Proof that evolution is physically impossible [None so far]

[Robittybob1]

I'm sorry, there was nothing to answer. Your response was an ad hoc fallacy, substitution for a valid argument you made up to make your belief that contradicts experimental evidence more acceptable. But, you didn't show that mecA is a de novo gene. So, the null-hypothesis that process of evolution are not able to create new/de novo genes still stands.

My position is not based on "re-asserting" but on the fact that in physical systems there is a unimaginably large space of possible microstates.

Seems rather an important null hypothesis. What does that last sentence actually mean? "...in physical systems there is a unimaginably large space of possible microstates" Would you care to explain that please?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Arete]

So, the null-hypothesis that process of evolution are not able to create new/de novo genes still stands.

 

"By comparative genomic analysis of 12 closely related Drosophila species (7), we identified 566 new genes in the D. melanogaster genome."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.full

 

"Exon shuffling is an essential molecular mechanism for the formation of new genes. Many cases of exon shuffling have been reported in vertebrate genes...our experimental work, which revealed four new genes in Drosophila, plants, and humans" http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/betran/pdfs/genetica2003.pdf

 

"Several molecular mechanisms are known to be involved in the creation of new gene structures" http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n11/full/nrg1204.html

 

Given that we now all know that novel genes can and do originate via a variety of mechanisms, do you want to revisit your proposal?

 

 

 

[forex]

 

 

"By comparative genomic analysis of 12 closely related Drosophila species (7), we identified 566 new genes in the D. melanogaster genome."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.full

 

"Exon shuffling is an essential molecular mechanism for the formation of new genes. Many cases of exon shuffling have been reported in vertebrate genes...our experimental work, which revealed four new genes in Drosophila, plants, and humans" http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/betran/pdfs/genetica2003.pdf

 

"Several molecular mechanisms are known to be involved in the creation of new gene structures" http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n11/full/nrg1204.html

 

Given that we now all know that novel genes can and do originate via a variety of mechanisms, do you want to revisit your proposal?

 

 

 

 

Identifying previously unknown genes and proposing hypothesis for the origin of this genes has nothing to do with experimental evolution, e.g. tracking the genetic changes in initially identical populations of organisms. The longest-running evolution experiment ever undertaken is Lenski's long-term evolution experiment. Lenski's work showed that evolution can't create new genes. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression.

 

One of the changes in Lenski's experiment involved something that proponents of evolution refers to as evidence for bacteria evolving a "key innovation", a "new function" and a "fascinating case of evolution in action." A New Scientist writer proclaims: "A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait". In September of 2012 the well-known science journal Nature published an article about Lenski’s experiment entitled, "Evolution: How the unicorn got its horn". One evolutionary biologist said that Richard Lenski’s published research is: "another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists".

 

So, te question is: what all the fuss was about? Well, Lenski’s lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate – something they weren’t able to do before. And, they achieved this novel function via evolutionary processes - random mutations and natural selection. As is generally the case, the devil is in the details. And, when one looks a bit more closely at the details of the Lenski experiment, it loses quite a bit of its luster. What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions.

 

So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved. After about 31,000 generations, in a large population of bacteria, there was a single genetic mutation in a bacterium that ended up moving the citT gene and placing it under the control of a promoter that is active under oxic conditions. The protein product, however, remained the same with no required amino acid changes to achieve a selectable effect. All that was required was to move a pre-existing gene close to a promoter to turn it on during oxic conditions. That’s it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90622-how-can-a-rational-person-believe-in-evolution/?p=881811

[Arete]

Identifying previously unknown genes and proposing hypothesis for the origin of this genes has nothing to do with experimental evolution

 

And neither are the publications cited.

 

Edit to clarify - none of the publications cited are characterizing existing genes. They all document mechanisms by which novel genes are created or otherwise incorporated into a genome in which they previously were not present.

 

Also, the Lenski experiment does nothing to "prove" that novel genes are unable to evolve. It simply has not been documented in that system. It has in others (as previously cited). Gene duplication, horizontal transfer, exon shuffling, etc. have all been demonstrated to occur, and to generate novel genetic material. The claim that "evolution cannot produce new genes" is demonstrably wrong. Would you like to move forward in a new direction acknowledging that fact?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Arete

[forex]

Seems rather an important null hypothesis. What does that last sentence actually mean? "...in physical systems there is a unimaginably large space of possible microstates" Would you care to explain that please?

