forex

Science you said? Ok. Since, by proponents of evolution, evolutionary processes created every level of biological organisation and since all living beings depend on genes, as they specify all proteins, functional RNA chains and hold the information to build and maintain an organism's cells, from the science perspective - evolution is natural process that produce new genes. So, the real scientific question is this: is there a knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that processes of evolution can create new genes? Why are new genes important? Because the hypothetical first self-replicator did not contain genes for three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments, ... etc. All these arrangements are significantly different in their three-dimensional shape, and function, so the information written in genes that represent them also have to be significantly diferent. Ear is different than eye, heart is different than kidneys, DNA polymerase is different ATP synthase, mechanical gears in jumping insects are diferent then bacterial flagellum, knee is different than jaw, liver is differnt then stomach... 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. Hundred years of experimentation and millions of lab-induced random mutation in various organisms have shown that this is not possible. Due to this reason the only real scientific test for the idea od evolution is this: can evolutionary processes produce a new or de novo genes? De novo genes are genes without homologues in genomes of other organisms. This question is especially important because comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10–20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs in other species. These genes are also called orphan genes. For example this research identified a total of 60 protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from chimpanzee: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002379 The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA–seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Since the chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor 240,000 generations ago, this indicates that the rate of origin of de novo genes is 1 gen per 4,000 generations. Of course, this rate will grow with the future discovery of new unique genes. So, what can empirical science say about the power of evolution to create a new genes? Well, the biggest scientific observations of evolution in action is E. coli evolution experiment. On February 24, 1988. Richard Lenski and his team at Michigan State University embarked on an ongoing long-term evolution experiment. He started 12 genetically identical lines from a single strain of E. coli. The bacteria reproduced every few hours. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014. So, what did Lenski experiment show? How many new genes evolutionary processes created after 60,000 generations? Well, the answer is 0, - ZERO. 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 this 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. Now, imagine how many new, different genes you need, to be able to construct every observable level of biological organisation, all three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements, organs, tisues, signaling and regulatory networks, checkpoints are control mechanisms, molecular machines, metabolic pathways... and all that evololution can do in 60.000 generation is to move one pre-existing gene from one location to another. That is all. And this is what proponents of evolution all aroud the globe refers to as "fascinating case of evolution in action." Hm..., isn't that interesting? Why empirical science demonstrates the complete impotence of evolution in the creation of new genes? Well, to create a new gene it is not sufficiently to randomly add variation(mutations) throughout the genome. A coordinated mutations at specific location of the DNA are needed. Also, for the completion of adaptive evolution it is not enough that certain variation enters the population (gene pool), either as the result of random change (mutations), recombination, epigenetic modification, etc. Completion of adaptive evolution requires that such variation avoid stochastic loss(genetic drift) and ultimately become established (fixed) in the population. When we create mathematical models of evolution with this realistic requirements for gene production, what result do we get? Well, this study show that the appearance of only two coordinated mutations in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years. Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution, http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full If these calculations are put alongside the research which identified a total of 60 protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from chimpanzee, failure of evolutionary ideas is even more obvious. If absurd assumption is made, that only two coordinated mutation are nedded to create one protein coding gene from junk DNA, the appearance of this gene in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years. Since ancestors of humans and chimps diverged 5-7 million years ago, it is obvious that evolutionary hypothesis are in complete contradiction with science. But that's not all. Besides mentioned, Lenski experiment with asexual species(bacteria), in September 2010, Molly K. Burke report results of a second largest evolution experiment, this time with sexual populations - fruit flies, which were selected in the lab for more than 600 generations to develop rapidly from egg to adult. For decades, most researchers have assumed that sexual species evolve the same way single-cell bacteria do - a genetic mutation sweeps through a population and quickly becomes “fixated” on a particular portion of DNA. But the fruit flies experiment shows that when sex is involved, it’s far more complicated. The authors of the experiment conclude: Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for 600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case. So, the two largest scientific experiments, together with the calculations of population genetics, demonstrate a total inability of evolution to create even the simplest level of the biological organisation, let alone, a new gene. So, the scientific answer to the question mentioned at the beginning is: no. There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new genes. And since all features of living organisms are written on genes, scientific fact is that living organisms are not the product of evolution. I am not interested in this kind of discussion.

Empirical/theoretical cause-and-effect demonstration of how four fundamental interactions - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear can arrange atoms into a state that we observe at a simplest level of biological organization - cybernetic systems with regulation, control, feedback loops, mechanical gears, temporal coordination and semiotic relation... or empirical/theoretical cause-and-effect demonstration of how random DNA shuffling and natural selection can produce three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements - organs, tisues, signaling and regulatory networks, checkpoints are control mechanisms, molecular machines, metabolic pathways. Unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation and storytelling does not belong into that category.

