RNA editing and Convergence, powerful evidence for design

Recently Mammuthus cited the following interesting article:

quote:

---

Diversity and evolution of mitochondrial RNA editing systems.
Gray MW.

​

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 1X5, Canada. M.W.Gray@Dal.Ca

​

'RNA editing' describes the programmed alteration of the nucleotide sequence of an RNA species, relative to the sequence of the encoding DNA. The phenomenon encompasses two generic patterns of nucleotide change, 'insertion/deletion' and 'substitution', defined on the basis of whether the sequence of the edited RNA is colinear with the DNA sequence that encodes it. RNA editing is mediated by a variety of pathways that are mechanistically and evolutionarily unrelated. Messenger, ribosomal, transfer and viral RNAs all undergo editing in different systems, but well-documented cases of this phenomenon have so far been described only in eukaryotes, and most often in mitochondria. Editing of mRNA changes the identity of encoded amino acids and may create translation initiation and termination codons. The existence of RNA editing violates one of the long-accepted tenets of genetic information flow, namely, that the amino acid sequence of a protein can be directly predicted from the corresponding gene sequence. Particular RNA editing systems display a narrow phylogenetic distribution, which argues that such systems are derived within specific eukaryotic lineages, rather than representing traits that ultimately trace to a common ancestor of eukaryotes, or even further back in evolution. The derived nature of RNA editing raises intriguing questions about how and why RNA editing systems arise, and how they become fixed as additional, essential steps in genetic information transfer.

---

I haven’t had the opportunity to track down the full article, but it appears that much can be gleaned from the abstract. Several provide strong arguments for design:1) The article properly describes ‘RNA editing’ as a programmed alteration (emphasis mine). We have discussed this quite a bit, and I would like to hear evolutionists explain how such a program (or code) can evolve through small, incremental steps.2) The authors note that particular RNA editing systems display a narrow phylogenetic distribution, which argues that such systems are derived within specific eukaryotic lineages, rather than representing traits that ultimately trace to a common ancestor of eukaryotes, or even further back in evolution. (emphasis mine). In other words, they can’t find a common ancestry thread so they have to rely on the independent evolution of these complex RNA editing systems! (how many seperate, independent paths of evolution of RNA editing the authors believe occurred cannot be gleaned from the abstract) This is called convergence, something that is prevalent in nature and by its very definition is anti-evolutionary! (the word convergence is used to describe traits that cannot be attributed to common decent). Convergence is yet another signature God has left in his creation to thwart attempts to explain things via naturalistic processes.

quote:

---

What is the testable hypothesis of RNA editing being a program with a designed purpose? How could that be falsified?

---

Easy. Produce one example of a program (code) arising via a naturalistic process, and the claim would immediately be falsified. Just find one counter-example.Now, I would ask that you provide a testable hypothesis of RNA editing being a program that arose naturalistically. How could that be falsified?

quote:

---

This is called convergence, something that is prevalent in nature and by its very definition is anti-evolutionary! (the word convergence is used to describe traits that cannot be attributed to common decent). Convergence is yet another signature God has left in his creation to thwart attempts to explain things via naturalistic processes.

​

Man you are getting desperate with that last line....convergence is an evolutionary principle.

---

Is convergence anti-common decent or not. Yes or no.

quote:

---

There are only a limited number of ways to repair mRNA 3' ends thus the same mechanism will occur again and again.

---

Following multiple similar paths through random copy mistakes and blind selection? You sure have a lot of faith.

quote:

---

As I pointed out the convergence in THIS case is definitely NOT anti-common descent.

---

You have not made a case for this, nor does Mammuthus seem to agree with you since he is defending it as convergence. Mammuthus?In a previous thread where RNA editing first came up I asked Mammuthus if this was convergence and he didn't reply (I don't think it was intentional, he just missed it). This was one of the primary reasons I started this thread, to get to the bottom of this. Now Mammuthus is defending it as convergence, and you are saying it isn't.I only have the abstract to go by since obtaining the full article will not be convenient for me. I am more than willing to drop the claim of convergence if it can be shown from the article that it is not convergence. So far you are the only one interpreting the abstract as non-convergence, and your reasons are, so far, not even remotely convincing.

Unfortunately I only have time for one post today (I have a self-imposed rule that I will not post from home, let alone even look at a discussion board — so far so good).Peter, Paul, and Mary, er, I mean Mammuthus all appear to be saying that convergence is not used as an explanation of traits that cannot be attributed to common decent. Here’s what my College Biology books says:

There is a wild card in this game of making evolutionary connections by evaluating similarity: Not all likeness is inherited from a common ancestor. Species from different evolutionary branches may come to resemble one another if they have similar ecological roles and natural selection has shaped analogous adaptations. This is called convergent evolution, and similarity due to convergence is termed analogy, not homology - Campbell, Reece, Mitchell, Biology 5th Edition, 1999 (emphasis in original)

I ask again, is convergence antithetical to common decent? If you answer no, how do you explain this in light of Campbell’s statement above? Would you at least agree it disrupts evolutionist efforts to construct phylogenies?

quote:

---

Thats funny Fred, I have a similar self imposed rule...I also try to enforce a "no EvCforum on the weekends" rule...though I sometimes slip....what do you know, convergence

---

I also impose the no weekend rule, unless I’m at work! (which these days is very seldom)

quote:

---

I ask again, is convergence antithetical to common decent?

​

Simple, like with horizontal gene transfer or bacterial conjugation, there are similar traits that can be acquired by mechanisms other than inheriting a copy from your parents.

---

Since people are fond of citing logical fallacies on this board, in this case this is the fallacy of the exceptions prove the rule (can’t remember the technical, literature geek name). Horizontal gene transfer doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg of the myriad of examples of convergence in nature.

quote:

---

Yes, I would agree that it has disrupted phylogenetics. However, now that phylogenetics is more and more based on genomics, a lot of relationships among groups are becoming much clearer since usually even if the morphology has converged, the neutral DNA markers used to test phylogenetic associations have not.

---

I’m glad you at least acknowledge that convergence disrupts scientist’s ability to construct phylogenies. Evolution certainly never predicted that nature would be chalked full of them, the theory sure would have been better off without them (seems to be a common theme of the theory, things always point against it! ). The excuse you give however smells like a circular argument to me. But I’ll have to wait and see.

Rei, right now I don't have time for your elephant-hurling red herring. Sorry. See http://www.trueorigins.org/whales.aspFYI, I heard the same definitive claim made regarding Mesonychid by Massimo Pigliucci in a debate with Remine. Too bad Pigliucci was unawares that Mesonychid had been thrown out of the whale line a couple years earlier...