It has already been explained in the post #1.

[Phi for All]

It has already been explained in the post #1.

 

Not to ANYONE'S satisfaction.

[swansont]

 

My position is not based on "re-asserting" but on the fact that in physical systems there is a unimaginably large space of possible microstates.

 

 

Are they unique states? If not, then it doesn't matter. You've over-counted.

 

Are they all accessible? If not, then you've over-counted.

 

The burden of proof is on you to show that you haven't over-counted the states, and you have not done that. Just re-asserted that the number is big.

[Robittybob1]

....

So, you deny the existence of microstates in physical systems? Interesting.

Wikipedia gives a definition of microstate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstate_(statistical_mechanics)is that how this word is being used here? Define microstate please?

[Moontanman]

It has already been explained in the post #1.

 

 

You seem to be stuck in a repeating loop, the idea that biological systems had to exist before biological systems could exist. If you look at evolution from the perspective of the idea that "everything had to be in place for it to work" it does indeed look like evolution is impossible but the incremental steps to achieve the state that modern life forms currently occupy may not be obvious but life is here it obviously happened.

 

We have no examples of primitive life to examine, all extant organisms are advanced examples of life. If you try to jump from simple catalysts that do nothing but make certain chemical reactions more likely to a bacterium you are looking at the equivalent of jumping off the Earth to the Moon in one step. New genes do indeed arise spontaneously but more often an old gene changes to allow it to function in a novel way, current research appears to point to viruses as a source for novel genetic material.

 

The concept of new uses for old genes can be observed on a larger scale when an organism evolves a new body part. Did a fish suddenly grow a leg with all the attached bones, tendons, blood supply, and muscles suddenly? No, fins changed in tiny incremental steps over millions of generations to become legs, we see the end result but not the billions of failed changes or even the billions of successful changes.

 

It is also true that the process of new uses for old body parts can be observed in nature from sharks that crawl around on fins from one tidal pool to another to turtles that breath with their anus, the biological world is full of examples of change over time resulting in new uses for old body parts of organisms.

 

As for new genes arising the bacterium that metabolizes nylon is a prime example of a novel gene, no nylon existed before man created it, for a time it was an untapped energy source but as is often the case in biology a potential energy source didn't go long before a new mutation arose that allowed the bacteria to utilize the new food source. This is not a directed process but it is not random either, the changes are limited to what is chemically possible and the successes are driven by the environment.

 

Evolution has been observed many times in nature from bacteria to vertebrates, given time all you need is an imprecise replicator that is plastic to it's environment, this process has it's limits but the limits are imposed by physics as are the possible variations.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Moontanman

[forex]

 

Not to ANYONE'S satisfaction.

I am not writing to fulfill someone's desires but to give reasons why evolution of bio-systems is impossible. So far I haven't seen adequate response against my position. Reasons for lack of adequate response are simple: my position is based on three simple facts that are so obvious that nobody can deny it:

 

a) any bio-structure is built of elementary constituents(atoms, molecules) like any other physical object.

b) each constituent has a set of possible spatial states it can be in relation to another constituent. The collection of states of all the constituents is the microstate - one of the unimaginably huge number of different accessible arrangements of the constituents.

c) pre-existing bio-structures are predetermining the microstates for subsequent bio-structures (e.g. leg structure predetermines microstates of constituents forming mechanical gears in jumping insects(this is called semiotic relationship).

 

Mechanical gears discovered on planthopper insects provide an opportunity to recognize semiotic relationship between bio-structures. Gear is a structure for transmitting rotational motion while leg is a locomotive structure. As such they are connected through their relation to a concept of motion. Evolution is not an intelligent agent to be able to conceive concepts. So the only available way to achieve mentioned semantic relationship is by pure chance. But, believing that semiotically undirected transformations from one microstate to another would create semiotic relationship is like believing that erosion processes would turn a piece of clay into clay replica of the Statue of Liberty. This replica would then represent specific arrangements of clay constituents predetermined by a colossal neoclassical sculpture on Liberty Island in New York City just like arrangement of cells forming mechanical gears is predetermined by animal's legs.

