Central American Songbird Provides Confirmation of Intelligent Design

AP | 3/31/2005 | AP

[Condorman]

Central American Songbird Provides Confirmation of Intelligent Design

Lincoln, NE (AP) - Researchers at the University of Nebraska have, for the first time, confirmed a prediction of the controversial theory known as intelligent design, or ID.  The unexpected discovery was made by Paavamanti Ashook and Jessica Aylesworth, two graduate students working under the direction of Dr. Peter Harl, a professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Nebraska, while they were sequencing a section of the genetic code for the turquoise-browed motmot, Eumomota superciliosa, a Central American songbird.

During the relatively routine procedure, the research team uncovered a gene in the turquoise-browed motmot that does not appear in any of its nearest relatives.  “It came as a complete surprise,” said Aylesworth, “when we showed Dr. Harl he went to the lab and reran the sequence himself.”

 “What we found is a gene with no evolutionary precursor,” said Dr. Harl. “There is no homologous gene in any other species of motmot. There's nothing like it in any other kingfisher that we can tell.  It looks like someone stuck in an extra gene in the middle of the genome when no one was looking.  At this point, the theory of evolution cannot provide a satisfactory answer.  ID provides an explanation that works.”

ID is the scientific theory that evolution was guided is some way by an intelligent force, and was the subject of a controversial court ruling in Dover, PA last December in which the school board was forbidden from mandating ID as part of the science curriculum.  Although the theory refuses to identify the designer, many adherents claim that the designer is God.  According to one interpretation of the theory, some animals will contain certain features without a direct evolutionary pathway, as if the designer inserted or deleted a component of the species independent of the commonly accepted forces of natural selection.

“We will need to do more research,” Ashook said, “In the meantime, this definitely causes problems for evolution. But as a scientist I have to choice but to follow the evidence.”

The team’s results will be published in the next issue of the journal The Natural World.

[Sola Veritas]

"It is polylitally zygometic with a gene, BS ru, found in a closely related species, Hylomanes momotula ."

Please, lets keep the "professional" jargon to a minimum. I have a science background and you just shot over my head.

What protein does this "gene" code for, and what purpose does it serve? Does it confer some special property upon the bird that has it? Or, is it just a substitute for another gene serving a similar function?

I don't hold to traditional science orthodoxy (TOE). However, I don't see how this would "prove" ID.

[bd476]

editor-surveyor wrote: "Motmot is a kingfisher."

Actually the Mot Mot and Kingfishers are considered to be related only by their belonging to the same Order, Coraciiformes.

The Turquoise-Browed Mot Mots are in
Class Aves,

Subclass Neognathes

Infraclass Neonaves

Order Coraciiformes

Family Momotidae

Genus Eumomata

Species Eumomota superciliosa

Or a simpler way of demonstrating the error in your statement would be to say that a

Helmeted Hornbill
Order Coraciiformes
Family Bucerotidae (Hornbills)
Genus Rhinoplax
Species Rhinoplax vigil

and a

Dollar Bird
Order Coraciiformes
Family Coraciidae (Rollers)
Genus Eurystomus
Species Eurystomus orientalis

are also Mot Mots.

However that would not be a true statement despite Helmeted Hornbills, Dollar Birds and Mot Mots all belonging to the same Order Coraciiformes, which of course also includes Kingfishers.

Kingfishers are classified in Order Coraciiformes Family Alcedinidae which Family has 17 different Genii, with innumerable Species per Genus.

Generally speaking, Order Coraciiformes can feature some of the following traits:

• strong sharp bill,
• fused front toes or
• usually bright coloration.

[bd476]

Here are examples of differences found within the same Order Coraciiformes, and Family Momotidae of the Turquoise-browed Motmot.

Here is a Rufous-capped Motmot

Rufous-capped Motmot
Order Coraciiformes
Family Momotidae (motmots)
Genus Baryphthengus
Species Baryphthengus ruficapillus


Here is the Turquoise-browed Motmot again

Turquoise-browed Motmot
Order Coraciiformes Family Momotidae (motmots)
Genus Eumomota
Species Eumomota superciliosa


And here is a Blue crowned Motmot

Photographer Misty McPhee Univ. of Michigan
Photo used under educational fair use.

