Creation of genes enables ecological adaptations

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: April 29, 2014

NY Times Science

The Continuing Evolution of Genes

By CARL ZIMMER 

Excerpt: ” As genes duplicate over millions of years, they can grow into so-called gene families, each containing hundreds of similar genes.

One family, for example, is essential for our sense of smell. These genes encode 390 different kinds of proteins produced in our noses, called olfactory receptors. Each olfactory receptor has a slightly different structure, allowing it to capture a different set of molecules.”

My comment: If you perform a Google search for “de novo creation” and “Kohl” you will find tens of thousands of links to my comments about how the experience-dependent creation of genes occurs. One of the links will take you to Evolution in Color: From Peppered Moths to Walking Sticks by Carl Zimmer (October 9, 2013).  Carl wrote: “In 2011, scientists determined that a single mutation of recent origin is responsible for “industrial melanism.” As usual, the discussion with others turned ugly because no experimental evidence supports the likelihood that a mutation could result in the morphological differentiation or the behavioral differentiation of the moths. Morphological and behavioral differentiation are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man.
All experimental evidence has shown that the nutrient-dependent de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes underlies the differentiation of cell types in individuals of species that enables the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of their reproduction. Thus, there is no such thing as The Continuing Evolution of Genes.
Creation of genes is nutrient-dependent and it always has been, at least when the genes are found in cells. Mere use of the capital ‘C’ in Creation causes some people to claim that anything a Creationist, like me, says should be ignored.  Most of those people don’t know that the author of Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution was a Creationist. Instead, they like to tout Dobzansky’s claim without learning anything about how to make sense of evolution in the light of biology. For example, even in the human influenza virus we see that the amino acid substitutions linked to their virulence and identity are glucose-dependent. The fact that the glucose comes from inside an infected cell attests to the plausibility of my model of de novo creation of different cell types in individuals of different species via nutrient-dependent DNA methylation, base pair flipping, alternative splicings of pre-mRNA and amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man.
Evolutionary theorists like to claim that my model is a theory, which they can then compare to their more popular theories about mutations, natural selection and the evolution of species diversity. What we now see is that such comparisons are silly. No matter how popular the theory has become, if it doesn’t start with the de novo Creation of genes it can be no more than any other pseudoscientific misrepresentation of biologically-based cause and effect.
 
 
 
 


Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: