A Tunable Mechanism Determines the Duration of the Transgenerational Adaptations
Tuning the Duration of Directed Adaptations
Organisms adapt to environmental challenges. In fact, many different organisms adapt in non-homologous ways to many different, unforeseen, environments. This contradicts evolution. For we are not talking about random changes occurring by chance, occasionally getting luck enough to confer an adaptation, and then propagating throughout the population. We’re not talking about an evolutionary process of random mutations and natural selection. That would take a long time. What we’re talking about are adaptations that specifically address environmental challenges, and occur in a good fraction of the population, over a few generations, or perhaps within a generation. Such directed adaptation occurs quickly.
That contradicts evolution because random mutations are not going to create such a complicated adaptation capability. Furthermore, they are not going to do this over and over, in so many different species, for so many different environments. And even if, by some miracle, this did occur, it would not be selected. That is because the adaptation capability is not for the current environment the organism faces, but for an unforeseen, hypothetical, future environment. The moment it arises, the adaptation capability is of no use, and would not be selected for.
But that’s not all.
As with Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics, these rapid, directed, adaptations are transgenerational. From parent to offspring, the progeny inherit the adaptation from the progenitor.
So now we must not only believe that evolution’s random mutations constructed these unbelievably detailed, complicated, unique adaptation capabilities, but that evolution also constructed the incredibly complicated means to transmit the adaptations to the next generation. As we saw recently, new research has demonstrated such transgenerational inheritance to be genetic, rather than via the parent’s behavior, breast milk, etc.
So again, random mutations must have created yet another complex design (the ability to pass along adaptations for an unforeseen environmental challenge), and it would have been worthless until that particular environmental challenge arose.
But that’s not all.
New research out of Tel Aviv University explains how these acquired adaptations persist through the later generations. Previously, these inherited adaptations were assumed simply to decay or “peter out” over a few generations. But the new research has uncovered proteins that manage and govern the duration of the adaptations. The adaptations are transmitted by small RNA molecules, and the proteins provide a tunable mechanism to govern the duration of the adaptation, over the generations. As the title of the paper explains:
A Tunable Mechanism Determines the Duration of the Transgenerational Small RNA Inheritance
Again, random mutations are not capable of producing such designs, and the designs would not be selected for. None of this makes any sense on evolution.
So now we must not only believe that evolution’s random mutations constructed these adaptation capabilities, and the means to transmit them to later generations, but also to control precisely their duration.
The science contradicts evolution.
Posted by Cornelius Hunter at
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-tunable-mechanism-determines-duration.html
bornagain77 March 29, 2016 at 5:44 am
as to this comment:
“As we saw recently, new research has demonstrated such transgenerational inheritance to be genetic, rather than via the parent’s behavior, breast milk, etc.”
is this related note:
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015
Excerpt: humans have a “few thousand” different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,,
The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It’s called genomic mosaicism.
In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,,
,,,(then) “genomic equivalence” — the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA — became the accepted view.
I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common.
I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93851.html
Well, so much for the central dogma of the modern synthesis, i.e. the ‘selfish gene’.
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years:
Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB3fMCfk0E
In the preceding video, Trifonov also elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, “Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!”. And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read.
Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark):
“Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages.”
Edward N. Trifonov – 2010
Multiple overlapping codes in DNA? I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-tunable-mechanism-determines-the-duration-of-the-transgenerational-adaptations/ |
