Evolution of the Organelle Assembly Line

[The Pixie]

Background​

Proteins are made in cells in a complex system. A protein is a long sequence of amino acids. There are twenty different amino acids used in nature; different sequences give different proteins.

The sequence is encoded in DNA, with a set of three bases signalling a specific amino acid. The sequence is transcribed into mRNA (messenger RNA), and passed to a ribosome. The ribosome then assembles the protein, using rather shorter tRNA (transfer RNA) to select the right amino acid.

Evolution​

How could such a complex system possibly evolve?

The simple answer is that we do not know. This is something that happened maybe 4 billion years ago, and by its nature will not leave any fossils. However, the theory of evolution is real science, so real scientists are looking at how it might have happened. I present here a number of science papers that discuss how the organelle assembly line could have evolved, answering a question I see thrown around a lot:

"How does an assembly line of organelle evolve?"

Real Science​

On the origin of the translation system and the genetic code in the RNA world by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization

The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements. Under this scenario, the primary cause for the emergence of translation was the ability of amino acids and peptides to stimulate reactions catalyzed by ribozymes. Thus, the translation system might have evolved as the result of selection for ribozymes capable of, initially, efficient amino acid binding, and subsequently, synthesis of increasingly versatile peptides. Several aspects of this scenario are amenable to experimental testing.​

...​

Put another way, the conservation of the core of the translation machinery is the strongest available evidence that some form of LUCA actually existed.​

​

​

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509761112

In this model, the ribosome evolved by accretion, recursively adding expansion segments, iteratively growing, subsuming, and freezing the rRNA. Functions of expansion segments in the ancestral ribosome are assigned by correspondence with their functions in the extant ribosome. The model explains the evolution of the large ribosomal subunit, the small ribosomal subunit, tRNA, and mRNA. Prokaryotic ribosomes evolved in six phases, sequentially acquiring capabilities for RNA folding, catalysis, subunit association, correlated evolution, decoding, energy-driven translocation, and surface proteinization. Two additional phases exclusive to eukaryotes led to tentacle-like rRNA expansions.​

​

​

Evolution of Protein Synthesis from an RNA World

Because of the molecular complexity of the ribosome and protein synthesis, it is a challenge to imagine how translation could have evolved from a primitive RNA World. Two specific suggestions are made here to help to address this, involving separate evolution ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Two specific suggestions are made here to help to address this, involving separate evolution of the peptidyl transferase and decoding functions. First, it is proposed that translation originally arose not to synthesize functional proteins, but to provide simple (perhaps random) peptides that bound to RNA, increasing its available structure space, and therefore its functional capabilities. Second, it is proposed that the decoding site of the ribosome evolved from a mechanism for duplication of RNA. This process involved homodimeric “duplicator RNAs,” resembling the anticodon arms of tRNAs, which directed ligation of trinucleotides in response to an RNA template.​

​

​

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032776

We find that components of the small subunit involved in ribosomal processivity evolved earlier than the catalytic peptidyl transferase center responsible for protein synthesis. Remarkably, subunit RNA and proteins coevolved, starting with interactions between the oldest proteins (S12 and S17) and the oldest substructure (the ribosomal ratchet) in the small subunit and ending with the rise of a modern multi-subunit ribosome. Ancestral ribonucleoprotein components show similarities to in vitro evolved RNA replicase ribozymes and protein structures in extant replication machinery. Our study therefore provides important clues about the chicken-or-egg dilemma associated with the central dogma of molecular biology by showing that ribosomal history is driven by the gradual structural accretion of protein and RNA structures. Most importantly, results suggest that functionally important and conserved regions of the ribosome were recruited and could be relics of an ancient ribonucleoprotein world.​

​

​

Origin and Evolution of the Ribosome

The modern ribosome was largely formed at the time of the last common ancestor, LUCA. Hence its earliest origins likely lie in the RNA world. Central to its development were RNAs that spawned the modern tRNAs and a symmetrical region deep within the large ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

