Evolution of de novo genes; a further nail in the coffin of intelligent design?

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
One of the cornerstones of the intelligent design argument is that natural processes are incapable of creating the necessary genetic information to enable the various functions required for biological organisms.

Stephen Meyer (currently the most prolific ID proponent) in particular makes this a crux of his core argument for ID. He uses it in particular in the context of the Cambrian explosion, claiming that evolution cannot explain the origin of all the required genetic information for Cambrian fauna.

Lately I've been reading up on the concept of de novo gene evolution. Traditional thinking of the evolution of genes revolves largely around gene duplications and subsequent evolutionary modification. IOW, new genes evolving from pre-existing genes.

With de novo gene evolution, you have the evolution of new genes from non-genic DNA. In this manner, novel genes can evolve without ancestral genes preceding them.

This paper in particular describes various proposed mechanisms for de novo gene evolution: De novo gene birth

This area of gene evolution appears less understood, but as more is learned about how de novo genes evolve, that can further answer the question of where all that wonderful genetic information came from.
 
Last edited:

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One of the cornerstones of the intelligent design argument is that natural processes are incapable of creating the necessary genetic information to enable the various functions required for biological organisms.

Stephen Meyer (currently the most prolific ID proponent) in particular makes this a crux of his core argument for ID. He uses it in particular in the context of the Cambrian explosion, claiming that evolution cannot explain the origin of all the required genetic information for Cambrian fauna.

Lately I've been reading up on the concept of de novo gene evolution. Traditional thinking of the evolution of genes revolves largely around gene duplications and subsequent evolutionary modification. IOW, new genes evolving from pre-existing genes.

With de novo gene evolution, you have the evolution of new genes from non-genic DNA. In this manner, novel genes can evolve without ancestral genes preceding them.

This paper in particular describes various proposed mechanisms for de novo gene evolution: De novo gene birth

This area of gene evolution appears less understood, but as more is learned about how de novo genes evolve, that can further answer the question of where all that wonderful genetic information came from.

Our creator is indescribably brilliant. Science has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Our creator is indescribably brilliant. Science has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The results are impressive, amazing, even, but I wouldn't call the process of accumulating the results of vast amounts of trial-and-error over deep time 'brilliant' - it's actually an incredibly wasteful process. If a creative entity were to have done it, it would be equivalent to carving a mountain down to an actual-size sculpture of a bacterium... (leaving a mountain-sized heap of failed sculpture tailings).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
2,448
4,165
50
Florida
✟239,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
ID Proponent: "Evolution can't create anything new!"

Evolution: Proposes mechanisms and examples of De Novo genes

ID Proponent:
Our creator is indescribably brilliant. Science has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Upvote 0

sesquiterpene

Well-Known Member
Sep 14, 2018
732
611
USA
✟158,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
One of the cornerstones of the intelligent design argument is that natural processes are incapable of creating the necessary genetic information to enable the various functions required for biological organisms.

Stephen Meyer (currently the most prolific ID proponent) in particular makes this a crux of his core argument for ID. He uses it in particular in the context of the Cambrian explosion, claiming that evolution cannot explain the origin of all the required genetic information for Cambrian fauna.

Lately I've been reading up on the concept of de novo gene evolution. Traditional thinking of the evolution of genes revolves largely around gene duplications and subsequent evolutionary modification. IOW, new genes evolving from pre-existing genes.

With de novo gene evolution, you have the evolution of new genes from non-genic DNA. In this manner, novel genes can evolve without ancestral genes preceding them.

This paper in particular describes various proposed mechanisms for de novo gene evolution: De novo gene birth

This area of gene evolution appears less understood, but as more is learned about how de novo genes evolve, that can further answer the question of where all that wonderful genetic information came from.
Larry Moran has an interesting discussion here:
Sandwalk: The evolution of de novo genes
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The results are impressive, amazing, even, but I wouldn't call the process of accumulating the results of vast amounts of trial-and-error over deep time 'brilliant' - it's actually an incredibly wasteful process. If a creative entity were to have done it, it would be equivalent to carving a mountain down to an actual-size sculpture of a bacterium... (leaving a mountain-sized heap of failed sculpture tailings).
I don't call it trial and error in the least. I call it perfected design
with full intention and knowledge of the results. So perfect we
can't even fathom that it is not random.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The results are impressive, amazing, even, but I wouldn't call the process of accumulating the results of vast amounts of trial-and-error over deep time 'brilliant' -

