Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

[Speedwell]

I am not insulting, your arguments and assumptions are really childish. Do you even know what "the existing structure" in the context of a genome is? It is a specific place in the genome. Do you know, given the observed mutation rate, how long does it take for mutation to even hit this specific place once, let alone to add additional code to it and then millions upon millions of changes to turn it into something new and functional. Not to mention that regulatory and controlling code must also change - which is also located in a specific place in the genome. You people really have a childish view of reality and you really live in a in a fantasy world. You think that you can just invoke the magic wand of natural selection and ... voila! Problem solved.

If evolution actually required that to happen, you would have a good argument.

 

[tas8831]

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past.

1. I never said, neither here nor in the article that "all possible genomes are equally likely".
2. Likelihood of a genome has absolutely and literally nothing to do with my arguments.

So, you are just a classical troll.

So, you cannot answer the question and lash out. Classic creationist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am not insulting, your arguments and assumptions are really childish. Do you even know what "the existing structure" in the context of a genome is? It is a specific place in the genome.

By 'existing structures' I was referring to phenotypic structures such as organs, which the article mentioned, e.g. insect wings.

Do you know, given the observed mutation rate, how long does it take for mutation to even hit this specific place once, let alone to add additional code to it and then a series of changes to turn it into something functional. Not to mention that regulatory and controlling code must also change - which is also located in a specific place in the genome.

As has been explained, using the retrospective probability of a specific point in the genome being modified is an obvious error. It is also not a question of 'turning into something functional' with the implication of prior lack of function; the general case is of functional adaptation.

You people really have a childish view of reality and you really live in a in a fantasy world. You think that you can just invoke the magic wand of natural selection and ... voila! Problem solved.

OK... so is it that your superior intellect enables you to see that the consensus of qualified evolutionary biologists and geneticists is wrong, or do you think that they are involved in a conspiracy to conceal the truth - or, perhaps, both?

Just curious...

 

[tas8831]

I am not insulting, your arguments and assumptions are really childish.

Irony.

Do you even know what "the existing structure" in the context of a genome is? It is a specific place in the genome.

A specific place in a genome is called a locus.

Do you know, given the observed mutation rate, how long does it take for a mutation to even hit this specific place once,

How long does it take for a specific person to win the lottery?

let alone to add additional code to it

What does that mean, "add additional code to it"? You mean additional DNA? Surely you've heard of duplications and such?

and then millions upon millions of changes to turn it into something new and functional.

The average length of a protein coding gene is ~8000 bp. Where do you get this "millions upon millions of changes"?
What do you mean "turn it into something new and functional"?

You have denied doing this before, yet this looks EXACTLY like you are arguing for a new protein coding gene from scratch. Have you actually done a literature search on the topic of 'generation of new genes'?

Not to mention that regulatory and controlling code must also change - which is also located in a specific place in the genome.

Why must those change?

Is it your position that both a new gene AND new regulatory sequence is needed for a new function? If so, what is your justification for this?

And do you also post as "leroy"? He has made similar claims that he, too, was unable to support with any evidence.

You people really have a childish view of reality and you really live in a fantasy world. You think that you can just invoke the magic wand of natural selection and ... voila! Problem solved.

Not as childish as the one employing fallacious and unrealistic and inapplicable fantasies to prop up a religious myth.

 

[tas8831]

Every reproduction cycle will result in different genome.

Yes - one that differs (in humans, anyway) from the parental genomes by ~0.00000625%

So, what is your point?

Good question.

 

[tas8831]

2. Likelihood of a genome has absolutely and literally nothing to do with my arguments.

"Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution'

OK...

 

[sfs]

So, you are basically just repeating your empty accusations about the mistakes and tossing around general statements without providing any concrete numbers, without providing any correct calculations about the ratio, without providing numbers that reflect real biology.

No one can provide the correct numbers. No one knows that correct numbers. That doesn't mean we should accept your clearly incorrect number.

In short, without actually demonstrating that my calculations are wrong.

