Peer-Reviewed Paper Says Evolution Is Not Practical

One cannot observe birds evolve nor flowers, nor trees or humans so evolution is measured in terms of fitness which has been very elusive in evolutionary research.  In a recent paper in PLoS, called; “Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space” where it makes the following statement…

“Experimental molecular evolution from randomly generated polypeptides has been employed to determine how and to what extent a functional protein can evolve according to the principles of Darwinian evolution [16]–[20]. One of the most remarkable findings of these studies is that relatively small degrees of sequence diversity, e.g., 10 different random sequence for esterase activity, are sufficient to allow Darwinian selection of random polypeptides composed of about 140 amino acid residues [17].”

“By extrapolation, we estimated that adaptive walking requires a library size of 10^70 [a one followed by 70 zeros] with 35 substitutions to reach comparable fitness. Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination.”

This is not something a student would not hear in their biology, in fact the response of the teacher would most likely be that evolution is an absolute indisputable fact.  But in a way, these scientists present a more realistic aspect about evolutionary theory. Proteins have been a mystery for evolutionists for many years, there have been numerous ideas on their supposed evolution which have been conjured up that makes it even more impractical while requiring scientists to have more faith in this ever-expanding complexity of naturalism as a result of more falsifications.

Evolutionary scientists admit in this paper, origins in evolution are not practical so they add more mechanisms like homologous recombination.” What is wrong with that? Take for example, a group of people who on a Friday night want to play a game of cards, but have no deck. The question is, how can they get a deck of cards without going to the store  or without the essential material  to make them?

One man stands up and says very enthusiastically, “why don’t we shuffle the deck until one of us comes up with matches?” Everyone looks at him as though he were crazy, because there isn’t a deck of cards!  You have to have a deck of cards first before you can shuffle them! It’s very simple logic!

This is exactly what “homologous recombination” is. Proteins like a deck of cards would be required in order to re-mix in a homologous way.  The solution to this problem is an incredible absurdity of evolutionary thought!  To suggest future mechanisms which wouldn’t have never existed at that time be able to solve problems with protein origins. These same origins of protein which have been deemed by evolutionists themselves to be impractical to evolve on their own!  Clearly, the research puts another dagger in evolution, it also adds vindication to creationism where nature is a design made by God!

About these ads

10 thoughts on “Peer-Reviewed Paper Says Evolution Is Not Practical

  1. @Micheal,

    Your lack of reqading comprehension is showing. The paper is not saying evolution itself is impractical… Even in the quote you give, and look AFTER the word “impractical,” and you will see what I mean..

    Quote:

    “Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination.”

    Read the rest of the sentence…The paper is not saying evolution is impractical at all. It is simply saying that ONLY assuming “random substitutions” IS what is impractical, and so other known evolutionary mechanisms are needed.

  2. A favorite tactic of creationists is to find a minor hypothesis that has been called into question, then imply that the entire theory whence it arises is thereby proven wrong. For example, scientists might find that the function of yellow traffic lights is not to cause cars to speed up, as had been thought, but rather to warn of a following red light. Antitraffixers then trumpet this as a falsification of the theory that traffic lights control the flow of cars. (If you think my analogies are bad, re-read Michael’s analogy of homologous recombination to shuffling a non-existent deck of cards. Now that is truly stupid.)

    @Michael: “Evolutionary scientists admit in this paper, origins in evolution are not practical so they add more mechanisms like homologous recombination. [Stupid analogy omitted] ….

    “This is exactly what “homologous recombination” is…. [Stupid analogy omitted again] To suggest future mechanisms which wouldn’t have never [sic] existed at that time be able [sic] to solve problems with protein origins.”

    Michael’s astounding lack of qualifications to expound upon biology is here revealed in spades. [Sorry; stupid analogy continued] He thinks that biologists made up ‘homologous recombination’ as a nonce to save evolution from their negative results. The reason scientists shake their heads and laugh is that HR has been observed in the laboratory for decades. In fact, it is the mechanism by which horizontal gene transfers are integrated into the genome of a recipient bacterium. Michael accepts HGT, but derides HR. Sorry, Michael, your inconsistencies are showing. Again.

