Giving Evolutionary Biologists the Finger!

Evolution of KRAB Zinc Finger Proteins vs. the Law of Large Numbers

There are patterns in biology that violate the law of large numbers, and thus suggests Intelligent Design or at the very least statistical miracles. The pattern involves KRAB-ZnF proteins that have multiple zinc finger domains side by side that are inexact copies of each other and would require a scenario of co-evolution of their DNA binding partners with every additional zinc-finger insertion — a scenario indistinguishable from a miracle.

The role of a zinc finger can be something like a clamp or a lock. Each zinc finger in a KRAB-ZnF protein is fine-tuned to connect with a DNA much like a lock (the zinc finger) can receive a key (like DNA). Here is a depiction of a KRAB-ZnF protein with 4 zinc fingers as part of a large chromatin modifying complex. The four zinc fingers are marked “ZN” and connect to DNA:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023747.g005&size=large

The evolutionary explanation of side-by-side repeated patterns of zinc fingers such as in KRAB-ZnF proteins shows a severe lack of critical thinking by evolutionary biologists who pretend “phylogenetic methods” are adequate explanations of mechanical feasibility of common descent.

To illustrate the problem, consider the KRAB-ZnF protein known as ZNF136. For reference, this is the amino acid sequence of ZNF136:
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P52737.fasta

This is an amino acid fragment contained within the ZNF136 protein

TGEKLYDCKECGKTFFSLKRIRRHIITH

This short sequence is called a zinc finger domain which in 3D looks like this:

https://sciencescienceeverywhere.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/figure-11.jpg

Wiki gives a description of the function of zinc fingers in proteins that have them:

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_finger

A zinc finger domain requires two “C” amino acids and two “H” amino acids placed in the right positions. It requires a few other things too…

There are 13 zinc fingers in the ZNF136 protein and these are their sequences:

TGEKLYDCKECGKTFFSLKRIRRHIITH

SGYTPYKCKVCGKAFDYPSRFRTHERSH

TGEKPYECQECGKAFTCITSVRRHMIKH

TGDGPYKCKVCGKPFHSLSSFQVHERIH

TGEKPFKCKQCGKAFSCSPTLRIHERTH

TGEKPYECKQCGKAFSYLPSLRLHERIH

TGEKPFVCKQCGKAFRSASTFQIHERTH

TGEKPYECKECGEAFSCIPSMRRHMIKH

TGEGPYKCKVCGKPFHSLSPFRIHERTH

TGEKPYVCKHCGKAFVSSTSIRIHERTH

TGEKPYECKQCGKAFSYLNSFRTHEMIH

TGEKPFECKRCGKAFRSSSSFRLHERTH

TGQKPYHCKECGKAYSCRASFQRHMLTH

For completeness, there is a degenerate zinc finger in ZNF136 with the sequence “YGEKPDTRNQCWKPFSSHHSFRTHEIIH”

Why are the Zinc Fingers so different in sequence (except for the conserved amino acids)? To target a section of DNA, the zinc finger must be tuned to target it. Think of the zinc finger like a lock and DNA as a key that fits into the lock. In fact, for both the study of biology and medical applications, humans have a desire to make their own zinc fingers — like lock smiths. To bind a large segments of DNA, side-by-side zinc-fingers have to be tuned to their respective side-by-side DNA partners such as illustrated here:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023747.g005&size=large

By the way, there is a website that helps researchers construct the right amino acid sequence to make a zinc finger for a particular DNA target:

https://www.scripps.edu/barbas/zfdesign/zfdesignhome.php

Now, to visualize the critical/conserved amino acids, see the protein sequence here with highlights on “C” and “H” amino acids.

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/znf136_zfC2H21.png

Note one of the lines is not exactly like the other lines in that it is missing a “C”. This is the degenerate zinc finger mentioned above. So there is 1 degenerate zinc finger and 13 functional ones.

From this diagram it is apparent that the regular appearance of “C” and “H” is a violation of the law of large numbers, hence this pattern is not due to random point mutation alone. To “solve” this problem, Darwinist explain the pattern through segment duplication followed by some point mutation and natural selection, but this is not mechanically feasible either!

