Proof that evolution is physically impossible [None so far]

[Prometheus]

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.

 

Nice attempt at side-stepping the issue - but you haven't addressed that the statement, "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", isn't a null hypothesis in the technical sense. You have simply stated what a null hypothesis is, not whether your statement is one.

 

I'm sorry you fell i'm trolling, but since you simply reject evidence without even considering it no-one can properly engage you in a reasonable debate. Therefore, for the undecided reader, i thought it simpler to point out the tricks you use to avoid difficult questions, make it sound like you answered a question when you haven't and hide behind a wall of text with pseudo-scientific terms.

[Strange]

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?

 

Your argument seems to be that new words or sentences cannot be created because there are an infinite number of meaningless combinations of letters. Therefore this discussion cannot be taking place.

 

As you say, all we are able to do is shuffle letters around not create new words "de novo". So we must all be speaking the same language created after the fall of the tower of Babel.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Strange

[Arete]

 

Exon shuffling, re-assortment, novel arrangements... they are just fancy technical terms, a matter of semantics.

 

I would strongly disagree. Lateral gene transfer, ectopic recombination, exon shuffling, gene duplication and point mutations are all independent genetic mechanisms that refer to very different changes to the genetic architecture. Their roles in producing novel genes are also very different. I would go so far as to say that referring to the distinctions between them as "semantic" belies a fundamental lack of understanding of genetics.

 

 

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

 

 

I, and the rest of the scientific community don't believe there IS a problem.

 

There's multiple problems with the word analogy, as has been pointed out by other members. I'm not going to repeat what's already been said but will add that words and codons are quite different for two major reasons:

1) There are 64 codons, and only 21 meanings (20 amino acids plus stop) , leading to considerable redundancy in the genetic code (i.e. multiple codons encode for the same amino acid).

1) Of the possible 64 codons, 61 are "sense" codons, and 3 are stop codons. Therefore every possible combination of nucleotides results in a translatable "word" (following your example), in fact the removal or nonsynonymous mutation of a stop codon can produce a much longer, more complex "word" relatively straightforwardly.

 

Therefore the analogy of words is of very limited relevance.

 

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"?

 

The duplication and re-assortment of existing genetic material into novel sequences via a variety of different mechanisms has been directly observed many times. I thought this had been established.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Arete

[forex]

 

Your argument seems to be that new words or sentences cannot be created because there are an infinite number of meaningless combinations of letters. Therefore this discussion cannot be taking place.

 

As you say, all we are able to do is shuffle letters around not create new words "de novo". So we must all be speaking the same language created after the fall of the tower of Babel.

My argument is that new words or sentences cannot be created via random letter shuffling because there are an infinite number of meaningless combinations of letters. For the same reason Dawkins created WEASEL program and presented it in chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93711-proof-that-evolution-is-physically-impossible-none-so-far/?p=908852

 

Nice attempt at side-stepping the issue - but you haven't addressed that the statement, "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", isn't a null hypothesis in the technical sense. You have simply stated what a null hypothesis is, not whether your statement is one.

 

I'm sorry you fell i'm trolling, but since you simply reject evidence without even considering it no-one can properly engage you in a reasonable debate. Therefore, for the undecided reader, i thought it simpler to point out the tricks you use to avoid difficult questions, make it sound like you answered a question when you haven't and hide behind a wall of text with pseudo-scientific terms.

"....side-stepping", "reject evidence", "haven't addressed", "not whether your statement is one", "tricks you use", "avoid difficult questions", "hide behind a wall", "pseudo-scientific terms"....

 

Your response is full of unsupported, empty claims that also have nothing to do with the topic.

 

Now, let's go back to my 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"

What are the de novo genes?

 

"For most of the last 40 years, scientists thought that this was the primary way new genes were born — they simply arose from copies of existing genes. The old version went on doing its job, and the new copy became free to evolve novel functions. Certain genes, however, seem to defy that origin story. They have no known relatives, and they bear no resemblance to any other gene. They’re the molecular equivalent of a mysterious beast discovered in the depths of a remote rainforest, a biological enigma seemingly unrelated to anything else on earth."

 

Hence, de novo genes are functional genes without homologues in genomes of other organisms.

 

Now, can you show me experiment, like Lenski's, or observation of evolution in action where evolution has been caught in the act of making de novo functional gene? No, you can not because such case does not exist.

 

So, I am simply stating empirical facts and you call this: "reject evidence", "avoid difficult questions", "hide behind a wall"... Hmm...ever heard of psychological projection? ... "also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others."

 

I would strongly disagree. Lateral gene transfer, ectopic recombination, exon shuffling, gene duplication and point mutations are all independent genetic mechanisms that refer to very different changes to the genetic architecture. Their roles in producing novel genes are also very different. I would go so far as to say that referring to the distinctions between them as "semantic" belies a fundamental lack of understanding of genetics.

 

Lateral gene transfer, ectopic recombination, exon shuffling, gene duplication and point mutations... have one thing in common: they are unable to turn bacteria into skeletal or circulatory system. So, in reality you are playing semantic games. The new gene represents the difference between heart and jaw or teeth and brain or gear in jumping insects and human hip joint. This is evolution, in its true sense. So unless you show how random dna rearrangement in organisms that lack gear or heart can produce this structures you are at the level of unfalsifiable just so stories and semantic games.

 

I, and the rest of the scientific community don't believe there IS a problem.

 

 

Scientific community once believed the Earth was flat, the center of the universe, and composed of four elements. Point?

 

There's multiple problems with the word analogy, as has been pointed out by other members. I'm not going to repeat what's already been said but will add that words and codons are quite different for two major reasons:

1) There are 64 codons, and only 21 meanings (20 amino acids plus stop) , leading to considerable redundancy in the genetic code (i.e. multiple codons encode for the same amino acid).

1) Of the possible 64 codons, 61 are "sense" codons, and 3 are stop codons. Therefore every possible combination of nucleotides results in a translatable "word" (following your example), in fact the removal or nonsynonymous mutation of a stop codon can produce a much longer, more complex "word" relatively straightforwardly.

Therefore the analogy of words is of very limited relevance.

Irrelevant point, principle is the same in both linguistic and living organisms.

 

My 2 questions still stand, but I will rephrase them for you:

 

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

b) how would you produce semiotic relationship between genes to accomplish functional relationship between for e.g. male and female reproductive systems?

 

The duplication and re-assortment of existing genetic material into novel sequences via a variety of different mechanisms has been directly observed many times. I thought this had been established.

 

 

It has been established that duplication and re-assortment of existing genetic material cannot produce new genetic material that represents new tissues, new organs and new organ systems. Erosion processes can also reshape existing clay into new shapes but no rational person would claim that this processes are able to create clay replica of the Statue of Liberty.

[Prometheus]

"....side-stepping", "reject evidence", "haven't addressed", "not whether your statement is one", "tricks you use", "avoid difficult questions", "hide behind a wall", "pseudo-scientific terms"....

 

Your response is full of unsupported, empty claims that also have nothing to do with the topic.

 

Now, let's go back to my 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"

What are the de novo genes?

 

"For most of the last 40 years, scientists thought that this was the primary way new genes were born — they simply arose from copies of existing genes. The old version went on doing its job, and the new copy became free to evolve novel functions. Certain genes, however, seem to defy that origin story. They have no known relatives, and they bear no resemblance to any other gene. They’re the molecular equivalent of a mysterious beast discovered in the depths of a remote rainforest, a biological enigma seemingly unrelated to anything else on earth."

 

Hence, de novo genes are functional genes without homologues in genomes of other organisms.

 

Now, can you show me experiment, like Lenski's, or observation of evolution in action where evolution has been caught in the act of making de novo functional gene? No, you can not because such case does not exist.

 

So, I am simply stating empirical facts and you call this: "reject evidence", "avoid difficult questions", "hide behind a wall"... Hmm...ever heard of psychological projection? ... "also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others."

 

Amazing. You haven't even come close to addressing the really simple issue of whether the statement you have made is a null-hypothesis. Instead you simply parroted a few things i have said, then stated "Now, let's go back to my null-hypothesis". You haven't addressed whether it is a null-hypothesis at all, but continued as if it is.

 

How is this not side-stepping the issue?

 

Thats two posts you've made without answering what should be a simple question. Third time lucky?

[Strange]

My argument is that new words or sentences cannot be created via random letter shuffling because there are an infinite number of meaningless combinations of letters.

 

Which demonstrates why your argument is bogus: we do create new words and sentences (and evolution does happen).

 

 

For the same reason Dawkins created WEASEL program and presented it in chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker.

 

Which shows that randomness plus selection works.

 

So you have just provided two pieces of evidence against your own argument. Well done.

 

 

It has been established that duplication and re-assortment of existing genetic material cannot produce new genetic material that represents new tissues, new organs and new organ systems.