We all know that erosion processes can shape and reshape various physical objects(hence causing transitions from one microstate to another) the same as mutations can shape and reshape various bio-structures(e.g. causing genital tumors), but no rational person would claim that this processes are able to create predetermined arrangements of clay constituents represented in the of Statue of Liberty. The reason nobody would believe that undirected transformations of matter could produce semiotic microstates, lies in the unimaginably huge number of different accessible arrangements of clay building blocks or particles. The same is true for bio-systems, but people believe the opposite because they have a prior commitment to materialism and atheism. And that commitment trumps all of the logical, mathematical or scientific reasons.

 

 

Are they unique states? If not, then it doesn't matter. You've over-counted.

 

Are they all accessible? If not, then you've over-counted.

 

The burden of proof is on you to show that you haven't over-counted the states, and you have not done that. Just re-asserted that the number is big.

The appeal to uniqueness and accessibility will not solve this problem because number of functional variants at "macroscopic" level of some bio-structure, e.g. protein, does not reduce the number of possible arrangements of nucleotides in the dna. For example, if there are 10^130 possible protein sequences that are 100 amino acids long and if 10^65 of this sequences are functional(carrying out function x to some specified degree) that doesn't mean that there are more transitional resources(mutations) available to evolution. Mutations are occurring on genes regardless of function achieved. Evolution is not intelligent so it cannot decide that a particular gene won't be mutated anymore because function X is achieved, so that transitional resources can be moved somewhere else. But even if that were the case it solves nothing. Life requires hundreds of different protein families, each with a 3D shape that is unique to each family and thousands of different structure-structure interactions that needed to be temporary and spatially coordinated because, to interact functionally, bio-structures are needed at the same time and place.

[Strange]

I am not writing to fulfill someone's desires but to give reasons why evolution of bio-systems is impossible.

 

Which you have spectacularly failed to do.

 

So far I haven't seen adequate response against my position.

 

Odd. I have seen several. I assume yours is a [quasi] religious belief that is impervious to logic or evidence (such as the fact we see evolution happening - including the creation of new genes - so it can't be impossible).

[forex]

 

 

You seem to be stuck in a repeating loop, the idea that biological systems had to exist before biological systems could exist. If you look at evolution from the perspective of the idea that "everything had to be in place for it to work" it does indeed look like evolution is impossible but the incremental steps to achieve the state that modern life forms currently occupy may not be obvious but life is here it obviously happened.

We have no examples of primitive life to examine, all extant organisms are advanced examples of life. If you try to jump from simple catalysts that do nothing but make certain chemical reactions more likely to a bacterium you are looking at the equivalent of jumping off the Earth to the Moon in one step. New genes do indeed arise spontaneously but more often an old gene changes to allow it to function in a novel way, current research appears to point to viruses as a source for novel genetic material.

 

The concept of new uses for old genes can be observed on a larger scale when an organism evolves a new body part. Did a fish suddenly grow a leg with all the attached bones, tendons, blood supply, and muscles suddenly? No, fins changed in tiny incremental steps over millions of generations to become legs, we see the end result but not the billions of failed changes or even the billions of successful changes.

 

It is also true that the process of new uses for old body parts can be observed in nature from sharks that crawl around on fins from one tidal pool to another to turtles that breath with their anus, the biological world is full of examples of change over time resulting in new uses for old body parts of organisms.

 

As for new genes arising the bacterium that metabolizes nylon is a prime example of a novel gene, no nylon existed before man created it, for a time it was an untapped energy source but as is often the case in biology a potential energy source didn't go long before a new mutation arose that allowed the bacteria to utilize the new food source. This is not a directed process but it is not random either, the changes are limited to what is chemically possible and the successes are driven by the environment.

 

Evolution has been observed many times in nature from bacteria to vertebrates, given time all you need is an imprecise replicator that is plastic to it's environment, this process has it's limits but the limits are imposed by physics as are the possible variations.