To understand why, let the reader first ponder the alignment I made of the Zinc Fingers in the ZNF136 protein using MEGA 6.0/MUSCLE software:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/znf136_zfC2H2_muscle1.png

Then let the reader, consider the distance matrix generated by MEGA 6.0 which measures the number of nucleotide and percent differences between the zinc fingers.

http://www.creationevolutionuniversity.org/public_blogs/reddit/znf136_distance_matrix.xls

(All of the above results are reproducible, so I leave it to interested parties wanting to confirm the results to do so.)

For the duplication to work, at a bare minimum the right 84 nucleotide segment must be chosen, and then perfectly positioned for insertion so as not to break a pre-existing zinc finger. But supposing the duplication succeeds, why are the zinc finger’s conserved features involving “C” and “H” and other amino acids preserved and not eventually erased by point mutation given we obviously see the zinc fingers are different from each other. To preserve the “C” and “H” and other necessary amino acids in a zinc finger, the new zinc finger needs to be under selection. But in that case one is simply concocting a “just so” story for those newly minted zinc fingers without any respect for the difficulty of such a “just so” story being probable — and it is not probable!

To understand the problem of such a “just so” story, recall zinc fingers bind to DNA regions. Btw, this includes DNA regions such as ERVs! And ERVs are indicated to participate in the Stem Cell Pluripotency regulatory network:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13804

Further, the KRAB-ZnF protein is part of an incredibly complex machine that does chromatin modification (as shown above) by often attaching to ERV targets. But this would require that ERVs (or whatever DNA target) needs to co-evolve with the KRAB-ZnFs that attach to them!

https://genome.cshlp.org/content/21/11/1800?ijkey=f1f42a3747733fd430f8966c8014affc0af066e8&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Do these researchers even consider the fact such evolution would have to be instantaneous otherwise it would degrade function and not let the genome have the opportunity to adapt to the new accidental copy of the zinc finger because the duplication would immediately be selected against!

The above KRAB-ZnF complex is like a read/write head acting on Chromatin. Chromatin itself is an amazing mind-boggling design akin to computer ROM and RAM in one.

Again, the difficulty of evolution via random insertion/duplication mutations followed by point mutations is that such events would disrupt the binding of an already operational set of zinc fingers. For example, suppose we have an array of 10 zinc fingers side-by-side that collectively bind to a target DNA. Suppose one zinc-finger is duplicated and the number of zinc fingers is increased from 10 to 11. Oh well, the binding ability is broken or at best compromised, much like adding a single letter to a pre-existing password!

In sum, there is a violation of the law of large numbers in KRAB-ZnF proteins which is not explained by random mutation, nor random segment duplication followed by some point mutation and fixed by natural selection. Some other mechanism for the emergence of such proteins is indicated and would likely be indistinguishable from a miracle. Given the importance of such zinc finger proteins in the control of ERVs which are important in the stem cell pluripotency regulatory circuits, the origin of KRAB-ZnFs is even more miraculous.

476 thoughts on “Giving Evolutionary Biologists the Finger!

  1. colewd: This is not true at all. Any degree means to degrade the function of genes that control critical functions. This would correlate to high levels of preservation not 100% preservation.

    Ahh so your statement becomes the trivial claim that there is no cellular system where if you disrupt it’s function to any degree that negatively affects fitness, then it will (wait for it) negatively affect fitness.

    Remarkable insight.

  2. Rumraket,

    Ahh so your statement becomes the trivial claim that there is no cellular system where if you disrupt it’s function to any degree that negatively affects fitness, then it will (wait for it) negatively affect fitness.

    Remarkable insight.

    There are cellular systems that can be disrupted. What do you think drug side effects are all about?

  3. Rumraket: Are you asking because you genuinely can’t work out what he means by that?

    Are you asking because you know what it means for elements to “try”?

  4. phoodoo: Are you asking because you know what it means for elements to “try”?

    Why don’t you just answer my question? You first.

  5. Corneel:

    I have another tip for you: if any of those bigwigs you are presenting for asks you a question, then you should always try to respond to it and not casually dismiss it with some irrelevant analogy.

    I’m presenting to get a second level of review as I’m hoping this stuff will be circulated to the ID community. Dr. Sanford requested I look into ERVs and nylon eating a bacteria and TopoIsomerases, and in the process by accident I stumbled on the problem of Promiscuous Domains.

    I’m not saying stuff that isn’t already acknowledged as a problem in evolutionary literature. It’s now a matter of being able to communicate it to the IT/Engineer/Physics types. There are people like that on the periphery of biology that are ID friendly.

