Gradualism in Evolution not supported by genome studies (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 06, 2020, 15:58 (1508 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 06, 2020, 16:06

dhw: 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. (David’s bold)

DAVID: I don't remember the incident in the bold. I've always presented the issue of de novo genes as not supporting Darwin.

8 September:
DAVID: The acquisition of new genes in your statement now in red is not supported. […]

dhw: […] the acquisition of new genes has plenty of support.

I quoted three articles. You then replied:

DAVID: Your articles are from 2013, not current presentations. Research advances, and yes new genes appear, but it still appears major evolutionary changes….result in loss of DNA [….] it depends upon which genes you are looking at and how much new they create.

New genes are central to my proposal, and their non-existence was initially central to your rejection of it. You then switched your line of attack.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You misunderstand Behe's main point. His gene loss made new species, not new functions, although that can also happen.

dhw: You misunderstand my main point. I don’t see how gene loss can MAKE new species, and am proposing that new genes or new functions for old genes make species, and the loss of genes is the RESULT of speciation, because natural selection roots out whatever is no longer required. Please explain why this is not feasible.

This statement of yours is specifically totally incorrect. Behe clearly shows loss of genes speciates as does this new entry. The bold is a backward view of the process. The loss causes speciation. It can be seen as a rearrangement of genes and a restructuring of old gene expression in new gene networks of the remaining genes. And why do you drag in natural selection? Your Darwin bias is back.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You've covered all the bases.

dhw: Thank you.

I have to let you teeter atop the fence.