Your unfalsifiable narrative explanation, also called an ad hoc fallacy or just-so story, falsely presupposes that appeal to an abstract phrase like "tiny incremental steps over millions of generations" can solve the problem of huge transitional resource shortage in searching for semiotic microstates in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates.

 

In doing so you are projecting human intellectual capabilities to natural processes. Of course that it is possible to produce things via tiny incremental steps, but only is you have a priori knowledge of what you want to achieve and the ability to perform goal-directed action. Given the above example of producing the clay replica of the Statue of Liberty, humans can do it in no time. Why? Because humans are able to create mental representation of one arrangement of matter(Statue of Liberty sculpture on Liberty Island in New York City ) and then, by using its cognitive faculties and motor skills, arrange clay according to this mental representation. But natural processes are not able to produce this kind of effects because they are determined by physicochemical causality and not by semiotic causality, which means that by physicochemical causality a structure or body shall deform or displace to a position that minimizes the total potential energy and not to a position that incrementally heads towards semiotic relationship between various structures (like between female sex organs and male sex organs). Nature doesn't "care" about semiotic relationships and representations.

 

Hence, you have made the same mistake Dawkins did when he created WEASEL program, presented in chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins knows that a purely random approach to generating bio-structures is practically impossible, due to the excessively huge search space. So he created WEASEL program where he aims to show that the process that drives evolutionary systems (random variation and natural selection) is different from pure chance. So, how he did it? Well, by inteligent design. He had used a priori knowledge of what he wanted to achieve. Program begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation until target phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is reached. Without further elaboration, we can easily see what technique is used here. At each step of the program the current state of the "individual" is judged according to the target phrase. In other words, program uses a priori knowledge of the goal before the goal is reached.

 

The use of a priori knowledge is called planing. Plan is defined as a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something. By creating plans we, as inteligent agents, are creating representations of what we want to achieve. Then, by using our cognitive faculties we design objects by comparing this plans with a current state of the object. In short, this activity is called inteligent design. Now, isn't it interesting how proponents of evolution in their just-so-stories are explaining the power of evolution by attributing the design methods of intelligent agents to natural processes?

 

And neither are the publications cited.

 

Edit to clarify - none of the publications cited are characterizing existing genes. They all document mechanisms by which novel genes are created or otherwise incorporated into a genome in which they previously were not present.

 

Also, the Lenski experiment does nothing to "prove" that novel genes are unable to evolve. It simply has not been documented in that system. It has in others (as previously cited). Gene duplication, horizontal transfer, exon shuffling, etc. have all been demonstrated to occur, and to generate novel genetic material. The claim that "evolution cannot produce new genes" is demonstrably wrong. Would you like to move forward in a new direction acknowledging that fact?

There is nothing to be acknowledged. Gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, exon shuffling, etc., merely provide a mechanism for transferring pre-existing genes and does not provide a mechanism for the origin of de novo genes. Creation of three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements like lungs, heart, brain, ... requires the development of new genes.You cannot create functional heart by transfering pre-existing bacterial genes. So, the appeal to "novel genetic material" will not solve this problem.

Edited March 1, 2016 by forex

[swansont]

The appeal to uniqueness and accessibility will not solve this problem because number of functional variants at "macroscopic" level of some bio-structure, e.g. protein, does not reduce the number of possible arrangements of nucleotides in the dna.

 

That's not the argument.

 

For one thing, I'm questioning if all of these "possible" arrangements are actually possible. You're just doing a calculation based on combinations, but this is not like a deck of cards, where any combination is permitted. As I pointed out before, chemistry is involved. Some combinations aren't physically possible.

[Strange]

Gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, exon shuffling, etc., merely provide a mechanism for transferring pre-existing genes and does not provide a mechanism for the origin of de novo genes.

 

You are very fond of accusing others of logical and rhetorical fallacies so I will just point out (again) that this is a strawman argument. NO ONE claims that genes magically appear from nowhere (i.e. de novo). However, new genes can be created by a various mechanisms (some of which you admit to) and these can then change to perform novel functions.

[Vitul]

So, you cant just randomly duplicate existing genetic code for a particular organ or part of the organ, add few hundred random mutations and voilà, new organ or molecular machine will emerge.

