Genetics Codes are next to impossible to improve on.
The discovery of ubiquitous poly-functional DNA is profound, as shown in the following summary of a poly-functional DNA sequence study. (George Montañez et al. 2013)
Research shows that given an existing poly-functional DNA sequence, it seems extremely, if not exponentially difficult to gain valid information and or improve its status via any random mutation.
Naturalists and evolutionists make a short lasting victory claim that for example, the long-term E. coli eukaryotes biological experiments of people like Lenski et al. have been widely accepted as evidence and proof of evidential evolution “before our very eyes”. Such “evolution” would suggest that numerous beneficial mutations were arising”.
Nevertheless, if we examine these claims in detail and more carefully, we find that “The E. coliin these long-term experiments (which involved vast numbers of cells over vast numbers of generations), did not appear to evolve any new functions”. This is the key to the research. No new information was revealed nor found in such experiments.
“The only changes that were observed involved adaptations to the specific artificial growth medium”. Adaptation does not mean evolution, it is simple a mechanism of modification in order to follow up a previously programmed mechanism that would and will never result in any new species.
“This type of adaptive change to an external factor is only a superficial improvement — it does not explain how the E. coli genome arose, nor how the information specifying the bacteria’s internal workings arose”.
Furthermore, “Moreover, those studies failed to show any specific mutation which was unambiguously beneficial”, as it was shown that most of those mutations were not beneficial and rather consisted of a loss of function rather than a gain or information or function.
DNA then, has been found to attain a poly- functional role in the process of new cells which provides strong evidence that the “discovery of multiple overlapping codes requires us to re-adjust downward our estimates of the rate of beneficial mutation”. This does not even include the additional and negative effects of “generic drift”.
Some atheists and theist “scientists” in an effort to confuse the issue, claim that sickle cell anemia is an excellent example of a “beneficial mutation”. They “triumphantly” disclose to the public is that
carriers of the mutation for sickle cell anemia are more resistant to malaria.
However, what they do not disclose openly is that, unfortunately for those afflicted with such “beneficial” mutation, also suffer from impaired hemoglobin function and reduced red blood cell counts. This is hardly a desirable mutation in that any reasonable human would like to be a receptor of.
The definition of this phenomena then is as follows: “Mutations that affect more than one code are, to use a new terminology, pleiotropic - in that they have multiple biological effects. This is consistent with what geneticists have known for many decades — most known mutations are pleiotropic at some level — affecting more than one biological trait”. Thus, not really beneficial at all.
“Beneficial mutations in nature appear to be so rare that after decades of research, geneticists and bio molecular studies, still cannot empirically determine just how rare they are. This suggests they are very rare indeed”.
In fact, there are many reasons to believe that beneficial mutations are very if not extremely rare. “A mutation is a component of an organism’s genetic specifications. Specifications are, by definition, specific. For life to be life requires an exquisite degree of specification — optimization that is hard for us to understand, involving global integration of thousands of systems which have hundreds of thousands of interactions”.
Furthermore, the literature shows that “Each biological specification
is encoded by strings of characters (nucleotides or amino acids) that are very specific (and hence very unlikely), with each character having meaning only in the context of many other characters”.
We could make a very simple comparison for example, “like letters in a book or like the binary bits comprising a computer code. Any random change in such a set of specifications causes some loss of useful information — with a very high degree of probability”.
Thus, “It is now clear that biological systems are very robust and can tolerate much genetic damage. While many in the past have argued that this is due to a general lack of specificity” (such as the idea that many sequences will do the job).
“This no longer seems reasonable. It now seems more likely that biological systems are robust because of many levels of auto-regulation, self-correction, and countless back-up systems. The new field of systems biology informs us of near-optimality in biological systems, and this appears to be ubiquitous”.\
“Such ubiquitous optimality is only conceivable given extremely specific (hence extremely constrained) genetic specifications. Such nearly-optimal genetic specifications should inherently be very difficult to improve, especially when limited to changes which only arise as rare, random, and isolated events”……
“Trifanov pioneered the concept that genomes have a mul-
tiplicity of codes and such codes can overlap. He showed that a given nucleotide site can participate in multiple genetic codes (with the standard protein code being just being one such code). This is the basic meaning of “poly- functional DNA”. Regrettably, Trifanov’s profound discovery generated limited interest”.
On the other hand, the recent “ENCODE project has validated the importance of his ideas, and has shown that poly-functional DNA appears to be ubiquitous in higher genomes”. In other words poly-functional DNA is a structural part of humans makeup.
Now, speaking of the complexity and efficiency of the human and DNA code recent research says that, “Given that a single nucleotide pair can potentially participate in so many different codes simultaneously, it should be obvious that this allows data amplification without increasing genome size, and so reflects a very sophisticated form of data compression”.
In order to minimize evolutionist’s criticism that our human genome code is made out some non-functional coding, or of the misnomer, “junk DNA” is is important to remember that rather than junk its makeup give us absolute evidence, as this new research shows, that it is actually nothing less than an extreme case of optimization. Chance does not play a role in information design and optimization.
“One interesting requirement of overlapping codes is that each code must be partially “degenerate” (imperfect) to create the “flexibility” required to allow other overlapping codes. Such degeneracy might appear to the casual observer as an example of bad design”, but in reality it reflects extreme optimization”.
Also, note that research has shown that “Within a highly optimized genetic system, mutational damage can range from very slight to lethal”. Any improvement would make hardly any difference in the betterment of the organism.
Thus, there is “apparent absence of documented mutations that are unambiguously beneficial (i.e., beneficial at one or more levels, while not deleterious on any level). To our knowledge there is no case of a mutation which is unambiguously beneficial and which has been shown to distinctly improve the inner workings or an organism”.
Ultimately shows that the human genome and all other forms of life, must have acquired their “information” from a superior from of life, that is an intelligent agent, a Creator.
Sources: Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006. Accessed October, 7th, 2017.
References
George Montañez, 1, , Robert J. Marks II, 2, , Jorge Fernandez, 3, and and John C. Sanford. 2013. “Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation.” Biologial Information, b1567_Sect1.2.3, , no. New Perspectives. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006.