Thank you for your answers, but scientific fact of irreducible complexity of biological processes will not cease to exist because of the human mental constructs in the form of ideas, theories, hypotheses, explanations, presuppositions,...or by persistent repetition of phrases like "IC has been debunked" or appeals to personal incredulity. The reason is simple: The inability of the eukaryotic cell to perform the cell cycle without a functional RNA splicing is not dependent on the human mental constructs(mentioned above) but on the presence of the subprocesses with the ability to recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join and release premRNA molecule. That is why my focus here is on things that can be observed scientifically and not on the general creation/evolution debate. So, if you want to talk about "mountain of evidence" in favor of evolution this topic is not for you. One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper, said that the big difference between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, Popper says, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications. This topic is about falsifications. Science is pretty simple. It provides insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular set of natural phenomena is manipulated. In my examples of RNA splicing and reproduction process, it is empirically undeniable that if this processes exists in such a way that some of their subprocesses are missing(cause) a specific thing happens as a result(effect) - cell/organism loses its ability to perform fundamental activity that defines life - the ability to maintain or to replicate arrangement of matter that existed before, or simply put, the cell/organism dies. If we start from the idea that reproductive system of some organism, e.g. human(tempotal point n) were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps and that the first self replicating organism(starting point of evolution) did not contain the genetic information needed to make three-dimensional structures and arrangements like penis, testicles, sperm, uterus, ovaries, ovum, enzyme on sperm head that can penetrate egg wall, etc., then certain things follow as a logical necessity: Evolution is a process that proceeds incrementally, one step at a time. One thing leads to another. This is true for all kinds of evolution. Living things evolve with small changes between generations. If that is true, than three-dimensional structures and arrangements like penis, testicles, sperm, uterus, ovaries, ovum... were also produced by evolution, incrementally, one step at a time. Incrementally means increasing in size, or adding on. If mentioned three-dimensional structures and arrangements of reproductive system were added on through time, then we can easily simulate the state of a system before "adding", by reducing its current state, which means that we decrease the number of its components. So we can take one step back in "adding on" process(tempotal point n-1), or in other words, we can take one step back in "evolution of reproductive system" by removing(eg. by gene knockout) or destructuring(eg. by gene mutation) one of its core component/subprocess/enzyme. But, we know from empirical science that this action will result in inability of that organism to either - produce germ cell, produce the sperm or egg cell, discharge the semen or releases a mature egg, produce the enzyme for egg wall penetration, unite egg and sperm, etc., etc, etc. Since organism in that state is not able to reproduce, evolution is not able to proceed. Hence, at an earlier stage of hypothetical evolutionary development of reproductive system, "adding on" procces is physically impossible since organism lacks components required for its execution. Now, if we start from the assumption that reproductive system of some organism is a evolutionary superstructure, which means that system is an upward extension of a previously existing and functional reproductive system, then logical necessity of component removal from this superstructure is retention of reproductive function or arrival at some simpler mode of reproduction. But experiments and countless medical examples have showed that is not the case. For this reason, the assumption that human reproductive system is a evolutionary superstructure, is false, it's falsified by direct empirical science. The same is true for organisms that reproduce asexually. For example, most bacteria rely on binary fission for propagation. Before binary fission occurs, the cell must copy its genetic material and segregate these copies to opposite ends of the cell. Then the many types of proteins that comprise the cell division machinery assemble at the future division site. A key component of this machinery is the protein FtsZ. Protein monomers of FtsZ assemble into a ring-like structure at the center of a cell. Other components of the division apparatus then assemble at the FtsZ ring. This machinery is positioned so that division splits the cytoplasm and does not damage DNA in the process. As division occurs, the cytoplasm is cleaved in two, and in many bacteria, new cell wall is synthesized. The systems for order and timing of these processes are also needed. If we reduce core components of the systems that allows the execution of these processes - DNA replication, DNA segregation, division site selection, invagination of the cell envelope and synthesis of new cell wall... - the biological process by which new offspring is produced will be stopped, just like with sexual reproduction. Hence, this processes are not reducible. To conclude, if there is an idea(theory/hypotheses/whatever) that claims reproductive function evolved by "numerous, successive, slight modifications over millions of years", that idea is completely flawed regardless of scientific community opinion, conventions, "mountains of evidence for evolution", evolutionary "scientist" opinion, youtube IC refutations... This idea is flawed because science demonstrated thru a simple cause-and-effect relation that outcome is in contradiction with the fundamental premise of evolution. Pure and simple.

