the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

We need 1, at minimum, from a cell that can respond to heat.

no since in this case it will be a light detector but it will not be able to translate it into the creature.

 

[PsychoSarah]

no since in this case it will be a light detector but it will not be able to translate it into the creature.

It will, because the light stimulates a response to heat in a localized spot, which is distinct from how the cell would react to heat all across it, as only that location will be compensating for it. 1 mutation.

 

[xianghua]

It will, because the light stimulates a response to heat in a localized spot, which is distinct from how the cell would react to heat all across it, as only that location will be compensating for it. 1 mutation.

can you give any reference for a case that its functional only with a light detector by itself? again: it will not wotk. its like adding to a robot a light detector without any system that can translate it. it will not work.

 

[PsychoSarah]

can you give any reference for a case that its functional only with a light detector by itself? again: it will not wotk. its like adding to a robot a light detector without any system that can translate it. it will not work.

Euglena. Don't be distracted by the red spot, that's actually the nucleus. The eyespot is at the base of the "tail". When the eyespot is stimulated, the "tail" is stimulated to move, and the cell goes towards the light. https://classconnection.s3.amazonaw...977795/jpg/euglena_1_-141766971300B4BB280.jpg

 

[xianghua]

Euglena. Don't be distracted by the red spot, that's actually the nucleus. The eyespot is at the base of the "tail". When the eyespot is stimulated, the "tail" is stimulated to move, and the cell goes towards the light. https://classconnection.s3.amazonaw...977795/jpg/euglena_1_-141766971300B4BB280.jpg

actually this eyespot contain about 200 different parts:

Eyespot apparatus - Wikipedia

"Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins.[6]"

as i said: it will be impossible to evolve even a minimal light detector stepwise.

 

[Kylie]

impossible stepwise. yep.

So if we don't know how something could be done, that means it is impossible.

That's the argument from incredulity, and it is a logical fallacy.

 

[xianghua]

So if we don't know how something could be done, that means it is impossible.

That's the argument from incredulity, and it is a logical fallacy.

it base on something we do know and not about something we dont know. and we do know that we need at least 2-3 parts to begin with. this is what the evidence tell us.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

and we do know that we need at least 2-3 parts to begin with. this is what the evidence tell us.

No, we don't. We know that we need 2-3 parts to achieve the outcome we have. That does not mean we need 2-3 parts to evolve simultaneously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

not realy:

The Escherichia coli Citrate Carrier CitT: a Member of a Novel Eubacterial Transporter Family Related to the 2-Oxoglutarate/Malate Translocator from Spinach Chloroplasts

"Under anoxic conditions, E. coli can utilize citrate if an oxidizable cosubstrate is present"

"under anoxic conditions".
In the lenski experiment, E Coli evolved aerobic growth on citrate.

You're in way over your head dude.

 

[xianghua]

"under anoxic conditions".
In the lenski experiment, E Coli evolved aerobic growth on citrate.

You're in way over your head dude.

so what? its still has the proteins that are able to use citrate. so as i said: just the regulation has been changed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, we don't. We know that we need 2-3 parts to achieve the outcome we have. That does not mean we need 2-3 parts to evolve simultaneously.

Unfortunately, we have told Xianghua that many times but he ( or the robot that keeps repeating these posts under his name) just ignores it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so what?

So that paper does not support your claim.

just the regulation has been changed.

Indeed. Changed.

 

[xianghua]

So that paper does not support your claim.

no. it doesnt support your claim that it could not digest citrate before this experiment.

Indeed. Changed.

if you consider any change as evolution then even if all creatures were created at once evolution is still true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

actually this eyespot contain about 200 different parts:

Eyespot apparatus - Wikipedia

"Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins.[6]"

as i said: it will be impossible to evolve even a minimal light detector stepwise.

And you are assuming that none of those proteins do anything anywhere else in the cell, which is highly unlikely.

By the way, I like how you cut out the part of the Wiki that comes right before that:
"The most critical eyespot proteins are the photoreceptor proteins that sense light. The photoreceptors found in unicellular organisms fall into two main groups: flavoproteins and retinylidene proteins (rhodopsins). Flavoproteins are characterized by containing flavin molecules as chromophores, whereas retinylidene proteins contain retinal. The photoreceptor protein in Euglena is likely a flavoprotein.[3] In contrast, Chlamydomonas phototaxis is mediated by archaeal-type rhodopsins."

Oh, what do you know, 1 protein for sensing light. How very, very interesting, that all the other structures in an eyespot contribute to different functions (such as signaling the flagella movement) or cover functions the cell just needs in general, such as metabolism. Who could have guessed that a part of a cell would have structural proteins in it? Is my sarcasm being laid thick enough?

1 mutation, and that photoreceptor protein is produced.