    My task is to reach out to them and acquaint them with known problems in evolutionary biology that are amenable to bio-informatic, physics, chemistry analysis.

  6. The KRAB-ZFP’s were the main example in my presentation, I will mention Collagen in passing.

    Superficially it may look like RANDOM TANDEM can make collagen, but it’s not that easy. Maybe selection can help it along, but I will present it as an example of a violation of the law of large numbers — whether RANDOM TANDEM plus selection can make a collagen is an interesting question which I’ll not pursue.

    I only put collagen on the table as an example of a violation of the law of large numbers of POINT MUTATIONS. I might just spend two minutes on the topic just to introduce the problem of the law of large numbers.

    Additionally, the main example for violation the law of large numbers is homochirality.

    Here is collagen. You can see the “G” every 3rd position. It’s more subtle than that because a “PG” has to show up NOT exactly periodically to enable the proper twisting via a post-translational modification by

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procollagen-proline_dioxygenase

    Anyway here is a beautiful picture of the violation of the law of large numbers in the collagen protein:

    See the G’s highlighted in RED:
    http://www.creationevolutionuniversity.org/public_blogs/reddit/collagen_v2.png

  7. Superficically collagen may again look like RANDOM TANDEM might create it, but I created a python program to analyze whether there were tandem repeats. There weren’t very many, most were DISPERSED repeats.

    Here is the phyton code for Collagen1-Apha1 which people can tweak. It shows little traceable evidence of large scale random tandem. One might argue that it was random tandem followed by point mutation, but there is a problem with that because of conserved homology with other collagens that might argue for Young Life or selection for sequence.

    But again, I’m just putting on the table in case anyone eventually wants to pick up and run with it.


    data = "MFSFVDLRLLLLLAATALLTHGQEEGQVEGQDEDIPPITCVQNGLRYHDRDVWKPEPCRICVCDNGKVLCDDVICDETKNCPGAEVPEGECCPVCPDGSESPTDQETTGVEGPKGDTGPRGPRGPAGPPGRDGIPGQPGLPGPPGPPGPPGPPGLGGNFAPQLSYGYDEKSTGGISVPGPMGPSGPRGLPGPPGAPGPQGFQGPPGEPGEPGASGPMGPRGPPGPPGKNGDDGEAGKPGRPGERGPPGPQGARGLPGTAGLPGMKGHRGFSGLDGAKGDAGPAGPKGEPGSPGENGAPGQMGPRGLPGERGRPGAPGPAGARGNDGATGAAGPPGPTGPAGPPGFPGAVGAKGEAGPQGPRGSEGPQGVRGEPGPPGPAGAAGPAGNPGADGQPGAKGANGAPGIAGAPGFPGARGPSGPQGPGGPPGPKGNSGEPGAPGSKGDTGAKGEPGPVGVQGPPGPAGEEGKRGARGEPGPTGLPGPPGERGGPGSRGFPGADGVAGPKGPAGERGSPGPAGPKGSPGEAGRPGEAGLPGAKGLTGSPGSPGPDGKTGPPGPAGQDGRPGPPGPPGARGQAGVMGFPGPKGAAGEPGKAGERGVPGPPGAVGPAGKDGEAGAQGPPGPAGPAGERGEQGPAGSPGFQGLPGPAGPPGEAGKPGEQGVPGDLGAPGPSGARGERGFPGERGVQGPPGPAGPRGANGAPGNDGAKGDAGAPGAPGSQGAPGLQGMPGERGAAGLPGPKGDRGDAGPKGADGSPGKDGVRGLTGPIGPPGPAGAPGDKGESGPSGPAGPTGARGAPGDRGEPGPPGPAGFAGPPGADGQPGAKGEPGDAGAKGDAGPPGPAGPAGPPGPIGNVGAPGAKGARGSAGPPGATGFPGAAGRVGPPGPSGNAGPPGPPGPAGKEGGKGPRGETGPAGRPGEVGPPGPPGPAGEKGSPGADGPAGAPGTPGPQGIAGQRGVVGLPGQRGERGFPGLPGPSGEPGKQGPSGASGERGPPGPMGPPGLAGPPGESGREGAPGAEGSPGRDGSPGAKGDRGETGPAGPPGAPGAPGAPGPVGPAGKSGDRGETGPAGPTGPVGPVGARGPAGPQGPRGDKGETGEQGDRGIKGHRGFSGLQGPPGPPGSPGEQGPSGASGPAGPRGPPGSAGAPGKDGLNGLPGPIGPPGPRGRTGDAGPVGPPGPPGPPGPPGPPSAGFDFSFLPQPPQEKAHDGGRYYRADDANVVRDRDLEVDTTLKSLSQQIENIRSPEGSRKNPARTCRDLKMCHSDWKSGEYWIDPNQGCNLDAIKVFCNMETGETCVYPTQPSVAQKNWYISKNPKDKRHVWFGESMTDGFQFEYGGQGSDPADVAIQLTFLRLMSTEASQNITYHCKNSVAYMDQQTGNLKKALLLQGSNEIEIRAEGNSRFTYSVTVDGCTSHTGAWGKTVIEYKTTKTSRLPIIDVAPLDVGAPDQEFGFDVGPVCFL"