 

Simply repeating a baseless (and false) assertion is not "establishing" it.

[forex]

 

Which demonstrates why your argument is bogus: we do create new words and sentences (and evolution does happen).

 

We do create new words and sentences because we have capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving or in short because we have - intelligence.

Which shows that randomness plus selection works.

So you have just provided two pieces of evidence against your own argument. Well done.

 

 

Of course it works, but it is called intelligent selection. Dawkins proved that you need intelligence to create meaningful sequences. I explained that already. But I can repeat that for you:

 

Dawkins knowed that a purely random approach to generating meaningful dna sequences 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, through the use of 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. Hence, the computer "knows" in advance what the functional or meaningful sequence is. 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 simulation the current state of the "individual" is judged according to the target phrase or meaningful sequence. In other words, program uses a priori knowledge of meaningful sequence before meaningful sequence is created.

 

This technique of a priori knowledge, Dawkins had used, is the first stage in the intelligent design process and it 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 and ability to perform goal-directed action, we design objects by comparing this plans with a current state of the object that is in the creation process. In short, this activity is called inteligent design. Now, isn't it interesting how Dawkins, a noted atheist, and is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design, in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, where he argues against the existence of intelligent creator, actually proved that intelligence in needed to create meaningful information like that in the DNA.

 

Hence, it is not me but Dawkins who provided evidence against his own argument.

 

 

Simply repeating a baseless (and false) assertion is not "establishing" it.

 

 

I am repeating what the empirical facts are because people here are repeatedly denying them.

 

Amazing. You haven't even come close to addressing the really simple issue of whether the statement you have made is a null-hypothesis. Instead you simply parroted a few things i have said, then stated "Now, let's go back to my null-hypothesis". You haven't addressed whether it is a null-hypothesis at all, but continued as if it is.

 

How is this not side-stepping the issue?

 

Thats two posts you've made without answering what should be a simple question. Third time lucky?

What is amazing?

 

I provided the statement about the null-hypothesis from the Wiki article you were referring to: "The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise." Just like every hypothesis, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position about some aspect of the natural world. Hence, the statement: "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", is by definition - the null-hypothesis.

 

For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Can you test this null-hypothesis? Yes. Richard Lenski has been testing it since 24 February 1988. According to theory of falsification you should try to falsify my statement by finding single experiment or observation which shows that process of evolution can create functional de novo genes.

 

So, what is your problem? You are not able to find that single example and now you're trying to hide this inability by playing rhetorical games?

Edited March 3, 2016 by forex

[Strange]

Of course it works, but it is called intelligent selection. Dawkins proved that you need intelligence to create meaningful sequences. I explained that already.

 

No it doesn't. It shows that selection is necessary. In that example, it is "intelligent" in the sense that the final goal is known (and rapidly achieved through random changes). There are plenty of other simulations where that is not the case and which therefore model "natural selection". But there isn't really much difference, after all in natural selection the "known" goal is simply survival in the environment.

 

Genetic algorithms are widely used in research and industry for solving problems (because it works). They often come up with solutions that an "intelligent designer" would not have thought of (and therefore there cannot be "intelligent" selection of the sort you claim is required).

 

Either way, it shows that your claim that "evolution is impossible" is just not true.

 

 

I am repeating what the empirical facts are because people here are repeatedly denying them.

 

It is an odd sort of "empirical fact" that has no experimental support and is contradicted by evidence.

[Daecon]

So... you're suggesting that the environment is intelligent? Because it's the environment that does the "selecting".

[Greg H.]

Welp, I'm done.

 

Some men you just can't reach.

[forex]

 

No it doesn't. It shows that selection is necessary. In that example, it is "intelligent" in the sense that the final goal is known (and rapidly achieved through random changes). There are plenty of other simulations where that is not the case and which therefore model "natural selection". But there isn't really much difference, after all in natural selection the "known" goal is simply survival in the environment.

 

Genetic algorithms are widely used in research and industry for solving problems (because it works). They often come up with solutions that an "intelligent designer" would not have thought of (and therefore there cannot be "intelligent" selection of the sort you claim is required).

 

Either way, it shows that your claim that "evolution is impossible" is just not true.

 

 

It is an odd sort of "empirical fact" that has no experimental support and is contradicted by evidence.

 

Genetic algorithms use the intelligence mechanism that is called fitness function or other forms of intelligent guidance.