To understand pre-LUCA developments, it is argued that events that are coupled in time are especially useful if one can infer a likely order in which they occurred. Using such timing events, the relative age of various proteins and individual regions within the large rRNA are inferred. An examination of the properties of modern ribosomes strongly suggests that the initial peptides made by the primitive ribosomes were likely enriched for l-amino acids, but did not completely exclude d-amino acids. This has implications for the nature of peptides made by the first ribosomes. From the perspective of ribosome origins, the immediate question regarding coding is when did it arise rather than how did the assignments evolve. The modern ribosome is very dynamic with tRNAs moving in and out and the mRNA moving relative to the ribosome. These movements may have become possible as a result of the addition of a template to hold the tRNAs. That template would subsequently become the mRNA, thereby allowing the evolution of the code and making an RNA genome useful.​

​

​

The evolution and functional repertoire of translation proteins following the origin of life - Biology Direct

Background The RNA world hypothesis posits that the earliest genetic system consisted of informational RNA molecules that directed the synthesis of modestly functional RNA molecules. Further evidence suggests that it was within this RNA-based genetic system that life developed the ability to...

biologydirect.biomedcentral.com

Our analysis reveals a structural expansion of translation proteins immediately following the RNA world and well before the establishment of the DNA genome. Subsequent functional annotation shows that representatives of the ten most ancestral protein architectures are responsible for all of the core protein functions found in modern translation.​

We propose that this early robust translation system evolved by virtue of a positive feedback cycle in which the system was able to create increasingly complex proteins to further enhance its own function.​

​

​

A Ribosome Without RNA

It was Francis Crick who first asked why the ribosome contains so much RNA, and discussed the implications of this for the flow of genetic information from DNA to protein. Remarkable advances in our understanding of the ribosome and protein synthesis, including the recent publication of two...

www.frontiersin.org

We examine here whether RNA is indispensable for coded protein synthesis, or whether an all-protein “ribosome” (or “synthosome”) might be possible, with a protein enzyme catalyzing peptide synthesis, and release factor-like protein adaptors able to read a message composed of deoxyribonucleotides. We also compare the RNA world hypothesis with the alternative “proteins first” hypothesis in terms of their different understandings of the evolution of the ribosome, specifically whether ribosomal protein synthesis carried out by RNA might have been preceded by an ancestral form of nonribosomal peptide synthesis carried out by protein enzymes.​

 

[docphin5]

<snip>​

​

The evolution and functional repertoire of translation proteins following the origin of life - Biology Direct

Background The RNA world hypothesis posits that the earliest genetic system consisted of informational RNA molecules that directed the synthesis of modestly functional RNA molecules. Further evidence suggests that it was within this RNA-based genetic system that life developed the ability to...

biologydirect.biomedcentral.com

Our analysis reveals a structural expansion of translation proteins immediately following the RNA world and well before the establishment of the DNA genome. ​

​

Subsequent functional annotation shows that representatives of the ten most ancestral protein architectures are responsible for all of the core protein functions found in modern translation.​

We propose that this early robust translation system evolved by virtue of a positive feedback cycle in which the system was able to create increasingly complex proteins to further enhance its own function. <snip>​

This is powerful evidence for evolution when “all of the core protein functions” on the planet can be reduced to “representatives of the ten most ancestral protein architectures” found in the ribosome.

Incoming fundamentalist: “But where is your proof? My Bible says….”

If I were young and in college again, I think molecular biology is the future of human progress: curing cancer, designing DNA (superstrength, long life, super smart,…), possibilities seem unlimited. Astrophysics would be a close second. Ha ha! Good OP!

 

[CrowCross]

Background​

Proteins are made in cells in a complex system. A protein is a long sequence of amino acids. There are twenty different amino acids used in nature; different sequences give different proteins.

The sequence is encoded in DNA, with a set of three bases signalling a specific amino acid. The sequence is transcribed into mRNA (messenger RNA), and passed to a ribosome. The ribosome then assembles the protein, using rather shorter tRNA (transfer RNA) to select the right amino acid.

Evolution​

How could such a complex system possibly evolve?