    Well, a glaring flaw uncovered already, and I haven’t even read the PLoS paper yet. I guess we must (grudgingly) thank Michael for pointing out interesting papers in evolutionary biology. Michael is most interested in reading that which seem to confirm his preconceived beliefs. Scientists, however, are most interested in papers that challenge previous thinking—because these lead to further investigations and deeper understanding.

  3. (Apparently the “previous post” got smushed on moderation.)
    ——————————————–

    @Michael: “Evolutionary scientists admit in this paper, origins in evolution are not practical “

    Yet another failure of reading comprehension. The paper actually says exactly the opposite. Origins are the easy part; it is the final leg, from mid-level adaptation to the highest possible fitness, that is the harder part.[1] Here it is, Michael; read it and weep.

    “The landscape structure has a number of implications for initial functional evolution of proteins and for molecular evolutionary engineering. First, the smooth surface of the mountainous structure from the foot to at least a relative fitness of 0.4 means that it is possible for most random or primordial sequences to evolve with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape by adaptive walking with only single substitutions. In fact, in addition to infectivity, we have succeeded in evolving esterase activity from ten arbitrarily chosen initial random sequences [17]. Thus, the primordial functional evolution of proteins may have proceeded from a population with only a small degree of sequence diversity.”

    The pertinent parts are emboldened for Michael’s benefit.

    ==============

    [1] Of course, evolution need not reach the global peak at all to be successful. Hoew many perfect organisms do you know of? (Besides moi.)

    Then too, there is pleiotropy, which has entered and left Michael’s mind since he mentioned it in the previous post. Since most proteins have multiple functions, a sequence that gets stuck at a local maximum may have another function which a further mutation may enhance, even though the original function decreases. The protein may roll off the local max in one dimension, yet climb a fitness hill along another dimension. Additional functions (i.e., dimensions) make true peaks infrequent, even vanishingly existent. This paper did not consider pleiotropy; only a single function was measured.

    In addition, the paper mentions other effects that could contribute to higher fitness levels. Homologous recombination, DNA shuffling, etc.

  4. @Micheal,

    Nice try.. NOT!

    As both Olorin and myself have both showed…you have not understood the paper…(and overlooked portions that go against your grain?)

    And honestly, I wonder what the writters of this paper would think of your assertion that their paper makes the claim that evolution is not practical.

  5. Kriss,

    When evolutionary scientists used a virus to explain how proteins evolved, They randomized the amino acid sequence repeatedly in hopes of reconstructing the entire virus. What they found was self-created evolutionary process (based on what they believe are facts) could produce only tiny improvements (which failed expectations) to the virus’ ability to infect a host. Not only that, but the virus became weaker as a result. Their hope of having just one virus evolve is, 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros thus making it impractical) and that doesn’t mean it would work by then either which is why mechanisms, such as homologous recombination was invoked, but those don’t solve the problem either. Their research conclusion is not data driven, it’s a story driven philosophy that sounds better when there is no new data or testing. Learning how things work in nature (without the evolution explanation), is data driven.

  6. @Michael

    Your entire comment is irrelevant to what I was saying, and it doesn’t adress the fact I have proven that you quoted it out of context.

    A simple reading and understanding proves you lied about what the paper actally says, or at least didn’t understand it… That is the real issue here…and your comment to me is purposely avoiding that.

    You claim, “Their hope of having just one virus evolve is, 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros thus making it impractical)”

    This statistic is bogus. And it assumes two things: 1) that it would have to evolve in the exact same way again, and 2) that it was always the way it is today… Actually, evolutionary theory predicts the opposite of both assumptions. If we were to set back the clock and start again, evolution would have taken a different rout, and the first ancestor of the virus is predicted to be MUCH different than it’s modern decendant.

    Besides, such details more follow the laws of chemistry…and chemistry by itself produces complexity by itself with no outside help..

    Still doesn’t work.

  7. i study biology. first check this great site:http://creation.com/

    first- i think have a very strong evidence for design in nature

    a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

    b) from a material prespective the ape is a self replicate robot

    a+b= the ape need a designer

    or even a self replicat watch.the evolution side always say that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

    plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?

    the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.

    but there is no step wise from car to airplan

    evolution say that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar self replicat car are evolve from each other

    according to evolution a car can evolve in a close room, beacuse a human can evolve in a close room and make a car

    what you think? yours sincerely

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s