https://www.science.org/content/article/these-microscopic-animals-fight-infection-using...

"At half a millimeter long—about the width of a human hair—bdelloid rotifers might be easy to miss. But these tiny freshwater critters are some of the toughest animals on the planet. Comprised entirely of females, they’re particularly notorious for “stealing” genes from other organisms. That ability has allowed them to go 40 million years without sex, once leading biologist John Maynard Smith to call them an “evolutionary scandal.”

"New research may explain how this weird little animal got to where it is today. According to a study published today in Nature Communications, some bdelloids can protect themselves against infection using chemical “recipes” pilfered from bacteria. The discovery is an “exciting example of foreign genes functioning in animal genomes,” says Isobel Eyres, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Sheffield who wasn’t involved in the work. It could also help explain how this group of “ancient asexuals” has survived for so long, she adds.

"First described more than 300 years ago, bdelloid (pronounced “dell-oid,” with a silent “b”) rotifers—some of the first organisms to be witnessed through a microscope—look a bit like tiny, transparent leeches. They can be found in nearly every pond, stream, and puddle in the world. Scientists have now identified more than 450 different species, all female.

“'They’re the only major class of animals where no males whatsoever have been described or reported,” says Chris Wilson, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford and co-author of the new study. Each daughter rotifer is a perfect copy of her mother.

"This lack of sex has long baffled evolutionary biologists, Eyres says, because it ought to make bdelloids extremely vulnerable to extinction. Sexual reproduction gives species an advantage by allowing them to shuffle their genes around and rapidly evolve defenses against other organisms. A field of genetically identical crops, by contrast, can be easily wiped out by a single pathogen. “This is not the case for bdelloids,” she notes, which have managed to survive a host of extreme conditions, including extreme drought, blasts of radiation, and 24,000 million years frozen in Siberian permafrost.

"Part of the reason bdelloids are so tough, Wilson says, is because they have “one of the strangest genomes of any animal.” Scientists have known for decades that the DNA of the bdelloid rotifer contains an unusual amount of material “borrowed” from other species through a process known as horizontal gene transfer. In fact, a whopping 10% of the bdelloids’ active genes appear to have originated from other organisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and plants.

“'One in 10 of the genes are not even animal genes,” Wilson says. “They have no business being there.”

***

"When the scientists looked closer, they discovered hundreds of genes that the bdelloids seem to have acquired from bacteria. These genes code for enormous enzymes known as synthetases, which serve as “recipes” for complex chemicals—including those with antimicrobial abilities. Although bacteria frequently use these recipes to ward off competitors, Wilson explains, this is the first time they have been found in animals.

"But even though these genes were originally stolen from bacteria, they appear to have evolved in bdelloids to produce compounds that are toxic to some pathogens while not being toxic to bdelloids’ own cells."

Comment: Celibate and still here is just one surprise. Stealing genes so massively is the other. Sexual reproduction requires a large energy expenditure. This proves it is OK to be asexual.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/oct/24/immune-system-evading-hybrid-virus-obse...

"Two common respiratory viruses can fuse to form a hybrid virus capable of evading the human immune system, and infecting lung cells – the first time such viral cooperation has ever been observed.

"Researchers believe the findings could help to explain why co-infections can lead to significantly worse disease for some patients, including hard-to-treat viral pneumonia.

"Each year, about 5 million people around the world are hospitalised with influenza A, while respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory tract infections in children under five years old, and can cause severe illness in some children and older adults.

***

"To investigate, Haney and her colleagues deliberately infected human lung cells with both viruses and found that, rather than competing with one another as some other viruses are known to do, they fused together to form a palm tree-shaped hybrid virus – with RSV forming the trunk, and influenza the leaves.

“'This kind of hybrid virus has never been described before,” said Prof Pablo Murcia, who supervised the research, published in Nature Microbiology. “We are talking about viruses from two completely different families combining together with the genomes and the external proteins of both viruses. It is a new type of virus pathogen.”

