Saturday, September 12, 2009

De-Evolution, Again

Investigation of the genetics of the enamel covering of teeth has led to the idea that toothless mammals still carrying the gene for enamel supports the theory of evolution. The article in physorg.com discusses extinct baleen whales that had teeth vs. modern baleens that have no teeth. The modern baleens still have the gene for enamel, which is now switched off.

This is actually a de-evolution, where a function is lost or disabled. It is not a new, beneficial feature evolving into existence from no previous coherent existence. While this might seem clear, it is not clear to evolutionists who claim that the removal of a feature is actually a new feature(!)

In fact, one small tidbit buried in the article raises some suspicions. It is stated that
”The fossil record demonstrates that the first mammals had teeth with enamel”.
So the most interesting question is not the de-evolution of teeth and enamel from the genome, it is
where did the enamel come from in the first place?

The discussion at the site produces just one interesting digression, a reference to the creation of new genes seen in humans but not in chimps or other great apes, where they are called junk DNA. The precursors to the new genes are apparently found in chimps, but have morphed from "junk DNA" into genes in humans, as the story goes.

But the new genes have no known function (isn’t the human genome completed?) and according to the researchers, the way to determine their function is to turn them off and see what happens… except humans are the only ones that have these genes.

So if these are really genes, what do they do, and why don’t we already know about them?

Two thoughts here. First they could turn these genes ON in chimps and see what happens. Second, the idea that humans evolved away from chimps is an arrogation of human superiority, a politically correct no-no in evolution-land. It is just as possible that chimps de-evolved away from humans by turning off or losing genes here and there. (Not that I buy either of these ideas). It is also possible that "junk DNA" is not really junk, as has been found in other cases.

So for either case we seem stuck with more de-evolution, not proof of evolution.

No comments: