Question for creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

[Ophiolite]

Just saying what the article said

But you are sayng it out of context without, apparently, knowing what it means.

 

[AdB]

No, you made the mistake of calling DNA a "code". You at best misused a term that you do not understand.

Eeeuuuuhhhhh.....
Definition of GENETIC CODE

and also from DNA Sequencing Fact Sheet

Sequencing DNA means determining the order of the four chemical building blocks - called "bases" - that make up the DNA molecule. The sequence tells scientists the kind of genetic information that is carried in a particular DNA segment.

 

[AdB]

in·teg·ri·ty
/inˈteɡrədē/
noun
noun: integrity

1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
2. the state of being whole and undivided.

The article reads: “searched the genomes of the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and several of its closest relatives, thinking they would track down the cousins of the antifreeze gene. None showed up.” speculating that it came into existence “de novo”, or in other words “from scratch” meaning not from duplication of another already existing genetic sequence. But then in the next paragraph it states: “Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules.” without further explaining was allegedly happened, but this doesn’t sound as “de novo”. You already mentioned this same text on which I responded: “That is the assumption...
And still... fashioned from already existing code...” so I probably should have said “already existing genetic sequence” to be more clear as “code” would only be proper for the actual functional genomes.

Another article (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/how-fish-evolved-antifreeze-junk/585226/) that I found does give these details, stating it was duplicated from an already existing piece of “junk DNA” and got “reworked” after that. This article also indicated that another fish (Notothens) has the exact same alleles producing the same antifreeze protein where this genetic sequence was found in an already existing digestive related genome.

So this shows that the origin of this genome is still from duplication of already existing genetic sequences. If you would reject the findings of Cheng and DeVries (and provide alternative explanation regarding the remark in the article itself…), then one could still counter that the source genetic sequences could have been deleted in the course of time. So in any case genomes coming into existence “de novo” is no more than an ASSUMPTION, so can at the most be used as an INDICATION of how evolution might work, not as EVIDENCE, and thus is still in the phase of scientific thesis.

For the thesis to be accepted as theory an experiment like Lenski's would need to find a genome with a new function for which it can be shown that the preceding generations did not have any useful genetic sequence whatsoever from which the new genome could have been constructed. Nothing like that has happened yet so “de novo creation of genomes” is not theory but merely thesis. One might say that it's a nearly impossible feat to acquire above stated evidence, but considering the amount of generations the Lenski experiment represents, the prone occurrences of mutations in e-coli and the required occurrences of mutations (calculated based on the amount of specific genomes in all living creatures and the given time for this to have come into existence) de novo created genomes should definitely should have had occurred at least once...

But even if such evidence would emerge from an experiment like Lenski's, than it would still matter what the essence of the mutation would be. If it entails a simple piece of genetic sequence like the antifreeze genome, than it could only be regarded as weak evidence...

Finally, the article states that “at least one-tenth of genes could be made in this way” some suggest more, so that leaves a very large chunk of the alleles to have come into existence in another way, so my initial question still remains how did these alleles get created in the very first place?

There the familiar evasion kicks in “that is not in the realm of evolution” and point to other faculties of science. Fine, no problem, at least if these can at least provide a plausible explanation... Because otherwise you're building a fancy theory on loose sand... Hence my previous response to pitabread…

 

[pitabread]

For the thesis to be accepted as theory an experiment like Lenski's would need to find a genome with a new function for which it can be shown that the preceding generations did not have any useful genetic sequence whatsoever from which the new genome could have been constructed. Nothing like that has happened yet so “de novo creation of genomes” is not theory but merely thesis.

In an existing population of organisms that are replicating, new genomes are created via the process of replication via reproduction. Those genomes are "new" in the sense they belong to new organisms and will have variations from mutations, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, etc.

Creation of a true de novo genome would be something entirely different (e.g. origin-of-life) which is NOT something that the Lenski experiment is testing or even designed to test.

If you're expecting the Lenski experiment to answer origin-of-life questions, you're looking at the wrong experiment for that. Instead, I'd suggest looking at the Szostak lab and related publications on origin-of-life research: Szostak Lab: Home

You can also Google things like the formation of protocells as well.

There the familiar evasion kicks in “that is not in the realm of evolution” and point to other faculties of science.

This isn't evasion. This is just about understanding the relative scope of the question and where the answers to it may be found.

What you seem to be asking are questions about origin-of-life and origins of the genetic code. The Lenski experiment has nothing to do with answering those questions.

