Gradualism in Evolution not supported by genome studies (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Wednesday, October 14, 2020, 18:59 (1287 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We have long since agreed that Darwin was wrong to say that there are no jumps in Nature. Shapiro’s theory is that intelligent cells do the engineering, and it takes into account the research of others into cellular intelligence. I have offered you a proposal concerning the role of new genes, old genes and discarded genes in speciation, and although like all the other theories, it is not proven, I still don’t know why you object to it.

DAVID: You know full well I think a designer is required for all advance in evolution at the speciation level.

dhw: That is not an answer! Your designer would have created the mechanism in the first place, but even if he dabbled, the process of inventing, restructuring and discarding cells would have been the same. So why do you think speciation cannot possibly have been caused (whether dabbled or not) by a combination of new genes with old genes taking on new functions, while other old genes are discarded because they are no longer of any use?

Your suggestion of the changes in genes is reasonable. Adding new genes which work in concert to create a new species, coordinating with loss of genes and changing some gene network expression is a complex design requirement. It also requires a concept of what it is that is wanted for the new species to be able to do. Only a designer can accomplish this. Your answer has no mechanism for coordination of all these steps except the nebulous concept that cells are innately intelligent, source of that intelligence unknown.

DAVID: As we study it, it should require a careful definition of species. We have noted the differences in bears by fur color as not really species set apart.

dhw: I made that point myself earlier in this discussion. It makes no difference to the feasibility of my proposal, and no matter how we define speciation, it would still leave wide open the question of how loss of genes can create anything new. Why do you think it is not feasible that the loss of genes RESULTS from speciation, as above?

Answered: Gene loss, gene network modifications, changes in gene expressions altogether are reasonably capable of of speciation. The absolute requirement of new genes is pure unproven assumption of Darwinism. The possible proof of this is the small human gene tiny size compared to other organisms. Analysis of chimp gene relationships found (described previously here) the gene bases are 98% similar to human, but really 79% different in organization. Also our chromosome number is different. There are studies that describe human gene losses compared to chimps in the process of speciation:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4298176/