Genome complexity: pseudogenes (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 28, 2013, 17:41 (4106 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I'm pointing out that evolutionary theory is not a single package but a collection of theories, some of which are chance dependent and some of which are not. It is therefore absurd to claim that non-junk proves that evolution is a "failed paradigm", since it does not in any way invalidate the theories of common descent and natural selection. -(The numbers in David's response are mine, as I shall answer point by point)
 
DAVID: I disagree. (1) A collection of disjointed conjectures. Not Darwin's fault as he was ignorant of so much that we know now. He had no idea of the complexities of the living cell. He looked at breeders and extrapolated to the idea that a long enough in time breed selectioning could make new species. Not proven to any degree. (2) The fossil record does not support his gradualism. Species appear de novo, adapt a little and then disappear. The physical appearance of life forms suggests a related bush of life, but homogous genome studies don't bear that out. Any attempt to present evolution as a natural progressive process falls short of what research is showing. (3) Even the development of the understanding of epigenetics doesn't get us to speciation, only necessary adaptation. Natural selection works at that level. The best adapted survive. And then what? The theory, as a proposal of a natural progressive evolutionary process, doesn't answer. (4) Something is missing, and this is where theoretical proposals fit in. I have mine, you have none. How would you propose to go from single-celled to us?-Ah, you never cease to surprise me. I thought you were a theistic evolutionist! Let me answer you point by point:-(1) Yes, it is a collection of conjectures ... I call them theories ... but it is far from disjointed. The basis is common descent: all forms of life are descended from earlier forms, right back to the single cell. Once you accept this concept, the next logical step is to ask how it proceeds. Darwin's theory is that it does so by an endless sequence of random mutations. Many of us dispute this, though if we accept common descent, organisms have obviously undergone an endless series of changes. Darwin also believes (2) that these changes proceed gradually by small steps to the complexities we know today. Again you and I dispute this, and we have until now agreed that punctuated equilibrium is a far more likely scenario. Finally, nature ensures that changes which benefit organisms in their respective environments survive, while others disappear (natural selection). This is generally accepted. Nothing disjointed here, but controversy over HOW the changes from which nature selects actually take place. -(3) and (4) You seem suddenly to have forgotten that for several months now we have been discussing the hypothesis of the intelligent cell/genome, which you have accepted on the proviso that it has been designed by God. How does speciation happen, progressing from single-celled to us? Through innovation. How does innovation happen? Through the process of single intelligent cells combining. New combinations of cells combine with other combinations of cells, and each new combination brings forth new forms of life. You have drawn our attention to an article that quoted Lynn Margulis, and earlier today I added the quote I'd missed out yesterday, but I'll repeat just one sentence: "In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already "conscious" entities." If you won't listen to me, at least listen to her. That is how I "propose to go from single-celled to us." You are arguing that evolution is a "failed paradigm" because junk is not junk. We have long since agreed to jettison random mutations and gradualism. Evolution does not deal with the origin of the genome. So how does non-junk lead to the failure of common descent and natural selection as an evolutionary paradigm?