"Once formed, the hybrid virus was also able to infect neighbouring cells – even in the presence of antibodies against influenza that would usually block infection. Although the antibodies still stuck to influenza proteins on the hybrid virus’s surface, the virus merely used neighbouring RSV proteins to infect lung cells instead. Murcia said: “Influenza is using hybrid viral particles as a Trojan horse.”

***
"Significantly, the team showed that the hybrid viruses could infect cultured layers of cells, as well as individual respiratory cells. “This is important because the cells are stuck to one another in an authentic way, and the virus particles will have to go in and out in the right way,” said Griffin.

"The next step is to confirm whether hybrid viruses can form in patients with co-infections, and if so, which ones. “We need to know if this happens only with influenza and RSV, or does it extend to other virus combinations as well,” said Murcia. “My guess is that it does. And, I would hypothesise that it extends to animal [viruses] as well. This is just the start of what I think will be a long journey, of hopefully very interesting discoveries.'”

Comment: this is not a true new hybrid species but shows how it might happen.

QUOTES: “They mix their machinery to survive or do metabolism, and that’s kind of extraordinary, because we always assumed that each and every organism has its own independent identity and machinery,” said Papoutsakis.

"Although this phenomenon of interspecies microbial fusion is now being reported for the first time, it is likely ubiquitous in nature among many bacterial pairs.”

"The team’s findings may influence understanding of the evolution of biology because once bacterial species share machinery, they can evolve together instead of only evolving on their own,” said Papoutsakis."

And under “Many species combination”

Quote: Horizontal gene transfer and mating between diverged lineages blur species boundaries and challenge the reconstruction of evolutionary histories of species and their genomes

DAVID: This is not evolution in the normally understood definition, but another way of advancing living forms. It is an advanced form of horizontal gene transfer, a method I think was provided by design.

And: The author then reviews many scattered studies which form the basis for his theory. This is not Darwin's evolution.

dhw: I don’t know why you have called this an “alternative to evolution”. It ties in with Lynn Margulis’ emphasis on cooperation as the key to how evolution works. The pooling of resources would have begun on a small scale: two cells/bacteria merge. From then on, cells merge into cooperating communities until we finish up with the vast numbers of merged cells and cell communities that make up the organs and organisms of all the species we know of today, including us. It supports Darwin’s concept of common descent but adds the all-important factor of cooperation to that of Darwin’s competition as a prime mover in the advance of evolution.

I agree. It is Margulis' contribution to evolutionary theory, which altered the original theory of simple descent by modification..

"Although this phenomenon of interspecies microbial fusion is now being reported for the first time, it is likely ubiquitous in nature among many bacterial pairs.”

"The team’s findings may influence understanding of the evolution of biology because once bacterial species share machinery, they can evolve together instead of only evolving on their own,” said Papoutsakis."

And under “Many species combination”

Quote: Horizontal gene transfer and mating between diverged lineages blur species boundaries and challenge the reconstruction of evolutionary histories of species and their genomes

DAVID: This is not evolution in the normally understood definition, but another way of advancing living forms. It is an advanced form of horizontal gene transfer, a method I think was provided by design.

And: The author then reviews many scattered studies which form the basis for his theory. This is not Darwin's evolution.

I don’t know why you have called this an “alternative to evolution”. It ties in with Lynn Margulis’ emphasis on cooperation as the key to how evolution works. The pooling of resources would have begun on a small scale: two cells/bacteria merge. From then on, cells merge into cooperating communities until we finish up with the vast numbers of merged cells and cell communities that make up the organs and organisms of all the species we know of today, including us. It supports Darwin’s concept of common descent but adds the all-important factor of cooperation to that of Darwin’s competition as a prime mover in the advance of evolution.