Irreducible complexity does not fall into the category of logical arguments but into the category of scientific knowledge. It is a simple and easy observable property - a quality or characteristic of the system in which system cannot function in reduced state. If you remove CPU from motherboard your PC will not work. If systems for sperm and egg fusion are missing you can't reproduce. If you remove enzyme from the metabolic pathway resulting product will not be produced. If structural or catalytic proteins for joining the exons into a mature mRNA are missing, proteins in eukaryotic cell cannot be produced, etc, etc. Ergo, irreducible complexity is pure scientific fact, and no argumentum ad ignoratium. People who are in denial of irreducible complexity are producing argument from ignorance. Even worse, they deny scientific knowledge. Consider a medical condition known as infertility as an example . If you are in denial of irreducible complexity then you are in denial of infertility because infertility is reduced complexity of reproductive system. One of the factor that can cause infertility is DNA damage. DNA damage is an alteration in the chemical structure of DNA, such as a break in a strand of DNA, a base missing from the backbone of DNA, or a chemically changed base. DNA damage would, for example, result in the inability of cell to produce some protein responsible for the functionality of reproductive system . To reduce, means to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number.. therefore the absence of protein responsible for the functionality of reproductive system is by definition REDUCED complexity of reproductive system. In this reduced state reproductive system can't function - individual is infertile. If an individual is infertile it is unable to pass their genes on to individuals of the next generation. If individual is unable to pass on their genes, it is unable to evolve. Therefore, irreducible complexity of reproductive system is observable, undeniable fact, and it is called infertility. And it is true for all cellular life forms without exception, from archaea, bacteria to eukaryote - if we reduce core components of their reproductive systems they are unable to reproduce. That is whay I ask how can a rational person, despite this easy opservable empirical facts of non-reducibility still believe that processes, organs and organ systems were in reduced state and still functional?

Let's take the RNA splicing process in eukaryotes as an example. The RNA splicing process is the ability of the eukaryotic cell to recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join and release premRNA molecule. If we assume the existance of reduced state of this process(evolutionary necessity), for example the existance of subprocesses with the ability to recognize, capture and cut premRNA molecule, this partial correctness of the splicing process won't cause premRNA to magically transform itself into a mature mRNA. In this reduced state protein-coding capacity of mRNA is destroyed, which results in cell death. And we know that dead cell cannot evolve. Since evolution increase complexity of the process by adding its components one step at a time, then we are able to retrace that path by reducing the complexity of the process. But, if we do that we will destroy the ability of the eukaryotic cell to either - recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join or to release premRNA molecule. And in that state cell is dead. This empirical and observable scientific fact is true for all fundamental processes, organs, organ systems - if they are in reduced state, organism dies or is not able to reproduce. If mentioned biological entities were evolved then logical necessity of their reduction into a less complex state is retention of organism's ability to live and reproduce. But, experiments and countless medical examples showed that that is not the case. Standard response of proponents of evolution to this type of observation goes something like this: this is a typical irreducible complexity argument. Irreducible complexity is debunked, and it does not exist. The reason lies in the fact that every single biological system that is deemed irreducibly complex, does in fact have in nature simpler or more complex forms. That means the said system is not, irreducibly complex. It may not seem obvious at first glance but, from a logical point of view this kind of response is deeply flawed. It rests on the implicit assumption that the existence of different structural solutions for the same function automatically mean that a step by step path from one structural solution to another exists. The best way to understand these is by an example. Imagine if someone told you, that the car engine is not irreducibly complex, because motorcycle engine possess the same function of energy conversion from burning fuel, into useful mechanical motion. Since both engines can convert energy from burning fuel into mechanical motion, the car engine is obviously more complex form of a motorcycle engine . And vice versa, a motorcycle engine is obviously simpler form of car engine. But, what that has to do with the step by step path from one to another? Absolutly nothing. If we start to remove components of the car engine this action won't result in motorcycle engine or some other less complex engine with retained energy conversion function. Component removal will result in nothing but malfunctioned engine. So in reality step by step path from one structural solution to another does not exist. If the car engine were the superstructure, the result of a step by step design process, with retained energy conversion funtction at every step then component removal would not result in malfunctioned engine but in a simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction. Exactly the same is true for biological systems, for example reproductive system. If reproductive system of some organism were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps, by adding components one step at a time then removal of components would not result in infertility but in some simplest mode of reproduction. Since this is not the case, the assumption that the existence of different modes of reproductions in nature automatically mean that a step by step path from one reproductive system to another exists is nothing but non sequitur logical fallacy. So, how can a rational person, despite this easy opservable empirical facts of non-reducibility stil believe that processes, organs and organ systems evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps ?