Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

[tas8831]

no since i talked about any function vs non function.

So when you wrote this:

"if the chance to get a functional new part is say 1 in a billion, the chance to get any functional system"

you meant the opposite?

 

[xianghua]

Making up a a number with no basis whatever is pretty much the definition of "not a good estimate".

so the chance to get a wing part (say a feather) is higher then 1 billion mutations? if so we should see many humans today with feathers.

 

[Contradiction]

Apparently you missed my point and that's my fault for not being clear.

At this point we have amassed so much evidence that evolution has indeed occurred that any calculation or appeal to statistics which claims to show evolution is impossible can be summarily dismissed.

Why would you even need evidence that evolution has occurred if evolution is a fact? Evolution is defined by mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift. And this processes are factual - we observe them happening. So evolution occurs, it occurred and it will occur -> because mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift occur. You don't have to be smart to figure out something like that.

But, the article is about an entirely different thing. It is about the assumption that just because mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift occur, this will eventually lead to genomes with information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying structures with different shapes, sizes and cellular constituents, or in other words, that starting from the first self-replicating organism, which lacked structures such as eyes, ears, lungs, joints, heart, lungs, gills, brain, RNA splicing machine, etc., these structures came into existence just because mentioned processes were happening. This assumption is falsified by literally every scientific observation ever made, since there were trillions upon trillions observed instances of variations in biological populations, and an enormous number of selection events, but no population ever evolved information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying structures. The article at hand explains why this is the case.

 

[Contradiction]

Your response indicates that you did not understand the criticism. You're talking about allowing replacement within the same three genes. I'm asking how many completely different genes, with no relationship to the three, could have produced a similar phenotype. You have no idea what that number is.

By adding more different genes into the game the library of unrealized genomes becomes bigger, which is much worse for your position. It seems that you did not understand the things stated in the article.

 

[xianghua]

Cool story.

But... Shouldn't it be EASIER to get ANY functional part instead of one specific one?

i actually refer to this.

 

[Contradiction]

Huh...

This from the first page of replies:

"The argument assumes all mutations have an equal probability of being passed to the next generation, which unless the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, is untrue. It also assumes that all mutations are equally likely, which even a rudimentary understanding of the translation of codons into amino would provide, not to mention the processes of exaptation, recombination, chromosomal duplication, gene regulation, codon usage bias, horizontal gene transfer, etc.

Honestly, the flaws in the argument are numerous, foundational and show a very poor grasp of basic genetics. I mean even in the first sentence, it describes the first life form as "amoeba-like". Amoeba are eukaryotes. "​

Seems that your depiction of the exchanges were inaccurate.

My argument assumes nothing about mutations but it just states one simple fact: every reproduction cycle results is a subtly different genome. That is all. So, the guy you are referring to simply copy/pasted some stuff completely unrelated to my argument.

 

[USincognito]

It seems that you did not understand the things stated in the article.

LOL I love reading stuff like this from newbies.

 

[sfs]

By adding more different genes into the game the library of unrealized genomes becomes bigger, which is much worse for your position.

Your library of unrealized genomes already contains all possible sets of three genes of the specified length: "the total number of possible DNA sequences(4^4,038)". So, no, considering other sets of three genes that could create the same phenotype has no effect on the size of the library of unrealized genomes. You decided that only versions of these three genes could produce the given phenotype, with no justification whatsoever.

 

[Contradiction]

Your library of unrealized genomes already contains all possible sets of three genes of the specified length: "the total number of possible DNA sequences(4^4,038)". So, no, considering other sets of three genes that could create the same phenotype has no effect on the size of the library of unrealized genomes. You decided that only versions of these three genes could produce the given phenotype, with no justification whatsoever.

But, other sets of three genes are ... genes. If 10^1,458 different genes could create the same phenotype, then they include all other sets of three genes. You are making a Red Herring argument.

 

[tas8831]

i actually refer to this.

I can't tell what you refer to half the time.

1 in 10^27 is much smaller than 1 in 10^9.

 

[tas8831]

My argument assumes nothing about mutations but it just states one simple fact: every reproduction cycle results is a subtly different genome. That is all. So, the guy you are referring to simply copy/pasted some stuff completely unrelated to my argument.

By subtly you mean it differs from the parental genomes by about 0.00000625%.

 

[tas8831]

But, other sets of three genes are ... genes. If 10^1,458 different genes could create the same phenotype, then they include all other sets of three genes. You are making a Red Herring argument.

And you are making a....?

 

[sfs]

But, other sets of three genes are ... genes.

Right. Many of which you haven't counted as possible.

If 10^1,458 different genes could create the same phenotype, then they include all other sets of three genes.

Huh? You restricted the phenotype to a set of genes that have a single, specific DNA sequence at 1615 positions. In fact, all you're doing is calculating 1/(1615^4) and declaring that to be a small number. The vast majority of three gene sets do not have that DNA sequence. Many of those three gene sets could also code for the same phenotype (in this cartoon world).

You are making a Red Herring argument.

You don't seem to understand your own calculation.