 

To ilustrate this consider the following example: you start with population of 20 individuals located at the center of the soccer field. Individuals will be rewarded(selected) if they manage to reach the right corner of the field by using the following metod: they are alowed to move one step at a time, in one of four different directions; left, right, forward, or backward. Direction of every step is determined randomly. We know that chances od finding solution by using this type of random search are extremely low. This is similar of finding "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" phrase in Dawkins' weasel, by chance.

 

But, we can do the following. We start our simulation and every individual is randomly moved one step in one of four mentioned directions. When this is done we measure the distance between individual and the right corner of the field. We repeat this calculation for every individual. Now using this data we calculate fitness of each individual. Next step is the selection process. We want to be constantly improving ourindividuas overall fitness. Selection helps us to keep the best individuals in the population - so individuals who are most distant from the corner are out. Now we have our next generation and we can start again the whole procces until we reach the right corner. So, at each step of the simulation we have a communication bettwen a solution and the current state of the individual. In other words, we have an a priori knowledge of the right corner location before the right corner is reached. Without this a priori knowledge about the search space structure evolutionary programing does no better than blind search.

 

This is true for all evolutionary programing, for example, Lenski's AVIDA.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/Nature03_Complex.pdf

 

In AVIDA the researchers studied 50 different populations, or genomes, of 3600 individuals. Each individual began with 50 lines of code and no ability to perform "logic operations". Those that evolved the ability to perform logic operations were rewarded, and the rewards were larger for operations that were "more complex". After only 15873 generations, 23 of the genomes yielded descendants capable of carrying out the most complex logic operation: taking two inputs and determining if they are equivalent (the "EQU" function). In principle, 16 mutations (recombinations) coupled with the three instructions that were present in the original digital ancestor could have combined to produce an organism that was able to perform the complex equivalence operation. According to the researcher themselves, "Given the ancestral genome of length 50 and 26 possible instructions at each site, there are 5.6 x 10e70 genotypes [sequence space]; and even this number underestimates the genotypic space because length evolves."

Of course this sequence space was overcome in smaller steps. The researchers arbitrarily defined 6 other sequences as beneficial (NAND,AND, OR, NOR, XOR, and NOT functions). The average gap between these pre-defined steppingstone sequences was 2.5 steps, translating into an average search space between beneficial sequences of only 3,400 random walk steps. Of course, with a population of 3,600 individuals in a population, a random walk of 3,400 will be covered in short order by at least one member of that population. And, this is exactly what happened. The average number of mutations required to cross the 16-step gap was only 103 mutations per population.

 

Interestingly enough, Lenski and the other scientists went on to set up different environments to see which environments would support the evolution of all the potentially beneficial functions - to include the most complex EQU function. Consider the following description about what happened when various intermediate steps were not arbitrarily defined by the scientists as "beneficial".

 

"At the other extreme, 50 populations evolved in an environment where only EQU was rewarded, and no simpler function yielded energy. We expected that EQU would evolve much less often because selection would not preserve the simpler functions that provide foundations to build more complex features. Indeed, none of these populations evolved EQU, a highly significant difference from the fraction that did so in the reward-all environment (P = 4.3 x 10e-9, Fisher's exact test). However, these populations tested more genotypes, on average, than did those in the reward-all environment (2.15 x 10e7 versus 1.22 x 10e7; P<0.0001, Mann-Witney test), because they tended to have smaller genomes, faster generations, and thus turn over more quickly. However, all populations explored only a tiny fraction of the total genotypic space. Given the ancestral genome of length 50 and 26 possible instructions at each site, there are ~5.6 x 10e70 genotypes; and even this number underestimates the genotypic space because length evolves."

 

Hence, when the intermediate stepping stone(intelligent guidance) functions were removed, the neutral gap that was created successfully blocked the evolution of the EQU function, which happened "not" to be right next door to their starting point. Of course, this is only to be expected based on statistical averages that go strongly against the notion that very many possible starting points would just happen to be very close to an EQU functional sequence in such a vast sequence space.

 

Btw., here you have peer reviewed scientific paper that refutes AVIDA: http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/REPRINTS/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf

 

Isn't it interesting how evolutionists, when they are trying to disprove intelligent design and prove capabilities of evolutionary process, always have to construct the argument/program/simulation where intelligent guidance is necessary to produce meaningful result, but in the same time they vehemently deny that intelligence is required to produce meaningful result? I would call that - a delusion.

Edited March 3, 2016 by forex

[Strange]

 

Genetic algorithms use the intelligence mechanism that is called fitness function

 

So does natural selection.

 

 

or other forms of intelligent guidance.

