Comments on report of study of control gene effects;

In virtually all higher forms of life, there are genes which control other genes.   One such gene is the HOX gene, the one which is apparently the most often studied, has been known about for quite a number of years.

In a recent article (about control genes) in Science Daily on the internet there is a report about a study associated with the University of Chicago and the report is titled; "Evolution Re-Sculpted Animal Limbs By Genetic Switches Once Thought Too Drastic For Survival"

The article makes statements which imply that the existence of HOX genes, and the control effects they have, would allow for large morphological changes to occur by simple random evolution.  That implication is simply not supported by hard evidence and the article's conclusion is actually the opposite of the probable truth.

There is a rule in control system design (HOX genes are supposedly controllers of life systems and are in part) which states that the controller must have at least as many options in its range of functions as there are possible changes in what it is controlling.  This is known as Ashby's law.  What this means is that a controller if evolving would be detrimental until it evolved enough control capability to control the full range of the life variable.  How could such a complex HOX gene evolve if it would be detrimental until it was fully formed/evolved?  How did the systems which are controlled in part by HOX genes function before the evolution of the HOX gene?  The truth is that these questions have no simple answers and argue against Darwinian evolution.

The truth is also that the more control a given gene has, the more improbable it is that it could change into another form that would be beneficial.  It is far more likely that a change in a control gene would be detrimental and probably even fatal.   Very simply stated, there are many more ways for a gene change to make  some life form dead versus generating an advantageous life form change.

Additionally, in an article in the Feb. 1999 issue of Scientific American on "How Limbs Develop" the authors admit;  "Curiously, many of the genes--and the proteins they make-- are closely related to others that control the development of the limbs of fruit flies, even though vertebrates and insects are thought to have evolved from a common ancestor that lacked limbs altogether."  What this means is that if you believe in macroevolution, this complex control gene evolved twice in two different phyla independently, which is an improbability to extreme to even consider possible.

In this same article on page 79, there is a figure depicting a protein which is locked in a way which requires another "key" protein to unlock it.  This is another example of a chicken and egg like extremely improbable occurrence if Darwinian evolution is supposedly the explanation.  Actually it is even more evidence against Darwinian macroevolution since if the key and lock aren't both working together, skin cells will become cancerous.  Before both were working together, therefore, cancer would make the life form die off before it could reproduce from cancer.  This argues against an evolutionary explanation.

The reality is also that HOX genes have only been shown to control the number and location of particular structures.  Experimentally forced changes in the HOX genes do not actually produce anything new but only change the location and number of structures already seen in a particular form of life.   Numerous accelerated mutation experiments on HOX genes in fruit flies over decades have merely resulted in deformed and structurally rearranged fruit flies with an extra set of legs or other parts.  The major point is that mutated flies are always still just fruit flies.  Recent experiments with genes transplanted from another species show, in fact, that even control genes do not provide all the information which controls the living structure.

The existence of HOX genes is in fact, actually a major problem for Darwinian evolution case since HOX gene complexity and their interrelations with other genes and life functions makes it even less likely that simple Darwinian evolution could result in such complex and concentrated and integrated functions in such a single interdependent critical element in any naturally occurring life form.

A simple way to better understand the relationship between chance and function/design is by analogy.  A reasonable analogy to the problem for Darwinian evolution would the chance of finding a rock shaped like say a bolt as compared to finding a complete merry-go-round structure made of natural objects each of which resembled something like a manmade part but which all worked together.  

Clearly one would be surprised to find a bolt shaped rock so precise that it could mesh with some other object in a static way.  The chance is very small that that would happen.  The more complex the element of assembly one might find laying around, the smaller the chance is that a natural explanation would be the true explanation.  

In what follows, one can think of the bolt as a piece of protein.  A control gene such as a HOX gene will be analogized to a computer/control functioning assembly and brought into the sequence of the story.  DNA is like a memory storage element which is read by a computer and in this case the computer (HOX gene) must be in existence to begin with to make the DNA (code) which it in turn relies on for its existence!

Back to near the beginning of analogy sequence, when considering the "natural" bolt (protein), one would start to question chance is one found someplace in the world another rock (protein) which had a threaded hole of the right diameter and thread shape which exactly fit the rock bolt.  

If, one found the rocks (proteins) fitted together, in one place, by themselves, one might find that less surprising and start to think of a possible natural explanation but should not out of hand rule out that there might be design involved.  A natural explanation is still possible because one process (some form of spiral crack together with corrosion might cause such a paired structure.  If the bolt (protein) had no external way for it to be turned (the head was round with no slit or the head had no simple shape) that would also strengthen the probability that a natural explanation exists.   

Going the next step; however, if the bolt had a near perfect hexagonal head that would make design more probable, and if there was a ratchet wrench structure attached to the bolt head, that would clearly make design the most probable explanation.  If the wrench were controlled by a computer (HOX gene) which tightened the bolt to a level optimum for some purpose, it would take a great leap of faith to believe in a natural explanation (no design or designer) to explain the integration of functions.   

