Orphan genes (i.e, genes that only occur in a very small subset of related entities and are never observed elsewhere) are the smoking gun.The official explanations are a pile of horseshit. For example, there is no clear difference in the proportion of orphan genes in bacteria or mammals. Abiogenesis is in a similarly sorry state. Life cannot arise without external output. And this external output cannot be like us.
>>534637862“Dark Matter” is just a shitty rounding error for math they cant fix because they would have to admit some jews were wrong.
no shit
>>534637862>The mathematics behind evolution make no sense>Abiogenesis is in a similarly sorry state>>534638022>“Dark Matter” is just a shitty rounding error for math they cant fix
>>534638022DARK matter and DARK energy and BLACKrock and BLACKstone and BLACK holesThe light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not understood itJohn 1:5
THIS IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLEGOD DID IT
>>534637862>life cannot ariseCongratulations. In one set of 3 letters you have made it clear that you don't understand anything.
>>534637862>evolution is random and unguidedfalse that person is retarded
>>534638022They can't fix it because they don't understand center of mass.Stop using self reference CoM for external observers.
>>534638489>falseYour opinion is not an argument.
>>534638489>that person is retardedThey always make statements that nobody who understands the field would ever sayIt's the only way religi-tards can defend their position - by strawmanning reality
>>534637862>And this external output cannot be like us.So this BTFOs Abrahamtards, right since in their fairybook it says crated in (((their))) image. Glad we agree that's kike nonsense
>>534637862>evolution is random and unguidedonly retards believe this. Im sorry but im fucking tired of hearing midwits talk about darwinian evolution as if it explains evolution. Selective breeding is only like half of evolution, it is the least important half at that. The primary driver for evolution is how genes react to environment. Genes hardly do anything without external input.World leaders know this and you can listen to their speeches where they gloat about how humans today for the first time ever know how to guide their own evolution with epigentics and how they are going to create multiple classes of humans by doing so deliberately.
>>534638691Are you guys actually incapable of making a single counter-argument? What is wrong with this claim? If you know it, say it.
>>534638843>see can in the middle of road>kick it>blame GodNo.
>>534638830>The primary driver for evolution is how genes react to environment.This is an argument that defenders of intelligent design make. Not evolutionists.>>534638971You're incapable of arguing against my points.
>>534637862Evolution is real. Evolution as a basis for life is not. Midwits conflate the two thingsWe can easily test this. Create a script that randomly adds lines and tests for validity. Run it for trillions of cycles. This directly replicates evolution as a basis for life, and under that framework our script would eventually create AI. Modern super computers could easily run the total iterations of life on this planet in a week, yet we don’t have AI yet.
>>534638843Your "arguments" are based on misunderstandings because you haven't actually studied the field. Go study the actual literature before you want to debate topics.
>>534638729kys paco
>>534639233>you haven’t pandered to grant boards for ten years where only groupthink gets funded therefore you cannot debate this common sense topic
This Kraut has a familiar way of speakingI think he is the flat earth well-poisoning shill who's been forced to pivot to religious arguments
>>534637862Can you say this again in Layman's? Why are orphan genes specifically so crucial to the idea of evolution?Also as for abiogenesis, if all the ingredients are there by the rules (though yet unknown to those participating) governing existence, then it seems reasonable that conditions can arise to allow those pieces, which fit together, to tether - forming the larger biological compounds and components to kickstart the tier of electric spark we call "life". For all we know, a bolt of lightning smacked a soup of ingredients and just enough electric energy was captured and turned into bio-electric carrier compounds, instead of just blowing apart.
>>534639127>You're incapable of arguing against my points.Your "point" is "stop investigating mechanisms by which the universe functions." You sound like an invasive pest.>>534639175A skinner box could never create a functional AI.
>>534639175Modern supercomputers can't even find the parameters necessary to show that abiogenesis is real.>>>/sci/16970630>>534639233Surely you are aware that saying "You are wrong and I am right" is not a valid argument.If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd simply say what is wrong. But you don't do it.Evolution is a mathematical impossibility. Only adaptation (mostly allele frequency changes) is real.
>>534639175Complexity comes from simplicity, but the most complex being imaginable always existed fully formed forever without a creator. Simple nature is too complex to exist without an infinity complex god being first.
>>534638162>Trust the expertsYour stupidity disgusts me.
>>534639534It's funny that people can be so illogical and believe complexity comes before simplicity.