Even science is admitting that all the accumulated code could be found useful in the fixture.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I don't call it trial and error in the least. I call it perfected design
with full intention and knowledge of the results. So perfect we
can't even fathom that it is not random.
If you like, but that is an unfalsifiable proposition which adds nothing to our understanding about how the evolutionary process works.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The results are impressive, amazing, even, but I wouldn't call the process of accumulating the results of vast amounts of trial-and-error over deep time 'brilliant' - it's actually an incredibly wasteful process. If a creative entity were to have done it, it would be equivalent to carving a mountain down to an actual-size sculpture of a bacterium... (leaving a mountain-sized heap of failed sculpture tailings).
There are no failures. Only man's inability to comprehend infinite genius.
Saying there are failures in nature is like saying some stars just don't quite make it and become stars.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not going to plow through those links unless you can point me to something in them which demonstrates that it was, as you claimed, the scientific consensus to deny that "junk DNA" had any function.
Here is a modern version of ignorance:
At least 75 per cent of our DNA really is useless junk after all


And here are the historical facts of matters:

With no obvious function, the noncoding portion of a genome was declared useless or sometimes called "selfish DNA," existing only for itself without contributing to an organism's fitness. In 1972 the late geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA" to describe all noncoding sections of a genome, most of which consist of repeated segments scattered randomly throughout the genome.

Typically these sections of junk DNA come about through transposition, or movement of sections of DNA to different positions in the genome. As a result, most of these regions contain multiple copies of transposons, which are sequences that literally copy or cut themselves out of one part of the genome and reinsert themselves somewhere else.

Elements that use copying mechanisms to move around the genome increase the amount of genetic material. In the case of "cut and paste" elements, the process is slower and more complicated, and involves DNA repair machinery. Nevertheless, if transposon activity happens in cells that give rise to either eggs or sperm, these genes have a good chance of integrating into a population and increasing the size of the host genome.

Although very catchy, the term "junk DNA" repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years. After all, who would like to dig through genomic garbage? Thankfully, though, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. And it is because of them that in the early 1990s, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change. In fact, more and more biologists now regard repetitive elements as genomic treasures.

What is junk DNA, and what is it worth?



It's all about how scientists are, in general, a herd of moo-cows that run whatever direction they think they will be feed fodder.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not going to plow through those links unless you can point me to something in them which demonstrates that it was, as you claimed, the scientific consensus to deny that "junk DNA" had any function.
Hopefully each link tests the same story about "Junk DNA" and how it was the consensus.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,519
9,486
✟236,269.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Did I ever mention that people invent their own reality no matter what others can see?
I'm not sure if you have mentioned it, but you have certainly demonstrated this unfortunate failure through the content of your posts many times.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I don't call it trial and error in the least. I call it perfected design
with full intention and knowledge of the results. So perfect we
can't even fathom that it is not random.
It doesn't really make any difference what you call it - it's trial and error in that every generation has mutations that may be advantageous or disadvantageous, and the disadvantageous ones are unlikely to spread through the population. The 'trial' is seeing which ones persist and the 'error' is the ones that don't persist - which, in the long term, is the majority.

It's not random because successful variations are selected for (or, conversely, unsuccessful variations are selected out).

Whether or not you think some entity designed the process doesn't change how it operates.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Even science is admitting that all the accumulated code could be found useful in the fixture.
The reason the process is so successful is that the mutations accumulate over time and can form the basis for new developments - foresight isn't necessary.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
There are no failures. Only man's inability to comprehend infinite genius.
Saying there are failures in nature is like saying some stars just don't quite make it and become stars.
It's a metaphor - in this context, failures are those mutations that do not spread and persist.

Funny that you should mention stars - in astronomy, a 'failed' star would be a brown dwarf - not quite big enough to ignite or sustain fusion.
 
Upvote 0