Saturday, September 30, 2023
Mitochondrial Health

Protein Evolution, The Waiting Times Problem, and the Intriguing…

On this ID The Future, host Eric Anderson gets an update on the recent work of Dr. Ann Gauger, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Gauger explains her continuing research into the limits of protein evolution, efforts that are challenging the prevailing assumptions of the role of proteins and mutations in a Darwinian account of life. She also discusses her work on the related waiting times problem, demonstrating the difficulty of Darwinian processes to account for the diversity we see in biology. In addition, Ann shares her journey into researching human origins. After being asked to evaluate the scientific case against Adam and Eve, Ann dove into population genetics to see if monogenesis – the hypothesis that all humans are descended from two first parents – was even a possibility. What she discovered may surprise you. Don’t miss this review of Dr. Gauger’s fascinating and important research.


Similar Posts

18 thoughts on “Protein Evolution, The Waiting Times Problem, and the Intriguing…
  1. Wouldn't these genetic calculations be more consistent with the family of Noah? If you assume the existence of a Biblical Noah and mass human extinction, this seems to be more in line with the bottle neck she described.

  2. Adam until Noah, men and women lived over 760 (avg) years. How many children could the population have over 1,500 years?
    Millions wouldn't be a problem, a generation (Genesis Chapter 5 & Chapter 10 was sextuple (avg) what a generation is today is about 20 – 25 years.
    I S really a shame that they want more time to be added to make their ages into the millions.
    Even Abraham saw his grandchildren, Shem had his first child, Arphaxad 2 years after the Genesis Flood so, Shem saw Abraham's father, Terah and Abraham which was 6 generations after the flood (Genesis 11).
    About 600 years after the flood.
    This doesn't even account for Ham or Japeth, She's brothers.
    3×(6^3) = 648 (Shem's 3 sons)
    648×(6^3) = 139,968 (the next 5 generations offspring) just from Shem in 6 generations.
    Add Hame and Jqpeth who actually had more children.. 🤔
    Not hard to see the exponential growth in 600 years.

  3. Evolutionary mutations simply can not explain new species. Between any two 'close ' species the differences are just not a handful but tens of thousands of features. These include anatomical , skeletal, muscular., biochemical, hormonal, behavioural, sexual and reproductive, neuronal and brain, physiological, cardio vascular, gastrointestinal, genito-urinary, respiratory systems and homeostatic mechanisms.

    Similarly, both male and female changes need to occur parallelly for procreation to happen. The difference between males and females of any species are anatomical, hormonal, biochemical, behavioural and sexual. NO random mutation can co-ordinate such changes at any time, collapsing all evolution theories.

    Humans and apes have 40 million DNA differences, based on 98.7% compatibility out of 3.2 billion of nucleotides . Douglas Axe 's experiment says the time needed to have 6 continuous positive mutations will be the lifetime of earth, and obviously 40 million is simply beyond any probabilities.

    Drosophilia study showed it will take 100 million years to reverse a current enzyme and have a new enzyme based on 2 mutational changes if occurs in humans.. Evolution simply does not add up !!!

  4. Gauger is just another IDiot who doesn't understand evolutionary cell biology.

    Laboratory experiments clearly demonstrate the benefits of recombining homologous proteins: intragenic recombination generates new proteins that are functionally diverse while still having a high probability of folding properly and functioning" (2012, PLoS computational biology, 8: e1002713).

    Due to its conservative nature, recombination can explore a "functional ridge" between two proteins (Drummond et al., 2005, PNAS USA 102: 5380-5385).

    Instead of ancestral reconstruction, Gauger (and Axe) focused directly on converting an existing enzyme into another existing enzyme. That is scientific nonsense, since no evolutionary biologist would propose that an extant enzyme evolved directly into another extant enzyme. So they’re testing a model that no one would take seriously.

  5. Ferretin. Protien that allows fetuses to steal iron via the placenta from Mother. How could this Protien "evolve" when if didn't work 1st time, you're done?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *