Unser Haushund: Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz? - Wolf-Ekkehard ...

395functionality of the rest. It is also consistent with the specific and dynamic epigenetic modificationsacross most of the genome, and concurs with the ENCODE conclusion that 80% of the genome showsbiochemical indices of function (Dunham et al. 2012).”“…the argument of a largely non-functional genome is invoked by some evolutionary theorists in thedebate against the proposition of intelligent design of life on earth, particularly with respect to the originof humanity. In essence, the argument posits that the presence of non-protein-coding or so-called 'junkDNA' that comprises >90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionarydebris by blind Darwinian evolution, and argues against intelligent design, as an intelligent designerwould presumably not fill the human genetic instruction set with meaningless information (Dawkins1986; Collins 2006). This argument is threatened in the face of growing functional indices ofnoncoding regions of the genome, with the latter reciprocally used in support of the notion ofintelligent design and to challenge the conception that natural selection accounts for the existence ofcomplex organisms (Behe 2003; Wells 2011). 817[…] In any case, that our understanding of the remarkably complex processes underlying the molecularevolution of life, including the likely evolution of evolvability (Mattick 2009c), is incomplete should notbe surprising. With the emergence of transformative technologies, such as massively parallel sequencing,which provide tools to view the inner molecular workings of the genome that were inconceivable lessthan a decade ago, it is as important as ever that we scientists remain open to observations thatchallenge even the most fundamental paradigms that exist within biology today.” 818Weitere lesenswerte Beiträge zum Thema “Junk DNA“ vgl. z. B.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/the_race_is_on071581.html (2013)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.html (2013)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/our_top_10_evol_9067911.html (2013)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/more_functions066811.html (2012)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/plethora_of_re067001.html (2012)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/perspectives_on064741.html (2012)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/nature_study_vi065741.html (2012)30. Einwand: Afterklaue:“Junk” auf anatomischer Ebene?Ist denn die “dew claw“ (Afterklaue, Afterkralle, Afterzehe) beim Wolf und Hund an den Vorderbeinennicht eindeutig ein rudimentäres Organ 819 , welches die Abstammung zumindest von anderen fünfzehigenFormen beweist? Antwort gemäß “wolfsource Anatomy“:“There are five toes on a wolf’s front paws and only four on the rear paws. The fifth on the front is called a dew claw.The dew claw is not for hunting or protection however, it does aid the wolf in digging dens as well as going aftersmall prey animals that live in burrows. The back feet are slightly smaller and are usually about 3¾ long and 3¼ inwidth. Thick, rugged, and blocky when the toes are together, the foot can also sprawl, allowing the toes to grasp rocks,logs, and other uneven or steep surfaces. When walking, the wolf holds its foot in the blocky fashion, reducing area andfriction. However, during tricky maneuvering, the toes can spread far apart, much increasing the surface andfriction.” 820Douglas Dewar fasst einige grundsätzliche – nach wie vor voll gültige und testbare – Punkte zumThema 1957, p. 168 wie folgt zusammen:“Before considering the structures cited as vestigial let me insist that no structure should be deemed tobe vestigial 821 unless it can be proved to be of no use to its possessor in adult, embryonic or larval life817 Meine Position zu dieser Frage habe ich mit 2 Phasen erklärt (vgl. http://www.weloennig.de/RezensionKutschera.html): “1. Phase: Intelligent Design(samt Realisation) und 2. Phase: Sämtliche im darauf folgenden Zeitraum sich ereignenden DNA-Veränderungen durch Transposons, durch Bildung vonPseudogenen, durch Viren und die 'üblichen' Mutationen.“ Wir brauchen also von der ID-Position keine 100% DNA-Funktion.818 Die Autoren bemerken zuvor (p. 3): “[We] have refuted the specific claims that most of the observed transcription across the human genome is random(Clark et al. 2011; Mercer et al. 2012) and put forward the case over many years that the appearance of a vast layer of RNA-based epigenetic regulationwas a necessary prerequisite to the emergence of developmentally and cognitively advanced organisms (Mattick 1994; Mattick and Gagen 2001; Mattick2004; Amaral et al. 2008; Mattick 2009a, 2011). This case is, moreover, entirely consistent with the broad tenets of evolution by natural selection, althoughit may not be easily reconcilable with current population theory and current ideas of evolutionary neutrality.” Das sieht der Evolutions- undMolekularbiologe Dan Graur ganz anders (2013): “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong“ (http://twileshare.com/askq).819 Vgl. zum Begriff http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudiment: Zur systematisch-gründlichen Widerlegung der dort und häufig auch in Lehrbüchernaufgeführten pseudowissenschaftliche Beweise für die Evolutionstheorie (“klassische Evolutionsbelege“) vgl. Douglas Dewar (1957): The TransformistIllusion, pp. 168-177. Siehe weiter Reinhard Junker (2002): Ähnlichkeiten Rudimente Atavismen. Design-Fehler oder Design-Signale? 202 pp. StudiumInetgrale. Edition “Pascal“; Hänssler-Verlag, Holzgerlingen bei Stuttgart, sowie Junker und Scherer (2013: in Vorbereitung): 7. Auflage von: Evolution –Ein kritisches Lehrbuch. Verlag siehe oben.820 http://www.wolfsource.org/?page_id=69 (Zugriff 3. August 2013)821 Die Begriffe “rudimentary“ und “vestigial“ werden oft synonym gebraucht. Vgl. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality. Zugriff 3. August 2013. Dortnoch mehr falsche, und zwar meist schon seit Jahrzehnten eindeutig widerlegte Behauptungen, als im oben angegebenen deutschsprachigen Beitrag.