    \#prints each individual point
    print(len(data))
    data_len = len(data)

    repeated_string = []
    #first_repeat_instance_coord = 0
    num_repeated_strings = 0

    def add_repeated_string ( str ):
    repeated_string.append( str )
    global num_repeated_strings
    num_repeated_strings = num_repeated_strings + 1

    def string_already_in_table_of_repeats ( str ):
    i = 0
    global num_repeated_strings
    return_value = 0
    while (i < num_repeated_strings):
    if (str == repeated_string [i] ):
    return_value = 1
    i = i + 1

    return return_value

    substr_len = 3
    substr_index=0

    while ( substr_index < data_len - substr_len):
    i=0
    count_repeats= 0

    while ( i 0 ):
    print("number of repeats of \"" ,data[substr_index:substr_index+substr_len],"\": ", count_repeats)
    print()
    add_repeated_string ( data[substr_index:substr_index+substr_len] )

    substr_index = substr_index + 1

    print( "repeated_string " , repeated_string )
    print("Number of repeats strings found: ", num_repeated_strings)

  8. CRUD! WordPress annihilated my spacing, and phython is spacing sensitive. Oh well…

  9. Sal,

    Here is the phyton code…

    WordPress annihilated my spacing, and phython is spacing sensitive.

    Dude, the language is called “Python”.

  10. Now, it should be reasonably obvious that there are islands of function separating the function of collagen protein with that of a KRAB-ZFP protein. It really doesn’t make sense to argue for a common ancestral protein from which ALL proteins descended from. How could collagen and KRAB-zinc fingers evolve from a common ancestor. Just look at the sequences, motifs, and domains!

    Evolutionary biologists might argue for LUCA (an organism) but NOT for PUCA (Protein Universal Common Ancestor) — I pronounce PUCA as Puke-An. Since there is likely no PUCA in principle, then the origin of life must solve the independent origin and evolution of multiple protein families.

    In any case, universal common descent of all proteins is in serious doubt. One must appeal to mechanism untestable and unknowable to “solve” the problem. The problem of promiscuous domains adds more complication to common descent as an explanation, but is more friendly to common design — as in a MODULE HYPOTHESIS!

  11. One promiscuous motif that is shared among proteins (that may not have common ancestry) is:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_localization_sequence

    A nuclear localization signal or sequence (NLS) is an amino acid sequence that ‘tags’ a protein for import into the cell nucleus by nuclear transport. Typically, this signal consists of one or more short sequences of positively charged lysines or arginines exposed on the protein surface. Different nuclear localized proteins may share the same NLS. An NLS has the opposite function of a nuclear export signal (NES), which targets proteins out of the nucleus.

    The NLS and NES might be considered tiny little modules too.

  12. Sal,

    Just upload your code and link to it. Open up the dashboard, mouse over “Media”, and click on “Add New”.

  13. keiths:
    Sal,

    Just upload your code and link to it.Open up the dashboard, mouse over “Media”, and click on “Add New”.

    Thanks. I had to rename the extension to “.txt” because TSZ won’t upload “.py” files for security.

    Here it is, without much documentation since it is a small program. It will list the coordinates of small duplicated motifs of 3 letters. One can change the program for some arbitrary length.

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/print_col1a1_human.txt

  14. The program shows most of the repeats are DISPERSED (as in cut and paste), NOT random tandems. Random cut and paste won’t do the trick either for reasons I hope are obvious.

    One might invoke natural selection constructing the pattern. Ok. That’s worth a separate conversation.