 

What makes you so sure that we need pre-existing machinery to develop new semiotic microstates? From where I see it, it is equally probably that random mutations can lead to the development of microstates that may be turned semiotic or non-semiotic based on the environment. Please don't forget that the process is gradual.

 

I expect you to come back with the argument that there needs to be some goal to achieve or some blueprint to copy, but try to think of mutations as random however, remember that the mutations are also influenced by the environment.

[forex]

 

 

That's not the argument.

 

For one thing, I'm questioning if all of these "possible" arrangements are actually possible. You're just doing a calculation based on combinations, but this is not like a deck of cards, where any combination is permitted. As I pointed out before, chemistry is involved. Some combinations aren't physically possible.

This is an irrelevant objection. Cells can be arranged into gears, jaws, teeth, ribs, knee, heart, penis... so there is no chemical constraint for the possible three-dimensional shapes bio-structures can adopt.

At the molecular level, the information regarding the formation of a given enzyme or protein is written on genes. At that level, any combination of four nucleotides (ATCG) is permitted.

 

What makes you so sure that we need pre-existing machinery to develop new semiotic microstates? From where I see it, it is equally probably that random mutations can lead to the development of microstates that may be turned semiotic or non-semiotic based on the environment. Please don't forget that the process is gradual.

 

 

 

I explained that in my previous posts.

 

I expect you to come back with the argument that there needs to be some goal to achieve or some blueprint to copy, but try to think of mutations as random however, remember that the mutations are also influenced by the environment.

 

 

How mutations influenced by the environment is explaining the problem of huge transitional resource shortage in searching for semiotic microstates in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates?

Edited March 1, 2016 by forex

[Vitul]

How mutations influenced by the environment is explaining the problem of huge transitional resource shortage in searching for semiotic microstates in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates?

 

That is because you don't have a clear demarcation between semiotic and non-semiotic microstates when you consider evolution.

 

Let me give you an example,

 

We have biological function A that isn't completely efficient at its role. Slowly, mutations that are selected for change the function to better suit the needs of the environment and the organism inhabiting it. After a certain period of time, you don't find biological function A anymore, its been replaced by the better, evolved A*. That doesn't mean that A did not exist, or A* had to have any specific goal to achieve. It was simply natural selection at work.

 

At this point, you can't call A a non-semiotic microstate when you consider the evolutionary history of the function. This solves your problem of finding a semiotic A*, among a vast sea of A's and non-semiotic microstates.

[Prometheus]

I'm sorry, there was nothing to answer. Your response was an ad hoc fallacy, substitution for a valid argument you made up to make your belief that contradicts experimental evidence more acceptable. But, you didn't show that mecA is a de novo gene. So, the null-hypothesis that process of evolution are not able to create new/de novo genes still stands.

My position is not based on "re-asserting" but on the fact that in physical systems there is a unimaginably large space of possible microstates.

 

First it was a non-sequiter, now it has become an ad hoc fallacy? You are of course free to acknowledge your mistake and change your mind, but i just want to make sure i know what you are saying before i answer only for you to move the goalposts.

 

 

You are very fond of accusing others of logical and rhetorical fallacies...

 

 

At least Forex has implicitly conceded that he does not understand at least one logical fallacy; the non-sequiter. This is progress.

[swansont]

This is an irrelevant objection. Cells can be arranged into gears, jaws, teeth, ribs, knee, heart, penis... so there is no chemical constraint for the possible three-dimensional shapes bio-structures can adopt.

At the molecular level, the information regarding the formation of a given enzyme or protein is written on genes. At that level, any combination of four nucleotides (ATCG) is permitted.

You keep moving the goalposts; we weren't talking about cells. You persist in not showing the details of your calculations.

 

If I arrange identical cells, does it matter if cell A is on cell B's left, or if they swap positions? Is that accounted for in your calculation? I ask, because you haven't shown any details of your calculations.

[forex]

 

That is because you don't have a clear demarcation between semiotic and non-semiotic microstates when you consider evolution.

