I am trying to be responsive to your question given the current understanding of molecular biology. There are many challenges to common descent with this diagram. One in particular is to model the origin of A B C G. The first transition ie prokaryotic cell to eukaryotic cell has similar challenges.
From your argument that would strike out both fruit fly species as not having shared a common ancestor since they produce infertile male hybrid offspring (and it also invalidates your claim that similar chromosome counts determine fertility between different species). However, that would be a terrible conclusion because it is ridiculously at odds with evidence of shared descent for both fruit fly species.
The paper I cited, which you ignored, documents evidence for the part in bold. Read it:
1 Like
Not at all. I would investigate if you could model a speciation event.
I looked at the paper and agree this could be a speciation event. A single documented speciation event does not entail that all changes are speciation events. Each event needs to be analyzed on its own merits.
A plane that can fly across town cannot necessary fly to the moon.
You are doing very badly at it. So far you have said nothing thatâs relevant to his question. And it was a very simple question: given common descent, what should the numbers on that Venn diagram look like?
Why wonât you try to answer it? If the diagram in its current state is evidence against common descent, there must be some expectation from common descent that the diagram violates, and you ought to be able to articulate that expectation. If you canât, you have no justification for supposing that the diagram violates anything or is evidence against anything.
4 Likes
so what is the average you have heard about? one in a billion? one in million mutations?
Again, non-responsive.
Either give representative values for A through O, or admit that you have no idea whatsoever what pattern would fit common descent.
Those are the only two choices in front of you @colewd. Further hand-waving will not be accepted, particularly given that you appear to have little to no background in molecular biology, so are not really in a position to expound authoritatively on what âchallengesâ it may yield.
Addendum:
Can I take it from this that, under common descent, you would expect A, B, C & G to equal zero? If so, why didnât you state it?
1 Like
Donât be silly. Humans and fruit flies descended from a common ancestor. That descent happened via speciation events running back millions of years ago.
1 Like
One in a billion is not an average, thatâs a ratio. Seems like you need to revisit basic maths.
1 Like
have you noticed that it was a question?. so im asking again: on average, how many mutations we need in order to evolve a new gene in general?
I would expect you could model the origin of A B C G so you could improve your hypothesis that vertebrates share a common ancestor. Since there is no viable model that explains A B C G I see a problem with the hypothesis of common ancestry for this Venn diagram.
It was a badly put question, which confused averages with ratios. Seems like you have taken the correction.
There is no general way to evolve a novel gene and any given number of mutations could suffice to make a new one. Your question is wrongheaded.
Again, that is not an answer to the question I asked.
As such, âthat you have no idea whatsoever what pattern would fit common descentâ would still appear to be the explanation that best fits your behavior.
Addendum:
Under common descent, would you expect A, B, C & G to all be zero, or for some or all of them to be non-zero? (Those really are the only two possibilities.)
1 Like
we do know there are probably something like millions of different functions in nature. right? and they are probably represent only a small fraction of the total number.
Define ânew gene.â
I would expect if they are non zero that there is a model where their origin can be be established by a reproductive model.
Are we still talking about genes? Because AFAIK, genes just sit in the genome waiting for transcription factors to bind their promoters and facilitate their transcription via RNA polymerases. There arenât âmillions of different functions in natureâ for genes.
Certainly not for genes.
If a new gene is just one which is different from the prior gene, it takes one and only one mutation to evolve a new gene. @Rumraket has already replied to this question. I suppose where this is going is that you intend to assert that functions are complex and nature has to go from no function to some particular end function in one bound, which takes hundreds of coordinated mutations, and the odds are one in a greater than all the particles in the universe, ect.
3 Likes
so lets take a specific example: ATP binding. as far as im aware, any binding site which bind ATP needs at least one additional part to be functional. ATP binding site by itself is useless. so if we evolve a new binding site to ATP it should be usless without an extra site. do you agree so far?
You mean one like reproduction with modification? Now why hasnât anybody thought of a model like that?
I will note that you are still carefully avoiding answering my question, so still leave me with no choice but to conclude âthat you have no idea whatsoever what pattern would fit common descentâ.
1 Like
Genes donât have ATP binding sites. I am not surprised you conflated genes with proteins.