>>534639383>Can you say this again in Layman's?He's making a shit case for god by pretending the current complexity of proteins cannot be explained by a gradual increase in complexity.
>>534639523With 10^28 bacteria going through 1 generation every 20 minutes, for 3 billion years, don't you think there's a slight chance it would start to evolve?
>>534637862Yes, evolution is a forced concept by freemasons and the synagogue of satan to drag goyim to hell with them, no need to debate such a retarded theory, just keep the faith and leave the evangelism to God
>>534639784It's the other way around. God wants to test you, but if you know it exists then it's not a test. That's why God has hidden itself so well. If you know it exists then it can't test you and has to discard your soul.
>>534639365I have never made a single flat-earth argument in my life.>>534639390Your "point" is "stop investigating mechanisms that claim coincidences exceeding of 1:10^1000 are common">>534639383Evolutionists claim that proteins evolved slowly from smaller fragments, so stochastic arguments like mine do not apply because of a reduced search space. It's a total bullshit argument, but anyway. Orphan genes encode proteins who are completely novel. The protein only occur in a cluster of tighly related species and nowhere else. All animals have orphan genes that only occur in their own species and nowhere else. You do not find related genes/proteins in species that evolutionists claim have a common ancestor. Evolutionists now need to explain how this is possible and they can't.
>>534639756>With 10^28 bacteria going through 1 generation every 20 minutes, for 3 billion yearsDon't forget that there are limited resources in the environment, leading to pressures towards beneficial mutations in that populationWhen you frame it properly, the evolution of organisms into more complex organisms adapted to their environment is obvious and inevitable
>>534640026>coincidences exceeding of 1:10^1000Everything looks improbable when you eliminate mechanisms that select for it. Any human book has an astronomically small chance of spontaneously popping into existence, yet books get written. It might as well be that simpler proteins were viable in some other environment.
>>534637862Maybe those are lots of universes but you would only need a few thangs so we could exist even though the specific occurance like planets n suns shit would be rather delicate.Kinda rather sounds like brainstorming but to a thought a computer chips output is like an eternity.
>>534640099You know when the BP oil spill happened, people thought the environment would be devastated forever. that was the "end" of animal life in the Gulf of Mexico. Guess what happened? In a month, the bacteria evolved to eat the oil. It rapidly ate all the oil. No more oil spill. You have to understand that a single year for us, is like 26000 years worth of evolution for a bacteria. They are going through thousands and thousands of generations every month. At so OP's point. My suspicion is that the evolutionary process is so optimized, that we literally "evolved to evolve". In other words, there's certain processes in our cells that are deliberately guiding us towards evolutionary outcomes. Not even through chance, but it's like, guided that way.
>>53463975610^28*3*10^9*365*24*3 =8*10^42That's not enough to find even a single small orphan protein domain. It's not enough time.
>>534640345It turns out the gulf of mexico and coastal alaska are vastly different environments(referencing Exxon).Who'd'a thunk it.
>>534637862Evolution works.It's something that works because of its mathematical properties.Evolution is as natural as the fractals (you find them nature too).A fun exercise is to make a sandbox program where you simulate some animals and their behavior is affected by their genes. You use a genetic algorithm to evolve their genes to achieve a certain goal.If you have some herbivore animals and random grass patches that appear on the map, the ones which eat the most survive and produce offspring, the ones who eat the least die.As the simulation is performed, the animals evolve along two branches:>those who travel fast and a lot in one direction (horses, zebras)>those who travel slow and move around in circles (cows, sheep)However, in real life you also have seasons, which forces animals to travel long distances, which isn't simulated in the above example.This is how you get elephants, which are slow moving, but traveling over long distances.
>>534640334Maybe it is an essence of time like how quickly things can change.
>>534640400It is important to understand that the proteins you believe to be novel are not.No, seriously. What did you add that is new? Oh, it's all the same components? How odd.>it thinks iteration is novel
>>534640400One, you're assuming that all sequences are equally likely. If orphan genes arise from DNA that became non-coding, then whatever transcription errors happen would put you some distance away from a functional protein, but won't be a perfect shuffle.Two, there's no reason for a novel protein not to happen in stages. You get a small novel 100 pair chunk first that produces a useful protein, then that chunk gets concatenated with another novel chunk, then again.
