Anything that we observed = simple.
Complex = what hasn’t been observed yet
/s
6 Likes
so? its still a small change.
if we assume that the chance to get a single component is one in a million mutations, then the chance to get IC system which contain 10 different components is 1000000^10. or 10^60, and we can predict that it will not evolve even once in the entire history of animals.
And we should assume that because…?
I mean, inherent to that assumption is that there is one way and one way only to do a thing (wrong), that you have to try out each potential way one at a time (wrong), and that the required mutations must occur sequentially in a single lineage instead of recombining together (wrong).
But you did provide a prediction. What happens when we observe the evolution of such a system? Does that falsify the hypothesis?
4 Likes
Do you understand the implications of sexual reproduction and combinatorial mixing? See my comment art #214.
3 Likes
There is nothing small about copying a 480 bp long gene and placing it in another part of the genome intact.
I repeat, whether an IC system was brought about by few or many interacting parts, no one cares. What matters is whether it evolved and AFAIK that has been experimentally demonstrated in a number of instances.
4 Likes
Can you show any larger changes, at the molecular level, that distinguish humans from chimps?
1 Like
yep. if for instance we will see evolution of the flagellum in real time- it will be very hard to explain it without evolution.
what is so complex in gene duplication? if a take a spare wheel and put it in the front of the car, is that mean that i added a complex new system to the car?
probably the changes which are related to the abillity to speak.
It is arguable that chimps already have the capacity for speech (calls and signs), they just aren’t as good at it as humans.
1 Like
Then we need on average 10 million mutations to get 10 components.
If we get 1 with 1 million mutations, we get 10 with 10 million mutations.
Dude what? LOL. No.
2 Likes
There was a gene duplication and relocation of that gene duplicate to another part of genome without breaking it. The gene duplicate now under the control of a new regulatory module, in concert with other mutations, produced the IC citrate-eating ability. That is no small feat.
This analogy is irrelevant within the context of our discourse. For the umpteenth time, no one cares if an IC system emerged from simple or complex changes. All we care is about whether they can evolve and the answer is yes.
The analogy is even bunk. If you have four functioning tires and you put the spare “in front of the car” (whatever that means), you don’t get an IC system, because you can take away the spare tire and the car still functions smoothly. We are discussing experimentally observed IC systems, so stick to the topic.
Its even annoying you think the complexity of gene duplication event is mechanistically similar to changing a tire. Not only do you need to learn basic evolutionary theory, you need to add in basic nucleic acid biochemistry.
2 Likes
I asked at the molecular level. Can you identify any protein structures that meet Behe’s definition of IC and give us the ability to speak, that are not present in chimps?
2 Likes
What about…
The evolution of placentas in previously oviparous lizards?
The evolution of extracellular transmission via liposomes in archaeal plasmids?
Animals acquiring plastids via secondary endosymbiosis?
A novel irreducible biochemical function in an HIV gene?
I could go on, but I’m sure everyone gets the idea. Why does that one specific thing falsify the hypothesis, but not all this other stuff that we have directly observed?
2 Likes
Cc: @scd
We could add the fossil record of the mammalian middle ear where we can see this IC system evolving in steps:
Without the interconnected stapes, incus, and malleus in the mammalian middle ear we wouldn’t have the ability to hear, and we can see two of those bones being added step by step in the fossil record.
6 Likes
ok, but its not complex as human language. so far we never seen an ape that is able to speak and understand what it is saying.
not if they depends on each other, for that is what I was talking about.
if we will remove the Cit+ gene the bacteria will die?
but this is very similar: you just take an existing components and put it in other part of the genome\car to get a new function. so yes, the analogy is great.
hard to tell without any experiment. but we do know that from other creatures by knock-out experiments.
because all of these examples involve simple changes, and not a new complex biological system.
i can show you the same with designed objects (and we have few other problems with your fig by the way):
(image from https://www.vdi-wissensforum.de/en/event/nutzfahrzeuge/)
Oh? Extracellular plasmid transmission is less complex than flagella? Placental development is less complex than flagella? Endosymbiosis? Just taking that last one, you need to regulate metabolic interactions (don’t digest the whole thing!), DNA integration into the host genome, protein trafficking back to the plastid, expression of horizontally-acquired genes, selective gene loss from the plastid genome and the accompanying changes in gene regulation, and that’s just off the top of my head. That’s just a “simple” change?
How many changes, specifically, are required to go from the ancestral states to the derived states in each case, and what number is the threshold for “complex”?
1 Like
Ahh so if you just keep piling on made up conditions you have no idea whether correspond to anything in reality, then you can construct a scenario in your head where some entity X couldn’t evolve.
Wow, how penetrating and insightful. How can science hope to stand against this frontal assault on reason and logic?
2 Likes
No, they also won’t die if we remove the flagellum, or indeed any particular part of it.
2 Likes
How is that a meaningful response to @T_aquaticus ?
ID/creationist: You can’t show me a step by step process by which an IC system can evolve.
Evolutionist: Sure I can. Here is an IC system and you can see the step by step process in these fossils.
ID/creationist: That doesn’t count.
Go figure. Reminds me of Charlie Brown:
6 Likes
Please describe these knock-out experiments that were done in other creatures, and how these have demonstrated the existence of protein structures in humans that meet Behe’s definition for IC, which give us the ability to speak, and are not present in chimps.
1 Like