Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

[Michael_Okoko]

@Rumraket

@scd

i think that Bill is probably talking about the time that require for few neutral mutations to get a new function. for instance: if we need at least 3 specific amino acids to get a new function

But do we? How do you know?

Evolution can work with whatever number of mutations be they selective or neutral or mixed to gain a new function. Sometimes one mutation is enough to evolve new functions.

How do I know that sometimes one mutation can suffice to confer a new function? @scd read below:

Analysis of all forty strains and their lac operon-activating mutations showed that: 10 ± 5% were already active without any mutation (4/40), 57.5 ± 8% found mutations within the 103 bases of the random sequence (23/40), 12.5 ± 5% found mutations in the intergenic region just upstream to the random sequence (5/40) and 15 ± 6% utilized genomic rearrangements that relocated an existing promoter of genes found upstream to the lac genes (6/40) (Fig. 3a and Supplementary Note 2).

A nice chart summarizing the above statements from the same paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04026-w

@scd

(in many cases we will probably need more than that).

Citations?

@scd

we can calculate the time to get that new function

You can’t. If you feel otherwise, provide citations.

@scd

first, do we agree with that main assumption? if so i will continue.

No.