Pseudo Genes and Evolution

The GULO gene, the final mammalian  step for Vitamin C synthesis,  is nonfunctional in all primates due to shared deletions.  This observation has been used to support the neo-Darwinian claim that we humans share a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas in the ancient past, more than 50 million years ago.

Dr. Sean Pitman takes another look at this issue: 

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

It turns out that the Guinea pig also shares a non-functioning GULO gene with  a few of the same deletions found in the primate GULO gene.  Although there are some differences noted as well, the similarities in the deletion areas raises some serious questions about the assumptions underlying the entire pseudo-gene argument for evolution. (see below diagram).  Why would a deletion occur randomly in the exact same place in the Guinea Pig and the Primate?  Obviously this is not evidence of common descent since the two lineages are so separated.  So what is it evidence of?  This suggests that these deletions are non-random, perhaps part of a regulatory mechanism, which is more aptly described as engineering mechanisms rather than with neo-darwinian mechanisms.

Endogenous Retroviruses ERVs and Common Descent 

ERVs are also considered to be strong evidence of common descent by Neo-Darwinists.  These are thought to be fossilized remnants of ancient retro-viral infections which make marks in the genome at the exact same locations for Humans, Chimps and Gorillas, thus provig a common ancestor.

Dr Sean Pitman discusses the problems with using ERV's as proof of neo-Darwinism.  One problem is the presence of other ERV's in the chimp and gorilla genome which are NOT Present in the human genome.  If ERV's can be used to prove a common ancestor, then they can also be used to DISprove a common ancestor.  It turns out that many of the basic assumptions underlying the ERV thinking has been found to be incorrect.  Insertions are not random, but are related to HOT SPOTS.  And rather than being non-functional, they seem to be involved in highly important regulatory functions.

Bottom line is that neo-Darwinism has actually been retarding progress in molecular biology  research by either making false predictions, or preventing research into fertile areas.  One of these impediments was the 25 year insistance on non-coding JUNK DNA which we now know was a false prediction by neo-Darwinism and impediment to research.

As pointed out by Stephen Meyer, using a design engineering approach to research is much more useful at making valid predictions and uncoverung new discoveries in molecular biology.

Common Descent May Very Well Be Valid

I am not opposed to the idea of common descent.  There may very well be a common ancestor to all life, and an evolutionary tree of some sort may be a valid construct.  However, we need to be careful about how we make inferences from the evidence for a common ancestor in order to avoid methodological bias.  

Intelligence in Nature

The arch neo-Darwinist Dawkins says that biological life forms are the result of undirected evolution giving "the appearance of design" while not being designed.   Stephen Meyers' reply to Dawkins is that life both appears to be designed and IS designed.  Design implies an intelligence in nature behind the design.

This brings us to the question. Can we find evidence of intelligence in nature.  The obvious answer to this question is that YES Of course.

The best example of intelligence in nature is us humanoids.  Humans are intelligent.  Well, some of us are.  We have oral and written language.  We design machines, computers, software code and other things, all obviously indicating some underlying intelligence.

Well, humans are part of nature.  So, it follows that there is intelligence in nature, at least the intelligence that comes from us humans. 

OK, so now we must ask the question.  What about intelligence in nature that is not the result of human activity?  Is there any evidence of this?

Stephen Meyer author of Sinature in a Cell  would argue that the coded sequences in DNA represent an intelligence in nature.   There are many other examples.  Nature is characterized by very many examples of intelligence.

Where all does this stuff come from?

During the Industrial Revolution, we see the invention of various machines.  Clocks, steam engines, and numerous work related machines improved every day life and raised the standard of living.  People became familiar with machines and recognized that these were the result of human intelligence.  People such as William Paley made the inference that since the human body is also a machine of sorts, there must be an intelligence that made us.  Thereby coming up with the intelligent design argument for the existence of God the Designer.  Hence ID, Intelligent Design.

This was soundly refuted at the time by Darwin's theories which postulated natural mechanisms of inheritance, natural selection, random variation etc. as the mechanism which made complex machines called biological life forms and us humans.  

20th century molecular biology has shown that not only is cellular life characterized by multiple sophisticated nano-machines, (such as flagella, etc.), there is also a coded instruction set in DNA for the construction of all these complex nano-machines at the cellular level.  This was never predicted or envisaged by neo-Darwinism prior to the discovery of the structure of  DNA in 1953.

So not only do have the intricate machines in cells, we also now have a coded instruction set for these machines.  Perhaps neo-Darwinian evolution was sufficent to deflect opinion away from the William Paley design ideas.  However, the discovery of a coded instruction set in the nuclear DNA for the construction of these machines takes us to the next level.  Neo-Darwinism, which says that there is NO intelligence in nature is refuted with the science findings of YES, there is intelligence in the DNA code.  This is why ID says they doing science.  They are looking at the evidence in science and saying the best explanation of the DNA evidence is that an intelligence is at work.  There is a design, an engineering project going on in the cell.

Is this intelligence in nature the same thing as GOD?  In order to be scientifically correct, Stephen Meyer says that ID cannot make this inference.  For public consumption, Meyer staunchly refuses to speculate beyond saying the evidence suggests an intelligence. However, on a personal level, he does make the inference.  Is this allowed?  I think it is.  To say this intelligence in nature is equated with GOD the Creator is a metaphysical inference which leaves the realm of science.  However, the more limited assertion that there is intelligence in nature, I believe, can be made in the realm of science as the best inference from the observed data.  So yes, I would agree with Stephen Meyer.

Jeffrey Dach MD