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nyas.14471

"Abstract
Evolution of eukaryotic species and their genomes has been traditionally understood as a vertical process in which genetic material is transmitted from parents to offspring along a lineage, and in which genetic exchange is restricted within species boundaries. However, mounting evidence from comparative genomics indicates that this paradigm is often violated. Horizontal gene transfer and mating between diverged lineages blur species boundaries and challenge the reconstruction of evolutionary histories of species and their genomes. Nonvertical evolution might be more restricted in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes, yet it is not negligible and can be common in certain groups. Recognition of such processes brings about the need to incorporate this complexity into our models, as well as to conceptually reframe eukaryotic diversity and evolution. Here, I review the recent work from genomics studies that supports the effects of nonvertical modes of evolution including introgression, hybridization, and horizontal gene transfer in different eukaryotic groups. I then discuss emerging patterns and effects, illustrated by specific examples, that support the conclusion that nonvertical processes are often at the root of important evolutionary transitions and adaptations. I will argue that a paradigm shift is needed to naturally accommodate nonvertical processes in eukaryotic evolution."

***

"Recent genomic research, has brought reticular evolution to the forefront of eukaryotic genome evolution. Focused studies have shown that reticulated processes can occur between eukaryotic lineages with varying degrees of divergence and reproductive isolation, and that they can be mediated by a variety of mechanisms, ranging from virus‐ or symbiont‐mediated transference of genetic material to the fusion of nuclei from different species. In addition, depending on the mechanism, nonvertical inheritance can involve small fractions of the genome, such as in the HGT of single genes, or larger regions, including complete chromosomal sets, such as in interspecies hybridization. Both HGT and interspecies hybridization are considered potential sources for the acquisition of “transgressive” phenotypic traits in a lineage, and for the origin of new species.5-7 Finally, reticulated evolution can have not only notable ecological and evolutionary consequences for the species involved but also a significant effect on genome evolution.

***

"Despite recent progress, however, we still have a very limited understanding of the overall effects of reticulated evolution across eukaryotes. The emerging picture is complex and fragmented, and there is a need to assess global patterns that shed light on what factors modulate nonvertical inheritance across the diversity of eukaryotes. In the discussion below, I survey emerging trends and impacts of nonvertical evolution across eukaryotes and discuss current challenges and opportunities."

Comment: The author then reviews many scattered studies which form the basis for his theory. This is not Darwin's evolution

https://www.udel.edu/udaily/2020/september/eleftherios-papoutsakis-bacterial-fusion/

"...researchers at the University of Delaware have discovered that bacteria do more than just work together. Bacterial cells from different species can combine into unique hybrid cells by fusing their cell walls and membranes and sharing cellular contents, including proteins and ribonucleic acid (RNA), the molecules which regulate gene expression and control cell metabolism. In other words, the organisms exchange material and lose part of their own identity in the process.

***

"These species of bacteria work together in a syntrophic system, producing metabolites that are mutually beneficial to each other’s survival.

"The team found that C. ljungdahlii invades C. acetobutylicum. The two organisms combine cell walls and membranes and exchange proteins and RNA to form hybrid cells, some of which continue to divide and in fact differentiate into the characteristic sporulation program.

“'They mix their machinery to survive or do metabolism, and that’s kind of extraordinary, because we always assumed that each and every organism has its own independent identity and machinery,” said Papoutsakis.

***

"Although this phenomenon of interspecies microbial fusion is now being reported for the first time, it is likely ubiquitous in nature among many bacterial pairs.

***

"The team’s findings may influence understanding of the evolution of biology because once bacterial species share machinery, they can evolve together instead of only evolving on their own, said Papoutsakis."

Comment: This is not evolution in the normally understood definition, but another way of advancing living forms. It is an advanced form of horizontal gene transfer, a method I think was provided by design.

dhw:There is no disagreement between us on this. The disagreement concerns the nature of the information. You say it comprised programmes for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. I suggested the following:
dhw: It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

DAVID: Such a mechanism would add the same 'unnecessary amount of information' you complain about.

dhw: The ability to invent seems to me to demand considerably less information than an individual programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.

The ability to invent requires the mental ability of foresight. What is desired as a function needed and how to design for it. That is why a brainless inventive mechanism needs guidelines and lots of instructions.

dhw: So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

DAVID: No, I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.