The simple answer is that we do not know. This is something that happened maybe 4 billion years ago, and by its nature will not leave any fossils. However, the theory of evolution is real science, so real scientists are looking at how it might have happened. I present here a number of science papers that discuss how the organelle assembly line could have evolved, answering a question I see thrown around a lot:

"How does an assembly line of organelle evolve?"

Real Science​

On the origin of the translation system and the genetic code in the RNA world by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization

The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements. Under this scenario, the primary cause for the emergence of translation was the ability of amino acids and peptides to stimulate reactions catalyzed by ribozymes. Thus, the translation system might have evolved as the result of selection for ribozymes capable of, initially, efficient amino acid binding, and subsequently, synthesis of increasingly versatile peptides. Several aspects of this scenario are amenable to experimental testing.​

...​

Put another way, the conservation of the core of the translation machinery is the strongest available evidence that some form of LUCA actually existed.​

​

​

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509761112

In this model, the ribosome evolved by accretion, recursively adding expansion segments, iteratively growing, subsuming, and freezing the rRNA. Functions of expansion segments in the ancestral ribosome are assigned by correspondence with their functions in the extant ribosome. The model explains the evolution of the large ribosomal subunit, the small ribosomal subunit, tRNA, and mRNA. Prokaryotic ribosomes evolved in six phases, sequentially acquiring capabilities for RNA folding, catalysis, subunit association, correlated evolution, decoding, energy-driven translocation, and surface proteinization. Two additional phases exclusive to eukaryotes led to tentacle-like rRNA expansions.​

​

​

Evolution of Protein Synthesis from an RNA World

Because of the molecular complexity of the ribosome and protein synthesis, it is a challenge to imagine how translation could have evolved from a primitive RNA World. Two specific suggestions are made here to help to address this, involving separate evolution ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Two specific suggestions are made here to help to address this, involving separate evolution of the peptidyl transferase and decoding functions. First, it is proposed that translation originally arose not to synthesize functional proteins, but to provide simple (perhaps random) peptides that bound to RNA, increasing its available structure space, and therefore its functional capabilities. Second, it is proposed that the decoding site of the ribosome evolved from a mechanism for duplication of RNA. This process involved homodimeric “duplicator RNAs,” resembling the anticodon arms of tRNAs, which directed ligation of trinucleotides in response to an RNA template.​

​

​

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032776

We find that components of the small subunit involved in ribosomal processivity evolved earlier than the catalytic peptidyl transferase center responsible for protein synthesis. Remarkably, subunit RNA and proteins coevolved, starting with interactions between the oldest proteins (S12 and S17) and the oldest substructure (the ribosomal ratchet) in the small subunit and ending with the rise of a modern multi-subunit ribosome. Ancestral ribonucleoprotein components show similarities to in vitro evolved RNA replicase ribozymes and protein structures in extant replication machinery. Our study therefore provides important clues about the chicken-or-egg dilemma associated with the central dogma of molecular biology by showing that ribosomal history is driven by the gradual structural accretion of protein and RNA structures. Most importantly, results suggest that functionally important and conserved regions of the ribosome were recruited and could be relics of an ancient ribonucleoprotein world.​

​

​

Origin and Evolution of the Ribosome

The modern ribosome was largely formed at the time of the last common ancestor, LUCA. Hence its earliest origins likely lie in the RNA world. Central to its development were RNAs that spawned the modern tRNAs and a symmetrical region deep within the large ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

To understand pre-LUCA developments, it is argued that events that are coupled in time are especially useful if one can infer a likely order in which they occurred. Using such timing events, the relative age of various proteins and individual regions within the large rRNA are inferred. An examination of the properties of modern ribosomes strongly suggests that the initial peptides made by the primitive ribosomes were likely enriched for l-amino acids, but did not completely exclude d-amino acids. This has implications for the nature of peptides made by the first ribosomes. From the perspective of ribosome origins, the immediate question regarding coding is when did it arise rather than how did the assignments evolve. The modern ribosome is very dynamic with tRNAs moving in and out and the mRNA moving relative to the ribosome. These movements may have become possible as a result of the addition of a template to hold the tRNAs. That template would subsequently become the mRNA, thereby allowing the evolution of the code and making an RNA genome useful.​