 

You have an odd definition of "intelligent".

 

Anyway, you seem to agree that your claim that "evolution is impossible" is a lie.

[swansont]

What you're calling intelligent guidance I what I would call selection pressure. When you select for more traits that do not require much change, you find they occur fairly easily. More steps means it's more difficult. That doesn't seem surprising.

 

Anyway, you admit that the traits were chosen arbitrarily. How can you then turn around and call that intelligent guidance? That seems to be self-contradictory.

[forex]

What you're calling intelligent guidance I what I would call selection pressure. When you select for more traits that do not require much change, you find they occur fairly easily. More steps means it's more difficult. That doesn't seem surprising.

 

Anyway, you admit that the traits were chosen arbitrarily. How can you then turn around and call that intelligent guidance? That seems to be self-contradictory.

 

You are hiding behind abstract terms, like many discussants here do. But, there's a cure for that also - a concrete example:

 

Imagine that we have an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by some organisms. Sources of food in this area are drying up and organisms are in danger of extinction. But, there is a plenty of other energy rich substances as food replacements. The only problem is that genes for metabolic pathway to convert this substance into usable energy do not exist in a gene pool of that population. Metabolic pathway that can convert this energy rich substances into useable energy consists of 3 enzymes. So the information on how to bulid those enzymes is not present in the DNA, just like the information on how to bulid eyes was not present in the genetic material of the first self-replicating organism. So, here evolution needs to find a solution to this problem which means, evolution needs to find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA so that cell can produce functional enzymes with the ability to convert energy rich substances into usable energy.

 

Now, can you please explain how would "selection pressure" help in the search for the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that are coding for those 3 enzymes, in the vast sea of completely useless combinations of nucleotides? Thanks.

 

So does natural selection.

 

 

You have an odd definition of "intelligent".

 

Anyway, you seem to agree that your claim that "evolution is impossible" is a lie.

 

Sorry but claim that "evolution is impossible" is a FACT.

Edited March 3, 2016 by forex

[Greg H.]

 

Sorry but claim that "evolution is impossible" is a FACT.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact.

[swansont]

 

You are hiding behind abstract terms, like many discussants here do. But, there's a cure for that also - a concrete example:

 

Imagine that we have an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by some organisms. Sources of food in this area are drying up and organisms are in danger of extinction. But, there is a plenty of other energy rich substances as food replacements. The only problem is that genes for metabolic pathway to convert this substance into usable energy do not exist in a gene pool of that population. Metabolic pathway that can convert this energy rich substances into useable energy consists of 3 enzymes. So the information on how to bulid those enzymes is not present in the DNA, just like the information on how to bulid eyes was not present in the genetic material of the first self-replicating organism. So, here evolution needs to find a solution to this problem which means, evolution needs to find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA so that cell can produce functional enzymes with the ability to convert energy rich substances into usable energy.

 

Now, can you please explain how would "selection pressure" help in the search for the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that are coding for those 3 enzymes, in the vast sea of completely useless combinations of nucleotides? Thanks.

 

 

Perhaps if you weren't continually moving the goalposts around there might be something to discuss. But changing the example makes this a straw man.

[Strange]

Now, can you please explain how would "selection pressure" help in the search for the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that are coding for those 3 enzymes, in the vast sea of completely useless combinations of nucleotides? Thanks.

 

By eliminating the combinations that don't work. (But it looks like you are "cleverly" trying to contrive an artificial example where you can suddenly go, "irreducible complexity, I win!". Not all problems can be solved by evolution.)

[forex]

 

 

Perhaps if you weren't continually moving the goalposts around there might be something to discuss. But changing the example makes this a straw man.

 

Ha, ha, ha... Isn't it fascinating how someone who believes evolution is a fact is not able to expalain, by using one simple textbook example, how a particular physical result was achieved. "Selective pressure" is a nice magic word. Magic words convey wish-like convictions that if you just believe deeply enough, your just-so-story must be true or someday will be true, though currently resisted by all scientific evidence. Explaining complex bio-structures by using words like "selective pressure" appeals to imaginary special forces which can help you to connect the evolutionary dots. But as in any magical kingdom, the connections are mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality. Your inability to respond to one simple textbook example of evolution, proves that nicely.

 

By eliminating the combinations that don't work. (But it looks like you are "cleverly" trying to contrive an artificial example where you can suddenly go, "irreducible complexity, I win!". Not all problems can be solved by evolution.)

