Some random discussion on evolution...

[Jimmy D]

I am not interested in your troll responses.

Asking for a more detailed explanation of your vague claims is trolling? OK.

It's starting to seem like you actually know next to nothing about the what happened during the Cambrian explosion.

The points relevant to this topic are as follows:

A) Empirical inability of evolution to create new functions

B) Reason for that inability, i.e. the ratio between genetic changes that result in function and those that result in non-function or in alteration of preexisting function

You have done nothing to demonstrate that this is the case, apart from claiming that because a population of e coli hasn't developed "new structures" or whatever in 20 years then nothing has ever developed "new structures". Not very convincing I'm afraid.

Details of the Cambrian explosion are irrelevant in that regard. Cambrian was just used to illustrate theoretically given creation powers of the evolution process. You insist on the latter simply because you are unable to rationally respond to the above points.

OK, forget the Cambrian explosion then, fine with me.

So we're left with your claim.... the "inability of evolution to create new functions".


Unfortunately for you people do actually study these things....

For example

The Evolution and Development of Novel Traits, or How Beetles Got Their Horns

Evolution of a novel function: nutritive milk in the viviparous cockroach, Diploptera punctata.

 

[VirOptimus]

Theory of evolution is defined as a system of ideas intended to explain the origin of higher life forms by the processes of mutation and natural selection. Higher life forms are defined by functions that were non-existent in the lower life forms. Now, can you tell me what data supports the idea that the above mentioned processes can create new functions.

... no, you are seriously ignorant on the subject. I suggest biology 101 before making more posts.

 

[pitabread]

Now, can you tell me what data supports the idea that the above mentioned processes can create new functions.

Have you tried Google Scholar? https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=evolution+of+new+functions&btnG=

Here are just a few results:

Mutational effects and the evolution of new protein functions
Modular Assembly of Genes and the Evolution of New Functions
Evolution of New Functions De Novo and from Preexisting Genes
Evolution of novel genes - ScienceDirect

And if you're looking for more specific things (for example the evolution of organs), there are entire books dedicated to the topic.

(Disclaimer: I haven't read through the above sources yet. That said, I find that on any subject re: evolution one can usually find material on the topic. After all, evolution has been a comprehensively studied subject for decades now and there is a wealth of literature on it.)

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[VirOptimus]

@Guys, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not my job to study your articles instead of you. You are the ones suggesting they show observational instance of evolution creating new function. So, you must study these articles and then explain what previously non-existing function was created, or in other words what previously non-existing structure such as protein or enzymes arose de novo. Otherwise, you can just copy paste links you didn't even read, like the first one which is just theoretical speculation and not actual observation of evolution in action.

Nope, we are not responsible for your education.

 

[pitabread]

Guys, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not my job to study your articles instead of you.

If you are wanting to find out information about evolution, then yes it is your job.

So, you must study these articles and then explain what previously non-existing function was created, or in other words what previously non-existing structure such as protein or enzymes arose de novo.

If you're so interested in the subject, why you don't you go study it? Why do you expect others to spoon-feed it to you?

The whole point of my post is to point out that there is a wealth of information out there. You just have to be willing to go and look at it.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Jimmy D]

@Guys, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not my job to study your articles instead of you. You are the ones suggesting they show observational instance of evolution creating new function. So, you must study these articles and then explain what previously non-existing function was created, or in other words what previously non-existing structure which enables this function, such as protein or enzyme, arose de novo. Otherwise, you can just copy paste links you didn't even read, like the first one which is just theoretical speculation and not actual observation of evolution in action.

I did read what I linked to, what makes you think I didn't

I posted those links (just two examples out of thousands) to demonstrate to that your claim is incorrect.

Whether you can be bothered to read them is up to you.

You clearly aren’t receptive to learning anything that might run contrary to your opinion.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well, the point is that from the last decade of my evolution debates, tens of books and thousands of read articles I very well know that all of them are just theoretical speculation with zero empirical evidence of evolution creating higher life form, i.e. de novo function. On the other hand, you claim that there is a wealth of information out there empirically showing creative powers of evolution. This suggests that you are either lying or there is an abundance of new evidences in favor of creative powers of evolution. Can you provide just one evidence?

