Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tphi | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

In response to your comment, it's important to clarify several misconceptions about evolutionary biology and the synthetic theory of evolution. This theory is not a scam nor inherently atheistic; rather, it's a scientific framework that integrates genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection to explain biological diversity.

First, evolution, through natural selection and genetic variation, is indeed capable of innovation. Complex structures and functions can arise incrementally over time. Features that provide a survival or reproductive advantage are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations, gradually leading to complex adaptations.

The analogy of DNA needing to be like a program, CDROM, reader, and printer all in one cell is an oversimplification that misunderstands molecular biology. DNA replication, transcription, and translation are complex processes facilitated by a variety of proteins and enzymes, which themselves evolved.

Regarding Prof. Michael Behe's arguments in "Darwin's Black Box," while thought-provoking, they have been widely critiqued and refuted in the scientific community. Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" has been shown not to preclude evolutionary origins, as numerous studies have demonstrated how complex biochemical systems can evolve from simpler precursors through natural processes.

Lastly, it's critical to approach scientific topics with an understanding based on evidence and consensus among experts. While there are always unanswered questions in science, the theory of evolution remains one of the most robust and universally accepted scientific theories, based on overwhelming evidence across different fields including genetics, paleontology, and molecular biology.

Exact : The Program, CDROM, CDROM reader, and 3D printer all in one in a single cell is over simplification. It is far far more complex mechanisms that cannot emerge from random mutations.

Evolution is a fact we can all see, but the engine of evolution (random mutations) is an unproven theory.

For those who have curiosity, and most engineers should have : Michael Behe was challenged by "Evolution a theory in crisis" by M. Denton

Your portrayal of evolutionary processes oversimplifies the intricate dynamics at play. While you emphasize the complexity of cellular mechanisms, suggesting that such complexity cannot arise from "random mutations" alone, you overlook the essential role of natural selection. This process is anything but random; it is the methodical mechanism through which advantageous traits are favored over time, shaping complex biological forms.

Moreover, referencing Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" and Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" does little to undermine the robust body of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory. These critiques, while provocative, have been extensively rebutted in peer-reviewed research. The consensus among biologists is clear and based on a wide array of studies—from genetic sequencing to fossil records—that collectively validate evolutionary theory.

To dismiss evolutionary biology as an "unproven theory" is to ignore the comprehensive and corroborative data gathered over decades. Such a stance not only misrepresents the nature of scientific inquiry, where theories are continually tested and refined but also underestimates the adaptive power of natural processes documented in both the laboratory and the wild.

The fact that you can't envision a world where natural forces produced all of this and the reductiveness of your argument demonstrates a profound lack of imagination and an unwillingness to engage with possibilities that challenge your world view. We suspect all of this evolved over eons because we can see it writ small in the changes that organisms undertake even today, and we extrapolate to the eon because we can see these changes play out in a fossil record to produce entirely new kinds of creature. Saying that this is simply impossible without providing any alternative explanation for the evidence asks us to take too much on faith. If you're going to say that the great body of research and evidence led us to the wrong conclusion you now have the task of explaining, for each piece of evidence, what the alternative explanation is and how your explanation is better than ours.

to be fair I don’t see the research itself favoring evolution over creationism in any sense, which is notable because of course the poster mentioned atheism, it’s just that we have a desire and tendency to take research and turn it into a story, when really all the research we don’t have is so strikingly vast that it makes it kind of silly to craft an ongoing story based on such tiny amounts of data, but it’s human nature and fun, but leaning into it too much forgets that one new discovery can toss the entire story, science just isn’t meant for building confident origin narratives for that reason, it’s a very tiny scoped view of things on purpose, by the very nature of the scientific method

example: based on our limited understanding all we can seem to confirm so far is that there was a sort of “big bang” but that doesn’t mean a “big bang” is all there was, not by a long shot

There is no alternative scientific explanation, there is a demonstrated proof that part of the synthetic theory of evolution is false. Evolution is a fact, but random mutations cannot be the engine of evolution, they do not have this power of innovation.

Prof J. Tour (great biochemist) who devoted his life to build synthetic molecules, never ceased to explain this. Mutations break the program (DNA) and cannot create new proteins, new mechanisms, and new coordinated organs, not to say new species. Enginneers here should understand this as I do.

Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982).

Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O'Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981). Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers.

These are not random mutations but adaptation features. In the E. Coli LTEE (Long Time Experiment) still ongoing, 65 000 generations since 1988 have shown little adaptations (like epigenetics) but they are still E. Coli, not another bacteria, nor another species.

How do you define "species" because there are things like ring species that break the mold of basic definitions.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/a-closer-look-at-a-classic-ri...

As you go along the ring you can easily observe the creation of new species through evolution that can't breed with each other.

> there is a demonstrated proof

Where?

Read Prof. Michael Behe, Prof M. Denton, Prof. J. Tour, PhD D. Axe and so many.

Nah. Onus is on you to provide evidence to back your claims.

IDK if you know this, but unproven theories are gospel around here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com