 

At the beginning all combinations do not work. Like I said: the only problem is that genes for metabolic pathway to convert this substance into usable energy do not exist in a gene pool of that population.

So, by your line of reasoning, all organisms will be eliminated. You are practically saying that enzymes are not able to evolve. Bravo! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[swansont]

 

Ha, ha, ha... Isn't it fascinating how someone who believes evolution is a fact is not able to expalain, by using one simple textbook example, how a particular physical result was achieved. "Selective pressure" is a nice magic word. Magic words convey wish-like convictions that if you just believe deeply enough, your just-so-story must be true or someday will be true, though currently resisted by all scientific evidence. Explaining complex bio-structures by using words like "selective pressure" appeals to imaginary special forces which can help you to connect the evolutionary dots. But as in any magical kingdom, the connections are mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality. Your inability to respond to one simple textbook example of evolution, proves that nicely.

 

 

Is that more or less fascinating than how someone who believes evolution is impossible will jump to a new example when a problem with their claim is pointed out? Why won't you defend your original assertion? Why is it you have to come up with a new scenario, with different parameters? (and ones which don't necessarily line up with the original objection)

[forex]

 

 

Is that more or less fascinating than how someone who believes evolution is impossible will jump to a new example when a problem with their claim is pointed out? Why won't you defend your original assertion? Why is it you have to come up with a new scenario, with different parameters? (and ones which don't necessarily line up with the original objection)

 

You responded to a claim about "intelligent guidance" by appealing to "selective pressure" which means that the active information or a priori knowledge about search space structure in AVIDA, introduced by its authors to deal with a huge search space, is the same as "selective pressure". So I asked you how would "selective pressure" help in the search for the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA, since in that example evolution needs to deal with a huge search space (2.03x10^390 for average enzyme). So how is that "moving the goalposts"?

[swansont]

 

You responded to a claim about "intelligent guidance" by appealing to "selective pressure" which means that the active information or a priori knowledge about search space structure in AVIDA, introduced by its authors to deal with a huge search space, is the same as "selective pressure". So I asked you how would "selective pressure" help in the search for the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA, since in that example evolution needs to deal with a huge search space (2.03x10^390 for average enzyme). So how is that "moving the goalposts"?

 

 

Because the original problem was not concerned with searching for the right combination of nucleotides in DNA. AFAICT (from your description) it was not DNA but lines of code. The right combinations were being sampled, and the "good" ones were selected for. The issue of there being a problem "searching" for the right code was not raised — it was a random walk. By having a state that can be selected for with fewer random walk steps, you improve the chances that you will get there, and have a population that has the necessary code.

 

So you're asking a different question now — how this helps with the search. That's otherwise known as moving the goalposts. It doesn't help with the search, as far as I can see, since that's not the issue. It's getting a larger population with that trait, so that there are more individuals present doing the next random walk, with the subsequent state that can be selected for being closer.

 

The thing is, in your lead-in to this section of the post (the previous paragraph), you describe what's going on as selection. Why did that change? You completely ignored my objection of renaming this as intelligent guidance (a bald assertion) when you had previously stated it was arbitrary, which is the real issue.

[Strange]

At the beginning all combinations do not work. Like I said: the only problem is that genes for metabolic pathway to convert this substance into usable energy do not exist in a gene pool of that population.

So, by your line of reasoning, all organisms will be eliminated. You are practically saying that enzymes are not able to evolve. Bravo! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

If you create a situation where there is no possibility of survival then (obviously) evolution won't be able to function.

 

However, you said "where sources of food are drying up" which implies there is some period where the organisms can still survive. As such, there is a chance that some new mutation will be able to exploit a new food source. If there are sufficient number of individuals and enough time, then this may happen.

 

At which point, those individuals will be more successful and will thrive in the new environment.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Strange

[Arete]

Lateral gene transfer, ectopic recombination, exon shuffling, gene duplication and point mutations... have one thing in common: they are unable to turn bacteria into skeletal or circulatory system. So, in reality you are playing semantic games. The new gene represents the difference between heart and jaw or teeth and brain or gear in jumping insects and human hip joint. This is evolution, in its true sense. So unless you show how random dna rearrangement in organisms that lack gear or heart can produce this structures you are at the level of unfalsifiable just so stories and semantic games.

 

A) Your initial supposition "[sic] novel genes cannot be created" is demonstrably false due to the above mechanisms. You now appear to be hand waving away this flawed argument by shifting the goalposts to say that the existence of these multiple mechanisms for the production of new genes as "semantics" doesn't explain the emergence of complex, multi-cellular structures in isolation.