Tony: Thank you. I do wish Tony would acknowledge your (and my) view of designed evolution as a possible alternative to random evolution, instead of insisting that anyone who believes in evolution must believe in chance.

Speaking for Tony, there are only chance or design as possibilities, and for Darwinists only chance exists.

dhw: Of course I refuse to add origin of life to evolution. So did Darwin. The origin does not make the slightest difference to the theory of common descent,

DAVID: Of course the specific act of life's origin is not at issue when evolution is discussed as a process. But every evolutionary process has a beginning, and all I'm pointing out is that the origin contained/provided information which influences how evolution works.

There is no disagreement between us on this. The disagreement concerns the nature of the information. You say it comprised programmes for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. I suggested the following:
dhw: It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

DAVID: Such a mechanism would add the same 'unnecessary amount of information' you complain about.

The ability to invent seems to me to demand considerably less information than an individual programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.

dhw: So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

DAVID: No, I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.

Thank you. I do wish Tony would acknowledge your (and my) view of designed evolution as a possible alternative to random evolution, instead of insisting that anyone who believes in evolution must believe in chance.

DAVID: I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms.

dhw: Of course I refuse to add origin of life to evolution. So did Darwin. The origin does not make the slightest difference to the theory of common descent,

Of course the specific act of life's origin is not at issue when evolution is discussed as a process. But every evolutionary process has a beginning, and all I'm pointing out is that the origin contained/provided information which influences how evolution works.

DAVID: Dabbling was a minor set of additional instructions primarily of form, not function, except the Cambrian where major functional processes had to be added. I've had a re-think: there were two major inputs of information at origin of life and at the Cambrian.

dhw: “Additional instructions” sounds like additional information to me, even if it's “minor”. But going back to the first cells, I would suggest that computer programmes installed in the very first cells for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the long history of life add an unnecessary amount of information needed for evolution. It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

Such a mechanism would add the same 'unnecessary amount of information' you complain about.

DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

dhw: Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?

DAVID: I believe God designed the Cambrian Explosion. Is that scratchiness enough?

dhw: So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

No, I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.

DAVID: (to Tony): You don't seem to believe in common descent, but based on your discussion of rearranging parts, doesn't that imply each stage came from the past stage?

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

DAVID: I don't agree with what you believe. What is rearranged is DNA, not a primary change in parts. That is always secondary.

dhw: You were arguing that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent. I also think that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent.

DAVID: God running the process of evolution is a form of common descent.

Tony: ONLY IF speciation, as a process, occurs, which we have not observed. The alternative is that he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.

David: What you are proposing sounds like pure dhw. Original forms had built-in ways to reform themselves into something more complex. No dabbling required.

Tony: It is a difference in degrees. Did the designer not dabble at all(preprogrammed everything), dabble a little(prototypes with limited variation), or dabble constantly (special creation for every variety?

My view is that he dabbled a little, when appropriate and necessary, leaving the code for limited variation to handle the rest.

David: Again this means your view is that an enormous library of information was put into the beginning of life. We cannot separate creation of life from what happened afterward.

Tony: The only difference I see is the idea that a single organism Contained all the info for everything. That doesn't make sense from a design standpoint

Fair enough.

DAVID: I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms.

Of course I refuse to add origin of life to evolution. So did Darwin. The origin does not make the slightest difference to the theory of common descent, and no matter what explanation you come up with for speciation, you can ALWAYS incorporate your God as the initiator of the process – even if you believe in random mutations! But I accept totally that the first life forms must have contained masses of information. According to your original hypothesis, they contained ALL the information, although you have now changed your tune, since you appear to
recognize that dabbling must add some.

DAVID: Dabbling was a minor set of additional instructions primarily of form, not function, except the Cambrian where major functional processes had to be added. I've had a re-think: there were two major inputs of information at origin of life and at the Cambrian.