 

[pitabread]

so the chance to get a wing part (say a feather) is higher then 1 billion mutations? if so we should see many humans today with feathers.

Just stop. You're in way over your head and just posting strawman arguments.

 

[Contradiction]

Right. Many of which you haven't counted as possible.

Huh? You restricted the phenotype to a set of genes that have a single, specific DNA sequence at 1615 positions. In fact, all you're doing is calculating 1/(1615^4) and declaring that to be a small number. The vast majority of three gene sets do not have that DNA sequence. Many of those three gene sets could also code for the same phenotype (in this cartoon world).

You don't seem to understand your own calculation.

If we say that this sequence: "insect" is analogous to DNA sequence in my article, that it codes for insect wings, and then I assume that 50 percent of random changes to it, will still code for the same phenotype — insect wings, then, given the English alphabet, this gives 26^3= 17,576 different sequences. Then you come along with this objection: "many of the six letter words, could also code for the same phenotype. *staff edit* — more then 17K of them. So, like I have said, you are making a Red Herring argument.

 

[sfs]

If we say that this sequence: "insect" is analogous to DNA sequence in my article, that it codes for insect wings, and then I assume that 50 percent of random changes to it, will still code for the same phenotype — insect wings, then, given the English alphabet, this gives 26^3= 17,576 different sequences. Then you come along with this objection: "many of the six letter words, could also code for the same phenotype. *staff edit*— more then 17K of them.

If you slow down and try to understand you may be able to avoid continuing to embarrass yourself -- the concepts are not hard. In this analogy, I am not saying that many of those 17,576 different sequences could code for the same phenotype. I am saying that, in addition to those 18k sequences, many of the sequences that you are not considering, by keeping 3 letters fixed, could also code for the same phenotype.

In your calculation, you are keeping 40% of positions fixed; only DNA that has the right sequence in those 1615 (=40% of 4038 positions) can possibly code for the phenotype. The other 60% of positions make no difference to the phenotype in your model and we can ignore them. You have no justification for thinking that 1615 positions with a unique sequence of DNA are required for this phenotype, and in reality that's not how proteins work -- there are typically an immense number of different proteins with no sequence identity -- that can perform the same function.

 

[Contradiction]

If you slow down and try to understand you may be able to avoid continuing to embarrass yourself -- the concepts are not hard. In this analogy, I am not saying that many of those 17,576 different sequences could code for the same phenotype. I am saying that, in addition to those 18k sequences, many of the sequences that you are not considering, by keeping 3 letters fixed, could also code for the same phenotype.

In your calculation, you are keeping 40% of positions fixed; only DNA that has the right sequence in those 1615 (=40% of 4038 positions) can possibly code for the phenotype. The other 60% of positions make no difference to the phenotype in your model and we can ignore them. You have no justification for thinking that 1615 positions with a unique sequence of DNA are required for this phenotype, and in reality that's not how proteins work -- there are typically an immense number of different proteins with no sequence identity -- that can perform the same function.

Your words make no sense. I we have 4 possible sequences: "00", "01" , "10", "11", and then we assume that 2 are functional, i.e. phenotype coding ones, and 2 are not, this is completely irrelevant to the question how they work. We are simply expressing the ratio of functional to non-functional.
So, you are the one who embarrass yourself with these constant red herrings.

 

[sfs]

Your words make no sense. I we have 4 possible sequences: A="00", B="01" , C="10", D="11", and then we assume that 2 are functional, i.e. phenotype coding ones, and 2 are not, this is completely irrelevant to the question how they work. We are simply expressing the ratio of functional to non-functional.

I'm challenging your assumption that a single, unique sequence of DNA at 1615 positions would be required for a given phenotype. Your only justification for this assumption is . . . that it's what you're assuming. Your calculation then consists of nothing but determining that hitting upon a particular string of 1615 DNA bases by chance is unlikely, which is kind of obvious. What is your basis for assuming that only that string of DNA could generate your phenotype?

So, you are the one who embarrass yourself with these constant red herrings.

One of us knows a lot more about genetics than the other. Wanna guess which is which?

 

[Contradiction]

You are challenging nothing, because by keeping 1615 bases fixed I am simply determining the number of functional sequences (10^1,458), and not the odds of hiting a single, unique sequence of DNA. My calculation then consists of determining the ratio of functional to non-funacional sequences, and comparing it to the maximal computational capacity of Earth and the entire observable universe.

I don't know about your knowledge of genetics but the ratio of functional to non-functional sequences has nothing to do with genetics. It simply expresses the fact that some sequences code and some don't code for a particular phenotype.

 

[VirOptimus]

You are challenging nothing, because by keeping 1615 bases fixed I am simply determining the number of functional sequences (10^1,458), and not the odds of hiting a single, unique sequence of DNA. My calculation then consists of determining the ratio of functional to non-funacional sequences, and comparing it to the maximal computational capacity of Earth and the entire observable universe.

I don't know about your knowledge of genetics but the ratio of functional to non-functional sequences has nothing to do with genetics. It simply expresses the fact that some sequences code and some don't code for a particular phenotype.

Write an article for peer-review. If you cant, your views dont matter.