  15. phoodoo: Me: But if the target elements try to escape transcriptional repression (which TEs and viruses do), then mutations are absolutely required to fuel the ongoing arms race.

    phoodoo: What do you mean they “try”?

    It is an anthropomorphism to communicate that transposable elements experience selection pressures that are at cross-purpose with that of the organism.

    Are you OK with that type of use of words? 😉

  16. colewd: Rum: If you can’t mess with them to any degree, then mutations aren’t allowed or they would be deleterious.

    Bill: This is not true at all. Any degree means to degrade the function of genes that control critical functions. This would correlate to high levels of preservation not 100% preservation.

    So the question is: do the genes encoding KRAB zinc finger proteins belong with those “critical function” genes or not. Yes, no, only some of them? The challenge for you will be explaining why not all KRAB zinc finger proteins are highly conserved, though some of them surely are. I will also note that increase of the number of zinc finger domains does not degrade the function of the protein sensu Behe, as it tends to increase binding affinity and lets the proteins acquire novel targets.

  17. stcordova: I’m not saying stuff that isn’t already acknowledged as a problem in evolutionary literature. It’s now a matter of being able to communicate it to the IT/Engineer/Physics types. There are people like that on the periphery of biology that are ID friendly.

    My task is to reach out to them and acquaint them with known problems in evolutionary biology that are amenable to bio-informatic, physics, chemistry analysis.

    Like: “This is a real problem in evolutionary biology because all existing hypotheses are as silly as a tornado assembling a car”? That may not optimally prepare them, I fear.

    Unless you learn about and engage with the proposed explanations, no one is going to take you seriously, Sal.

  18. Corneel: It is an anthropomorphism to communicate that transposable elements experience selection pressures that are at cross-purpose with that of the organism.

    Are you OK with that type of use of words?

    Yes, I think this is a much better explanation. Although I don’t know how we would know if this was true.

  19. phoodoo: Although I don’t know how we would know if this was true.

    Perhaps what will work for you is that certain members of the group of transposable elements are structurally similar to some known bad guys: viruses. For example, HIV is a well-known retrovirus that bears strong resemblance to LTR retrotransposons.

  20. Corneel,

    The challenge for you will be explaining why not all KRAB zinc finger proteins are highly conserved,

    Why do you think this is relevant?

  21. Corneel: Like: “This is a real problem in evolutionary biology because all existing hypotheses are as silly as a tornado assembling a car”? That may not optimally prepare them, I fear.

    Unless you learn about and engage with the proposed explanations, no one is going to take you seriously, Sal.

    Well, thank you for the input and for keeping the conversation alive.

  22. I showed the architecture diagram of KRAB-ZFP.

    This is the architecture of TopoIsomerase which I will also mention in passing.

    The domains and motifs:
    ATPase Domain
    TOPRIM (TOpoisomerase/PRIMase) domain
    Greek Key motif
    Winged Helix Domain
    Tower Domain
    Topoisiomerase C-variable Domain
    (somewhere tbd Nuclear Localization Signal)

    NOW contrast this with the KRAB-ZFP architecture. How the heck can they be related by common descent? Unless there was a miracle, it’s NUTS to think the emerge naturally.

    At least two domains (ATPase and TO-PRIMase domains) exist in other proteins. The other motifs and domains? Well maybe convergence, random cut and paste, who knows…..

    The WHD domain is a variant of the helix-turn-helix domain which DNA_Jock mentioned in his screed where he said he was a helix-turn-helix kind of guy.

    There are various methods a protein can connect onto DNA, one of them is zinc-fingers, another is helix-turn-helix domains.

    The paper describing the structure and function of the domains is here. Note how radically different it is from collagen or KRAB-ZFP proteins. It’s outrageous to think they are related by common descent, and I have evidence even professional structural biologist can’t relate them via common descent, which I will cite subsequently.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283612005815

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0022283612005815-gr1.jpg

  23. This is one classification scheme that claims to help identify evolutionary relationships. This page is the root of the tree:

    http://scop.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/scop/data/scop.b.html

    Note they can’t possibly unify the all the families except by assertion, because, well, the major families don’t resemble each other!!!!

    Collagen is classified as “Small Protein”

    The KRAB domain is classifed as “All alpha”

    TFIII3 is classified as “Small Protein”, but it’s a 9-zinc finger protein akin to the KRAB-Zinc Finger Proteins. So we merge KRAB and something like TFII3 and get a multidomain protein like ZNF136?

