Video: Randomness vs Evolution

[xianghua]

But a cellphone can work even if it lacks a part that is essential for it to be a cellphone. Take out the radio and it can no longer make phone calls. But it can still work just fine as a calculator. Or a voice recorder.

no problem. but if you want to make it a cell-phone from non cellphone (say a calculator) then you cant do that is small steps. you can just add a single part to a calculator and get a cell-phone.

 

[Kylie]

no problem. but if you want to make it a cell-phone from non cellphone (say a calculator) then you cant do that is small steps. you can just add a single part to a calculator and get a cell-phone.

And who in the world is saying that evolution has to be just adding a single part? You are not arguing against evolution, you are arguing against your strawman of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

<snip>

now, if we had only the site that bind amino acid it will be useless, since we dont have the site that bind a trna and vice versa. so we need at least 2 new binding sites to evolve such a protein from other protein that make other function.

This doesn't address the question though, which was supporting your claim that 100+ changes need to happen all at once.

You seem to think that protein function is an all-or-nothing affair. When in fact proteins can undergo functional changes, have multiple functions, and have varying degrees of functions. How do you account for that in your claim that 100+ changes are required to happen in a single step?

 

[xianghua]

And who in the world is saying that evolution has to be just adding a single part?

so where is your limit? 2 parts at once? 3?

 

[xianghua]

This doesn't address the question though, which was supporting your claim that 100+ changes need to happen all at once.

You seem to think that protein function is an all-or-nothing affair. When in fact proteins can undergo functional changes, have multiple functions, and have varying degrees of functions. How do you account for that in your claim that 100+ changes are required to happen in a single step?

do you understood why we need at least 2 new binding sites to evolve the protein above? remember: a single binding site will not work.

 

[Speedwell]

so where is your limit? 2 parts at once? 3?

Why would there be a limit?

 

[xianghua]

Why would there be a limit?

because otherwise it will not be a stepwise (evolution) anymore.

 

[Speedwell]

because otherwise it will not be a stepwise (evolution) anymore.

Why not? There is certainly no reason that two or more parts of a complex system cannot evolve stepwise in parallel.

 

[pitabread]

do you understood why we need at least 2 new binding sites to evolve the protein above? remember: a single binding site will not work.

But do you really need that for such proteins to evolve? You're making a lot of assertions about how you *think* things should evolve, but you're actually supporting this in any way.

On top of that, the particular example you chose isn't a single protein. Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase represents a group of enzymes. There are over a thousand that have been identified in different organisms. See this database here: http://rose.man.poznan.pl/aars/ And on top of that, a number of them are multi-functional: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28271488

Getting back to your original assertion your claim is that in order to evolve a particular protein, that a hundred more changes would be required to do so in a single step. Can you support that claim?

 

[Kylie]

so where is your limit? 2 parts at once? 3?

Or maybe something that already exists being used for a new purpose. Like hands that evolved for swinging through trees being used to manipulate tools, or feathers that evolved for warmth being used for flight, or a swim bladder being used for breathing, etc...

 

[xianghua]

On top of that, the particular example you chose isn't a single protein. Aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase represents a group of enzymes.

sure, but everyone of them has at least 2 binding sites: one to a trna and one to a specific amino acid.

And on top of that, a number of them are multi-functional:

it make it even worse. now we need to believe that not only we need to evolve a protein that can bind amino acid to a trna, but its also need to do other things. so 2 different functions at once instead of just one. the chance is even lower.

Getting back to your original assertion your claim is that in order to evolve a particular protein, that a hundred more changes would be required to do so in a single step. Can you support that claim?

this is what the evidence shows. we dont have any evidence that there is stepwise between 2 very different proteins. so why to believe against the evidence?

 

[pitabread]

it make it even worse. now we need to believe that not only we need to evolve a protein that can bind amino acid to a trna, but its also need to do other things. so 2 different functions at once instead of just one. the chance is even lower.

It's not a problem at all. The issue here is that you seem to think that such enzymes evolved for the specific purpose of serving these functions; this is emphasized in your use of the phrase "need to do other things".

When in fact the outcomes aren't predetermined, it just happens to be a thing that happened.

You also still seem to believe that all of that needs to happen in a single step (which you still haven't provided any support for). Certainly if one needed to evolve a protein to serve multiple functions in a single step that required a significant number of changes, that would be a huge problem. But nobody thinks that is how such things evolved.

this is what the evidence shows. we dont have any evidence that there is stepwise between 2 very different proteins. so why to believe against the evidence?

Is that all your claim boils down to? Claiming there isn't evidence for something and therefore it can't happen?

Look like all you have is an argument from ignorance.

I guess you can't support your claim after all...

 

[xianghua]

Is that all your claim boils down to? Claiming there isn't evidence for something and therefore it can't happen?

first: im going by the evidence we have, why you rejecting these evidence?

second: you can think about that too: say that we have 10 possible functional proteins in a sequence space of about 10^100. what is the chance that all the 10 functional sequences will be near each other in that huge space?

 

[Kylie]

first: im going by the evidence we have, why you rejecting these evidence?

It seems to me that you are going by both your misunderstanding of the evidence and your misunderstanding of how evolution actually works.

 

[pitabread]

first: im going by the evidence we have, why you rejecting these evidence?

What evidence? You haven't presented anything other than unsupported claims combined with an argument from ignorance.

You don't have anything.

second: you can think about that too: say that we have 10 possible functional proteins in a sequence space of about 10^100. what is the chance that all the 10 functional sequences will be near each other in that huge space?

I'm not entertaining a hypothetical example that is not substantiated by anything.

You need to support your claim with something better. Can you do that or are we done here?

 

[xianghua]

It seems to me that you are going by both your misunderstanding of the evidence and your misunderstanding of how evolution actually works.

you are welcome to answer my question kylie. do you think that we can make a cell-phone stepwise? if not why do you think that its possible with a biological system?

 

[Speedwell]

you are welcome to answer my question kylie. do you think that we can make a cell-phone stepwise? if not why do you think that its possible with a biological system?

Do you think we can bake a cake with a hammer? If not, why do you think we can drive a nail with it?

 

[Kylie]

you are welcome to answer my question kylie. do you think that we can make a cell-phone stepwise? if not why do you think that its possible with a biological system?

No.

It's possible with a biological system because biological systems do things that mobile phone components don't do - they reproduce and have offspring that are not the same as the parents.

This fact has been told to you many times. Why do you ignore it?

 

[Kylie]

Do you think we can bake a cake with a hammer? If not, why do you think we can drive a nail with it?

You should see my cooking. My cakes can be used to drive nails.

 

[xianghua]

No.

It's possible with a biological system because biological systems do things that mobile phone components don't do - they reproduce and have offspring that are not the same as the parents.

so if we had a self replicating molecule it can evolve into a cell-phone? show me how in stepwise.