Genes in waiting
by GutsPreviously, it has been shown that genes that duplicated in the same time window and are clustered in the MHC regions suggests that a proto-MHC region was present in the last common ancestor of chordates, this is further supported by conservation of clusters with the urochordates.
The conservation of the clustering with arthropods suggests that a proto-MHC region was even older, present in Urbilateria.
Several studies now suggest that many important genes for the Adaptive Immune System were "waiting" for recruitment.
Our studies support the general statement that AIS appears after the jawless/jawed vertebrate split. However our study further reveals the fact that AIS is in its twilight in amphioxus and the evolution of the molecules in amphioxus are waiting for recruitment by the emergence of AIS.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
With the whole issue that some have to ID and Information Theory, it is my thought that we will start to see that the information in DNA is not very linear.
Yes, we will find genes that produce one or some other effect but not until we get full DNA mapping will we be able to see a truly remarkable design. Then ID, Information Theory and IC will be vindicated. What I think we'll find is that the entire structure of DNA affects other structures in ways we can't yet see.
Until then we are still groping around in the dark as it is also my thought that The Designer is far more Intelligent than many of us truly fathom.
Comment by lcd — July 14, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
July 14th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Well said Icd.
Comment by Bradford — July 14, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
July 15th, 2008 at 9:50 am
At least lcd is honest that he's simply embracing ID on the faith that it will eventually accomplish something. Still, if you make enough random speculations then eventually you're bound to guess something correctly. You are free to call that vindication when it finally happens.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 15, 2008 @ 9:50 am
July 15th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Thank you Todd,
I will say there is way more than just my idea. Wasn't Darwin's thought on what he saw just an idea? Even before there was anything known about DNA how hereditary worked was just an idea.
Darwin didn't know how an eye could come about, but he had ideas on how it could. So mine is just an idea. Maybe it will lead to nothing. I am sure there are way smarter people out there who if they devoted the same time, money and energy to really looking into ID they would find a lot more than many wish to admit.
Comment by lcd — July 15, 2008 @ 11:23 am
July 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Or better yet.
Just claim every new bit of evidence, regardless of how contrary to the theory it may appear, is actually very easily accounted for by the theory.
Comment by Doug — July 15, 2008 @ 11:46 am
July 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
What's "random" about it? It's already well established that the DNA code is not simply linear but interdependent on things like conformational space and histone modification. (Kind of like those Mad Magazine fold-ins where the secret image is revealed when you fold the page a certain way.) Lcd's suspicion is actually a valid inference.
Comment by chunkdz — July 15, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
July 15th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
chunkdz:
You beat me to it, chunk! Yes, 3-dimensional configuration space is very important all the way down the line. You'd think, after establishing so clearly that protein configuration is vital to function, that they'd know better. It's also vital for DNA, in chromatin dynamics, state-switching and histone modification (as you said). Actually, 'they' do know better (so we hardly ever hear from 'them'). It's just culture warriors who now insist on the RM-NS pablum they were taught in high school.
I suspect that a commitment to teenage rebellion as tradition-kicking rudie-boy atheism is what still motivates them well into their thirty-somethings. They're still fighting a war already lost when they were first exposed to it, because it's a lie that evolution somehow 'proves' there is no God. Evolution can falsify simplistic literal beliefs about the Book of Genesis, but those with that simplistic literal notion were a minority among religious believers always. Still are.
None of which has anything to do with whether or not life and evolution are intelligently designed.
Comment by Joy — July 15, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
July 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Yeah, Todd! You won't find any IDists out on a shaky limb. It doesn't become an ID postdiction (and one that is trivially obvious for ID to make) until it's already well established. I'm sure that many of you here will disagree with me, so as you chime in to tell me how wrong I am, please also point me to a failed ID prediction - thanks.
Well said, Doug.
Vindicated how? Does ID suggest how the structure of DNA affects other structures in ways we can't yet see (does it venture a testable hypothesis a little more specific than "a truly remarkable design"?) What methods or leads does ID give us before we get that full DNA mapping?
Oh, I thought the Darwinists were groping blindly because they refused to consider design. I guess we don't need to bother those busy reductionist/materialists from their work then.
Spot on, Doug.
Comment by JAllen — July 15, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
July 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Prediction:
A Teleological Hypothesis about a Machine
Not entirely failed because, as stated by the author, the line of reasoning allowed him the insight:
Update on Degradosome Function
JAllen,
Here's where you quote me again… and again.
Comment by Doug — July 15, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
July 15th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
JAllen:
The nature of DNA suggests that it is non-functional without an extensive supporting caste of proteins and RNA that are themselves encoded end products of DNA.
Comment by Bradford — July 15, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
JAllen,
Hi JAllen,
It's not a contest. We're just looking at data through different paradigms. For example, did cells as "blobs of protoplasm" support a telic worldview or a materialist worldview 150 years ago? Probably neither.
But what about cells as highly efficient self-replicating nano-tech machines with sophisticated regulatory and communications networks?
It's not some game of "gotcha". We're just looking at the trends. It seems to me that biochem is revealing things that are becoming harder and harder to see through a reducto-materialist filter.
Comment by chunkdz — July 17, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Hello JAllen,
Let me further explain what I think we are all starting to see in regards to Information and Front loading in DNA.
Yes, we are nowhere near as smart as the Designer. that should be very apparent. What we'd be like is the slow witted person who just got really zinged by an articulate, educated and extremely intelligent person. Yeah we, the ID community, just realized we were had even if we have a hard time understanding just what happened. This is in line with ID, we can vaguely see the design, although we don't fully understand it, yet. That is also why coming up with a way to describe what Information is and others is so difficult. Yes we will find it, or actually someone much smarter than I, so be patient.
Now compare this with the person who just gets mocked in the same way but refuses to say they were. These types of people are so wrapped up in thinking there's nobody smarter they can't be had. What happens is that they are so they are completely clueless about how badly they've been mocked they continue to argue even though they are completely out of their league.
I hate to say it but the deeper I look into ID and IC, the more I like it.
I will say though that for some of my fellows, it's ok to say, "I don't know, yet". As Darwinists are fond of saying it, for us to say it should make no difference to the conversation at hand.
That is why I continue to favor more research into ID. I D is a new paradigm whose story has just begun. If we get the funding and the Darwinists lose their ability to stop blocking money to go to ID research, I think we will see a lot more come out of ID in the next 15 years than the whole sorry story of Darwinism that's been going on for the last 150 years.
Comment by lcd — July 17, 2008 @ 4:40 pm