>>534638616read moar post less kek
>>534640702Still doesn't even explain the existence of a goat and the sequences needed to generate such a creature. Much less the goats eye
>>534639691>i have never opened a book on xyz and get even the basic premises wrong>yet i know better than people who have studied it for decades
>>534640270The basic mechanism that makes slightly complex animals possible is just that you need enzymes to break down food, and you need RNA to produce the enzyme.The most primitive enzyme in the most primitive eater is enough to start off a complex evolution where this primal eater eventually becomes prey to something that learns how to encode for an enzyme that can digest that primal eater. Wouldn't even take forever to see a predator of the primal eater at the speeds at which protocells or prokaryotes can reproduce.
>>534640702I think it's clear we evolved from cellular life. That chain of development makes sense.But it's also true that achieving self-replication is really fucking difficult to even conceive. How does that even happen? I mean I guess it's possible, but it's way more possible that some alien species seeded us here. Just speaking facts.
>>534640345>certain processes in our cells that are deliberately guiding us towards evolutionary outcomesIt's a compelling argument that species which have a "stress response" that relaxes the error-correcting mechanisms in cell replication (and hence gives more chance at mutation) are the ones that survive long-termThere's a video by CGP Grey talking about tumbleweeds, which have dozens of copies of genes that can protect it against herbicideSo when a new herbicide is applied, it has dozens of places for mutations to take hold to counteract it.https://youtu.be/swx6VyiJ7TI?t=375
>>534640099Beneficial mutations are in a race against time. Any base you build upon gets constantly changed. It's like writing a book but the moment you start, letters get randomly swapped. You won't get very far before the first pages are unreadable gibberish.This happens even with error correction mechanisms. But error correction mechanism cannot evolve without stable DNA/RNA, but without error correction mechanisms (i.e, molecular machines consisting out of proteins, and some of these proteins need other molecular machines out of other proteins to get correctly folded).>>534640345This did not happen. What happened was that there were organisms who already knew how to produce such enzymes because it was already encoded in their genetic code. They quickly multiplied. But they did not evolve this capability. They already had it.
>>534640864>Light sensitive cells>Light sensitive cells covered by a layer of other cells for protection>Light sensitive cells protected by more transparent cells for better vision>Light sensitive cells protected by a clear hard mass, for protection and better vision>Mass is more round = better focus>Opening for light is smaller = better focusAnd so on.
>>534640946Nope, that's infinite regress. The alien/god that seeded life would be much more complex and therefore require an even more complex being to create it for every iteration. It makes more sense that something simple has always existed.
>>534641141And eyes developed independently between 45-60 timesIt turns out that being able to passively examine the environment around you is a really, really good attribute to haveShit, even being able to orient yourself towards a light is highly beneficialhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/247037390_On_the_Evolution_of_Photoreceptors_and_Eyes
>>534640601You clearly don't know what you're talking about. We have the base 20 with exponentials that go up to 34000.>>534640702>One, you're assuming that all sequences are equally likely.Because we have exponentials > ~15, this doesn't matter. Even if there were only 2 fundamental amino acids instead of 20, it wouldn't matter because odds explode exponentially with linearly increasing amino acid length. And there are completely novel orphan proteins consisting out of more than 1000 amino acids. And they perform biologically valuable functions. Maybe one in 10^100 polypeptids of this length do.>You get a small novel 100 pair chunk first that produces a useful protein, then that chunk gets concatenated with another novel chunk, then again.This would not result in a usable protein. Just a random useless polypeptid without function.
>>534641586>you obviously don't understand>failed to understandCount. The. Unique. Components.Molecules consist of multiple individual atoms, some of which might even be identical to one another!Iteration is not, and NEVER WILL BE, novel.Usage of the word novel is sometimes the best choice despite being technically incorrect.
>>534641003*but without error correction mechanisms stable RNA/DNA is not possible
Co-translational protein folding and multi-domain proteins bitch.
>>534637862That's not how those probabilities should be calculated.
>>534640946>self-replication is really fucking difficult to even conceiveNot at all. Very simple RNA forms on rocks, and all you need is some basic protocell eating it. If the cell is lucky, the RNA has a slightly catalytic effect that helps digestion of some energy-rich molecule and you have a competitive advantage among other protocells. All the cell now needs to do is eat while the symbiotic RNA thrives inside and eventually replicates along with the host cell and starts, bit by bit, to encode characteristics of the host cell to ensure its symbiotic survival.