 

[stevevw]

You know how evoution works, right? Randomly distributed variation followed by natural selection. Each "part" varies from individual to individual and natural selection favors the variation which works best. But the "natural" in natural selection is not just the environment external to the creature. It also includes related biological systems within the creature, such that a particular variation of part A which works well with a particular variation of part B will be selected, while a variation of part A which does not work so well with part B will not. So, no, it's not like two people working a puzzle on opposite sides of the world. It's like two people working a puzzle together.

Mutations are the source of genetic variation, so natural selection does act on mutation.

• Mutation is the source for new genetic variation: Genetic variation is brought about by random mutation. Without mutation, genetic variation cannot occur.

Mutations and Genetic Variation - Evolution

It really doesn’t matter if variation comes from mutations or recombination the point is the basic idea of Neo-Darwinian evolution is that it is not directed. So, when a new feature requires more than one component change and therefore multiple mutations it cannot know what is needed ahead of time to ensure the right next step (component) is mutated to even be selected. Natural selection does not know either what is vital and needed to ensure that feature is complete or that a certain mutation will be detrimental if added. What may be beneficial one generation can be harmful the next becuase selection has no long term direction.

There are more chances a non-beneficial or negative mutation will be put forward into the already delicately balanced complex working system and therefore undermine the entire system. So the more complex a system is the more of a danger the blind and random process of Neo Darwinian evolution is in undermining already good working complex organisms. That is why it makes more sense to support the mechanism below that have been made available to specifically help life adapt by using what is already available in genetic info within living things and enviroments rather than pinning hopes on some blind and random process in the hope of finding the right stuff to adapt and survive. It is the way life was created.

Second here is the support for what you claim is untrue which I already posted earlier.

As stated it is the non-adaptive processes I have already mentioned which are either already part of a creature’s mechanism to change such as with biological development, come through mechanisms such as HGT, symbiosis, extra genetic inheritance, plasticity and epigenetics or through non-adaptive mechanisms like drift, mutation and recombination. Natural selection is only a minor player in the overall scheme of things and only acts after the feature has been created to refine things ie does not create skin but can determine its colour and hair thickness etc to protect against the sun and weather for example.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. 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. For the EES, they are also causes.

Valuable insight into the causes of adaptation and the appearance of new traits comes from the field of evolutionary developmental biology (‘evo-devo’). Some of its experimental findings are proving tricky to assimilate into SET. Particularly thorny is the observation that much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others3.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Developmental Evolutionary Biology (evo-devo):
Molecular data show that most animals, ―...no matter how different in appearance, share several families of genes that regulate major aspects of body pattern.

We are only beginning to understand how the environment influences gene expression (activating or repressing genes) at different stages of development (see Adams 2008, Lobo 2008, and Philips 2008).

In short, systemic, integrative, and ecological studies of mutualisms such as parasitism and symbiosis will flourish under this paradigm, forcing a reconsideration of basic units and hierarchies (e.g. see Michod 1999 and Vermeij 1994).
http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=anth_fac

The Evolution of Genetic Networks by Non-Adaptive Processes
This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...of_Genetic_Networks_by_Non-Adaptive_Processes

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics.
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that 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. 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. 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.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. - PubMed - NCBI

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
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. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. 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.

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? (natural selection my emphasis) No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).

Thus, contrary to popular belief, natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity, but population-genetic environments that maximize the efficiency of natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full.pdf

 

[DogmaHunter]

no. it doesnt support your claim that it could not digest citrate before this experiment.

Except that it does.
Did you not read the post?

aerobic vs anoxic

They are not the same thing.

if you consider any change as evolution then even if all creatures were created at once evolution is still true.

That's actually correct. Evolution factually happens. Regardless of how first life began.

 

[xianghua]

Oh, what do you know, 1 protein for sensing light.

this is just what i said actually: one part to detect light (photoreceptor) and another part to translate it for the creature. so again we are talking about at least 2 different parts for a minimal sense of light.

 

[PsychoSarah]

this is just what i said actually: one part to detect light (photoreceptor) and another part to translate it for the creature. so again we are talking about at least 2 different parts for a minimal sense of light.

-_- you say that as if the protein by itself can't trigger a response, or that the proteins that work with it are exclusive to it.

 

[xianghua]

Except that it does.
Did you not read the post?

aerobic vs anoxic

They are not the same thing.

sure. but this isnt what you said here: "Before the change, they could not digest citrate"

That's actually correct. Evolution factually happens. Regardless of how first life began.

no. i talking about all creatures created at once wihtout any common descent. according to your criteria even if its true evolution is still true. you dont see any problem with that situation?

 

[Skreeper]

no. i talking about all creatures created at once wihtout any common descent. according to your criteria even if its true evolution is still true. you dont see any problem with that situation?

Evolution
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

There is nothing in that definition that conflicts with the creation of the first organisms by a deity.