 

Let me give you an example,

 

We have biological function A that isn't completely efficient at its role. Slowly, mutations that are selected for change the function to better suit the needs of the environment and the organism inhabiting it. After a certain period of time, you don't find biological function A anymore, its been replaced by the better, evolved A*. That doesn't mean that A did not exist, or A* had to have any specific goal to achieve. It was simply natural selection at work.

 

At this point, you can't call A a non-semiotic microstate when you consider the evolutionary history of the function. This solves your problem of finding a semiotic A*, among a vast sea of A's and non-semiotic microstates.

Nice try but it fails miserably. Let's use the intronic insertions problem as an example. Genes of today's eukaryotic cells are interrupted by noncoding sequences called introns that need to be removed via splicing machine from the RNA molecule before the process of protein synthesis can begin otherwise they would destroy the protein-coding capacity of genes. So, from the evolutionary point of view the splicing machine is the complex evolutionary solution to the intron insertions problem, that began early in a cellular live, once one of these early cells get one of these introns inserted into a critical gene.

 

Now let's use your expalnation: "Slowly, mutations that are selected for change the function to better suit the needs of the environment..."

 

In our intron insertions problem, semiotic relationship(bio-function) or "better suit" is achieved when five splicing subprocesses exist: to recognize mRNA and its intron-exon boundaries, then to cut the RNA, to rearrange cuted parts, to join and finally to release the mRNA molecule. Only when combination of nucleotides in the DNA that contains all five subprocesses exists only then natural selection can act as organism is then in the state of "better suit". For example: If we assume the existance of splicing helper proteins that assembly at the intron-exon borders to guide small nuclear ribo proteins to form a splicing machine, this partial correctness of the splicing process won't cause introns to magically disappear without a complete splicing machine. This partial correctness won't cause random, blind and unintelligent process to put aside these helper proteins because they're good for the future splicing function. Evolution has no long term goal, it cannot plan. There is no long distance target to serve as a criterion for selection.

 

So your explanation is a standard evolutionary just-so-story, unfalsifiable narrative explanation, that completely ignores the question of how would random dna rearrangement produce functional splicing machine in the space of nearly infinite dna rearrangement results that have nothing to do with RNA splicing. All you need to do is to hide your explanation behind the dual mantra phrase: "it better suit the environment - it is selected", and problem solved. In reality, you did nothing but completely ignore the problem.

You keep moving the goalposts; we weren't talking about cells. You persist in not showing the details of your calculations.

 

If I arrange identical cells, does it matter if cell A is on cell B's left, or if they swap positions? Is that accounted for in your calculation? I ask, because you haven't shown any details of your calculations.

Of course, it doesn't matter, but you need a transitional resource(energy) to produce that swap.

[Arete]

There is nothing to be acknowledged. Gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, exon shuffling, etc., merely provide a mechanism for transferring pre-existing genes and does not provide a mechanism for the origin of de novo genes.

 

Err, yeah they do. Exon shuffling brings together two or more exons to produce a new intron-exon structure. Ectopic recombination re-assorts genes into novel arrangements. Gene duplication followed by a point mutation/s results in a new gene. If the contention is that new genes don't simply "poof" into existence, fully functional and encoding a complex trait, well no, they don't, and you wouldn't expect them to using any assumptions based on evolutionary theory, making any argument that the duplication and re-assortment of existing genetic material into novel sequences doesn't represent the creation of new genes a strawman argument.

 

 

Creation of three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements like lungs, heart, brain, ... requires the development of new genes.You cannot create functional heart by transfering pre-existing bacterial genes. So, the appeal to "novel genetic material" will not solve this problem.

 

A) The development of complex structures does not necessarily require the development of new genes. Existing structures have been co-opted for novel functions. For e.g. signalling pathways developing into photoreceptors. http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/full/nrn2283.html http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001054

 

B) Now we're simply at the logical fallacy of irreducible complexity. Just because you don't understand how a complex trait can emerge from evolutionary processes in no way supports and argument that it can't.

 

C) Bacterial transfer is by no means the only mechanism for the creation of novel protein coding sequences. No one is suggesting that horizontal gene transfer from prokaryotes explains the evolution of the heart, so this is a rather blatant strawman.