I demonstrated that your calculations make an unreasonable assumption, one that does not model known evolutionary processes.

I am simply saying that given some functional sequence, for e.g. "insect", we must fix some positions to keep meaning of the word.

You are saying that we need to fix a minimum of 1615 positions (because that's the number you actually based your calculation on) in order to obtain a new phenotype. What you are saying is wrong. For example, both Arctic and Antarctic fish needed to develop antifreeze proteins. They convergently evolved such proteins with considerable structural similarity -- but with no sequence similarity, because they evolved from different sources. Different lens proteins have convergently evolved the same optical phenotype, without having any sequence homology.

Your calculation does not allow for these possibilities. Your calculation is therefore wrong.

 

[Contradiction]

No one can provide the correct numbers. No one knows that correct numbers. That doesn't mean we should accept your clearly incorrect number.

I demonstrated that your calculations make an unreasonable assumption, one that does not model known evolutionary processes.

You are saying that we need to fix a minimum of 1615 positions (because that's the number you actually based your calculation on) in order to obtain a new phenotype. What you are saying is wrong. For example, both Arctic and Antarctic fish needed to develop antifreeze proteins. They convergently evolved such proteins with considerable structural similarity -- but with no sequence similarity, because they evolved from different sources. Different lens proteins have convergently evolved the same optical phenotype, without having any sequence homology.

Your calculation does not allow for these possibilities. Your calculation is therefore wrong.

Why didn't you say so from the beginning? I had no idea that you talk about "structural similarity -- but with no sequence similarity".

Ok, let's be very generous to the assumption behind the evolution theory and say that we have trillion (10^12) such instances. This increases the number of functional sequnces by 12 orders of magnitude, i.e. from 10^1,458 to 10^1470, and decreases the number of non-functional sequences form 10^2,431 to 10^2,419. Consequently, the ratio of functional to non-functional drops from 10^973 to 10^949. And now the conclusion is this:

"By determining this ratio we can finally calculate the time required to find the genome with information for insect wings. Previously we have mentioned that Planck’s time is the smallest measurable unit of time. If we assume that organisms can generate new DNA sequences once every Planck time and that their number is equal to the number of atoms comprising the Earth’s total mass, they would be able to generate 10^44*10^50=10^94 different sequences per second or 31556926*10^94=3.16*10^101 different sequences per year. At that speed, the required time would be 10^949/3.16*10^101≈10^847 years. For comparison, our planet Earth was formed only 4.6*10^9 years ago.

As we can see, even with many generous assumptions in favor of the above evolutionary assumption, the time required to find information for a single and super primitive biological structure, is 838 orders of magnitude longer than the time since Earth’s formation."

So, in reality nothing changed and you made all that fuss for nothing. The fact that the library of unrealized genomes is 54,787,348 orders of magnitude greater than the library of realized ones, still renders evolutionary assumption absurd to the point of ridicule.

But hey, it was important to scream: Your calculations are wrong!!, Your calculations are wrong!!, Your calculations are wrong!!...

 

[Contradiction]

"Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution'

OK...

My article talks about the ratio of unrealized to realized genomes and the time required to find information for a single and super primitive biological structure. Neither likelihood nor probability are mentioned in the article.

 

[VirOptimus]

My article talks about the ratio of unrealized to realized genomes and the time required to find information for a single and super primitive biological structure. Neither likelihood nor probability are mentioned in the article.

Submit it for peer-review instead of spamming here if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Jimmy D]

Submit it for peer-review instead of spamming here if you want to be taken seriously.

Surely SFS and Tas are qualified to review the article......

....Which played out rather predictably.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Why didn't you say so from the beginning? I had no idea that you talk about "structural similarity -- but with no sequence similarity".

Ok, let's be very generous to the assumption behind the evolution theory and say that we have trillion (10^12) such instances.

[snip ]

But hey, it was important to scream: Your calculations are wrong!!, Your calculations are wrong!!, Your calculations are wrong!!...

