Evolution without accidents and also no intelligence?

To extend this, I think there is at least some actual pertinent research data available. Richard Lenski performed a well-known long-term experiment in bacterial evolution, putting them under stress and trying to demonstrate significant RM + NS Darwinian evolution in such microorganisms. Well, this long-term experiment essentially failed - it only came up with one evolutionary accomplishment out of thousands of generations and millions of organisms, the development of citrate metabolism. Unfortunately for neo-Darwinian New Synthesis evolutionary assumptions, this wasn't any sort of real creative innovation, since all that happened was a slight reorganization activating an already existing gene. In fact, this sort of development is exactly at the limit of what could be expected of the undirected semi-random walk RM + NS process.

If all cells are actually conscious to some degree, and carry out creative evolutionary innovation by means of this intelligence, then you would think that the bacteria in Lenski's experiment would have come up with something better than the citrate metabolism trick.

But what could they come up with - I mean they were living in an environment a bit like ours - all their nutritional needs were basically satisfied. We have thrown away all sorts of vital functions on the basis that others would provide it. We are supplied with energy via the utilities, we can find food in the shops (rather than growing it) etc etc. We have done exactly what Lenski's bacteria did!

Like them, we can reproduce somewhat faster if we ignore the need for education and just let kids reproduce as soon as they feel like it. Provided they are supported by the state, this is an optimal strategy from a rather narrow perspective!

David

For protein evolution to be possible there would have to be long chains of possible functional proteins in protein space. Do these exist, and if they do, wouldn't they provide evidence for a designer tuning them into organic chemistry?
Only in that way could RM+NS evolve anything.

The point is that any protein that has near zero functionality, will be somewhat selected against because the corresponding gene simply wastes the cell's resources making the protein. Combinatorial explosion wins almost as soon as there is no selective advantage from the gene/protein - 20^n for n steps in evolution that aren't driven by evolution.

David

The question of whether there are "chains" of functional proteins in protein space is somewhat misguided. The evolutionary process doesn't require a predetermined path through protein space. Evolution finds local optima based on the current environmental and biological context. If a chain of functional intermediates exists, it's a result of evolutionary processes, not a prerequisite for them. The presence of functional intermediates is what one would expect from an evolutionary process. Finding continuity in functional space is consistent with evolution and doesn't necessarily imply intentional design.

The question of whether there are "chains" of functional proteins in protein space is somewhat misguided. The evolutionary process doesn't require a predetermined path through protein space.

The point is that without such chains, the evolutionary process is overwhelmingly likely to get lost in the desert of functionality that seems to surround viable proteins.

Evolution finds local optima based on the current environmental and biological context. If a chain of functional intermediates exists, it's a result of evolutionary processes, not a prerequisite for them. The presence of functional intermediates is what one would expect from an evolutionary process. Finding continuity in functional space is consistent with evolution and doesn't necessarily imply intentional design.

I rather think you are splitting hairs here. If you want to explain an evolutionary process of 100 steps (say), then every step that is not driven by a selective advantage will only happen with a small probability. If you have 90 such steps (say) then the evolution will be largely unguided.

Unguided evolution was never considered a viable explanation for evolution.

David

But what could they come up with - I mean they were living in an environment a bit like ours - all their nutritional needs were basically satisfied. We have thrown away all sorts of vital functions on the basis that others would provide it. We are supplied with energy via the utilities, we can find food in the shops (rather than growing it) etc etc. We have done exactly what Lenski's bacteria did!

Like them, we can reproduce somewhat faster if we ignore the need for education and just let kids reproduce as soon as they feel like it. Provided they are supported by the state, this is an optimal strategy from a rather narrow perspective!

David

The E coli bacteria long term evolution experiment should have resulted in some sort of real innovation if RM + NS is the mechanism for evolutionary innovation, since there was still competition for food going on, mutations were happening, and supposedly the bacterial strain with better food utilization (or any other possible genetic innovation) would outcompete the others. But the experiment only came up with a small modification of existing genetics. Disconfirming the RM + NS premise, unless development of oxic environment citrate metabolism was the only possible innovation that could give a strain of these bacteria a decisive advantage. I don't think it is likely that oxic citrate metabolism was the only possible pathway.

