Or Maybe That’s the Design?

I will start out by pointing out that this is an important find.  Unfortunately, the authors simply assume that this is evidence of evolution.  There’s no reason why it wouldn’t be an example of design, however.  In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the design hypothesis fits better.  Why would TATA in a gene’s promoter tend to make it evolve than other genes?  Aren’t the mutations that drive evolution random?  Does the TATA sequence somehow stimulate mutations that are supposedly random?

Design on the other hand can be thought of as a code, like a computer program.  When the TATA sequence is read, it triggers the code to change and help adapt the gene.  In other words, it is a command to change the gene.  This makes more sense than the evolutionary scenario.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Or Maybe That’s the Design?

  1. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    A reasonable hypothesis may yet turn out to be wrong. That’s what we do in science: test hypotheses experimentally. Right?

    If ID is serious about establishing itself as a scientific enterprise its proponents might want to think about experimental ways to demonstrate the non-randomness of mutations. That can be done, at least in principle.

    Take for example generators of (pseudo) random numbers. These are completely deterministic algorithms that nonetheless churn out sequences of numbers that at first sight don’t seem to follow any pattern. They are used in various statistical applications, such as Monte Carlo simulations of physical systems in thermal equilibrium. However, a careful examination of these sequences sometimes reveals clear non-random patterns. Because non-randomness may screw up the Monte Carlo simulation, random-number generators are thoroughly tested for patterns. See this article for a review:

    P. Hellekalek, Good random number generators are (not so) easy to find, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 46, 485 (1998); doi:10.1016/S0378-4754(98)00078-0

  2. professorsmith

    Thanks for veering off topic.

  3. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    Looks like we didn’t veer off topic all that much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s