Because otherwise you're building a fancy theory on loose sand...

This is a common objection, but it fails to take into account relative scope of different areas of science.

The scope of the theory of evolution is concerned with changes in populations of organisms. And we have populations of organisms in abundance and can directly observe those changes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eeeuuuuhhhhh.....
Definition of GENETIC CODE

and also from DNA Sequencing Fact Sheet

Sequencing DNA means determining the order of the four chemical building blocks - called "bases" - that make up the DNA molecule. The sequence tells scientists the kind of genetic information that is carried in a particular DNA segment.

And this is called an equivocation fallacy. You are using a word with multiple definitions and using differing definitions of the terms so that they appear to support you.

Try to ask proper questions since you clearly do not understand what you are talking about. "Gotcha" questions are almost always failures when used the ignorant.

 

[AdB]

Those genomes are "new" in the sense they belong to new organisms

I was talking about new and functional genetic sequences...

Creation of a true de novo genome would be something entirely different (e.g. origin-of-life) which is NOT something that the Lenski experiment is testing or even designed to test.

But something that would have been observed as it is crucial for Darwinian evolution to even be possible... Lenski was actually quite open in his approach, "lets let these little buggers just have a party, keep the populace controllable, and just see what will happen". They investigated anything that deviated from the previous generation...

This is a common objection, but it fails to take into account relative scope of different areas of science.

The scope of the theory of evolution is concerned with changes in populations of organisms. And we have populations of organisms in abundance and can directly observe those changes.

If you want to have evolution as a reasonable explanation of how live evolved without intervention of a Creator, then you also need to have a solid base for that to stand on. No problem that this is covered by other faculties of science, but still, without this... loose sand...
It's the same argument atheists use against Christians, even when they have to acknowledge that the Biblical narrative gives very solid explanations for a broad range of things we can observe, they will say that it doesn't mean anything because we can't prove that God actually exists...
Christians can give a perfectly sound reason why God's existence can't be proven (at least not via the scientific method) but the foundations for evolutionism is quite fragile...
So yes, I'm not specifically interested in evolution alone, I like to take the whole picture into account, what you might call the "worldview". If you are not interested in anything outside one specific area of science and just dismiss if those are supporting your worldview or not then you are actually quite narrow minded...
This is not an accusation to you though (although you kinda went that way in your previous post) and I will definitely go through the Szostak Lab link you provided

 

[AdB]

And this is called an equivocation fallacy. You are using a word with multiple definitions and using differing definitions of the terms so that they appear to support you.

Try to ask proper questions since you clearly do not understand what you are talking about. "Gotcha" questions are almost always failures when used the ignorant.

I literary gave you definitions showing DNA is a form of code

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article reads: “searched the genomes of the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and several of its closest relatives, thinking they would track down the cousins of the antifreeze gene. None showed up.” speculating that it came into existence “de novo”, or in other words “from scratch” meaning not from duplication of another already existing genetic sequence. But then in the next paragraph it states: “Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules.” without further explaining was allegedly happened, but this doesn’t sound as “de novo”. You already mentioned this same text on which I responded: “That is the assumption...
And still... fashioned from already existing code...” so I probably should have said “already existing genetic sequence” to be more clear as “code” would only be proper for the actual functional genomes.

But that is "de novo". Most of our genome is non-coding DNA. A lot of it are left over genes from our past that have mutated far beyond being useful. And please, drop the loaded language if you want an explanation. It is rude and not conducive to a healthy discussion.

Another article (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/how-fish-evolved-antifreeze-junk/585226/) that I found does give these details, stating it was duplicated from an already existing piece of “junk DNA” and got “reworked” after that. This article also indicated that another fish (Notothens) has the exact same alleles producing the same antifreeze protein where this genetic sequence was found in an already existing digestive related genome.

So this shows that the origin of this genome is still from duplication of already existing genetic sequences. If you would reject the findings of Cheng and DeVries (and provide alternative explanation regarding the remark in the article itself…), then one could still counter that the source genetic sequences could have been deleted in the course of time. So in any case genomes coming into existence “de novo” is no more than an ASSUMPTION, so can at the most be used as an INDICATION of how evolution might work, not as EVIDENCE, and thus is still in the phase of scientific thesis.

