Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 74336222" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>Fair enough but I understood what you were asking. The link I was referring to already had the quotes cut out. I though it would save me the hassle of repeating something I had already done. </p><p><strong>Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics</strong></p><p><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">Evolutionary-genomic studies show that <strong>natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. </strong>Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. <strong>There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.</strong></span></em></p><p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/" target="_blank">Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics</a></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity</strong></p><p><em><span style="color: #000000">The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.</span> <strong><span style="color: rgb(0, 179, 179)">Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. </span></strong><span style="color: #000000">In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.</span></em></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #00b3b3"><em><strong>There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity.</strong></em></span></p><p><a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597" target="_blank">The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity</a></p><p></p><p><strong>So it seems that the evidence shows that natural selection is actually a hindrance to the evolution of organismal complexity. </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes</strong></p><p><em>This Analysis shows that many of the <strong><span style="color: #00b3b3">qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes</span></strong> of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about <strong><span style="color: #00b3b3">whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.</span></strong></em></p><p><a href="https://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html</a></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><strong>Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory</strong></span></p><p><em><span style="color: #000000">A central point to be explained in this book is that most aspects of evolution at the genome level cannot be fully explained in adaptive terms, and moreover, that</span><span style="color: #00b3b3"> <strong>many features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection</strong>. </span><span style="color: #000000">This contention is supported by a wide array of comparative data, as well as by well-established principles of population genetics.</span></em></p><p><strong><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/michael-lynch-on-modern-evolutionary.html" target="_blank">Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory</a></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Does Evolutionary theory need a rethink?</strong></p><p><em><strong><span style="color: #00b3b3">The standard evolutionary theory is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation</span></strong>, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. <span style="color: #000000">In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.</span></em></p><p></p><p><em><strong><span style="color: #00b3b3">In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution</span></strong>. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. <span style="color: #00b3b3"><strong>For the EES, they are also causes.</strong></span></em></p><p><a href="https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080" target="_blank">Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 74336222, member: 342064"] Fair enough but I understood what you were asking. The link I was referring to already had the quotes cut out. I though it would save me the hassle of repeating something I had already done. [B]Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics[/B] [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]Evolutionary-genomic studies show that [B]natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. [/B]Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. [B]There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.[/B][/COLOR][/I] [URL='https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/']Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics[/URL] [B] The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity[/B] [I][COLOR=#000000]The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.[/COLOR] [B][COLOR=rgb(0, 179, 179)]Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=#000000]In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.[/COLOR][/I] [COLOR=#00b3b3][I][B]There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity.[/B][/I][/COLOR] [URL='https://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597']The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity[/URL] [B]So it seems that the evidence shows that natural selection is actually a hindrance to the evolution of organismal complexity. The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes[/B] [I]This Analysis shows that many of the [B][COLOR=#00b3b3]qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes[/COLOR][/B] of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about [B][COLOR=#00b3b3]whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.[/COLOR][/B][/I] [URL='https://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html']http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html[/URL] [SIZE=4] [B]Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory[/B][/SIZE] [I][COLOR=#000000]A central point to be explained in this book is that most aspects of evolution at the genome level cannot be fully explained in adaptive terms, and moreover, that[/COLOR][COLOR=#00b3b3] [B]many features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection[/B]. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]This contention is supported by a wide array of comparative data, as well as by well-established principles of population genetics.[/COLOR][/I] [B][URL='http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/michael-lynch-on-modern-evolutionary.html']Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory[/URL] Does Evolutionary theory need a rethink?[/B] [I][B][COLOR=#00b3b3]The standard evolutionary theory is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation[/COLOR][/B], the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. [COLOR=#000000]In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.[/COLOR][/I] [I][B][COLOR=#00b3b3]In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution[/COLOR][/B]. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. [COLOR=#00b3b3][B]For the EES, they are also causes.[/B][/COLOR][/I] [URL='https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080']Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible
Top
Bottom