Proof that evolution is physically impossible [None so far]

[Strange]

So, you are basically saying the same thing I do.

 

Of course not. You are saying that something we see cannot be happening.

 

You argument seems to be based on the idea that evolution must be able to jump magically to some arbitrarily distant point in the available space. As that isn't how it works - either in terms of genetic changes or evolution - your argument is just irrelevant (as has been explained repeatedly).

[forex]

 

Of course not. You are saying that something we see cannot be happening.

 

You argument seems to be based on the idea that evolution must be able to jump magically to some arbitrarily distant point in the available space. As that isn't how it works - either in terms of genetic changes or evolution - your argument is just irrelevant (as has been explained repeatedly).

 

My argument is not based on the "idea" but on experimental science and mathematics. Science shows how many active enzymes there are in the total sequence space and how many resources were available to evolution, while mathematics shows how many resources are needed to explore sequence space populated by active enzymes.

 

Since you do not have adequate response to this argument you invented accusation that I don't understand how evolution works. This is btw., a standard ad hoc response when evolutionists don't have arguments. Now, if I were to ask you how then evolution works in finding functional sequences, then you would probably appeal to some magic prase like "selective pressure". Then I would ask you to explain how would "selection pressure" help in the search for the functional sequences in the DNA that are coding for those 3 enzymes in my simple example of organism-environment interaction. And your answer would be something like in the post #72 - some mutations were able to find. Hence, evolution is searching for functional sequences by chance. And then, we are back at experimental science and mathematics which are showing that there are no enough mutational resources to overcome such a huge search space.

 

So, you are doing nothing but spinning around in the denial of science and mathematics.

Edited March 4, 2016 by forex

[Strange]

My argument is not based on the "idea" but on experimental science and mathematics.

 

There is no experimental support for your claim.

 

 

Science shows how many active enzymes there are in the total sequence space and how many resources were available to evolution, while mathematics shows how many resources are needed to explore sequence space populated by active enzymes.

 

But nothing shows that those are relevant.

 

 

Since you do not have adequate response to this argument you invented accusation that I don't understand how evolution works. This is btw., a standard ad hoc response when evolutionists don't have arguments.

 

Good job I didn't say that then. I have no idea if you understand how evolution works or not. Perhaps you choose to deliberately misrepresent it and invent strawman arguments.

 

It is clearly possible for a series of incremental changes to produce new or variant proteins, or change the expression of existing genes, and these changes can then be selected by the environment. Trying to argue that is is impossible because the space is too large seems a bit like saying I can't take the next step down the path because there are so many roads in the world to choose from.

[forex]

 

There is no experimental support for your claim.

 

No?! You deny the existance of experimental support despite the link I provided just a few moments ago in the post #75? Well, that's what I call denial.

 

Here is another experimental support for the extreme rarity of functional sequences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2199970

 

In this experiment Reidhaar-Olson&Sauer reported that on average, only 1 in every 10^63 sequences are functional for a protein 92 amino acids long. - "The results reveal the high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular protein fold."

Don't forget that we are at the micro-level. If we move to the macro-level and consider structures like mechanical gears in jumping insects then the number of non-functional sequences is immeasurably large in comparison with numbers on a micro-level.

 

 

But nothing shows that those are relevant.

 

 

Nothing? Are you saying that calculations are nothing? Calculation is a process of calculating something, so it's not nothing. I calculated that if every atom comprising the planet Earth were a Tianhe-2 - the world's fastest supercomputer, searching at its highest speed from the Big Bang until now it would still need more than 108 orders of magnitude longer to find three functional protein folds. I also calculated that the entire sum of mutations operating over five billion years(10^43), would fall short by more than 188 orders of magnitude in producing this folds.

 

 

Good job I didn't say that then. I have no idea if you understand how evolution works or not. Perhaps you choose to deliberately misrepresent it and invent strawman arguments.

It is clearly possible for a series of incremental changes to produce new or variant proteins, or change the expression of existing genes, and these changes can then be selected by the environment. Trying to argue that is is impossible because the space is too large seems a bit like saying I can't take the next step down the path because there are so many roads in the world to choose from.

 

 

Taking the next step down the path is the same as producing one mutation. Of course evolution is able to do that. The problem is not in taking the next step but in available resources to find something that is hidden by the side of one of so many world's roads.

Edited March 4, 2016 by forex

[Arete]

You are repeating the same story with different words.

 

You are repeating the same intellectually fallacious argument from incredulity, but simply shifting the goalposts each time the justification you use to support it are shown to be flawed.

 

From the perspective of evolutionary theory new genes are not just recombinations of existing genetic material, regardless of mechanism, but information representing new structures - new protein folds, new organs, new molecular machines etc.

 

If you bother to actually read and comprehend the evidence, that's precisely what the cited mechanisms do - generate novel protein coding sequences. This is documented all the time in the literature, and your repeated denial of it begs repetition ad nauseum which is tiresome.

 

A great example comes from a system I've worked on - Trypanosoma brucei. T. brucei is an obligate parasite that evades the adaptive immune function of its host via antigenic switching. They have a variable library of ~1,500 pseudogenes encoding the protein coat on the outside of the cell surface (VSG genes). Only one of these is expressed at any given time, allowing the rest to accumulate neutral mutations due to their non-expression. Approximately once every 100 generations, the expression site is switched for a novel gene from the library via ectopic recombination. This allows a novel protein coat to be expressed, avoiding the host's evolved antibodies for the previous cell surface. Thus, the generation of new genes is not only routinely observed in T brucei, it is essential to its existence.

http://mcb.asm.org/content/16/7/3615.short

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/12/15/nar.gkv1459.abstract

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5733/416.short

 

But wait I hear, they only ever mutate into other VSG genes, not genes with a novel function. Except when they do. Humans and some other great apes (funny that...) have innate as well as adaptive immunity to trypanosomes, allowing us to avoid infection by most Trypanosoma species. These trypanolytic factors (TLAs) cause lysis of T. brucei cells, preventing them from infecting people. The recent evolution of a truncated VSG gene, known as the serum resistance associated (SRA) gene, prevents the uptake of TLAs and thus allows a subspecies of T. brucei - T. b. rhodeseinse to infect humans with fatal consequences. The presence of the SRA gene is the only known distinction between the two forms. Ergo, the mutation of existing genetic material into a novel protein sequence confers a novel function.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=324617&fileId=S0031182005007560

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147660

 

 

Edit to add:

new protein folds

 

Funny you bring that one up... experimental exposure of the bacteriophage Phi 6 to heat shock causes fixation of a non-synonymous point mutation in the P5 protein - Valine to Phenlalanine at position 207. This mutation alters the protein's folding to fill a hydrophobic cavity, increasing the protein's thermostability. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003102

 

 

In the production of offspring we also have genetic recombination and creation of traits that differ from those found in either parent. But no new bio-structures are created.

 

Except in the multitude of cases where they are - like the evolution of novel cell membranes through chimeric interactions. Or novel exoskeletons in crabs. Or functionally novel proteins in frogs, etc.

 

So basically, all you do is playing semantic games, nothing more nothing less.

 

So, basically you're repeating the same, intellectually dishonest argument from personal incredulity, and when your justification for it is found to be false, you hand wave it away as "semantics" and shift the goalposts to a new faulty argument rather than actually learn biology.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Arete

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

This isn't going anywhere.

Forex, we do not accept preaching here which is what this seems to have descended into.

Please do not reintroduce this topic.

If you disagree with this decision please report this post.