​

​

The evolution and functional repertoire of translation proteins following the origin of life - Biology Direct

Background The RNA world hypothesis posits that the earliest genetic system consisted of informational RNA molecules that directed the synthesis of modestly functional RNA molecules. Further evidence suggests that it was within this RNA-based genetic system that life developed the ability to...

biologydirect.biomedcentral.com

Our analysis reveals a structural expansion of translation proteins immediately following the RNA world and well before the establishment of the DNA genome. Subsequent functional annotation shows that representatives of the ten most ancestral protein architectures are responsible for all of the core protein functions found in modern translation.​

We propose that this early robust translation system evolved by virtue of a positive feedback cycle in which the system was able to create increasingly complex proteins to further enhance its own function.​

​

​

A Ribosome Without RNA

It was Francis Crick who first asked why the ribosome contains so much RNA, and discussed the implications of this for the flow of genetic information from DNA to protein. Remarkable advances in our understanding of the ribosome and protein synthesis, including the recent publication of two...

www.frontiersin.org

We examine here whether RNA is indispensable for coded protein synthesis, or whether an all-protein “ribosome” (or “synthosome”) might be possible, with a protein enzyme catalyzing peptide synthesis, and release factor-like protein adaptors able to read a message composed of deoxyribonucleotides. We also compare the RNA world hypothesis with the alternative “proteins first” hypothesis in terms of their different understandings of the evolution of the ribosome, specifically whether ribosomal protein synthesis carried out by RNA might have been preceded by an ancestral form of nonribosomal peptide synthesis carried out by protein enzymes.​

We've seen this type of response before.
It really doesn't show evolutionism but rather ones perception of the assumed steps.
In this assumption many of the required steps are left out or assumed that they will occur.

It's kinda like evolving a house....
First the ground must be removed to make way for the footer. Then concrete reinforced with rebar mat arrive in the whole so concrete can be poured into the hole and bond to the rebar.....and the story can continue all the way up to the roof and the final shingle.

As you know an assumed path is not proof of evolutionism.

Simply saying "

Subsequent functional annotation shows that representatives of the ten most ancestral protein architectures are responsible for all of the core protein functions found in modern translation.​

We propose that this early robust translation system evolved by virtue of a positive feedback cycle in which the system was able to create increasingly complex proteins to further enhance its own function."​

​

Positive feedback cycles??? Caused the robust (nice evolutionism-sounding word) increasingly complex proteins?​

​

Sheeze...you theorized proteins.....but still didn't create an organelle.​

​

Your hope was if you could link together a bunch of wishful thinking articles...and post them you could provide an answer....but guess what? No answers were presented. Only speculation passed off as fact was presented.​

​

Try again.​

 

[TeabagSalad]

We've seen this type of response before.
It really doesn't show evolutionism but rather ones perception of the assumed steps.
In this assumption many of the required steps are left out or assumed that they will occur.

It's kinda like evolving a house....
First the ground must be removed to make way for the footer. Then concrete reinforced with rebar mat arrive in the whole so concrete can be poured into the hole and bond to the rebar.....and the story can continue all the way up to the roof and the final shingle.

As you know an assumed path is not proof of evolutionism.

Simply saying "

Subsequent functional annotation shows that representatives of the ten most ancestral protein architectures are responsible for all of the core protein functions found in modern translation.​

We propose that this early robust translation system evolved by virtue of a positive feedback cycle in which the system was able to create increasingly complex proteins to further enhance its own function."​

​

Positive feedback cycles??? Caused the robust (nice evolutionism-sounding word) increasingly complex proteins?​

​

Sheeze...you theorized proteins.....but still didn't create an organelle.​

​

Your hope was if you could link together a bunch of wishful thinking articles...and post them you could provide an answer....but guess what? No answers were presented. Only speculation passed off as fact was presented.​

​

Try again.​

Or, in other words "I don't understand, and this goes against my confirmation bias so I'll just try to ignore it."

Do creationists know that they are part of a rather small cult that really only exists in the US and some third world countries?

 

[CrowCross]

Or, in other words "I don't understand, and this goes against my confirmation bias so I'll just try to ignore it."