To get a specific proteins you get a combination of amino acids. A completely novel protein out of 1000 amino acids (aa's) needs exactly this sequence of amino acids. There are 20 different aa's you can choose from (let's call them a,b,c,...t).If you want the sequence "def":The chance to get the first one right is 1/20th.The chance to get the second one right is also 1/20th, but you need to multiply these odds, i.e., it's (1/20) * (1/20) = 1/400 =1/20^2.To get a length of 1000, it's 1/20^1000.Maybe one out 10^77 polypeptides is a biologically valuable protein. Orphan genes (who encode orphan proteins) have no "evolutionary" history. These proteins/genes do not occur in species that are said to be related to them. How is compatible with the theory of evolution? You can say that not all chemical bonds are equally likely, but even if there were only two aa's and not 20, the odds are still too big by hundreds of orders of magnitudes.>>534642927Many orphan proteins have novel folds.And even the individual domains are novel.>>534642935Why not? They're orphan proteins. There are no homologs.
>>534643269abiogenesis is an unproven theory and if we're honest, the failure to produce such molecules under realistic conditions is already a de-facto falsification.>>>/sci/16970651
>>534638162They didn't miss it. They're intentionally obfuscating.
>>534642935This is of course the smoking gun, those numbers are literally meaningless.
>>534640345"evolved to evolve" is why organisms have a lifespan
>>534643761Why? If you know it better, correct me. Give me an argument. One that keeps in mind that we're talking about orphan proteins, which means you cannot claim 3 billion years of evolutionary history - maybe a few millions if we're generous. Which evolutionary mechanism can produce fully functional proteins with amino acid lengths over 1000 in a few million years in mammals with slow reproductive cycles?
>>534643507Again, you only need naturally forming RNA (e.g. some clay-catalyzed very short RNA) and some cell that eats it, thus protecting the RNA while it symbiotically replicates along with the cell. The more the cell eats, the more the RNA replicates. Do this a million years and the simple RNA will mutate over and over again, randomly encoding tiny advantages for the cells digestion all while getting longer and more complex to the point where you have something approaching a complex cell that can digest other cells. Then you're in the Red Queen scenario of myriads of cells competing for evolutionary fitness, developing sensory mechanism, abilities to move, etc.
>>534643761>those numbers are literally meaningless.B-but they're really big!And big numbers scare the Christcucks!Therefore God!
>itt: schizo talking to ChatGPT and a bunch of other schizos who dropped biology, physics and chemistry in grade 10, patting each other on the back for knowing muh truth about the evil evolution and abiogenesis conspiracy
>>534643507>if we fail to recreate the exact conditions required to create simplistic monocellular life despite managing to create the conditions for protein synthesis absent biological mechanisms...Proof that one is wrong is not proof that one is wrong. This logic puzzle brought to you by an actual German.
OP is a mindbroken moron who thinks that anyone who disagreed with him is a religious nut.
And if it's due to evolution, why are there no intermediate species with precursors of these proteins? Even worse, the punctuated equilibrium phenomenom reduces the time they have to "evolve" these traits by ~90%.>>534644626This is infinite regress because this cell needs to come from somewhere. And no experiment managed to show that RNA can form naturally, so this scenario is an unproven theory. Beneficial mutations can't stack up well because time doesn't just swap out neutral or harmful nucleotides. And random mutation (the argument you use here) will not lead to orphan genes anyway that encode functional proteins out of hundreds of amino acids. The common "explanation" that long proteins are just a combination of shorter well-known protein domains (leading to a drastically reduced search space) cannot apply to orphan genes (where frequently ALL protein domains are novel, sometimes even the fold, and mammals and bacteria have roughly the same percentage of orphan genes despite vastly differing lifecycle lengths).
>>534638068Kek I was going to reply but then I saw you get your ideas from AI and understood why you are retarded. Enjoy. I'm sure you are correct anon
>>534637862Orphan genes are the fossil record missing links of creationist argumentsMost genes are unsequenced and un annotated, homology algos are arbitraryNon coding RNA has non protein uses so even the made up probability base 4 improves
>>534637862hey look brainlets are having ideas again
>>534639175A real random script doesn't exist, randomness and random behaviour are myths. Thats why most computer scientists turn into believers later on.
>>534637862Life started when near all the universe was amenable for life. Nowadays is too cold, and goldilocks regions are practically non existent. That puts the origin of life 10 billions years before mainstream retards believe it started, and increases the probability of abiogenesis from absurdly close to zero to highly probable.
>>534645775To elaborate."Randomness" is in essence a hack for unknown underlying processes.Yes, you can predict what will happen without the source code. This doesn't mean the source code doesn't exist.
