Are ''duons'' or ''dual coded genes'' evidence for an intelligent designer?

[tas8831]

Now, why this is evidence for ID is unclear.

While I agree with you on the scientific aspects, I have to point out one thing - duons are considered evidence for ID/creation because of the use of the unfortunate language surrounding some of the publications (and more often, the press releases) about them - words like "unexpected", "impossible", "surprised", etc.

All of these are fodder for creationist conclusion-jumping.

 

[tas8831]

This is a very fascinating aspect of genetics occurring on some very conserved genes. Found an interesting article evaluating the dual role gene sequences with the authors concluding that they are explained by natural selection and consistent with evolution.

“our results indicate that simultaneous encoding of amino acid and regulatory information within exons is a major functional feature of complex genomes. The information architecture of the received genetic code is optimized for superimposition of additional information (34, 35), and this intrinsic flexibility has been extensively exploited by natural selection.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967546/

Stergachis, Andrew B. et all. 2013. Exonic transcription factor binding directs codon choice and impacts protein evolution Science. 2013 Dec 13; 342(6164): 1367–1372.

Back when ENCODE came out with their '80% functional' genome thing, based on 'biochemical activity' (i.e., binding sites) , I decided to do a quick experiment - I had a mathematician pal of mine make some 'artificial chromosomes' in Matlab of 1 million bases in length (some were just random, some used certain constraints, etc.). Then I ran these through some programs that identify known DNA/protein binding sites. The outcomes SURPRISED me (must be ID!) - the outputs indicated that there were almost as many binding sites as nucleotides! Looking at the results, I saw why - the programs look in both directions and on +/- strands, and such, but still... Point is, binding sites (such as those for promoters) are relatively short, and show up all over genomes JUST BY CHANCE. That many of these are then exploited by selection, even when within other genes, really shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi all.
I'm new here, living in Spain and looking for evolutionist answers for something called ''duons'' or ''dual coded genes''. I've been told that coincidence can be excluded: it's entirely impossible that dual coded genes came into existence accidentally, therefore intelligence must have been involved. I'm not an expert, so I was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter.

Thanks!

People say all kinds of things, don't they?

If anything, duons are evidence of how accidental the very origin of genetic coding was.

The matter does not deserve a lot of attention at all. It is just another of the many straw that creationists cling to in order to pursue some appearance of seriousness and "scientific" validity. It has no value whatsoever, much like claims of "macroevolution not occurring" and suchlike, and for the same reason: it relies on ignorance of the basics of evolution in order to appear valid.

In short, it is all about buzzwords without meaning and spin for a market niche that is eager to accept anything that might appear vaguely convincing or meaningful if looked at without any attention.

The claim truly does not even deserve a formal refutation, but here is a link anyway.

Don't Be Duped By 'Duon' DNA Hype