A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[xianghua]

according to that paper a specific function (that is coded by a single gene) will appeare about one in every 10^77 sequences:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

it means that to get the same function again we will need about 10^77 mutations. now, according to evolution many functions evolved at least several times. for instance: an eletric organ supposedly evolved about 6 times:

Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs

and remember that these organs are coded by about 30 different genes, so they suppose to be far more rare than the example above. it basically means that convergent evolution should be impossible, or at least nearly impossible. because there is not enough time.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

according to that paper a specific function (that is coded by a single gene) will appeare about one in every 10^77 sequences:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

it means that to get the same function again we will need about 10^77 mutations.

I may be understanding the abstract incorrectly, here--biogeography is more my thing than molecular biology--but it seems that an unstated assumption is that each of these 10^77 sequences has an equal probability of being formed in a mutation. Do we know that this assumption is correct? As Michael Crichton speculated in his 1995 novel The Lost World, perhaps there is simply something about the process of evolution that makes it higher probability than we would otherwise guess, like how the molecular structure of crystals just makes it high probability that they will form an ordered lattice.

it basically means that convergent evolution should be impossible, or at least nearly impossible. because there is not enough time.

What are those calculations, though? Do we know how frequently these mutations are occurring in gametes and fertilized ova? Do we know, given the reproduction success of various species, how quickly a beneficial mutation will spread through the population? 10^77 doesn't mean much if you factor in ergodicity. And I mean, what you're saying should apply to microevolution, as well, but we've already observed species of fish that have mutated behaviorally and anatomically to survive in artificially (due to pollution) sulfur-rich bodies of water. That's within 200 years of mass human industrial manufacturing that made the new environmental niches possible.

 

[xianghua]

I may be understanding the abstract incorrectly, here--biogeography is more my thing than molecular biology--but it seems that an unstated assumption is that each of these 10^77 sequences has an equal probability of being formed in a mutation. Do we know that this assumption is correct? As Michael Crichton speculated in his 1995 novel The Lost World, perhaps there is simply something about the process of evolution that makes it higher probability than we would otherwise guess, like how the molecular structure of crystals just makes it high probability that they will form an ordered lattice.

What are those calculations, though? Do we know how frequently these mutations are occurring in gametes and fertilized ova? Do we know, given the reproduction success of various species, how quickly a beneficial mutation will spread through the population? 10^77 doesn't mean much if you factor in ergodicity. And I mean, what you're saying should apply to microevolution, as well, but we've already observed species of fish that have mutated behaviorally and anatomically to survive in artificially (due to pollution) sulfur-rich bodies of water. That's within 200 years of mass human industrial manufacturing that made the new environmental niches possible.

first: it base on a scientific paper. secondly: even if we will be generous and we will say that a functional part appear one in every billion mutations. if we need at least 3 new parts to evolve an electric organ we are still talking about 10^27 mutations. that is still a huge number that evolution cant explain. and remember that i reduce 30 genes into only 3. far from reality. its like saying that we can reduce a cell-phone from 30-40 parts into 3-4 and it will still work.

 

[Prodigal Son returns]

according to that paper a specific function (that is coded by a single gene) will appeare about one in every 10^77 sequences:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

it means that to get the same function again we will need about 10^77 mutations. now, according to evolution many functions evolved at least several times. for instance: an eletric organ supposedly evolved about 6 times:

Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs

and remember that these organs are coded by about 30 different genes, so they suppose to be far more rare than the example above. it basically means that convergent evolution should be impossible, or at least nearly impossible. because there is not enough time.

I know but they keep pushing the theory of evolution as fact. They have tried so hard to manipulate the genome of animals to produce an outcome that supports macro evolution but cannot. It's all a far fetched theory developed to discredit religion and God. It's been happening for a long time. Spontaneous regeneration was the accepted theory, as soon as it was discredited the theory of evolution was embraced. It's a shame because it actually holds back the advancement of science

 

[Ophiolite]

It's all a far fetched theory developed to discredit religion and God.

It is possible that you believe this. However, no palaeontologist, biologist, or other evolutionary scientist that I have ever met or read (with the dishonourable exception of radicals like Dawkins) had the slightest interest in discrediting religion. Indeed, many of them were devoutly religious. Any serious examination of the backgrounds of a selection of scientists would confirm this for you. I would appreciate it, therefore, if you would not repeat this error in future. It is unnecessarily hostile, as well as egregious.