Take a biology 101.

 

[pitabread]

What is the point of these rhetorical games if it all boils down to genetic variations. These variations are the driving force of evolution. Both, some Cambrian animal and E.coli have undergone lots of genetic variations. Due to the fact that evolutionary experiment with E. coli has large population sizes and short generation time, this compensates for the evolving time period difference between E. coli and Cambrian animal — which had much smaller population sizes and longer generation time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Cambrian animal — which had much smaller population sizes and longer generation time".

For starters, we're talking about an entire planet's worth of life forms (likely millions of species) evolving over millions of years. Even just considering single celled organisms, we're talking likely 25 orders of magnitude (or more) in terms of population size of such organisms versus the E.coli experiment.

I'm really not sure how to otherwise explain this, because I'm mystified that you think that this:

is the equivalent of this:

And yet the latter supposedly evolved new body plan with variety of complex systems like muscles, nerves, digestive systems, sensory systems, locomotion, and reproductive systems. On the other hand, the former is structurally identical.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that E.Coli in the long-term E.Coli experiment are structurally identical. They have undergone phenotypic evolution which you read about here: E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

That said, you're again trying to equate completely different events of completely different orders of magnitude. Life at the beginning of the Cambrian would have constituted a variety of organisms including multi-cellular life forms already more complex than single celled organisms. And again, we're talking evolution over at least 13 million years versus 30 years for the E.Coli experiment.

I really don't understand how you can't see that these are not equivalent scenarios.

You have completely ignored the most important factor, which is population sizes or more importantly, effective population sizes. Generation time in itself is useless. Variations bring change, and they are directly associated with population sizes. I already explained that, but you seem to ignore it.

Evolution involves changes to populations of organisms over time. You can't ignore the time component. I'm not sure why you are fixated on population size, because population size is only one factor in evolution.

Variation itself is also only part of the equation, since you also have to factor in the fixation of such variations (e.g. alleles) in the population as a whole. This is where I previously mentioned that this actually happens faster in smaller populations, and can happen a lot faster if you're dealing with populations under greater selective constraints.

The point is not in morphological changes that are pre-programed in the genome, but in niche occupying changes (morphological or whatever) that are not pre-programed in the genome of ancestral populations. Appeal to dogs completely misses the point when one must explain the origin of variety of aquatic adaptations necessary to turn a terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic marine mammal.

I don't know what you mean by "pre-programed[sic]"? The breeding and evolution of canines over time involves different alleles arising from mutations. You can read more here: Canine Morphology: Hunting for Genes and Tracking Mutations

Furthermore, the comparison is simply pointing out that significant morphological variation is possible over a relatively speaking short period of geological time (tens of thousand years) versus the millions of years during which time whales evolved.

Evolutionary creativity boils down to spontaneous rearrangement of DNA particles. That is all.

This is not a good description of evolution.

Evolution involves the reproduction of organisms (both asexually and sexually), changes to DNA that occur during reproduction (e.g. mutations) and the subsequent potential changes to the resultant offspring (depending on what effect the changes to the DNA may have). Those resultant changes may come to dominate the population through processes like genetic drift or natural selection; or they may disappear entirely from the population.

The important thing to understand is that evolution is a process that happens at the population level and involves changes to populations over time.

 

[pitabread]

Well, the point is that from the last decade of my evolution debates, tens of books and thousands of read articles

What books? What sources of articles?

I very well know that all of them are just theoretical speculation with zero empirical evidence of evolution creating higher life form, i.e. de novo function.

I'm not sure what you mean by "creating higher life form"?

If you're talking about the evolution of novel functions, there are numerous examples in the literature.

For example, here's a paper discussion the evolution of opsins (light sensitive cells) which are a key element of the evolution of vision. They include a discussion of the molecular mechanism that led to this evolution: Metazoan opsin evolution reveals a simple route to animal vision

On the other hand, you claim that there is a wealth of information out there empirically showing creative powers of evolution. This suggests that you are either lying or there is an abundance of new evidences in favor of creative powers of evolution. Can you provide just one evidence?

See above.