“Additional instructions” sounds like additional information to me, even if it's “minor”. But going back to the first cells, I would suggest that computer programmes installed in the very first cells for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the long history of life add an unnecessary amount of information needed for evolution. It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

dhw: Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?

DAVID: I believe God designed the Cambrian Explosion. Is that scratchiness enough?

So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

DAVID: (to Tony): You don't seem to believe in common descent, but based on your discussion of rearranging parts, doesn't that imply each stage came from the past stage?

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

DAVID: I don't agree with what you believe. What is rearranged is DNA, not a primary change in parts. That is always secondary.

dhw: You were arguing that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent. I also think that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent.

DAVID: God running the process of evolution is a form of common descent.

Tony: ONLY IF speciation, as a process, occurs, which we have not observed. The alternative is that he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.

David: What you are proposing sounds like pure dhw. Original forms had built-in ways to reform themselves into something more complex. No dabbling required.

Tony: It is a difference in degrees. Did the designer not dabble at all(preprogrammed everything), dabble a little(prototypes with limited variation), or dabble constantly (special creation for every variety?

My view is that he dabbled a little, when appropriate and necessary, leaving the code for limited variation to handle the rest.

David: Again this means your view is that an enormous library of information was put into the beginning of life. We cannot separate creation of life from what happened afterward.

The only difference I see is the idea that a single organism Contained all the info for everything. That doesn't make sense from a design standpoint t

DAVID I wish I understood programming. But perhaps your "data storage section' exists. Knowing that rearrangement of parts of a gene results in a specific function or functions implies there is information and controls we still don't understand.

Tony: It is certainly possible, I just think it unlikely. It would leave a lot of room for messed up genetics that we have not observed. Where is the lama with a giraffe neck?

David: But I'll go back to your prototype idea. Lamas and camels are related. Giraffes are in a different line from the beginning. Our understanding of the genome is very limited. What we know from gene deletion is what it controls, not how. That is what I refer to.

I see no issue with a proto-camel/llama that varied some over time to become variations of Camels and Llamas

DAVID: (to Tony): You don't seem to believe in common descent, but based on your discussion of rearranging parts, doesn't that imply each stage came from the past stage?

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

DAVID: I don't agree with what you believe. What is rearranged is DNA, not a primary change in parts. That is always secondary.

dhw: You were arguing that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent. I also think that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent.

DAVID: God running the process of evolution is a form of common descent.

Tony: ONLY IF speciation, as a process, occurs, which we have not observed. The alternative is that he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.

David: What you are proposing sounds like pure dhw. Original forms had built-in ways to reform themselves into something more complex. No dabbling required.

Tony: It is a difference in degrees. Did the designer not dabble at all(preprogrammed everything), dabble a little(prototypes with limited variation), or dabble constantly (special creation for every variety?

My view is that he dabbled a little, when appropriate and necessary, leaving the code for limited variation to handle the rest.

Again this means your view is that an enormous library of information was put into the beginning of life. We cannot separate creation of life from what happened afterward.

Tony: But Quaternary coding is far more complex. Our genetic language is a chemical quatarnery system that also has spatial requirements.

DAVID I wish I understood programming. But perhaps your "data storage section' exists. Knowing that rearrangement of parts of a gene results in a specific function or functions implies there is information and controls we still don't understand.

It is certainly possible, I just think it unlikely. It would leave a lot of room for messed up genetics that we have not observed. Where is the lama with a giraffe neck?

But I'll go back to your prototype idea. Lamas and camels are related. Giraffes are in a different line from the beginning. Our understanding of the genome is very limited. What we know from gene deletion is what it controls, not how. That is what I refer to.

dhw: So if your God dabbles (as opposed to preprogrammes) something completely new, like the knotty nest or the first brain, he does not provide any new “information”?

DAVID: I saying He may not. Tony thinks He may.

dhw: So we can now abandon the dogmatic view that all the information was present at the beginning. It may have been. It may not have been. Thank you for the clarification.