Like many creationist probability calculations, you seem to be just making up numbers and multiplying them together. When you are criticized, you just make up a different number and repeat your error.

You are calculating the odds of creating genes de novo, and ones that have a very specific sequence. You seem to have missed sfs' point completely, that there was no sequence specificity at all for two genes with the same function. Your calculation is assuming massive sequence specificity. What do you get when you substitute 0 for 1615 in your calculations?

 

[tas8831]

Surely SFS and Tas are qualified to review the article......

....Which played out rather predictably.

SFS more so, but yup...

 

[sfs]

Why didn't you say so from the beginning? I had no idea that you talk about "structural similarity -- but with no sequence similarity".

I did. "You calculate the number of ways of coding for insect wings by assuming 3 specific genes are required, and then allowing for a certain amount of slop in those genes. In reality, you have no idea how many different combinations of completely different genes would generate insect wings, but whatever the number is, it's much, much larger than the one you're using." and "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." That's saying the same thing in different words. Maybe you should slow down and try to understand people.

Ok, let's be very generous to the assumption behind the evolution theory and say that we have trillion (10^12) such instances.

Okay, let's not, since that's not generous at all. Let's say that you have 4^1615 possible distinct genes, each of which has a large number of possible versions (the latter of which you've covered by allowing 60% of of sites in the full size genes to vary with no effect). That's 10^972 distinct genes. What you're now saying is that you're being generous to evolution by allowing that 1 distinct gene per 10^960 might contribute to the same phenotype. That's not generous -- that's insanely restrictive.

I suspect your problem is that you're going by intuition here. Allowing for a trillion possible genes that could contribute to a phenotype sounds like a big number to you. But it's not a big number when it's compared to the really, really, really big number of possible proteins.

Regardless, all you've done here is come up with another meaningless, unjustified number and assumed it's an accurate reflection of protein evolution. Manipulating numbers that you made up without any factual basis is not a way of learning anything about the real world.

ETA: technically, I should have written 4^1615 distinct gene sets, since we're treating the sequence as being broken up into 3 genes, but it makes no difference to the calculations whether it's one or three genes.

 

[sfs]

A broader point that should be obvious but isn't: most scientists are not stupid. If you think that, sitting at your keyboard, you've come up with a simple argument that demolishes the life work of tens of thousands of scientists -- you're wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

A broader point that should be obvious but isn't: most scientists are not stupid. If you think that, sitting at your keyboard, you've come up with a simple argument that demolishes the life work of tens of thousands of scientists -- you're wrong.

But, but...The Bible!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

The linked article examines the fundamental assumption behind the theory of evolution by which, just because each new organism has subtly different genome than its parents, this will eventually lead to genomes with information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying structures, such as organs. For that purpose, first it compares two libraries. One library contains ‘realized genomes’ — i.e. all genomes that could have been formed during the entire history of life on Earth. Another library contains ‘unrealized genomes’ — i.e. all possible genomes that a genome of a certain size allows, reduced by the number of realized genomes. Finally, it calculates the waiting time required for finding the genome with information for a single and super primitive bio-structure and it concludes that it would take 10^871 years for that to happen.

P.S. I tried to discuss this here, but that forum is corrupted with atheist fundamentalists who only hide behind science, but would in no way allow any scientific challenges to the evolution theory.

You don’t need any math to disprove evolution.

If I show you a picture of a triceratops, or any creature that existed or exists, why can you immediately identify it?

Because it started fully formed and ended in the exact same form with no change for its entire existence.....

