Gradualism in Evolution not supported by genome studies (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Monday, October 05, 2020, 10:41 (1510 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The new studies, as with Behe, show gene losses and new gene gains with gaps in the record that deny Darwin gradualism:
https://inference-review.com/article/the-origin-of-novel-genes

QUOTES: The evolution of novel genes is a subject with a substantial literature all its own, which has recently shifted from the view that all new genes begin as duplicates of pre-existing genes to a view that many genes evolve de novo from non-coding sequences.

Rather than emerging gradually, a few at a time, the evidence presented in these four papers suggests the occurrence of punctuated bursts.

Evolution by bursts is, of course, not expected if natural selection is the main driver.

ALL FOUR STUDIES under review found massive gene losses for phylogenetic nodes at the base of the major groups of living organisms. This suggests that major evolutionary transitions do not occur solely by means of tinkering with existing genes. Instead, it seems that vast numbers of existing genes are jettisoned and replaced by entirely different ones. Such processes would represent a radical overhaul in the genetic composition of organisms. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Genomic studies don't support Darwin. Behe is supported, and the Cambrian gap is not the only major gap to be explained. Certainly fits God in charge.

A month ago, on the thread “Evolution: a different view with loss of traits; not Behe”, I challenged the statement that “advances always result from loss of genes”. I wrote: “I suggest that the process is on-going, with a constant acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes. Natural selection merely decides which genes are necessary and which are not.” Initially you pooh-poohed the very notion of new genes, but eventually withdrew your objection when you realized that modern research supported it. You and I have long since rejected Darwin’s gradualism, and I have long since supported Gould’s punctuated equilibrium. The above quote on natural selection is correct in relation to Darwin’s use of the term and his insistence on gradualism, but in itself is irrelevant once we acknowledge that natural selection doesn’t drive anything. It merely selects from what already exists. I suggest that Behe’s loss of genes IS the result of natural selection. The genes that are lost are those that are no longer of any use if new genes perform new functions. I agree that what is presented here fits your notion that God dabbles or preprogrammes every change. It also fits Shapiro’s notion that intelligent cells are inventive, together with the all-important concept of cell plasticity, through which “a cell can take on different and reversible identities”. The inventiveness of cells responding to changes in environmental conditions, whether global or local, explains all the gaps. And it allows for your God as the inventor of cellular intelligence.