Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 11:14 AM
32 online now:
caffeine, Faith, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq (8 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,822 Year: 6,859/19,786 Month: 1,400/1,581 Week: 222/393 Day: 45/110 Hour: 6/23

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is DNA the TOTAL Instruction Set for a Lifeform?
Junior Member (Idle past 3376 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007

Message 1 of 2 (531607)
10-19-2009 4:25 AM

I'm slowly gathering facts together for a future video about the Darwinian mechanism for evolution (actually, it's failures), and one topic I wanted to cover seems to be yielding conflicting information. So I want to ask on this forum for any possible clarification or answers.

Developmental Biologist Jonathan Wells brings up something that seems to be a death blow to the theory (if he's correct) regarding DNA. He says "When an egg's genes are removed and replaced by those of another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from the lack of the right proteins"..."Biologists have found that mutations in developmental genes often lead to death or deformity, but they never produce changes that benefit the organism. DNA mutations never alter the endpoint of embryonic development: they can't even change the species".

He goes on about microtubule arrays and membrane patterns in the egg, and how those arrays are created by mysterious organelles called centrosomes which are inherited independently of an organism's DNA. He says "It is quite clear that developmental programs cannot be reduced to genetic programs, written in the language of DNA sequences. It would be more accurate to say that they are written into the structure of the entire fertilized egg---including its DNA, microtubule arrays, and membrane patterns". Basically he's bringing this up to show that this can't be explained by our current theory of evolution. If you can't get from one species of animal to another by replacing or mutating its DNA, then the Darwinian explanation is finished. Also, since all cells have the same DNA, and yet cells differentiate themselves into different types during development, something outside of the cell's DNA has to be in play (microtubule arrays, membrane patterns).

However, when reading about cloning, it was mentioned that cat DNA was put into a rabbit egg, and the outcome was a cat clone. I thought that was impossible based on Wells' description. What am I missing here? Is Wells wrong, or is something else going on in cloning that isn't relevant to what Wells is talking about? I'm confused. If anybody is an expert in this area, please speak up. Thanks.

-Ken Elhardt

Administrator (Idle past 242 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006

Message 2 of 2 (531631)
10-19-2009 7:03 AM

Thread Copied to Biological Evolution Forum
Thread copied to the Is DNA the TOTAL Instruction Set for a Lifeform? thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019