New Evidence Suggests DNA Mutations May Not Be Random

Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
New Evidence Suggests DNA Mutations May Not Be Random

More evidence on the real nature of evolutionary DNA change: 

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/more-evidence-on-the-real_b_1158228.html


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I don't know, that whole

I don't know, that whole thing reeks of intelligent design.  The article has trigger words like "using state of the art technology" and other buzz words that gets my BS sense tingling.  I like to keep an open mind, and I like alternatives to neo-Darwinian evolution, but this one just smells of creationism. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu.

                         Keep your BS detecor in shape,  it sounds like a lot of BS to me also.   Yet, according to wiki and other sources James A. Shapiro is NO creationist.  He is unique, eccentic and maybe beyond a good time to retire.  But at least not a creationist.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Ktulu wrote:

I don't know, that whole thing reeks of intelligent design.  The article has trigger words like "using state of the art technology" and other buzz words that gets my BS sense tingling.  I like to keep an open mind, and I like alternatives to neo-Darwinian evolution, but this one just smells of creationism. 

 

I got the article from The National Center for Science Education, they put the link up on Facebook.  They said, "The real nature of evolutionary DNA change?" and then gave the link.  I'm going to keep believing it's random until there's more data.  Maybe the NCSE put the question mark after it because there's not enough research yet.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Ktulu

Philosophicus wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I don't know, that whole thing reeks of intelligent design.  The article has trigger words like "using state of the art technology" and other buzz words that gets my BS sense tingling.  I like to keep an open mind, and I like alternatives to neo-Darwinian evolution, but this one just smells of creationism. 

I got the article from The National Center for Science Education, they put the link up on Facebook.  They said, "The real nature of evolutionary DNA change?" and then gave the link.  I'm going to keep believing it's random until there's more data.  Maybe the NCSE put the question mark after it because there's not enough research yet.

There's no reason that DNA changes =must= be random base-pair mutations, which (as I understand it) is the conventional meaning of "random mutation".

We already know that large segments of DNA can be relocated, and we also know (see the evolutionary split between humans and apes) that entire chromosomes can disappear (we have 23 pairs, apes have 24).  What the article appears to be describing is a mechanism, within DNA, where entire DNA fragments can be relocated.  If that's the case, DNA is actively taking a role in modifying itself.

Remember that all processes within living organisms are subject to evolutionary pressures, including the ability to adapt to evolutionary pressures.  That is, if one organism has a genome that is better able to evolve, it will be preferred over a genome which can only evolve by some more difficult process.  Which is to say that Evolution should predict the existence of mechanisms which make Evolution easier.

(Which is proof of Intelligent Design Smiling )

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I don't know,

Ktulu wrote:

I don't know, that whole thing reeks of intelligent design.  The article has trigger words like "using state of the art technology" and other buzz words that gets my BS sense tingling.  I like to keep an open mind, and I like alternatives to neo-Darwinian evolution, but this one just smells of creationism.

I have a pretty finely tuned Intelligent Design detector, and other than my joke that this proves Intelligent Design, there is nothing intelligent-design-ish about it.

I think the issue is that there is a lot of evidence for small scale evolutionary change, such as species drift where two isolated populations slowly evolve, through very small changes in their genome, into two different species which are still fairly closely related.  See Darwin and all his damned finches.  Without actually sequencing out the genes responsible for "beak shape", I would suggest that the changes in beak morphology are likely caused by =minor= changes in the finch genome that were naturally selected.

What we don't have is a mechanism for larger scale changes.  My guess is that's what's been identified -- a means of distributing entire modified genes or DNA sequences without waiting on base pair mutation to get around to doing that.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."