 

B) We almost have a "If we evolved from monkeys then how come there are monkeys?" argument here. The evolutionary claim is of shared ancestry, not that bacteria "turn into" vertebrates. This is a fundamental misconception in basic evolutionary theory. If a bacterium did suddenly wake up one day and discover it had binarilly divided an elephant, our current understanding of evolution would be thoroughly broken. It's not what evolutionary theory claims or predicts.

 

C) We do have a good understanding of many of the evolutionary steps between unicellular and multi-cellular life. For example, the evolution of endosymbionts into organelles, the evolution of multicellularity, the evolution of stem cells and the origins of cell types, etc. To say that this extensive body of empirical and experimental research represents "unfalsifiable just so stories and semantic games" is just not correct.

 

 

Scientific community once believed the Earth was flat, the center of the universe, and composed of four elements. Point?

 

The point is that you accused me of not understanding the "problem". I understand what you think is the problem just fine. It's just that we don't agree with you that it is a legitimate problem.

 

Irrelevant point, principle is the same in both linguistic and living organisms.

 

It's been thoroughly explained that the principle is NOT the same but to repeat:

 

A) Codons are largely redundant, meaning that most mutations are neutral (i.e. synonymous), as they do not change the translation of the sequence.

B) No codons are meaningless. 61 of the 64 possible combinations represent amino acids, the remaining 3 are stop codons. There are no "meaningless combinations of letters." let alone an infinite number of them.

 

This means that when you randomly change the nucleotide sequence of a gene, you do not end up with gibberish, as you do with letters in regard to words. The analogy fails comprehensively.

 

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

b) how would you produce semiotic relationship between genes to accomplish functional relationship between for e.g. male and female reproductive systems?

 

The answer to both consists of two parts:

1) Mutation via various mechanisms results in novel sequences of nucelotides.

2) Selection allows for the proliferation of those sequences which are advantageous (i.e. functional) and not those which are not.

The combination of mutation and selection over generations leads to the emergence of biological entities.

 

 

It has been established that duplication and re-assortment of existing genetic material cannot produce new genetic material that represents new tissues, new organs and new organ systems. Erosion processes can also reshape existing clay into new shapes but no rational person would claim that this processes are able to create clay replica of the Statue of Liberty.

 

Again this is a goalpost shift. You initially claimed that "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". Now that that's been proven to be false, you're shifting to a claim that it cannot explain the emergence of complex systems - which is a distinct claim with a different explanation. Please refrain from intellectually dishonest tactics - they prevent constructive discussion and are against the rules.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Arete

[Strange]

Scientific community once believed the Earth was flat, the center of the universe, and composed of four elements.

 

So we can add History of Science to the long list of subjects you know nothing about.

[forex]

 

 

Because the original problem was not concerned with searching for the right combination of nucleotides in DNA. AFAICT (from your description) it was not DNA but lines of code. The right combinations were being sampled, and the "good" ones were selected for. The issue of there being a problem "searching" for the right code was not raised — it was a random walk. By having a state that can be selected for with fewer random walk steps, you improve the chances that you will get there, and have a population that has the necessary code.

 

So you're asking a different question now — how this helps with the search. That's otherwise known as moving the goalposts. It doesn't help with the search, as far as I can see, since that's not the issue. It's getting a larger population with that trait, so that there are more individuals present doing the next random walk, with the subsequent state that can be selected for being closer.

 

The thing is, in your lead-in to this section of the post (the previous paragraph), you describe what's going on as selection. Why did that change? You completely ignored my objection of renaming this as intelligent guidance (a bald assertion) when you had previously stated it was arbitrary, which is the real issue.

 

You can not get away with smoke and mirrors, because situation here is crystal clear. Both, the original problem(AVIDA) and my example(metabolic pathway) were concerned with solving a problem where solution is isolated in a huge space of non functional possibilities. Hence, both problems are the same in principle. The only difference is in the type of the structure: the structure in AVIDA was -"lines of code" while the structure in my example was -metabolic pathway. Due to their knowledge about search space structure, authors of AVIDA, constructed the intermediate stepping stone or active information in order to deal with a huge search space (~5.6 x 10e70) and after only 15873 generations, digital organisms were able to find solution. In other words, intelligent guidance was necessary to find specific solution in a huge space of non functional possibilities.

 

Then you responded with the following: "What you're calling intelligent guidance I what I would call selection pressure", and I asked a legitimate question on how would "selective pressure" help in the search for a specific solution in a huge space of non functional possibilities.

