Fibrinogen as Evidence for Biochemical Complexity?
Jerry Coyne admits biochemical complexity must underlie morphological complexity. (Check out the discussion at Dr. Coyne’s bolg: http://t.co/wQ3LCXG2) However, in his acclaimed book, Why Evolution is True, the only specific evidence he provides to demonstrate biochemical complexity is to hypothesize that a common ancestor of sea cucumbers and vertebrates had a gene that was later co-opted in vertebrates as fibrinogen. (p. 131-3) How much does this explain?
The following two Biochemical Pathways Chart interactive thumbnails, when printed, cover 27 square feet; they are packed with cellular complexities. And, all of the molecules and pathways need an evolutionary explanation. Go online yourself and see the breathtaking complexity of biochemistry that still needs an explanation. The only evidence Coyne presents in his book is an imagined gene that supposedly led to fibrinogen. To find fibrinogen click on section V2; that will bring up the third chart.
What does this lack of evidence do for the evolutionary claims for the development of morphological complexity?
To My Listening Ear 
Pingback: Evolution: Where is the Evidence? (Prepared for delivery at the 1st INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON QUERIED EVOLUTION in Istanbul, Turkey, May 4, 2013) | To My Listening Ear
Pingback: NeuroLogica Blog » An Interview with Don McLeroy, Part III
Pingback: My Response to Jerry Coyne and his Readers on the Resurrection | To My Listening Ear
Pingback: Does The Universe Have A Purpose? | A Yearning for Publius
Pingback: A running List of Biological Evidences of Design in Nature | A Yearning for Publius
An interesting and fascinating article in the NY Times today which provides an interesting contrast between a Materialistic/Darwinian explanation of how complex systems come into being is at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/magazine/the-biggest-ship-in-the-world-though-it-isnt-exactly-a-ship-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0.
We, and impressionable young students are asked (nay – force fed) to believe that the complexity and sophistication of the cell as shown in the Biochemical Pathways Charts is caused somehow by the evolutionary miracles of “deep time”, while the complexity and sophistication of the ship shown in the Times article to be the result of intelligent design. The twin of this ‘deep time” evolutionary mechanism for creation is “deep gullibility” of which the overly educated priests of Naturalism such as Coyne and Dawkins are the most gullible.
Pingback: Which is design and which is evolution? | A Yearning for Publius