Gradualism in Evolution not supported by genome studies (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Thursday, October 15, 2020, 18:20 (1279 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Thank you. I am not denying the complexity.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I keep agreeing that the source is unknown, but God is one possibility. What is “wanted” is an awareness of the conditions in which the organism finds itself (as opposed to your own theory, which requires a crystal ball to anticipate future conditions) and the intelligence to find ways of coping with them (adaptation) or exploiting them (innovation) – though it’s sometimes difficult to draw a line between the two processes. The concept of cellular intelligence is no more nebulous than the concept of an unknown intelligent being providing the first cells with a programme for every single development in the history of evolution that he does not directly dabble.

At least I can accept a designer is required.

dhw: …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?

DAVID: Answered: Gene loss, gene network modifications, changes in gene expressions altogether are reasonably capable of of speciation.

dhw: That is not an answer. Why is it not feasible that there will be genes which a new species will not require and will therefore jettison?

Note the red above. I answered your suggestion with agreement.

DAVID: The absolute requirement of new genes is pure unproven assumption of Darwinism.

dhw: I’m pleased to hear this, as I was under the impression from your earlier posts that the very concept of new genes was doubtful. (That was the first reason you gave for rejecting my proposal.) If we have biologists favouring new genes as essential to speciation, it would be silly to reject the possibility. And now that you have acknowledged the existence of new genes, please tell us what they might be used for if not for some kind of innovation. And your comment still does not answer my question, now bolded.

I have answered:

DAVID: 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/

dhw: Do these studies claim that evolutionary innovation is caused by loss of genes? And do they discount the possibility that evolutionary innovation is caused by new genes and new functions for old genes, while useless old genes are jettisoned? And do you happen to know if Behe has examined the incidence of new genes in new species?

I've seen no mention from him of new genes. Why do you ignore the article on chimps and us? It says there was gene loss and reorganization!!!