 

D) Your claim was: "that [the] process of evolution are not able to create new/de novo genes" but now you're shifting the goalposts to state that the production of new genes doesn't explain the emergence of complex structures - which of course in isolation, it does not (throw in another strawman for good measure, hey). Any explanation of how a complex structure evolves is, by its nature, complex. We actually know a good deal about the evolutionary origins of the heart, and have extant examples of varying complexity ranging from a single peristaltic pump, two, three, four and more chambered hearts across the animal kingdom.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07853890.2011.607468

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/20/19/2728.full

 

To suggest we cannot explain its evolutionary origins and the process by which the regulatory, developmental and coding genetics underlay its evolution is false.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Arete

[forex]

 

Err, yeah they do. Exon shuffling brings together two or more exons to produce a new intron-exon structure. Ectopic recombination re-assorts genes into novel arrangements. Gene duplication followed by a point mutation/s results in a new gene. If the contention is that new genes don't simply "poof" into existence, fully functional and encoding a complex trait, well no, they don't, and you wouldn't expect them to using any assumptions based on evolutionary theory, making any argument that the duplication and re-assortment of existing genetic material into novel sequences doesn't represent the creation of new genes a strawman argument.

 

Exon shuffling, re-assortment, novel arrangements... they are just fancy technical terms, a matter of semantics. In reality this is just transformation from one microstate to another. It says nothing about, for e.g., a genes that code for a complex organization of all bones and joints in the body. Or in the other words, where would you get the transitional resources to search for the functional(semiotic) relationship between bones and joints, in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates.

 

A) The development of complex structures does not necessarily require the development of new genes. Existing structures have been co-opted for novel functions. For e.g. signalling pathways developing into photoreceptors. http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/full/nrn2283.html http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001054

B) Now we're simply at the logical fallacy of irreducible complexity. Just because you don't understand how a complex trait can emerge from evolutionary processes in no way supports and argument that it can't.

C) Bacterial transfer is by no means the only mechanism for the creation of novel protein coding sequences. No one is suggesting that horizontal gene transfer from prokaryotes explains the evolution of the heart, so this is a rather blatant strawman.

D) Your claim was: "that [the] process of evolution are not able to create new/de novo genes" but now you're shifting the goalposts to state that the production of new genes doesn't explain the emergence of complex structures - which of course in isolation, it does not (throw in another strawman for good measure, hey). Any explanation of how a complex structure evolves is, by its nature, complex. We actually know a good deal about the evolutionary origins of the heart, and have extant examples of varying complexity ranging from a single peristaltic pump, two, three, four and more chambered hearts across the animal kingdom.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07853890.2011.607468

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/20/19/2728.full

To suggest we cannot explain its evolutionary origins and the process by which the regulatory, developmental and coding genetics underlay its evolution is false.

 

 

 

You really don't understand the problem, do you?

 

Let's suppose that evolution starts with the following functional linguistic "organism":

 

"------- Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.--------"

 

 

Imagine the above text is the DNA of the first self-replicating unicellular organism. Words are genes. Word is a smallest unit of language that functions as a principal carrier of meaning just as gene is a smallest unit of biology that functions as a principal carrier of functional molecule(exp. protein tertiary structure). A sentence is a linguistic unit consisting of more words that are grammatically linked just as assembly of genes is a biological unit consisting of two or more genes that are functionally linked together to perform an important function of the cell or the body. (exp. genes that code for molecular machines).

 

The folowing is the multicellular organisms... with new tissues, organs and organ systems, hence with new genes, that do not exist in first self-replicating unicellular organism.

 

"------- Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.

The human species' use of technology began with the conversion of natural resources into simple tools. The prehistoric discovery of how to control fire and the later Neolithic Revolution increased the available sources of food and the invention of the wheel helped humans to travel in and control their environment. Developments in historic times, including the printing press, the telephone, and the Internet, have lessened physical barriers to communication and allowed humans to interact freely on a global scale. The steady progress of military technology has brought weapons of ever-increasing destructive power, from clubs to nuclear weapons..---------"

 

Of course there is a similarity between this two organisms, but multicellular organism has a new functional words(genes) and new sentences(assembly of genes). Now, the questions are as follows:

a) how would you produce new functional words(genes) and new sentences(assembly of genes) that do not exist in first self-replicating unicellular organism?

b) how would you produce semiotic relationship between words. E.g. in this sentence: "The steady progress of military technology has brought weapons of ever-increasing destructive power.", we have semiotic relationship, but here: "The began including used environment the freely on ...", we don't.