Do creationists know that they are part of a rather small cult that really only exists in the US and some third world countries?

No, it shows I do understand...and what you evos need to do is post conjecture and then present it as truth for the gullible. You being gullible have swallowed the conjecture.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

This is powerful evidence for evolution when “all of the core protein functions” on the planet can be reduced to “representatives of the ten most ancestral protein architectures” found in the ribosome.

Incoming fundamentalist: “But where is your proof? My Bible says….”

If I were young and in college again, I think molecular biology is the future of human progress: curing cancer, designing DNA (superstrength, long life, super smart,…), possibilities seem unlimited. Astrophysics would be a close second. Ha ha! Good OP!

Again, Evolution had already been falsified. It is dishonesty to continue Evolution.

The so called evidences of Evolution are not really part of Evolution since biological cell cannot permit change to form new generation since the cell is importantly designed. Thus, the OP is a religious claim, that should be discarded as religious explanations. STOP FOOLING people!

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

Evolution is wrong and not part of Biology, of biological world or of reality. The fact that Biological Evolution is not part of reality is an undeniable fact. This will be the new normal in science for the rest of human history. In this science article, I will be showing you why the Theory of...

zenodo.org

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Or, in other words "I don't understand, and this goes against my confirmation bias so I'll just try to ignore it."

Do creationists know that they are part of a rather small cult that really only exists in the US and some third world countries?

Evolution is really easy to understand since reality is in front of us. All we have to do is to compare Evolution to Reality, and falsify Evolution.

Simple.

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

Evolution is wrong and not part of Biology, of biological world or of reality. The fact that Biological Evolution is not part of reality is an undeniable fact. This will be the new normal in science for the rest of human history. In this science article, I will be showing you why the Theory of...

zenodo.org

 

[docphin5]

Again, Evolution had already been falsified. It is dishonesty to continue Evolution.

The so called evidences of Evolution are not really part of Evolution since biological cell cannot permit change to form new generation since the cell is importantly designed. Thus, the OP is a religious claim, that should be discarded as religious explanations. STOP FOOLING people!

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

Evolution is wrong and not part of Biology, of biological world or of reality. The fact that Biological Evolution is not part of reality is an undeniable fact. This will be the new normal in science for the rest of human history. In this science article, I will be showing you why the Theory of...

zenodo.org

I have education and experience in comparative medicine exceeding twenty-five years backed up by tens of thousands of peer-reviewed literature made available by the National Institutes of Health in their online PubMed, ALL supporting the theory of evolution as the best explanation for biological diversity.

YOU are just a fringe opinion from the science community apparently motivated by religious zeal.

 

[The Pixie]

We've seen this type of response before.

Right. IDs claim there is no way evolution can do X, and evolutionists show they are wrong. It is a very familiar pattern on CARM and elsewhere.

It really doesn't show evolutionism but rather ones perception of the assumed steps.

It does not show evolutionism at all.

This is science - the theory of evolution. It shows that - despite the claims of creationists - there is actually no reason why evolution cannot produce the mechanism for protein synthesis.

In this assumption many of the required steps are left out or assumed that they will occur.

Sure. It is proposing what might have happened, and presenting evidence for that.

This happened four billion years ago; we will never know for sure. But we can say that it could have happened, which is enough to defeat the ID claim that it is impossible.

It's kinda like evolving a house....
First the ground must be removed to make way for the footer. Then concrete reinforced with rebar mat arrive in the whole so concrete can be poured into the hole and bond to the rebar.....and the story can continue all the way up to the roof and the final shingle.

As you know an assumed path is not proof of evolutionism.

Again, it is evolution, not evolutionism.

I never said it was proof - it is not. You are moving the goal posts. The ID claim is that the mechanism for protein synthesis cannot have evolved. The OP proves that that is wrong, that it is possible for evolution to produce said mechanism. Next time you trot out the organelle assembly line as something evolution cannot produce, I need only refer you to this thread to show that that claim is false.

 

[The Pixie]

Again, Evolution had already been falsified. It is dishonesty to continue Evolution.

Wrong. Evolution is doing fine.

