacteria had one gene that did the original job and a second that had evolved a new primary function—manufacturing tryptophan.
Gene Genesis: Scientists Observe New Genes Evolving from Mutated Copies
Researchers have observed in an experiment the exact steps bacterial genes take to evolve a new ability, unexpectedly adding a new twist on an old model
Nasvall, Liu and Andersson tested this model using the bacterium Salmonella. The bacteria carried a gene involved in making the amino acid histidine that had a secondary, weak ability to contribute to the synthesis of another amino acid, tryptophan. In their study, they removed the main tryptophan-synthesis gene from the bacteria and watched what happened.
After growing the bacteria for 3,000 generations on a culture medium without tryptophan, they forced the bacteria to evolve a new mechanism for producing the amino acid. What emerged was a tryptophan-synthesizing activity provided by a duplicated copy of the original gene.
Evolution of new genes captured
(Phys.org)—Like job-seekers searching for a new position, living things sometimes have to pick up a new skill if they are going to succeed. Researchers from the University of California, Davis, and Uppsala University, Sweden, have shown for the first time how living organisms do this.
Note that they forced it to evolve by using environmental pressure - controlling the conditions the bacteria lived in - not by engineering its DNA.
Full paper here
Last edited:
Viruses were embedded into the DNA. That's the explanation. This obviates your requirement that DNA must be 100 percent functional in order for it to be considered designed. As a side note ERV's are now known to be part of the immune system: LinkSo talk me through how ID explains the viruses embedded in human DNA.
Remnants of ancient viral pandemics in the form of viral DNA sequences embedded in our genomes are still active in healthy people, according to new research my colleagues and I recently published.HERVs, or human endogenous retroviruses, make up around 8% of the human genome, left behind as a result of infections that humanity’s primate ancestors suffered millions of years ago. They became part of the human genome due to how they replicate.Ancient Viral DNA Plays a Role in Human Disease and Development
Viral remnants make up 8 percent of the human genome, and a new study finds that these sequences are still active in healthy people.
The virus is a simple but powerful form of life. With the very smallest and most basic of genomes they can live and reproduce – effectively by slipping into host cells and hijacking their machinery to make new viruses. Some of the very smallest viruses, such as retroviruses, go one further – not just entering the cell but actually inserting their own genome into that of the cell, the better to exert control.In fact, some of the inactive DNA in any human genome derives from viral DNA. These human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are ancient viruses that integrated into an ancestral human genome long ago – sometimes dubbed ‘fossil viruses’. Usually they lose parts of their original sequences over time, due to mutations in the DNA sequences, but some retain whole genes that specify the production of viral proteins. They persist because they were inserted into human reproductive cells (a rare event) and thus passed on to new generations of humans.We have accumulated quite a few ancient viruses, it seems; estimates vary between about 4 and 8% of the total human genome, but identifying individual HERVs is difficult because most of them are very rare. However, new research examining the genomes from around 2,500 people of varied ethnic origins found a total of nineteen new different HERVs or viral DNA sequences. Most of these were incomplete, but there was one full viral genome sequence among the new HERVs – only the second ever to be identified. Seventeen previously described viral sequences were also found.Hidden viruses in the human genome - Genomics Education Programme
As research reveals ancient viruses lurk in our DNA, can genomics provide the missing link in treatment of modern disease?
Did God design our DNA with those viruses embedded in them?
Sure it evolved with exactly the same functions inserted, encouraged and amplified - no more no less. Does this offer a perspective of how DNA might implement a new function? Sure. But it does not explain how that function came about in the first place from a void. The resulting "evolved" gene had to be an already existing gene that acquired the specified functionality. Or else how would they find one that folds. Amplification of the modification also show a great deal of human design tinkering. This is because beneficial mutations are rare and multiple copies of the same mutation don't line up with reality.
Ok, it evolved with the same functionality that was inserted. Still goes with my statement that without the pre-existing information, there is no evolution.
A new gene was created whose function was inserted, encouraged, amplified and nurtured by human benefactors.Agreed. And that is certainly NOT what happened in the experiment.
To be clear, the bacteria's DNA was (I think) engineered prior to the experiment as part of the set up. The new gene evolved subsequent to that.
They grew one strain missing a gene key for expressing the essential amino acid tryptophan. The strain needed to rely on another gene, which had a primary job but also a weak ability to take on the missing gene's work. The researchers encouraged the bacteria to duplicate the overworked gene, and its copies gathered mutations—some of which enhanced tryptophan production. At the end of a year's time (3,000 generations later) the bacteria had one gene that did the original job and a second that had evolved a new primary function—manufacturing tryptophan.Gene Genesis: Scientists Observe New Genes Evolving from Mutated Copies
Researchers have observed in an experiment the exact steps bacterial genes take to evolve a new ability, unexpectedly adding a new twist on an old modelwww.scientificamerican.com
Nasvall, Liu and Andersson tested this model using the bacterium Salmonella. The bacteria carried a gene involved in making the amino acid histidine that had a secondary, weak ability to contribute to the synthesis of another amino acid, tryptophan. In their study, they removed the main tryptophan-synthesis gene from the bacteria and watched what happened.After growing the bacteria for 3,000 generations on a culture medium without tryptophan, they forced the bacteria to evolve a new mechanism for producing the amino acid. What emerged was a tryptophan-synthesizing activity provided by a duplicated copy of the original gene.Evolution of new genes captured
(Phys.org)—Like job-seekers searching for a new position, living things sometimes have to pick up a new skill if they are going to succeed. Researchers from the University of California, Davis, and Uppsala University, Sweden, have shown for the first time how living organisms do this.phys.org
Note that they forced it to evolve by using environmental pressure - controlling the conditions the bacteria lived in - not by engineering its DNA.
Full paper here
Tiburon
Well-known member
Oh, interjected design. Can you show any recent instances of interjected design?
No, my guess is that interjected design does not lend itself to directly controlled experimentation and observation. Mostly it is detected indirectly well after the actual event and evidence gathered like a crime scene or an traffic accident. But I am not an expert on the subject.
Last edited:
Tiburon
Well-known member
So what brings you to the belief that interjected design is something that is actually going on?
Detected design.
Tiburon
Well-known member
Where? Is design just assumed because you can't find another answer? Or is it assumed because it aligns with your religious beliefs?
For an answer to that, you would have to back track through all my posts on CSI, IC, and information. Rather than giving a private discussion to every Tom, Dick and George.
rossum
Well-known member
How? What design detector did you use? Where are the double blind tests checking that this design detector is accurate to, say, 95% correct or better?
ID has proposed a number of different design detectors, but it is not so good at testing those detectors.
Tiburon
Well-known member
No, I'll just assume it's because it aligns with your religious beliefs.