    Topoisomerase is classifed as “Alpha/Beta”

    It classifies ZNF292 as small protein but it’s 2700 residues long. “Small Protein” is hardly a real family as ZNF292 looks nothing like collagen which is classified as a small protein as well. ZNF292 resembles more the KRAB Zinc Finger architecture than it does collagen!

    The moral of the story, even the supposed “Root of the Tree of Life” as far as proteins are concerned is non-sensical.
    The Protein Universal Common Ancestor (PUCA, pronounced Puke-Ah), can’t be reconstructed. It’s reasonable to speculate PUCA never existed. Therefore Common Design, rather than common descent is a viable explanation for the patterns we see in biology.

  24. stcordova,

    The moral of the story, even the supposed “Root of the Tree of Life” as far as proteins are concerned is non-sensical.

    We do see sudden appearances of very unique sequences.

  25. colewd:
    stcordova,

    We do see sudden appearances of very unique sequences.

    Yes, Exactly.

    And when I ventured to ask evolutionary biologists if they thought all proteins descended from a common ancestor, they said, “what a stupid question! They didn’t.”

    Soooo, you’re welcome to ask all my critics the same question:

    DNA_Jock: “Do all proteins descend from a common ancestral protein?”

    John Harshman: “Do all proteins descend from a common ancestral protein?”

    Entropy: “Do all proteins descend from a common ancestral protein?”

    Rumraket: “Do all proteins descend from a common ancestral protein?”

    Allan Miller: “Do all proteins descend from a common ancestral protein?”

    Corneel: “Do all proteins descend from a common ancestral protein?”

    Keiths: “Do all proteins descend from a common ancestral protein?”

    etc.

    See how they respond. 🙂

  26. stcordova: Therefore Common Design, rather than common descent is a viable explanation for the patterns we see in biology.

    I’m interested in that explanation. Could you give it please?

  27. stcordova: And when I ventured to ask evolutionary biologists if they thought all proteins descended from a common ancestor, they said, “what a stupid question! They didn’t.”

    Were all proteins designed separately or did some evolve? Which ones were designed and which ones evolved?

  28. Corneel,

    Unless you learn about and engage with the proposed explanations, no one is going to take you seriously, Sal.

    Apart from many people in the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ engineering disciplines. They love this stuff, and will take no lessons from any poxy biochemist (per-tooey) on the subject.

  29. stcordova: proteins

    Were all proteins descended from a common ancestor? Probably not. Here’s a question back: is a point mutation descended from anything?

  30. I’ll be glad when we fill this page, by the way. My eyesight’s not what it used to be.

  31. If Common Design is Da Best Explanation, why are there all these differences? Why do they form a nested hierarchy whichever gene you take? Does a squid’s means of dehydrogenating succinate – to pick an example at random – really need to be more like a bat’s than a dandelion’s? I mean, all you’re doing is dehydrogenating summat, it’s not rocket science..

  32. Not only are domains in proteins shuffled (promiscuous), some organ positions are too! They say humans evolved from fish.

    If we take the inventory of some of the organs and regions of a human female going in the clockwise direction starting with her head the sequence is

    FEMALE:
    1. head
    2. heart
    3. stomach
    4. VAGINA
    5. ANUS
    6. back

    We can do the same for the
    MALE:
    1. head
    2. heart
    3. stomach
    4. PENIS
    5. ANUS
    6. back

    CLICK TO ENLARGE:
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/female_side_view_arrows.png

    I will do a comparison with the fish ordering in the next comment to highlight a problem since Darwinist say humans evolved from fish.

  33. Now some fish can copulate rather than do external fertilization.
    Instead of a vagina, such fish have a Urogenital Opening, but since it analogous to the human vagina I’ll call it a “vagina.” The male fish copulatory organ (for fish that copulate) is the gonopodium, but since it is analogous to the human penis I’ll call it a “penis.”