Blue crowned Motmot
Order Coraciiformes
Family Momotidae
Genus Momotus
Species Momota

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Please, lets keep the "professional" jargon to a minimum. I have a science background and you just shot over my head."

That's too bad. You'll have to keep up or move on.

"What protein does this "gene" code for, and what purpose does it serve? "

Do I have to do all your work for you? I mean, really! Is it not enough that I provided the name of the gene, now I have to come up with a protein and function?

"I don't hold to traditional science orthodoxy (TOE). However, I don't see how this would "prove" ID."

This gene didn't *poof* out of thin air. It had to have been designed.

[curmudgeonII]

This gene didn't *poof* out of thin air. It had to have been designed.

That's not quite how it works. Spontaneous mutations occur. When I took genetics the thought was that any gene would mutate into something different about one in a miilion times.

[Condorman]

When I took genetics the thought was that any gene would mutate into something different about one in a miilion times.

But there must be an evidence trail inasmuch as the new gene mutates from an existing gene. The article claims that there is no precursor.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

What has to be understood is that the BS 4u gene that was discovered is homozygotically discontinuous with all known tertiary insertions points of this avian family. Again, it couldn't have *poofed* into existence; it must have been designed. The release date of this paper is an exciting day in biological history. It will make all previous assumptions appear foolish.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But there must be an evidence trail inasmuch as the new gene mutates from an existing gene. The article claims that there is no precursor."

Exactly. This gene could not have *poofed* into existence; it must have been designed.

[Quark2005]

I know where I'll be on Sunday morning.

In the lab, looking at songbird genome sequences?

[Quark2005]

Exactly. This gene could not have *poofed* into existence; it must have been designed.

You realize, though, of course, that this discovery, while amazing, only proves micro-design, not the macro-design necessary to create every kind on earth.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You realize, though, of course, that this discovery, while amazing, only proves micro-design, not the macro-design necessary to create every kind on earth."

Where is the dividing line though? I know of nothing that will force an organism to stop being designed. There is no built in *Stop!* in the design structure of an organism.

[Quark2005]

Where is the dividing line though? I know of nothing that will force an organism to stop being designed. There is no built in *Stop!* in the design structure of an organism.

Doesn't matter. Until you've shown how every living thing on earth was designed and when (down to the exact second), your theory of design is nothing more than speculation of the ID cultists.

Intelligent Design caused the Holocaust and Dembski recanted his theory on his deathbed!

[Sola Veritas]

"This gene didn't *poof* out of thin air. It had to have been designed."

Too simplistic an answer for those that hold to TOE. Although I'm not one of them - my being a YEC. However, trying to be unbiased, I still don't see the existence of a gene as proof of ID. Or, at least proof that a traditional science TOE adherrant would even consider.

[spinestein]

[This gene didn't *poof* out of thin air. It had to have been designed.]


My guess is the DNA was transplanted there from some other animal. I blame that old Scottish guy who was trying to build the dinosaur theme park.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My guess is the DNA was transplanted there from some other animal. I blame that old Scottish guy who was trying to build the dinosaur theme park."

But where did HE get the gene from? Hmmm?

[spinestein]

Blood found in a mosquito?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Blood found in a mosquito?"

Where did the mosquito get the new BS 4u gene? It couldn't have *poofed* itself out of nothing, it had to have been designed ex nilio from a designer.

[ahayes]

I hope the Designer isn't Shiva. That would really suck.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I hope the Designer isn't Shiva. That would really suck."

I can tell you with confidence that the designer of the BS 4u gene is not Shiva. :)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Looks like we'll have to wait for details.

It's unusual that there are no links to this story in any of the usual suspects' websites.

And it's unusual that the University of Nebraska doesn't list a Dr. Peter Harl on their faculty.

But they'll get published, I'm sure.

I don't see how this is evidence for ID in any case. ID doesn't believe in genes. And it's still just a songbird.