That’s exactly what we would expect from the process of evolution. Due to mutations and common ancestry, every single person is born with a unique genome that has never existed before. The very process of evolution should and does produce unique events because that is what it does.
The lottery produces unique events every single time, and yet we have complete models of how it works. We can’t predict the specific outcome of the next lottery drawing, but does that mean our models don’t work? State and local governments depend on those lottery models for income, and they work. Casinos can’t predict the next roll of the dice, yet they are able to use their models to make a tone of money.
It seems that ID/creationists simply don’t understand what models are nor how they work.
In what possible way do you think this even attempts to answer @John_Harshman’s point? This does nothing to refute the point that you don’t see independent gain of matching sequences. In fact, if such events were common, you wouldn’t have TRGs in the first place!
I do have to wonder if this ever was a real expectation or prediction, that as organisms became more complex there would be a proportional increase in the number of new gene families over the course of time. It seems to be how Stephen Meyer thought things worked in his book about the Cambrian Explosion. But was that ever what actual knowledgeable scientists expected to find?
Bill I don’t recall seeing your mathematical model of how a disembodied mind used magic to create all extant life. Please correct this glaring oversight on your part, thanks!
We shouldn’t see a lack of a phylogenetic signal that sticks out above the noise caused by known mechanisms. We shouldn’t see lineage specific gene deletions and lineage specific gene formation. We shouldn’t see sequence divergence correlate with evolutionary distance.
You have mistaken the scala naturae for an evolutionary scenario.
Yes. We should find that taxa do not display nested hierarchy beyond the clearly visible level of “kind”. We should find that gene losses and, especially, gains don’t fit a nested hierarchy.
De novo genes is a real thing that happens. New genes evolve, though those from that figure appear to have been only tentatively suggested as real based on comparative analysis. What is the problem again?
so what kind of genetic (gene loss\gain) finding will refute evolution?
if evolution doesnt predict a progression then the first animal should be complex as the moden one. so basically it means that the first animal evolved about 20000 genes at once.at least according to this logic.
why? any in any case we will end up with a nested hierarchy, since almost no species have the same set of genes like other species. thus in any case we will get a nested hierarchy. actually we can get a nested hierarchy even under wrong phylogeny (like in the case of morphological tree that contradict the genetical one).
im talking about the pattern of gene loss/gain. there is any theoretical finding that can refute evolution? i dont think so since evolution predict nothing about gene loss.
check out this paper. it can give us a clue about the past:
Evolution predicts descent with modification. Evolution does not predict an ever upwards movement towards what you consider to be more complex. Parasitism has driven many lineages towards less complexity, and that is still evolution.
Why would they have to if their non-animal ancestors already had 20,000 genes?
So am I. We should see a phylogenetic signal for both gene losses and gains.
Does that paper measure the “genetic content” of the sequenced genome of a precambrian worm? I highly doubt it, but if it does, please cite exactly where.
Widespread, independent, identical changes that do not form a nested hierarchy.
Evolution predicts that adaptive variants will be reproductively favored. If a variant increasing complexity is adaptive, then the lineage will become more complex, but that doesn’t make complexity per se a prediction of evolution.
In addition to being wrong, this represents a gross conceptual error about how nested hierarchies work.
It is dishonest to repeat claims you’ve been repeatedly corrected on.
You are very far beyond your competence. Evolution doesn’t predict a progression. Some lineages increase in complexity (assuming that it can even be measured) and some decrease. Some lineages have more genes than others, but the average seems fairly constant. You understand, I hope, that “the first animal” didn’t come from nowhere but descended from a long lineage of protists, and that most genes in that ancestor were inherited from earlier protists.
This is just more evidence that you don’t understand what a nested hierarchy is, despite many attempts to educate you. It’s hard to talk to a person who understands nothing.
Evolution predicts that gene loss will follow a nested hierarchy. If you knew what that meant it would help a little.