 

[Belk]

I know but they keep pushing the theory of evolution as fact. They have tried so hard to manipulate the genome of animals to produce an outcome that supports macro evolution but cannot. It's all a far fetched theory developed to discredit religion and God. It's been happening for a long time. Spontaneous regeneration was the accepted theory, as soon as it was discredited the theory of evolution was embraced. It's a shame because it actually holds back the advancement of science

It's a giant conspiracy!

 

[Jimmy D]

It's all a far fetched theory developed to discredit religion and God

You're doing a good job on that front without the help of scientists.

 

[Jimmy D]

according to that paper a specific function (that is coded by a single gene) will appeare about one in every 10^77 sequences:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

it means that to get the same function again we will need about 10^77 mutations. now, according to evolution many functions evolved at least several times. for instance: an eletric organ supposedly evolved about 6 times:

Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs

and remember that these organs are coded by about 30 different genes, so they suppose to be far more rare than the example above. it basically means that convergent evolution should be impossible, or at least nearly impossible. because there is not enough time.

If you are correct (given your posting history there is absolutely no reason to think you are) how does it show that evolution is impossible? It would merely suggest that the diversification of life is not fully understood, rather than make the mountains of evidence for common descent magically disappear.

You're letting your religious fervour cloud your thinking.

 

[VirOptimus]

according to that paper a specific function (that is coded by a single gene) will appeare about one in every 10^77 sequences:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

it means that to get the same function again we will need about 10^77 mutations. now, according to evolution many functions evolved at least several times. for instance: an eletric organ supposedly evolved about 6 times:

Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs

and remember that these organs are coded by about 30 different genes, so they suppose to be far more rare than the example above. it basically means that convergent evolution should be impossible, or at least nearly impossible. because there is not enough time.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

first: it base on a scientific paper. secondly: even if we will be generous and we will say that a functional part appear one in every billion mutations. if we need at least 3 new parts to evolve an electric organ we are still talking about 10^27 mutations. that is still a huge number that evolution cant explain. and remember that i reduce 30 genes into only 3. far from reality. its like saying that we can reduce a cell-phone from 30-40 parts into 3-4 and it will still work.

Right. But if any one of those 10^27 mutations is higher relative probability due to natural processes that we may not understand at this time, then the probability of any one of those three parts may be more than 1 in 10^27. Moreover, that dice roll is happening multiple times, both across time and across specimens. It's not just one megatherium ovum experiencing one unique-in-time chance to roll the 10^27-sided dice. A single female megatherium will have multiple offspring in multiple litters across its lifespan. And other megatheria are rolling the dice the same time she is. Any one of them could win the lottery. That's ergodicity: repeated probability events.

But even more than that, the model appears to assume that only one out of 10^27 possibilities will be adaptive for one trait functioning in one environment. Well, some genes control multiple traits. Some genes function well in one environment and flop in others. Any one of those 10^27 possibilities may produce other traits that are relevant to the same or a different environment. And when mass extinctions are happening--like the kind that happened when our ancestors started hunting megatheria and other species more efficiently--new environmental niches start opening up, which means more probability that any given dice roll will find a beneficial application.

EDIT: I originally got my Greek switched around and was referring to a "megalotherium." The correct spelling of the Cenozoic creature I am referring to is "megatherium"--the giant ground sloth that until about 8,000 years ago dominated South America and invaded North America following the formation of the Panama isthmus. Μέγας (mégas) and μεγάλος (megálos) mean almost exactly the same thing in Greek, and so both have been applied to a number of different extinct animals (e.g., meganeura, megalosaurus). As an Eastern Orthodox, I now feel like I have invited shame from my Byzantine brothers...

 

[xianghua]

If you are correct (given your posting history there is absolutely no reason to think you are) how does it show that evolution is impossible?

take a look at the numbers we are talking about.

It would merely suggest that the diversification of life is not fully understood

its actually well understood and i explained above how and why. so unless you can show me otherwise there is no reason to reject that argument.

 

[xianghua]

Right. But if any one of those 10^27 mutations is higher relative probability due to natural processes that we may not understand at this time, then the probability of any one of those three parts may be more than 1 in 10^27. Moreover, that dice roll is happening multiple times, both across time and across specimens. It's not just one megalotherium ovum experiencing one unique-in-time chance to roll the 10^27-sided dice. A single female megalotherium will have multiple offspring in multiple litters across its lifespan. And other megalotheria are rolling the dice the same time she is. Any one of them could win the lottery. That's ergodicity: repeated probability events.

