No. They can still utilize glucose as a carbon source.
This question is pointless. The citrate-eating ability is controlled by an IC system. Take away any part and it ceases to function.
This is false, terribly false. There is nothing mechanistically similar between swapping positions of parts of a car and a gene duplication event.
Removing your car tires and attaching them to your engine or removing the engine, breaking it up and fixing it to other parts of the car destroys the car function. In contrast, when a gene gets duplicated, one copy of the gene can remain under strong purifying selection keeping it function, while the other may acquire new functions, retain the old function or suffer loss of function due to degradative mutations.
im sure that we have no problem to expain it by small changes. lets take the placenta case. can you elaborate on this specific case and on how many mutations we are talking about?
depends on the specific case. there is of course a difference between evolution in bacteia and evolution in animals for instance.
do you agree with me that It makes sense to assume that a new components (such as new anatomical trait) might evolve once in a billion mutations?
actually we arent sure that this is even IC system, or to quote from talkorigin:
“In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions”.
" In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear ".
in addition, you are talking about the anatomical leve. while we need to test it at the genetic level, which is very different.
it doesnt. since we are talking about other species, so this is only relevant to them.
the same is true with my car example: take away the wheel and you will remove the car protection.
no problem. we can talk about a car with DNA, which is able to reproduce. in this case the analogy is even better. so do you think that such a car can evolve stepwise? in addition, do you think that such a car will be evidence for design?
It is IC. If you remove any of the three bones the middle ear stops functioning. The fossils show how two jawbones moved into the middle ear, step by step.
And you’re equally sure we cannot do so for flagella? I see.
See why people don’t take this line of reasoning seriously? The boundaries seem completely arbitrary. I asked you to quantify a distinction you made, and you responded by repeating the assertion that the distinction is valid. How are you drawing that conclusion?
That’s why the question was pointless. I never denied a car is IC when considering the parts that make it functional, neither did you deny the citrate-eating ability was caused by an IC system, so there was never a need to bring it up.
We are talking about an actual IC system which evolved in Richard Lenski’s laboratory decades ago. This evolution happened in an actual organism with DNA and the ability to reproduce. Your imaginary car with DNA is just irrelevant.
By that assumption, it takes two billion mutations to evolve two new components, three billion mutations to evolve three new components, and so on and so forth.
again, how many mutations are needed for that evolution? in addition, all the three bones were already present in the primitive synapsid.
maybe because they are atheists, or they dont realy thought about it or something else. i dont know.
in the same way you conclude that your PC is the result of design.
so we will need many mutations to evolve a new trait which reuires 3-4 match parts. in this case it will be nearly impossible to evolve a new system in animals.
its actually very relevant since it shows why there are no small steps in living things. so unless you can refute the analogy there is no reason to think its wrong.
not if they depends on each other. in this case we will need 10^18 mutations to evolve a two-parts system.
You missed the point, you need to demonstrate that it actually takes that many mutations.
There would be 1500 in mice alone, maybe 25k in flies, and as many as 10 trillion in nematodes. And the previously mentioned 3.7E21 in bacteria. That’s a lot. So if you want to say it’s impossible, I’m going to need to see your math.
So 10 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacterial mutations per day?. Guess it’s not exactly impossible, is it?
There are no cars with DNA or reproductive ability. Get out of dreamland. Don’t bother replying me, because I won’t reciprocate until you show some seriousness.
im sure that if you will ask him he will ask you about the molecular change.
lets start with that simple observation: there are almost 8 billion people in the world, and we never seen someone who evolved a beginning of a new organ/anatomical trait. thus we can conclude that the chance to get a new anatomical trait should be lower than one in 8 billion births. do you agree with that number so far?
Lactase persistence is a new anatomical trait which independently evolved at least twice in the last 8000 years. You may want to research before making such silly proclamations.
That’s complete nonsense. Note that I’m not even saying it’s wrong, I’m saying it is so incoherent that’s whether or not it is true can’t even be evaluated.
Our kidneys are our third set of kidneys - our pronephros and mesonephros which develop and regress are relics of our common ancestry with fish and amphibians.
If these are insufficient for you, then we have six fingered families living today
Tbx5 is molecular evidence that our four chambered hearts evolved from 3 chambers.
Reptiles with three chambered hearts express tbx5 throughout their single ventricle.
Mammals, by restricting tbx5 to the left, creates two separate ventricles.
Turtles , somewhere in between in terms of restriction of tbx5 with a gradient of it across the ventricle, has a so called “three and a half chambered heart”.
The “complex structures cannot evolve” argument is a frequent argument that is used by creationists. A relatively recent one from ICR in 2018 claimed with their article “Phenomenally Designed Hemoglobin” in BIG colored letters
“Haemloglobin has always been haemoglobin - there is no evidence it evolved”.
Unfortunately, their article, which seems to imply some sort of irreducible complexity argument, has been refuted by recent research and study - haemoglobin evolved from an ancestral ancMH monomer, to homodimer, to heterodimer to our current tetrameric haemoglobin.