From https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/viral-...evolution/ :

A 2016 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Bacteriology, “Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA,” co-authored by Van Hofwegen and biologists Scott Minnich and Carolyn Hovde, has the answer (at https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JB.00831-15 ). In their research they witnessed the same trait, the ability to use this “lemony dessert,” arise in under 100 generations and 14 days. This result was repeatable 46 times. They found that the trait is not very genetically complicated — again, akin to flipping a switch — and that there is more to the story than is being been told. Indeed, their paper shows that no new genetic information arose during the evolution of this trait.

Although normal E. coli can eat citrate, they cannot uptake and metabolize it under the oxic conditions of the experiment. In the Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), bacteria evolved the ability to uptake citrate under oxic conditions — what is called the “Cit+ phenotype.” But did anything “new” evolve? At the genetic level, Minnich and his co-authors’ research says the answer is no.
...................................
...three primary mutations (were) required to produce the Cit+ phenotype.
...................................
(Analysis determined that) the mutational pathway involves: (1) breaking something at the molecular level (a repressor), (2) making more of something already present (citrate importer), and (3) making more of something already present (succinate importer). Breaking features at the molecular level, or making more of some pre-existing components, have been long known to be possible under Darwinian evolution. As Minnich and his co-authors explain in their paper: “No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.” They also write, “The LTEE has not substantiated evolution in the broader sense by generation of new genetic information, i.e. a gene with a new function.” They conclude:

Finally, because this adaptation did not generate any new genetic information and only required expanded expressions of two existing transporters (citT and dctA), generation of E. coli Cit+ phenotypes in our estimation do not warrant consideration as a speciation event...

The point is that without such chains, the evolutionary process is overwhelmingly likely to get lost in the desert of functionality that seems to surround viable proteins.

I rather think you are splitting hairs here. If you want to explain an evolutionary process of 100 steps (say), then every step that is not driven by a selective advantage will only happen with a small probability. If you have 90 such steps (say) then the evolution will be largely unguided.

Unguided evolution was never considered a viable explanation for evolution.

David

Many mutations neither benefit nor harm an organism; they're neutral. Over time, these can accumulate, providing a reservoir of genetic variation. Later, when environments change, what was once neutral might suddenly become beneficial (or a cancer). Evolution isn't just a historical process. It's ongoing, and we can observe it. For example, the rapid evolution of bacteria in response to antibiotics is a clear instance of evolutionary principles in action.

Many mutations neither benefit nor harm an organism; they're neutral. Over time, these can accumulate, providing a reservoir of genetic variation. Later, when environments change, what was once neutral might suddenly become beneficial (or a cancer). Evolution isn't just a historical process. It's ongoing, and we can observe it. For example, the rapid evolution of bacteria in response to antibiotics is a clear instance of evolutionary principles in action.

You seem to be saying you believe in evolution by RM.

David

Even so, I wouldn't rule out the idea that cells are literally conscious - see for example:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

Given that we don't know what it is that makes us conscious, it is dangerous to rule it out of simpler organisms.

Of course, that is not the same as ruling consciousness out of computers or their programs. We (collectively) know completely how these objects work, and everything operates essentially like clockwork.

David

from your linked source, with which I am familiar

  A. If cells can measure space and time, they must be able to derive abstract data from physical signals.

You seem to be saying you believe in evolution by RM.

David

Actually, I refuse to believe in evolution for dogmatic reasons. At the same time I disagree in characterizing ID as science. I disagree with the OP of this thread or the wording used in the opening post against proponents of evolution.

Actually, I refuse to believe in evolution for dogmatic reasons. At the same time I disagree in characterizing ID as science. I disagree with the OP of this thread or the wording used in the opening post against proponents of evolution.

Have you read any of their scientific books - remember they publish Christian stuff that I never read, and scientific evidence that evolution did not happen by RM+NS which I find pretty compelling.

I'd be interested to read what you DO believe is the explanation for how our incredibly complex bodies came into being.

David

Have you read any of their scientific books - remember they publish Christian stuff that I never read, and scientific evidence that evolution did not happen by RM+NS which I find pretty compelling.

I'd be interested to read what you DO believe is the explanation for how our incredibly complex bodies came into being.

David

I hate the materialistic worldview, which seems meaningless, maddening. For that reason, I seek evidence of a higher meaning. For now, I'm confident that even the physical world (without implying the existence of anything else) is far more complex than what has currently been uncovered by science. For instance, I suspect that emergent properties exist and cannot be explained by a purely reductionist approach.

My heart believes ID to be true, not my mind.