Look at any guide to the identification of fossils. Each of the listed types must be relatively stable — otherwise the pictures and descriptions provided by the guide would be useless. For each type, a guide specifies a particular time range during which that form existed. Outside that range, the type in question is not known to exist. Each type remains identifiable by its description and/or picture over the entire period of its existence, from its first appearance to extinction. The very fact that such guides can be used to identify fossils, then, shows that fossil forms are stable. If the typical fossil form changed gradually over time until it became a new form, then a picture in a guidebook would allow identification of only a particular stage in such a transitional process. Other stages would not match the picture. But, typically, a single picture does in fact suffice to identify a fossil form during any period of its existence. Each particular fossil form is not only recognizably distinct, but also stable in form over the entire period in which it is known to exist. That is, each has a characteristic set of traits retained largely unchanged. Each such form appears in the fossil record at a certain lowermost stratum with its peculiar set of traits that remains stable up to the time of the form's extinction. This is the typical pattern seen in fossils.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You don’t need any math to disprove evolution.

If I show you a picture of a triceratops, or any creature that existed or exists, why can you immediately identify it?

Because it started fully formed and ended in the exact same form with no change for its entire existence.....

Look at any guide to the identification of fossils. Each of the listed types must be relatively stable — otherwise the pictures and descriptions provided by the guide would be useless. For each type, a guide specifies a particular time range during which that form existed. Outside that range, the type in question is not known to exist. Each type remains identifiable by its description and/or picture over the entire period of its existence, from its first appearance to extinction. The very fact that such guides can be used to identify fossils, then, shows that fossil forms are stable. If the typical fossil form changed gradually over time until it became a new form, then a picture in a guidebook would allow identification of only a particular stage in such a transitional process. Other stages would not match the picture. But, typically, a single picture does in fact suffice to identify a fossil form during any period of its existence. Each particular fossil form is not only recognizably distinct, but also stable in form over the entire period in which it is known to exist. That is, each has a characteristic set of traits retained largely unchanged. Each such form appears in the fossil record at a certain lowermost stratum with its peculiar set of traits that remains stable up to the time of the form's extinction. This is the typical pattern seen in fossils.

Lol

No doubt you'll be claiming that you've never been corrected on this claim, but I know @Ophiolite for one has put you straight before.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol

No doubt you'll be claiming that you've never been corrected on this claim, but I know @Ophiolite for one has put you straight before.

Not once as everyone here knows you can identify any triceratops from a single picture and it doesn’t change its entire existence. Nor do any of them. But then I’m not the one that needs point to “missing common ancestors” that don’t exist to set people straight. Lol....

 

[Ophiolite]

Not once [have I been corrected]

If I had $400,000 for each time I've corrected you I would be a multi-millionaire. Unfortunately neither the money, nor your understanding have been forthcoming.

... as everyone here knows you can identify any triceratops from a single picture

You can do this because of everything from photographs of assembled skeletons, through artists impressions, to cartoon representation that is readily available. Lay all these examples side by side and a five year old child will identify them as the the same beast. A skilled vertebrate palaeontologist could bore your death pointing out the many errors in most of these. In short, a stocky quadruped with three horns and a frill is automatically called a Triceratops by anyone exposed to dinosaurs.

... and [the triceratops] doesn’t change its entire existence.

Really? Here are some pointers for you. I expect you will ignore them, claim you have never been corrected and fail to send me my $400,000, but other readers with open minds may find them informative.

1. Triceratops is a genera, not a species. There are at least twoTriceratops species, so your assertion that they "didn't change in their entire existence" is nonsensical, as it implies all Triceratops were the same. See this wikipedia article.
2. There is ongoing debate as to whether the genus Torosaurus was actually a mature form of Triceratops. Here's a thought Justatruthseeker - if shown a picture of a Torosaurus one would say they were looking at a Triceratops. The experts say there are major differences, either due to maturity within a genus, or being a different genus. Yet you claim they all look the same. It just so happens you are completely mistaken - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the experts have imagined these differences. See this paper and included references.
3. More to the point, analysis of fifty or more Triceratops skulls reveals evolutionary change through the Cretaceous, thus completely refuting your assertion that there was no change. See this research.

Your repeated unfounded assertions do you no personal credit, but worse than that they cast doubt on your belief system. If I wished to undermine belief in Christianity then making exactly the sort of assertion you indulge in would be an excellent way of going about it, since making claims that are trivially refuted ruins your credibility on all subjects.