If one found the nut (protein) fitted on the bolt (protein) and the pair holding together part of a teeter-totter, it would be it would be reasonable and compelling to believe that this was design and a designer was the most probable explanation.   Even if one had looked at the bolt and nut combination as a reasonable chance occurrence from natural causes, the integrated functional elements of a teeter-totter should require one to at least consider that design might be a more probable explanation since things worked together so well as to make chance far less likely.

If the bolt (protein) was part of a self adjusting and self repairing teeter-totter, however, no rational being would believe at all in a chance explanation instead of design and a designer as an explanation.  If the teeter-totter had a form of a control element (HOX gene) which communicated with the nut and bolt and through mechanisms made nuts and bolts from basic chemical elements and moved them to where they are needed, tightened them, and measured/monitored the bolt load and turned the bolt to maintain a load sufficient to hold the pieces of the teeter totter together without binding up the movement, it would be ludicrous to rule out design and a designer because of the control element (HOX) gene existence.  In fact, the opposite would be indicated, design would be even more probable as an explanation.

If the bolt was part of an automated factory run by a general purpose computer (HOX gene) which was reading some form of code from some form of memory element (DNA) which precisely controlled the functioning of thousands of functioning machines; design and a designer would be the only rational explanation.   If one then discovered that the memory element (DNA) duplication requires the existence of several special microscopic machines (DNA polymerase, etc. ) which can only come into existence if DNA exists to begin with, design becomes the most probable explanation.

If one then looked at the function of the bolt (protein) as compared to the functions of the computer (HOX gene) running the factory, it would be incredible to suggest that the computer was the result of some simple survival selection operating on the bolt design which over a long period time with random changes to the geometry of the bolt turned the bolt into a computer.  This would be true even if one had found an explanation for the natural occurrence of the bolt (protein) and in fact, the opposite is true and makes design and even more probable explanation.

The reality is that it is extremely improbable (like the chance of winning a super lottery every second of every day for the life of the universe) that the bolt (protein) could happen by chance.  The only known way to make bolts (proteins) is with complex molecular machines.  The only way to make a computer (HOX gene) is by having bolts (proteins) to begin with, this "which came first chicken and egg like paradox" should totally eliminate natural causes as a reasonable explanation.

It used to be believed that DNA (now known to be a memory storage element and not a self replicating stand alone structure made by simple chemical processes) was simply a standalone machine like the teeter-totter which was an assembly of simple bolt like elements.  This is now known to be a very misleading analogy of the reality of incredible complexity found at the basic cellular level of life (all living cells contain tens of thousands of molecular machines.)   It is now also known that DNA (memory storage element) which all life uses, can only be made by specialized molecular machines made of proteins (bolts) which can in turn only be made using DNA.  Again, this is probably the ultimate chicken and egg paradox.  The fact that all life depends on DNA does not prove that all life has ancestral relationships, it only proves that all life is based on a chicken and egg paradox that cannot be explained by science and which has "design" written all over it.   Regulation of gene expression.

One can see by the sequence of analogies given above, that even if HOX genes are ever shown to have a truly creative morphological function capable of generating truly novel structures and functions, that will just present an even bigger problem for Darwinian evolution.  The more interrelated the functions of a gene are with other genes and the more complex the function of a gene, the less likely it is that evolution could be an reasonable explanation for such a gene.   

Actually, even the analog of a HOX gene running an automated factory is incomplete unless one includes another set of automated machines which check the factory output/product for errors and correct those errors.  In real life, every DNA replication is checked for error by molecular machines and any errors corrected.  This makes an evolution explanation way beyond the pale of reason.

Even if a possible Darwinian evolution sequence which might result in a complex control gene (where the explanation is consistent with the age and size of the universe) could be conjured up, such a more complex sequence would have an extremely low probability of ever having actually happened.   HOX genes and other control genes make Darwinian probability calculations more than ever show the extreme improbability of generating complex life from a Darwinian processes.

Darwinian macro evolution (more than changes in the size of bird beaks for example) has very serious problems even given that basic life (bacteria or the like) came to exist by chance somehow.   Darwinian evolution cannot, however, by definition (no genes would have existed to begin with) explain the origin of life.  HOX genes are just one more problem which makes it extremely unlikely that Darwinian evolution is more than a fine tuning mechanism and is far from a full explanation for the incredible complexities of life.

It is not hard to envision how an existing HOX gene might mutate to make one more set of legs on a fly.  That does not tell us much if anything about how the complex leg structure assembly came to exist to begin with.  Again, HOX genes are a problem for Darwinian macroevolution, not an explanation, since HOX genes represent a concentration of information and such concentrations are even improbable to explain resulting from selection from chance.

What all this boils down to is that even at the cellular level, life is very complex and it is extremely improbable that Darwinian evolution can explain all of it.  It is much more likely that there is some "design" factor such as a life field of some sort of a Design input.