Skin Uses Master Control
It would be hard to see how evolution would deal with a story about skin development. Maybe that’s why it was barely mentioned.
The story on Medical Xpress begins,
The surface of your skin, called the epidermis, is a complex mixture of many different cell types—each with a very specific job. The production, or differentiation, of such a sophisticated tissue requires an immense amount of coordination at the cellular level, and glitches in the process can have disastrous consequences. Now, researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have identified a master regulator of this differentiation process.
Dr. Paul Khavari at Stanford described TINCR, the master regulator, as a traffic copy directing precursor cells to their proper developmental fates like a traffic cop directing cars to parking spaces in a crowded lot. In this “entirely unique” system, the molecule is not a protein but a long, noncoding RNA (lncRNA). It works by stabilizing messenger RNA transcripts to “fine-tune gene expression.” The article said, “In this way TINCR may serve as a scaffold for many mRNAs involved in epidermal differentiation.”
The only mention of evolution was near the end:
“This effect is quite specific for epidermal tissue,” said Khavari, “and it suggests that nature has evolved a simple mechanism to control the tissue-specific expression of a large number of genes.”
Needless to say, such a statement merely assumes evolution instead of explaining how a finely-tuned master control could have arisen by a blind, unguided process.
Evolutionists, please tell us how Darwinian ideology helps in any way explain this phenomenon. Dr. Khavari appears to have been more intrigued by the complex, orderly process that looks designed: it involves sophisticated parts, it requires an immense amount of coordination, and it usually works well—otherwise there would be disastrous consequences. Assuming a purpose and finding it provides a better approach to biology than weaving imaginary tales about an assumed unobservable past.
Comments
“…it suggests that nature has evolved a simple mechanism to control the tissue-specific expression of a large number of genes.”
– Khavari personifies nature to such a degree he makes it (her?) sound like an engineer who deliberately, with foresight, invented a process or machine for a particular purpose.
I don’t understand how someone who accepts orthodox evolutionary theory (i.e. undirected, random, mindless) can speak in a way so contrary to it.
Over and over, I see a radical disconnect between evolutionary theory and the grammar evolutionists use in describing their work. (It’s as if these were two strangers who had never met.)