Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

On May 12, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Nucacids wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> You wrote:
>
> “ID nowhere admits that there is a lack of correlation between DNA
> and organizational complexity. Why are not the lay people told there
> is such a foundational problem with Intelligent Design?”
>
> It depends on what version of ID you are talking about. If you are
> talking about a creationist-like version, which has little-to-no
> room for evolution and natural selection, then yes, you have a
> point. Independently created/designed organisms leave us little
> reason to expect a lack of correlation between DNA and
> organizational complexity. But if we are talking about an
> evolutionary version of ID, one where design works through evolution
> and recruits natural selecion (as I would argue), then this does not
> constitute any foundational problem that I can see.
>

You, David O. and I are talking past each other (and basically saying
the same thing). The problem is the IDM has completely destroyed the
phrase ID. When I was using ID in my previous post -- and this one --
I was/am referring to the creationist variant including their strange
definition of specified complexity. Design of the creationist ID sort
fails as an explanation of the C-value paradox. Evolution, on the
other hand, provides a ready explanation, specifically varying ploidy.
If you want to include varying ploidy as an ID mechanism, be my guest.
How you prove that I don't have a clue and you are on your own.

Again Taft et al:

> It is clear that gene, segmental or whole genome duplication is one
> of the two major sources of raw evolutionary material for genome
> expansion and the generation of new functions.(33) This has been
> well documented in yeast where there appears to have been at least
> one round of whole genome duplication, followed by large-scale but
> highly selective gene and genomic sequence losses, retaining genes
> that evolved useful alter native (non-redundant) paralogous
> functions and shedding many of those that were redundant.(34)
>
> Similar observations have been made in flowering plant Arabidopsis
> thaliana.(35) There is also evidence that the vertebrates have
> undergone at least one round of duplication compared to other
> metazoans, which may have provided the platform for their subsequent
> evolution.(36) However, the extent to which genome duplication via
> polyploidy has contributed to greater functional complexity, as
> opposed to allelic diversity, in extant organisms is difficult to
> assess, especially, for example, when one compares dif ferent
> protists, amphibians with mammals, or wheat with other grasses.
>
> The other major source of raw evolutionary material and of variation
> in genome size is transposon-derived sequences,(37 – 40) which
> comprise almost half of the human and mouse genomes(41,42) (Table
> 2). These sequences are often but somewhat pejoratively referred to
> as ‘repetitive’ sequences. Nonetheless, there is increasing evidence
> that at least some have acquired functions (for examples see Refs
> (43 – 46) ), but it remains unclear what proportion have done so and
> therefore what contribution they make to genetic complexity in
> different lineages.(29,47)
>
> However, it is also clear that deletion of sequences occurs at a
> significant frequency over evolutionary time.(29,48) Therefore, any
> extant genome sequence must reflect a balance between (i) sequence
> acquisition by duplication and transposition, a proportion of which
> will have been fixed by positive and subsequently negative selection
> following acquisition of function, and (ii) sequence loss, which
> will be largely restricted to those that have not yet acquired
> function or that are functionally redundant. Again, what proportion
> of these sequences fall into these categories is presently
> impossible to determine. One may safely predict, however, that the
> more
> ancient a sequence, the more likely it will have suffered one or the
> other fate (i.e. acquired function or have been deleted), and,
> therefore, the more likely that those that remain are functional.
> This may throw doubt on the use of ancient ‘repeats’ (transposon-
> derived sequences) as an index of the rate, and variance of the
> rate, of neutral evolution in mammalian genomes.(42)

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 13 00:42:49 2008