But even more than that, the model appears to assume that only one out of 10^27 possibilities will be adaptive for one trait functioning in one environment. Well, some genes control multiple traits. Some genes function well in one environment and flop in others. Any one of those 10^27 possibilities may produce other traits that are relevant to the same or a different environment. And when mass extinctions are happening--like the kind that happened when our ancestors started hunting megalotheria and other species more efficiently--new environmental niches start opening up, which means more probability that any given dice roll will find a beneficial application.

ok. so lets go a step by step. first lets deal with the initial claim. do you agree for instance that a tipical new anatomical part will appear one in a billion mutations? im not talking about a specific trait but any trait that is new: like new vision part or a new ear part etc. it seems to be a very generous assumption.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

ok. so lets go a step by step. first lets deal with the initial claim. do you agree for instance that a tipical new anatomical part will appear one in a billion mutations? im not talking about a specific trait but any trait that is new: like new vision part or a new ear part etc. it seems to be a very generous assumption.

Like I said, molecular is not my strong suit. So I can't agree to anything until I read a lot more. But I'm willing to suppose it for the sake of argument.

 

[Ophiolite]

ok. so lets go a step by step. first lets deal with the initial claim. do you agree for instance that a tipical new anatomical part will appear one in a billion mutations?

No. I would like you to cite three further publications that find a comparable probability. It would be nice if you have something a little more recent than 2004. Produce those (from reputable, peer reviewed journals) and I'll agree, like mothcorrupteth, for the sake of argument.

 

[Speedwell]

ok. so lets go a step by step. first lets deal with the initial claim. do you agree for instance that a tipical new anatomical part will appear one in a billion mutations? im not talking about a specific trait but any trait that is new: like new vision part or a new ear part etc. it seems to be a very generous assumption.

Not until you define "new anatomical part" in terms of required changes in the genome.

 

[pitabread]

according to that paper a specific function (that is coded by a single gene) will appeare about one in every 10^77 sequences:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

Yes, this is the infamous Douglas Axe paper that IDists (especially Meyer) have been clinging to ever since it was originally published in their effort to claim that molecular evolution is impossible.

It's also entirely misleading if not outright erroneous in the way it's being used to claim that very thing.

Panda's Thumb has a good write up debunking these ID claims: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

Studies such as these involve what Axe calls a “reverse” approach – one starts with known, functional sequences, introduces semi-random mutants, and estimates the size of the functional sequence space from the numbers of “surviving” mutants. Studies involving the “forward” approach can and have been done as well. Briefly, this approach involves the synthesis of collections of random sequences and isolation of functional polymers (e.g., polypeptides or RNAs) from these collections. Historically, these studies have involved rather small oligomers (7-12 or so), owing to technical reasons (this is the size range that can be safely accommodated by the “tools” used). However, a relatively recent development, the so-called “mRNA display” technique, allows one to screen random sequences that are much larger (approaching 100 amino acids in length). What is interesting is that the forward approach typically yields a “success rate” in the 10^-10 to 10^-15 range – one usually need screen between 10^10 -> 10^15 random sequences to identify a functional polymer. This is true even for mRNA display. These numbers are a direct measurement of the proportion of functional sequences in a population of random polymers, and are estimates of the same parameter – density of sequences of minimal function in sequence space – that Axe is after.

10^-10 -> 10^-63 (or thereabout): this is the range of estimates of the density of functional sequences in sequence space that can be found in the scientific literature. The caveats given in Section 2 notwithstanding, Axe’s work does not extend or narrow the range. To give the reader a sense of the higher end (10^-10) of this range, it helps to keep in mind that 1000 liters of a typical pond will likely contain some 10^12 bacterial cells of various sorts. If each cell gives rise to just one new protein-coding region or variant (by any of a number of processes) in the course of several thousands of generations, then the probability of occurrence of a function that occurs once in every 10^10 random sequences is going to be pretty nearly 1. In other words, 1 in 10^-10 is a pretty large number when it comes to “probabilities” in the biosphere.

..........

