Strong evidence that a search algorithm can find high functionality in an astronomically large search space

[Michael_Okoko]

@colewd

@Chris_Falter

I have no idea what you mean by “multiple origins using random change prior to selection,” or how one would build a model that can be tested using genomic sequence data. Could you explain how this alternative model would work mathematically, and how it could be tested using genomic sequence data?

The alternative model simply starts at different points

That alternative model has suffered strong rejection following a handful of empirical tests. There aren’t multiple starting points, but one.

@colewd

It eliminates having to mathematically explain the origin of new genes and complex biological structures generated by gene families

So you choose to propose magic as the source of genes instead of having to do the research into potential natural mechanisms. ID is indeed the death of science.

More importantly, gene families are mostly created by gene duplication events followed by some divergence. Remember Joe Thornton? Someone in his lab reconstructed the evolutionary history of the hemoglobin (a member of the globin gene family) using ancestral sequence reconstruction, beautifully demonstrating sufficiency of natural mechanisms (gene duplication in this case) to account for the origin of gene families.

We can explain the origin of genes through a variety of mechanisms, most of which have been demonstrated in realtime . Why don’t you examine this evidence instead of pretending it doesn’t exist.

@colewd

In reality population genetics starts from existing populations.

That’s why its called population genetics. Hematology exists because a substance called blood exists, parasitology exists because organisms called parasites exists. Sometimes I wonder why the more reasonable ID people who participate on the forum don’t come in to correct you.

@colewd

@Chris_Falter

No one has ignored Ewert’s proposal,

Who has rigorously tested Winston’s model as Michael Lynch proposed an alternative to Behe’s model?

Ewert tested his model. He literally described that in his paper.

@colewd

The important data in biology for testing design vs common descent however is not historical. The gene data base is increasing dramatically. Genes are stronger representations of function than raw sequences .

If by common design you mean separate origins, then this (the part of your comment I bolded) has been done. Genes and gene families have been used to test separate origins vs common descent. I don’t need to remind you who the winner was:

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TREES ESTIMATED FROM DIFFERENT DATASETS

With 54 genes from Perelman, we compared 54 × 53/2 = 1431 pairs of gene trees. The hypothesis of SA with separate origins of all species was strongly rejected by all pairs . The 1431 P values ranged from 2.5 × 10−20 to 2 × 10−237, with a median of 5 × 10−107. When the gene trees were collapsed to have a single tip representing each family, the hypothesis of SA with separate origins of all 16 families was also strongly rejected by the vast majority of the 1431 gene pairs : all but six pairs returned a P -value less than 0.05, and 89% of all pairs had a P -value <0.001, with a median P -value of 2 × 10−7.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.12934

Let’s not forget you asked for genes and gene families to be used for testing separate origins vs common descent and that’s exactly what happened here and boy-o-boy did special origins take a beating . Who wants to bet Bill is going to shift the goalposts now, @Chris_Falter?

@colewd

@Chris_Falter

This is why biologists can get very frustrated when they deal with your claims, Bill. Your claims seem detached from the reality of what has transpired before your very eyes (robust debates with Ewert on this forum, Ewert’s concession of the great explanatory weakness of his model).

My comment was about methodological naturalism and not Winstons engagement on this forum.

Winston used methodological naturalism, so kindly throw away his paper and its results.

@colewd

Is the claim that simply the sequence change will be directed by selection?

No. Sequence change is brought about mutations (and recombination). Mutations are continually generating variation and when selection shows up due to some environmental pressure, organisms with adaptive mutations will contribute more progeny to the next generation.

@colewd

Selection does not happen until some beneficial function arises.

Yes, but in the meantime mutations increase genetic diversity.

@colewd

There is no empirical basis for believing that SNP’s from reproduction are directional on their own.

No one says so.

@colewd

Especially given the current paradigm is neutral theory.

Now you think neutral theory is the dominant paradigm . You are a clown indeed. Stop with the strawman please.