Creationists have been claiming it is wrong, and is on its way out for a century and a half. The reality is that over that time the evidence for evolution has become stronger and stronger.

The so called evidences of Evolution are not really part of Evolution since biological cell cannot permit change to form new generation since the cell is importantly designed. Thus, the OP is a religious claim, that should be discarded as religious explanations. STOP FOOLING people!

One example of evidence for evolution is the pattern of differences in the cytochrome-C protein.

Explain to me why that is "not really part of Evolution". How does that relate to your fanciful idea that a "biological cell cannot permit change to form new generation since the cell is importantly designed".

 

[CrowCross]

Right. IDs claim there is no way evolution can do X, and evolutionists show they are wrong. It is a very familiar pattern on CARM and elsewhere.

And in a previous post I showed how a house can evolve.

It does not show evolutionism at all.

This is science - the theory of evolution. It shows that - despite the claims of creationists - there is actually no reason why evolution cannot produce the mechanism for protein synthesis.

Then tell us how it happens...use your big boy words.

Sure. It is proposing what might have happened, and presenting evidence for that.

This happened four billion years ago; we will never know for sure. But we can say that it could have happened, which is enough to defeat the ID claim that it is impossible.

LOL...saying it "could" have happened defeats ID? Wow, the simple minded.

Again, it is evolution, not evolutionism.

I never said it was proof - it is not. You are moving the goal posts. The ID claim is that the mechanism for protein synthesis cannot have evolved. The OP proves that that is wrong, that it is possible for evolution to produce said mechanism. Next time you trot out the organelle assembly line as something evolution cannot produce, I need only refer you to this thread to show that that claim is false.

Yes, and in the same fashion I showed haw a house can evolve.

 

[The Pixie]

And in a previous post I showed how a house can evolve.

Then you really do not understand evolution. It involves variation, selection and inheritance. Your house process has none of those. What you describe is building a house.

Then tell us how it happens...use your big boy words.

Why? To refute your claim, it is enough to show that real scientists have published real science is real journals that do just that.

This happened four billion years ago; we will never know for sure. But we can say that it could have happened, which is enough to defeat the ID claim that it is impossible.

LOL...saying it "could" have happened defeats ID? Wow, the simple minded.

I never said that. Apparently you feel the need to twist my words to score a cheap point and an insult. A good sign you know you have lost this argument.

What I really said is it "is enough to defeat the ID claim that it is impossible". It is.

It is telling that your response does not actually address that.

Yes, and in the same fashion I showed haw a house can evolve.

If you like, though I would call it building a house. But the important point is that in both instances we showed a step-by-step process whereby the process happened without supernatural intervention, so yes, I guess you did.

What is your point?

 

[CrowCross]

Then you really do not understand evolution. It involves variation, selection and inheritance. Your house process has none of those. What you describe is building a house.

I understand it...but you problem is when you try to make it work.

My house example does work....a house has a blueprint, a set of instructions much like the instruction code in DNA.
I don't expect the house analogy to be a fool proof representation of evolution-ism, but then it's hard to present an analogy that describes the failed theory of evolutionism.

How did the assembly line of organelle evolve? You act as if, oh, it just did. Failing to realize the complexity and immense "evolutionism" required for each separate portion of each organelle in the assembly line.

Do you need to watch the video of the cell again to remind yourself of the complexity and sophistication of a cell?

 

[rossum]

Do you need to watch the video of the cell again to remind yourself of the complexity and sophistication of a cell?

Evolution can make complexity. Evolutionary processes are capable of increasing complexity. Watching a video does not change that fact.

 

[Gus Bovona]

We've seen this type of response before.
It really doesn't show evolutionism but rather ones perception of the assumed steps.
In this assumption many of the required steps are left out or assumed that they will occur.

Those papers are not proof of the theory of evolution, and don't claim to be. They function logically as a rejoinder to the claim that such biological structures could not possibly have evolved (and they also provide direction for future research).

Try again.​

Indeed.

 

[The Pixie]

I understand it...

And yet your house analogy for evolution is utterly different to evolution!

but you problem is when you try to make it work.

Let us be honest, the analogy just does not work.