>>534645775>Thats why most computer scientists turn into believers later on.Citation needed
>>534646144also Aether exists Nikola Tesla was rightthe Aether falsification experiment is gay
>>534645393>And no experiment managed to show that RNA can form naturallyThat's just factually wrong. Look up clay-catalyzed RNA or prebiotically formed oligonucleotides or RNA precursors like 8-oxo-purine nucleotides.Again, you only need a precursor that's slightly catalytic to give the cell an edge.>Beneficial mutations can't stack up well because time doesn't just swap out neutral or harmful nucleotides.It doesn't need to. All the cell needs to do is eat until it breaks apart. The parts that get shit RNA will die and the parts that get useful ones won't. Nature can play this game for millions of years.>because this cell needs to come from somewhereA cell in this context just means a protoorganism that feeds off of something like hydrogen sulfide. Some super-simple chemoheterotroph that is more a microscopic localized chemical process than a lifeform.>orphan genesYou're jumping way ahead. We haven't even touched lifeforms that make use of peptides and proteins yet.>The common "explanation" that long proteins are just a combination of shorter well-known protein domains [...] cannot apply to orphan genesNo idea whose claim you're even arguing against here. Orphan genes are species-specific, so why would anyone even try to explain them with a generic "combination of shorter proteins". No idea who or what you're even trying to debunk there.
>>534645560>Most genes are unsequenced and un annotated, homology algos are arbitraryThis is not true. The percentage of orphan genes has been ~stable over the last 20 years.>>534645881a 3x increase of time, even if factoring in potential panspermia, could at best explain the existence of cells (actually no, odds are still hundreds of magnitudes too big, but we can be generous and assume somehow this isn't a problem because the real problem is the following: It can't explain why every single mammal has orphan genes).
>>534643281>Many orphan proteins have novel folds.But they are not orphaned and huge. They are huge with some orphaned domains.So your first post was bullshit and you'll be forced to be wrong from a much weaker position.
>>534646491No experiment ever managed to produce pure RNA under realistic early-earth conditions. RNA-like molecules are not the same as RNA.>the parts that get useful ones won't. Nature can play this game for millions of years.This is a probability-based argument. Probability-based arguments cannot explain orphan genes (nor can they explain normal protein synthesis, but this becomes a mud fight about whether short protein-domains can create longer non-orphan proteins, so lets skip it and go straight to orphan genes. They exist, in mammals and microbes alike so evolutionists need to present an explanation for them). All animals, plants and bacteria have orphan genes.>A cell in this context just means a protoorganism that feeds off of something like hydrogen sulfide. Some super-simple chemoheterotroph that is more a microscopic localized chemical process than a lifeform.Then you assume that more complex organisms already exist to explain the emergence of less complex processes
>>534646811They are completely novel. Not just partially. All protein domains are novel and lack homologs.
>>534638162Yeah like all the gay feminists and gooner autists don't have a motive to propagate their sinful lifestyles rather than just admit they're immoral outcasts
>>534647383You're supposed to believe that billions of mutations accumulated from random cosmic rays with each one creating the ultimate alpha chad who causes all rivals to wither until in just a billion or so generations you go from bacteria to human. The math seems a bit far-fetched to me. Personally I think a more likely scenario is our planet was deliberately terraformed over millions of years until it had a thriving ecosystem that could support intelligent humans.
>>534647508Show it then. 1000+ amino acids. Entirely functional, not just a small functional domain attached to some low complexity or disordered bullshit.
>>534637862Evolution isn't random, genes have minds and react to the environment in real time.
>>534638843>I'm entitled to a free special needs educationNo you aren't. Go ask ChatGPT. Tell it to start with the basics. You literally have no clue how evolution works, despite is being rather simple. Chances are you're a school dropout and everything you "know" about evolution comes from a retard hive like 4chan or Reddit. Nobody wants to listen to that sort of stupid.
>>534639365That's just your schoziphrenia. Everything looks familiar if your pattern recognition is fucked.
>>534652514Brainwashed baka
>>534652271Nothing's random btw; 'random' means "so complex that we can't grasp it yet".
>>534637862>DURRRRRRRRR DA URF IS 6000 YEARS OLD CUZ DA JEW BOOK SED SO
>>534638162>t.
>>534638022Dark matter is the explanation we're currently using for effects that we are observing but cannot figure out what the fuck it is.