No. It does not. That could be the case for the notothens, that evolved it from a gene that produces digestive juices. The one in cod had a very different origin. And you are incorrect when you claim that the two fish had the exact same gene. The genes are very close to each other, but not the same:

" The two groups had evolved almost identical antifreezes independently—a stunning example of convergent evolution, where two organisms turn up to life’s party in the same outfit. But there was a big difference between them: The cod antifreeze gene did not arise from a digestive one, and for the longest time Cheng couldn’t find its ancestor. "

For the thesis to be accepted as theory an experiment like Lenski's would need to find a genome with a new function for which it can be shown that the preceding generations did not have any useful genetic sequence whatsoever from which the new genome could have been constructed. Nothing like that has happened yet so “de novo creation of genomes” is not theory but merely thesis. One might say that it's a nearly impossible feat to acquire above stated evidence, but considering the amount of generations the Lenski experiment represents, the prone occurrences of mutations in e-coli and the required occurrences of mutations (calculated based on the amount of specific genomes in all living creatures and the given time for this to have come into existence) de novo created genomes should definitely should have had occurred at least once...

No, that is not how science works at all. One does not need a lab experiment to confirm finds.

But even if such evidence would emerge from an experiment like Lenski's, than it would still matter what the essence of the mutation would be. If it entails a simple piece of genetic sequence like the antifreeze genome, than it could only be regarded as weak evidence...

Finally, the article states that “at least one-tenth of genes could be made in this way” some suggest more, so that leaves a very large chunk of the alleles to have come into existence in another way, so my initial question still remains how did these alleles get created in the very first place?

There the familiar evasion kicks in “that is not in the realm of evolution” and point to other faculties of science. Fine, no problem, at least if these can at least provide a plausible explanation... Because otherwise you're building a fancy theory on loose sand... Hence my previous response to pitabread…

I do not think that you even understand the concept of evidence. And once again, you need to drop the language with such prejudicial terms as "created".

The Atlantic article explains how a totally unrelated short segment of DNA was duplicated and how that led to the formation of antifreeze in cod. That is definitely a denovo gene.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I literary gave you definitions showing DNA is a form of code

LOL! Yes you literally failed. Once again the word "code" has different definitions. You are applying inconsistent definitions in your argument. That does not help you.

DNA as a "code" is only similar to human created code on the surface. No one has ever shown that any intelligence needed to form the DNA code. There is no scientific evidence for ID.

 

[AdB]

LOL! Yes you literally failed. Once again the word "code" has different definitions. You are applying inconsistent definitions in your argument. That does not help you.

Sorry, but your attitude... well, let's just say that you just keep circling around so never mind...

EDIT: Also the other response, this is getting a discussion about definitions, if you don't want to understand what I'm talking about even though you seem to recognize perfectly that I'm allegedly using incorrect definitions, then fine... never mind...

DNA as a "code" is only similar to human created code on the surface. No one has ever shown that any intelligence needed to form the DNA code. There is no scientific evidence for ID.

There is a good reason why God's existence can't be proved by the "scientific method" and there is a good reason why some people desperately want to stick to the preposition that science can only allow explanations that can be observed empirically...

Here's a logical question...
How will you explain to me how the laptop that you are looking at came to be without allowing me to invoke the person that actually made it? If God indeed created the universe, but you discard this as explanation, how will you ever get the right explanation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but your attitude... well, let's just say that you just keep circling around so never mind...

EDIT: Also the other response, this is getting a discussion about definitions, if you don't want to understand what I'm talking about even though you seem to recognize perfectly that I'm allegedly using incorrect definitions, then fine... never mind...

There is a good reason why God's existence can't be proved by the "scientific method" and there is a good reason why some people desperately want to stick to the preposition that science can only allow explanations that can be observed empirically...

Here's a logical question...
How will you explain to me how the laptop that you are looking at came to be without allowing me to invoke the person that actually made it? If God indeed created the universe, but you discard this as explanation, how will you ever get the right explanation?

If you do not understand your error then you should ask questions about it.

And here is a logical answer to your question: You do not get to assume that something exists. I do not discard God as an explanation. There is merely no evidence that he exists in the first place. You need to use neutral language until you have made your case. And you haven't. In fact you made a very telling statement when you said that one cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. If God did not exist one could not prove his existence.

 

[Bradskii]

If you want to have evolution as a reasonable explanation of how live evolved without intervention of a Creator...

Has anyone done that? Anyone is free to propose the intervention of any designer/creator/deity they like. The question only then becomes - can we determine any supernatural finger in the evolutionary pudding.

Even if we can't (and no-one has yet been able to do so), that still doesn't discount any designer/creator/deity being involved. It might be that the initial conditions were set up by whatever option you choose and then the process was allowed to proceed in a manner which we would term 'natural'.