To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection.​

 

[mothcorrupteth]

To give the reader a sense of the higher end (10^-10) of this range, it helps to keep in mind that 1000 liters of a typical pond will likely contain some 10^12 bacterial cells of various sorts. If each cell gives rise to just one new protein-coding region or variant (by any of a number of processes) in the course of several thousands of generations, then the probability of occurrence of a function that occurs once in every 10^10 random sequences is going to be pretty nearly 1. In other words, 1 in 10^-10 is a pretty large number when it comes to “probabilities” in the biosphere.

One caveat to this, though: That defense is fine for diatoms and single-celled parasites that reproduce at breakneck paces compared to us tetrapods. But for truly multicellular organisms (not mere colonies), you have to take into consideration more than just the raw population numbers. You have to take into consideration the Red Queen's proposed answer to parasite evolution: sexual reproduction.

 

[xianghua]

No. I would like you to cite three further publications that find a comparable probability. It would be nice if you have something a little more recent than 2004. Produce those (from reputable, peer reviewed journals) and I'll agree, like mothcorrupteth, for the sake of argument.

from pitabread article:

"Work with the lambda repressor (Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer, 1990) yielded a “value” for the frequency of functional variants of 1 in 10^63 (roughly) for the 92-mer. Work with chorismate mutase (Taylor et al., PNAS 98, 10596-10601, 2001) gave a value of 1 in 10^24 for the 93 amino acid enzyme. Scaled for a similar size protein, Axe’s work gives a value of 1 in 10^59, which falls within the range established by previous work."

so its not a rare case.

 

[xianghua]

Like I said, molecular is not my strong suit. So I can't agree to anything until I read a lot more. But I'm willing to suppose it for the sake of argument.

ok. now, for 3 parts the chance is now 10^27. to get so many mutations we will need more than the age of the earth to evolve this electric organ.

 

[xianghua]

Yes, this is the infamous Douglas Axe paper that IDists (especially Meyer) have been clinging to ever since it was originally published in their effort to claim that molecular evolution is impossible.

It's also entirely misleading if not outright erroneous in the way it's being used to claim that very thing.

Panda's Thumb has a good write up debunking these ID claims: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

Studies such as these involve what Axe calls a “reverse” approach – one starts with known, functional sequences, introduces semi-random mutants, and estimates the size of the functional sequence space from the numbers of “surviving” mutants. Studies involving the “forward” approach can and have been done as well. Briefly, this approach involves the synthesis of collections of random sequences and isolation of functional polymers (e.g., polypeptides or RNAs) from these collections. Historically, these studies have involved rather small oligomers (7-12 or so), owing to technical reasons (this is the size range that can be safely accommodated by the “tools” used). However, a relatively recent development, the so-called “mRNA display” technique, allows one to screen random sequences that are much larger (approaching 100 amino acids in length). What is interesting is that the forward approach typically yields a “success rate” in the 10^-10 to 10^-15 range – one usually need screen between 10^10 -> 10^15 random sequences to identify a functional polymer. This is true even for mRNA display. These numbers are a direct measurement of the proportion of functional sequences in a population of random polymers, and are estimates of the same parameter – density of sequences of minimal function in sequence space – that Axe is after.

10^-10 -> 10^-63 (or thereabout): this is the range of estimates of the density of functional sequences in sequence space that can be found in the scientific literature. The caveats given in Section 2 notwithstanding, Axe’s work does not extend or narrow the range. To give the reader a sense of the higher end (10^-10) of this range, it helps to keep in mind that 1000 liters of a typical pond will likely contain some 10^12 bacterial cells of various sorts. If each cell gives rise to just one new protein-coding region or variant (by any of a number of processes) in the course of several thousands of generations, then the probability of occurrence of a function that occurs once in every 10^10 random sequences is going to be pretty nearly 1. In other words, 1 in 10^-10 is a pretty large number when it comes to “probabilities” in the biosphere.

..........

To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection.​

again, from your own article:

"Work with the lambda repressor (Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer, 1990) yielded a “value” for the frequency of functional variants of 1 in 10^63 (roughly) for the 92-mer. Work with chorismate mutase (Taylor et al., PNAS 98, 10596-10601, 2001) gave a value of 1 in 10^24 for the 93 amino acid enzyme. Scaled for a similar size protein, Axe’s work gives a value of 1 in 10^59, which falls within the range established by previous work."

so its not just axe work and other papers give similar result. and remember that axe paper is about a single domain. when many biological systems (like the electric organ) contain many genes. so its not 10^60 but more like 10^200.