I'd also recommend this article: The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity

One of the points it discusses is the fascinating subject of recreation of ancestral genomes to map out evolutionary pathways. The section on the evolution of the fungi vacuolar ATPase complex includes an example of this.

 

[Ophiolite]

Great series of posts pitabread. I fear their message will be misunderstood (or worse), but there are lurkers and fence sitters who will benefit from a study of your links and a reflection on their significance. That makes your effort well worth it. Thank you.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't really see anything of substance worth responding to. You just keep playing these rhetorical games and ignore everything I said about the population sizes and 'species to species' comparison. I don't know what exactly are you trying to achieve with this, especially in the light of supposed whale evolution where it is obvious that only one species with small population sizes had to evolve numerous de novo functions in only 4 million years. Like I already said, you are red herring to divert the discussion.




So? Fixation has nothing to do with de novo origin of something, it just means the standardization of preexisting thing. You are red herring, again.


Example: Lizards Pre-Programmed to Adapt Their Coloration

This is called phenotypic plasticity and it essentially means that two organisms with identical genome can exhibit different behavior, morphology and physiology in response to different environment. And no, this has nothing to do with evolution creating de novo things (genes if you want) and higher life forms. Evolution happens at the level of genes, while everything else is just pre-programmed ability of an organism. So again, you are red herring.



What is the point of copy/pasting definitions of evolution and ignoring the essence of my words? Mutations are driving force of evolution, and they are the random changes in the DNA or as I put it: "spontaneous rearrangement of DNA particles". Only these rearrangements can result is de novo things. Gene migration, natural selection, genetic drift, whatever... are human concepts describing preservation or transfer of pre-existing things. So, evolution boils down to spontaneous rearrangement of DNA particles. From nature's point of view that is all what evolution is. Everything else are just human concepts.



Are you serious? You want the list of all the articles and books I have read in the last 10+ years?


And again you provided nothing but theoretical speculation. I am asking for observational evidence, for an actual science. I am asking examples of evolution in action. Something like Lenski's experiment where you track genetic changes in initially identical populations of organisms and then determine whether thy developed previously non existing, de novo or distinct structures. Living systems are characterized by the enormous number of distinct structures and the origin of these structures is what the theory of evolution must explain. The articles that you refer to, are just historical narratives and stories that attempt to reconstruct unseen past events. As such they are scientifically worthless and serve only as means for evolutionary biologists to parasite on tax money or pursue atheistic ideology.

Do you think one has to be an atheist to accept the ToE?

In your own words, what does the ToE assert regarding god(s)?

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you serious? You want the list of all the articles and books I have read in the last 10+ years?

Perhaps just the ones you understood. That should make it more manageable.

The above is offered as a genuine effort to reduce tension by introducing a little humour. If you are offended send me a pm, or make a post in the thread and I shall remove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't really see anything of substance worth responding to. You just keep playing these rhetorical games and ignore everything I said about the population sizes and 'species to species' comparison. I don't know what exactly are you trying to achieve with this, especially in the light of supposed whale evolution where it is obvious that only one species with small population sizes had to evolve numerous de novo functions in only 4 million years. Like I already said, you are red herring to divert the discussion.

No biologists or paleontologists who study whale evolution see any issues with the time line.

The evolution of whales

What "de novo functions" do you suppose evolved in those 4 million years that weren't merely adaptations of existing structures.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes there is. Apparently it makes your head hurt.

The scale of complexity is beyond anyone's comprehension.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually, fossils from before this point show that nearly all life forms had soft bodies that would have been unlikely to leave fossils. So what happened is that life forms developed features that were more likely to become fossilised. The ability to develop novel features was always there, but with little chance of becoming fossilised, the evidence was lost.

If this idea is true, then we will see that most fossils from before the Cambrian explosion show generally soft bodied creatures, and after the cambrian explosion, most fossils will be life forms with harder features, like shells. And this is exactly what we find.

Basically what you are saying is, "If I hadn't believed it I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The whole point of my post is to point out that there is a wealth of information out there. You just have to be willing to go and look at it.

Our problem is that we are unable to parse our questions so as to address the deliberate confusion of your answers. For example if I asked where does evolution begin in an organism all I would get is goobledegook for an answer, or I would be told to go read a book about it.