Evolution doesn't discount God. But it does exclude a literal reading of certain chapters in scripture.

I must admit to being unsure of where you actually stand at the moment. Could you clarify your position?

 

[Lost4words]

The theory of evolution Is based on fiction.

 

[Bradskii]

The theory of evolution Is based on fiction.

I never knew. I'm going to take my copy of The Origin Of Species off my non-fiction shelf right now and put it next to my 50 Shades of Grey trilogy where it belongs.

Now I just need to work out where my bible goes.

 

[AdB]

Has anyone done that? Anyone is free to propose the intervention of any designer/creator/deity they like. The question only then becomes - can we determine any supernatural finger in the evolutionary pudding.

Even if we can't (and no-one has yet been able to do so), that still doesn't discount any designer/creator/deity being involved. It might be that the initial conditions were set up by whatever option you choose and then the process was allowed to proceed in a manner which we would term 'natural'.

Evolution doesn't discount God. But it does exclude a literal reading of certain chapters in scripture.

I must admit to being unsure of where you actually stand at the moment. Could you clarify your position?

Young Earth Creationism

 

[pitabread]

The theory of evolution Is based on fiction.

Incorrect. It's primarily based on observations of populations of living things that, well, evolve.

 

[pitabread]

I was talking about new and functional genetic sequences...

I'm still not clear on precisely what you mean by this.

When organisms reproduce, DNA mutations are inevitable. In some cases those give rise to modified (or "new") genetic sequences that can give rise to functions. Thus, we observe new and functional genetic sequences forming all the time.

However, in your case you seem to be suggesting something different; e.g. the de novo formation of genetic structures from scratch. Which as I've repeatedly said is the purview of origin-of-life research.

But something that would have been observed as it is crucial for Darwinian evolution to even be possible...

First, "Darwinian" evolution is rather outdated. The Theory of Evolution has come quite a long way since Darwin's time.

Second, all that is required for Darwinian evolution is differential reproduction. And we observe that directly in living populations.

If you want to have evolution as a reasonable explanation of how live evolved without intervention of a Creator, then you also need to have a solid base for that to stand on. No problem that this is covered by other faculties of science, but still, without this... loose sand...

If you're talking about origin of life, that's not required for the theory of evolution. All we need is populations that reproduce with modifications and various mechanisms which act on those populations to change relative gene frequencies in those populations. This is all directly observable.

If you want to invoke some tinkering via a supernatural Creator, then the burden of proof is on those making that claim. You need to provide positive evidence for said Creator and a mechanism by which they would effect populations of living organisms.

So yes, I'm not specifically interested in evolution alone, I like to take the whole picture into account, what you might call the "worldview". If you are not interested in anything outside one specific area of science and just dismiss if those are supporting your worldview or not then you are actually quite narrow minded...
This is not an accusation to you though (although you kinda went that way in your previous post) and I will definitely go through the Szostak Lab link you provided

I think you're making a number of unwarranted assumptions about me and my personal philosophies and worldview. If you want to know what those are, I'd be happy to discuss. I'd just ask that you try to refrain from making unfounded judgements beforehand.

 

[Bradskii]

Young Earth Creationism

OK. I was unsure because you hadn't been proposing anything that backed up whatever your position was. Your posts are just refutations of various aspects of the evolutionary process. Which is fine. It happens more than people realise in the scientific community. There's a lot of cut and thrust and questioning of the different views that scientists have of how specific aspects of the process occurs. Let's face it, it's how we make progress - by constantly questioning the status quo.

But what is expected is that if someone says 'Hey, X didn't happen like that...', they are expected to add '...because X happened like this'. And I've not yet seen any evidence that you have put forward for the option that you choose. Which is apparently YEC.

I sincerely hope it's not going to simply be 'God did it as per Genesis'. Because that's the claim. That's the X. Now we need you to fill in those ellipses.

So what have you got?

 

[Lost4words]

I never knew. I'm going to take my copy of The Origin Of Species off my non-fiction shelf right now and put it next to my 50 Shades of Grey trilogy where it belongs.

Now I just need to work out where my bible goes.

Origin of the species is a work of pure fiction.

 

[Bradskii]

Origin of the species is a work of pure fiction.

Ah. My bad. I thought you said that it was 'based on fiction'. Books like Fifty Shades are on my Based On Fiction shelf. So that's where I put it.

I'll move it to the 'Pure Fiction' shelf straight away. Unless you think it should go on the one for Fantasy?