My house example does work....a house has a blueprint, a set of instructions much like the instruction code in DNA.

But that make building a house analogous to growing a single organism, not to evolution.

I don't expect the house analogy to be a fool proof representation of evolution-ism, but then it's hard to present an analogy that describes the failed theory of evolutionism.

Then talk about evolution itself. At the end of the day, you cannot prove or refute anything with an analogy. All you can do with an analogy is hope to explain. Given your analogy fails to include variation, selection and inheritance, and indeed you seem to be confusing the growth of a single organism with evolution, I think your analogy has failed.

How did the assembly line of organelle evolve? You act as if, oh, it just did.

Did you not read the OP? I listed, and quoted, several real science papers that discuss how it evolved. That would seem to be quite different to just acting, oh, it just did.

Can you tell me how ID happened? I have never seen any IDist offer any actual process or mechanism. They all act as if, oh, it just did. Looks to me like you are projecting ID's failing here.

Failing to realize the complexity and immense "evolutionism" required for each separate portion of each organelle in the assembly line.

So now the God of the gaps has even more tiny gaps to hide it! Not the evolution of the assembly line, but the evolution of each step in that process!

Do you need to watch the video of the cell again to remind yourself of the complexity and sophistication of a cell?

Do you need to re-read the OP to remind yourself that real science is actively studying how it evolved, and concluding that - despite the claims of creationists - it is entirely feasible?

 

[CrowCross]

Those papers are not proof of the theory of evolution, and don't claim to be. They function logically as a rejoinder to the claim that such biological structures could not possibly have evolved (and they also provide direction for future research).


Indeed.

When I read them I see those papers as trying to connect dots that can't be connected.

The evolutionism-minded assumes that because "we are here" evolutionism happened. They try to backlit their flawed theories with speculation about minor changes and natural selection.

All the while they don't understand just how rare a so-called beneficial mutation is and how many places it has to occur...and the impossible chasm it has to overcome to make an assembly line of organelle that build other organelle while putting into action a prescribed DNA code....an extremely complex code that had to come from somewhere...by chance mutations?

 

[The Pixie]

If JWST is importantly designed, do you think that JWST will change its original responsibility as importantly designed by NASA engineers?

I think it telling that your argument assumes a thing is designed. The JWST is designed for a certain purpose, therefore it will not change to have some other purpose or to be something else.

Clearly your argument for biology is the same. You said earlier in the thread:

The so called evidences of Evolution are not really part of Evolution since biological cell cannot permit change to form new generation since the cell is importantly designed. Thus, the OP is a religious claim, that should be discarded as religious explanations. STOP FOOLING people!

Your argument is founded on the premise that "the cell is importantly designed".

Which is also the conclusion you purport to prove.

This is called a circular reasoning. Look it up.

Oh my goodness, probably all supporters of Evolution are really dishonest to protect their religious beliefs.

Back in reality, supports of evolution have all manner of religious beliefs and none at all. As well as Christians, Hindus, Muslims, atheists and plenty of others support evolution. So I have to wonder what religious beliefs you think we are all protecting.

 

[CrowCross]

And yet your house analogy for evolution is utterly different to evolution!

No, my house analogy simply broke the perceived steps in building a house down to singular components and added linear direction to it in a could have happened fashion....which is exactly what you presented.

Funny thing is you always move in a direction of "increase" never even considering the lesser portion of your assumption could be information being removed.

For instance when you bred a dog for a specific purpose....information is typically removed. If you want short legs....you remove the dogs from the litter with bigger legs. As you know the information for short legs has always been present.

 

[TeabagSalad]

There is no single evidence for Evolution, as I had shown in my science article, for four reasons. Maybe you are not really educated to think, but educated to follow only.

Cell, the basis of life. Cell cannot permit Evolution. one reason

If you read the article, then, you will understand why. Before you comment, you must know first your opponent.

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

Evolution is wrong and not part of Biology, of biological world or of reality. The fact that Biological Evolution is not part of reality is an undeniable fact. This will be the new normal in science for the rest of human history. In this science article, I will be showing you why the Theory of...

zenodo.org

You don't know anything about Evolution.