    As in my previous comment I’ll lay out the sequence of body parts and regions for a fish that copulates:

    FEMALE:
    1. head
    2. heart
    3. stomach
    4. ANUS
    5. “VAGINA”
    6. back

    We can do the same for the
    MALE:
    1. head
    2. heart
    3. stomach
    4. ANUS
    5. “PENIS”
    6. back

    Did you notice the fish private parts are wired bass-ackward relative to humans.? 🙂

    Now, suppose there was a mutation that flipped one poor fish so it’s privates are bass-ackward. Uh, it will have a hard time mating. So much for punctuated equilibrium and hopeful monsters and evo-devo hox cluster change that effect the bass-ackward sudden change — it will be change that will not be likely favored by sexual selection.

    The alternative is a slow gradual evolution where the penis migrates and some how moves to the right position in the sequence. Uh, how can that happen. Hmm — the poor fish loses it’s penis, grows a cloaca (where the anus and gentials are one organ), then regrows a penis in the right place????? And I thought creationists had outrageous stories. HA!

  34. stcordova,

    Hard time mating? Jeez Sal, you have lost the plot. Ever seen salmon mate? It doesn’t really matter where the openings are.

  35. Allan Miller:
    stcordova,

    Hard time mating? Jeez Sal, you have lost the plot. Ever seen salmon mate? It doesn’t really matter where the openings are.

    A prospective mate with it’s private parts bass-ackward may not be all that attractive.

  36. stcordova: A prospective mate with it’s private parts bass-ackward may not be all that attractive.

    Female lays eggs in gravel. Male squirts milt over them. I doubt he has a squint at her rear end first.

  37. Allan Miller: Female lays eggs in gravel. Male squirts milt over them. I doubt he has a squint at her rear end first.

    Not for fish with GONAPODIUM:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/seriouslyscience/2013/07/31/no-good-male-guppies-use-penis-claws-to-rape-females/

    The dark side of guppy sex (hint: it involves penis claws).

    As if the duck-rape genitalia arms race and traumatic sex in bed bugs weren’t enough, the research presented in this paper now informs us that male guppies have special penis claws that help them rape females. Guppies are extremely popular aquarium fish that give birth (rather than lay eggs) and have been used for much behavioral research, including on breeding behaviors. Males have a modified anal fin, the gonopodium, that is similar in function to a penis. When breeding, the male approaches and thrusts his gonopodium into a female, ejecting one or more balls of sperm. (If you want to see some amateur guppy porn, there are a number of YouTube videos available, like this one.) Male guppies also have claw-like appendages on their gonopodia.

  38. Allan Miller:
    stcordova,

    So we didn’t evolve from guppies. That’s quite the discovery.

    Ok, a lungfish-like creature then, since it spawns externally. But it’s still has it’s private parts bass-ackward, and Tiktaalik doesn’t solve that problem.

  39. colewd:
    We do see sudden appearances of very unique sequences.

    Really? I’ve never witnessed such a thing. Where do you go and see that happening?

  40. stcordova:
    Entropy: “Do all proteins descend from a common ancestral protein?”

    No Salvador. I’d give you a few clues as to why that’s just not possible, but the fact that you’re asking the question to me, means that you don’t have the background necessary to understand those explanations. It confirms my prior conclusion that you have no idea about molecular biology, that you use those words without understanding what they mean.

    There’s also the problem that you might not be that interested.

    ETA: edited a bit for clarity.

  41. stcordova: The alternative is a slow gradual evolution where the penis migrates and some how moves to the right position in the sequence.

    The alternative to what? You did not actually say!

  42. stcordova: Ok, a lungfish-like creature then, since it spawns externally.But it’s still has it’s private parts bass-ackward, and Tiktaalik doesn’t solve that problem.

    What problem? External fertilisers have no problem. It amazes me that you can’t anticipate objections before posting. Evolution blindness writ large.

  43. OMagain: The alternative to what? You did not actually say!

    I think that Salvador moved onto macroscopic features because he thought he’d had less of a hard time understanding those. Yet, he got himself jumping into conclusions out of ignorance that’d have an easy fix, had he learned to try and understand. Nope, he fills in his gaps of knowledge with assumptions pulled out of his ass. He doesn’t even think that animals might have different ways of reproducing other than human-like sexual intercourse. He’s caught, but he doesn’t get the cue that this’d be a good time to start reading carefully before continuing any further.

    He didn’t learn anything from failing to understand ectopic homologous recombination, probably because he doesn’t want to admit it, to himself, that he just doesn’t get it. He’s authentically convinced that mere quote-mining compensates for lack of understanding. Unbelievably incompetent yet just as proud, arrogant, and self-unaware. I cannot understand such a mind.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.