 

Your answers are something like this:

A) The development of complex sentences does not necessarily require the development of new words.

B) Just because you don't understand how complex sentences can emerge, in no way supports and argument that it can't.

C) Transfer of pre-existing words is by no means the only mechanism for the creation of novel words. No one is suggesting that transfering word from one text to another explains the evolution of new sentence.

D) Any explanation of how a complex sentence emerges is, by its nature, complex. We actually know a good deal about the similarity of sentences.

 

So, did you show how a random rearrangements of pre-existing words and sentences can create new semantically correct words(genes) and syntactically correct sentances(semiotic relationship between words) that do not exist in unicellular linguistic organism? Of course you didn't. So, by what standard did you then refute the following null-hypothesis: "There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new/de novo genes"? Re-asserting old evolutionary hypothesis is not a valid standard. Sorry.

Edited March 2, 2016 by forex

[Greg H.]

You sentence analogy is fallacious in and of itself. You would be better served discussing how language itself changes over time when words adopt new meanings, and can thus be used in differing contexts than they previously could be.

 

Oh wait, no you wouldn't, because that would support Arete's argument. Carry on.

[Prometheus]

Hi forex. Since you have simply ignored my rebuttals i will extend the same courtesy. Let me know if you ever want to revisit any of those sticky issues you conveniently 'forgot'.

 

I will, however, show that you do not understand what a null-hypothesis is, or are deliberately misrepresenting what a null hypothesis is in the hope you will influence someone undecided by use of obfuscation.

 

'Null hypothesis' is a technical term, where you perform statistical tests for significance between 2 or more groups.

 

"There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new/de novo genes"

 

This is a statement, not a null hypothesis. It's a perfectly valid statement, though others have given evidence on this thread to refute it. I draw your attention to it only to show how calling it a null hypothesis gives the veneer of scientific language, while simply being a statement. It's splitting hairs, but as i suspect you are deliberately trying to confuse undecided readers with technical jargon it needs pointing out.

 

This is a common tactic among anti-science advocates; adopting the language of science to try to influence people less familiar with the lingo, which makes the argument sound more credible to some people while either adding nothing to understanding or actually making a point less clear.

 

I look forward to your reply.

[forex]

Hi forex. Since you have simply ignored my rebuttals i will extend the same courtesy. Let me know if you ever want to revisit any of those sticky issues you conveniently 'forgot'.

 

I will, however, show that you do not understand what a null-hypothesis is, or are deliberately misrepresenting what a null hypothesis is in the hope you will influence someone undecided by use of obfuscation.

 

'Null hypothesis' is a technical term, where you perform statistical tests for significance between 2 or more groups.

 

 

This is a statement, not a null hypothesis. It's a perfectly valid statement, though others have given evidence on this thread to refute it. I draw your attention to it only to show how calling it a null hypothesis gives the veneer of scientific language, while simply being a statement. It's splitting hairs, but as i suspect you are deliberately trying to confuse undecided readers with technical jargon it needs pointing out.

 

This is a common tactic among anti-science advocates; adopting the language of science to try to influence people less familiar with the lingo, which makes the argument sound more credible to some people while either adding nothing to understanding or actually making a point less clear.

 

I look forward to your reply.

There's nothing magical about NH. The null hypothesis is simply a statement or default position assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.

So, please stop trolling. This is topic about semiotic relationships between bio-structures and physical impossibility of evolutionary mutational transitions from one microstate to another to produce semiotic relationships.

You sentence analogy is fallacious in and of itself. You would be better served discussing how language itself changes over time when words adopt new meanings, and can thus be used in differing contexts than they previously could be.

 

Oh wait, no you wouldn't, because that would support Arete's argument. Carry on.

You know that it is very easy to make claims. However, the reality is that any claim is empty and without any weight unless it is supported. You just stated that sentence analogy is fallacious but you didn't explain why. So this is nothing but empty claim.

Edited March 2, 2016 by forex