Instead of answering my question you started with false accusations and smokes and mirrors. So, what is your problem?

 

If you create a situation where there is no possibility of survival then (obviously) evolution won't be able to function.

 

However, you said "where sources of food are drying up" which implies there is some period where the organisms can still survive. As such, there is a chance that some new mutation will be able to exploit a new food source. If there are sufficient number of individuals and enough time, then this may happen.

 

At which point, those individuals will be more successful and will thrive in the new environment.

 

So, you are basically saying the same thing I do. The only way to find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA so that the cell can produce functional enzymes with the ability to convert energy rich substances into usable energy, is by pure chance("some new mutation will be able to exploit a new food source"). But the problem here is this: using fast mutation rates, total number of organisms that have ever lived on Earth, length of genomes and so forth... published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutational resources at 10^43.

 

On the other hand, for below-average enzyme size the sequences adopting functional folds are as low as 1 in 10^77. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

 

So, using my example with 3 enzymes, this is apparently beyond the reach of mutational resources by more than 188 orders of magnitude. To put this into perspective. Today's supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate functional sequences that produce stable, functional protein structures, so scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries but they use information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins.

 

On June 10, 2013, China's Tianhe-2 was ranked the world's fastest supercomputer with a record of 33.86 petaFLOPS, which means it can perform 33.86x10^15 operations per second. The estimated number of atoms comprising all of planet Earth is about 1.33x10^50. Now, even if every atom comprising the planet Earth were a Tianhe-2 supercomputer, searching at its highest speed from the Big Bang until now it would still need more than 108 orders of magnitude longer to finding functional protein folds for those 3 enzymes. So in reality, it is obvious that there are no enough resources to overcome such a huge search space.In evolutionary magical kingdom all you have to do is to apply the magic phrase: "some mutation were able find" and problem solved. Next please.

 

That is why evolution is not a science but a religious belief of materialists or in the words of Karl Proper: "evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program".

 

A) Your initial supposition "[sic] novel genes cannot be created" is demonstrably false due to the above mechanisms. You now appear to be hand waving away this flawed argument by shifting the goalposts to say that the existence of these multiple mechanisms for the production of new genes as "semantics" doesn't explain the emergence of complex, multi-cellular structures in isolation.

 

B) We almost have a "If we evolved from monkeys then how come there are monkeys?" argument here. The evolutionary claim is of shared ancestry, not that bacteria "turn into" vertebrates. This is a fundamental misconception in basic evolutionary theory. If a bacterium did suddenly wake up one day and discover it had binarilly divided an elephant, our current understanding of evolution would be thoroughly broken. It's not what evolutionary theory claims or predicts.

 

C) We do have a good understanding of many of the evolutionary steps between unicellular and multi-cellular life. For example, the evolution of endosymbionts into organelles, the evolution of multicellularity, the evolution of stem cells and the origins of cell types, etc. To say that this extensive body of empirical and experimental research represents "unfalsifiable just so stories and semantic games" is just not correct.

 

 

 

The point is that you accused me of not understanding the "problem". I understand what you think is the problem just fine. It's just that we don't agree with you that it is a legitimate problem.

 

 

It's been thoroughly explained that the principle is NOT the same but to repeat:

 

A) Codons are largely redundant, meaning that most mutations are neutral (i.e. synonymous), as they do not change the translation of the sequence.

B) No codons are meaningless. 61 of the 64 possible combinations represent amino acids, the remaining 3 are stop codons. There are no "meaningless combinations of letters." let alone an infinite number of them.

 

This means that when you randomly change the nucleotide sequence of a gene, you do not end up with gibberish, as you do with letters in regard to words. The analogy fails comprehensively.

 

 

The answer to both consists of two parts:

1) Mutation via various mechanisms results in novel sequences of nucelotides.

2) Selection allows for the proliferation of those sequences which are advantageous (i.e. functional) and not those which are not.

The combination of mutation and selection over generations leads to the emergence of biological entities.

 

 

 

Again this is a goalpost shift. You initially claimed that "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". Now that that's been proven to be false, you're shifting to a claim that it cannot explain the emergence of complex systems - which is a distinct claim with a different explanation. Please refrain from intellectually dishonest tactics - they prevent constructive discussion and are against the rules.

You are repeating the same story with different words. 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. 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. So basically, all you do is playing semantic games, nothing more nothing less.

Edited March 4, 2016 by forex