I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms. Dabbling was a minor set of additional instructions primarily of form, not function, except the Cambrian where major functional processes had to be added. I've had a re-think: there were two major inputs of information at origin of life and at the Cambrian.

DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

dhw: Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?

I believe God designed the Cambrian Explosion. Is that scratchiness enough?

DAVID: (to Tony): You don't seem to believe in common descent, but based on your discussion of rearranging parts, doesn't that imply each stage came from the past stage?

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

DAVID: I don't agree with what you believe. What is rearranged is DNA, not a primary change in parts. That is always secondary.

dhw: You were arguing that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent. I also think that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent.

DAVID: God running the process of evolution is a form of common descent.

Tony: ONLY IF speciation, as a process, occurs, which we have not observed. The alternative is that he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.

David: What you are proposing sounds like pure dhw. Original forms had built-in ways to reform themselves into something more complex. No dabbling required.

It is a difference in degrees. Did the designer not dabble at all(preprogrammed everything), dabble a little(prototypes with limited variation), or dabble constantly (special creation for every variety?

My view is that he dabbled a little, when appropriate and necessary, leaving the code for limited variation to handle the rest.

DAVID: (to Tony): You don't seem to believe in common descent, but based on your discussion of rearranging parts, doesn't that imply each stage came from the past stage?

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

DAVID: I don't agree with what you believe. What is rearranged is DNA, not a primary change in parts. That is always secondary.

dhw: You were arguing that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent. I also think that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent.

DAVID: God running the process of evolution is a form of common descent.

Tony: ONLY IF speciation, as a process, occurs, which we have not observed. The alternative is that he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.

What you are proposing sounds like pure dhw. Original forms had built-in ways to reform themselves into something more complex. No dabbling required.

Tony: It has nothing to do with the number of bases. Not really. Rearranging those bases into new forms requires either new information, or a data storage section that contains All the necessary construction AND the necessary triggers for when and under what circumstances to make which changes.

So, produce evidence of either of those, both of which can be discovered with science, and I would gladly accept this form of evolution. It would likely fit nicely with my own hypothesis regarding the nature of DNA and information within the Genome.

However, absent evidence of either of those things, I must assume them to be, at worst, untrue, and at best undiscovered.

David: how do you know the necessary information is not implicit in the bases if rearranged?

Tony: You may be familiar with Binary, 0 & 1. Or even Ternary - 1, 0, 1.

But Quaternary coding is far more complex. Our genetic language is a chemical quatarnery system that also has spatial requirements.

DAVID I wish I understood programming. But perhaps your "data storage section' exists. Knowing that rearrangement of parts of a gene results in a specific function or functions implies there is information and controls we still don't understand.

It is certainly possible, I just think it unlikely. It would leave a lot of room for messed up genetics that we have not observed. Where is the lama with a giraffe neck?

DAVID: I saying He may not. Tony thinks He may.

So we can now abandon the dogmatic view that all the information was present at the beginning. It may have been. It may not have been. Thank you for the clarification.

TONY: That leaves dabbling, which fits the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and similar events.

dhw: So is "dabbling" your alternative? Unfortunately, nobody has ever observed your hypothetical God dabbling – a “glaring defect”. David’s preprogramming hypothesis and my intelligent cell hypothesis also fit the Cambrian explosion and other events.

DAVID: The Cambrian was an enormous dabble. Was a huge 'Britannica' of genetic information added then? It is well beyond intelligent cell committees abilities.

That is your assumption. The hypothesis still fits in with the Cambrian.

TONY: Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.

dhw: Welcome to the land of the agnostic, which also extends as far as to the existence of a designer.

DAVID: Tony is trying in a scientific way to find God's methods. So am I.

And we all want to see the evidence for the different hypotheses laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before we jump on board. Except that both of you have already jumped on board.

dhw: Evolution is the very opposite of separate creation, and that is what caused all the furore at the time of Darwin’s book. Either you believe in evolution or you believe in separate creation!

DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?