Generally speaking, the goal for me is not to argue against evolution, but to explore the possibility of it; even if evolution is possible or indeed true, scientists simply expect it to be true, and do not teach it in a way that satisfies my need for a simple, understandable and gapless understanding of the subject. This enrages me. If there is a gap in the theory, theach the gap, dammit. If there is no gap, do not put a gap there by not explaining som concepts simply because you think that they are too difficult for the general public. So that’s my thinking.
I have a bunch of questions, and the answers to these questions would make teaching evolution Gapless in my opinion.
1.What is the force that makes a new gene evolve?
2.What is the number of potential targets for the sequence of this new gene, or in other words how many ways there are to realize this as yet nonexistent new function that the organism needs?
3.In an organism, what is the nuber of potential places that this new gene can come from?
4.What is the average number of steps from potential precursor to potential target that evolution needs to take randomly Before selection can kick in?
The icefish is a good example because
- It needed to have an antifreeze gene.
- There is a large number of proteins that can act as an antifreeze.
- I don’t know the answer to this one. It makes me angry when scientists skip the “I don’t know” part of explaining their science.
- The way the antifreeze gene was realized shows us that there was a small nuber of steps that the precursor needed to take before it could perform this useful new function.
So even though I didn’t use numbers here I can envision that, at least in theory, these numbers could be calculated, thereby giving us the exact probability of the icefish gene evolving. Man I’d have massive respect if they tried to do that in every case.