-6

We all know that evolution is a fact. Fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation. Evolution is defined by mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift. The first two create variation while the latter two sort variation, and this is something that we know by actual experience or observation.

But, we also know by actual experience or observation, that evolution can't create new genes. The biggest observation of evolution in action is Lenski's E.coli experiment. After more than 67.000 generations, which translated into human generations is equivalent to around one million years, this experiment resulted in 0 - zero new genes. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression. One of the changes involved something that proponents of evolution refers to as evidence for bacteria evolving a "key innovation" But, nothing structurally new evolved. After about 31,000 generations there was a mutational transfer of one pre-existing gene(citT) from one location to another which resulted in the ability of E.coli to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions.

How can we explain this fact of impotence of evolution? Well, quite simple. The total number of mutations in the history of life is estimated at 10^43, while the average E. coli gene size is 1000 bp which gives a library of 10^602 DNA seqeunces. Meaning, even with all evolutionary mutations spent, and with a functional landscape of size 10^100, still there is a 459 orders of magnitude lack of mutational resources to explore this library and find new functional landscapes.

So evolution is indeed a fact, but the fact is also that evolution can't create anything new that is useful.

Mario
  • 5
  • 8
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a polemic, not a question. – David Nov 29 '17 at 17:43
  • 1
    @Mario: What is your definition of "new gene"? One amino-acid residue substitution can dramatically change substrate specificity of the gene-encoded enzyme . . . –  Nov 29 '17 at 20:15

1 Answers1

3

Is evolution a fact?

Let's start with a little bit of semantic.

In lay terms, it is easy and pleasant to just say it is a fact but the reality is that there is no fact in science discoveries. Hence, evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. In other words, evolution is a set of hypotheses that are extremely strongly supported by evidence.

Have a look at Is evolution a fact? for more info about this semantic.

Do gene duplication occur?

Your question is based on the false claim that gene duplication do not occur. This is simply wrong. There are thousands of evidence of gene duplication.

Evidence of gene duplication with neofunctionalization (that is the duplicated gene take a new function) are rarer but still very common. Consider for example

In fact, tandem duplications also occurred in the Lenski experiments (Blount et al. 2012)

Gene creation

There is a simple logical fallacy in your argument. When you say

After about 31,000 generations there was a mutational transfer of one pre-existing gene(citT) from one location to another which resulted in the ability of E.coli to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions.

The claim refers to a tandem duplication. Therefore, this claim seems to suggest that "gene creation" and "gene duplication" are different things. In fact, we never use the term "gene creation" in evolutionary biology. We talk about gene duplication and neofunctionalization. Neofunctionalization is the process by which a gene takes a new function, different from the ancestral gene before the duplication. But it is essentially the same thing. Gene rarely (if ever) come to existence all of sudden out of nothing with a single mutation. In general, gene duplicate and then slowly diverge, one gene taking a new function. This is how the number of genes (and the number of functional genes) can increase eventually through time.

Remi.b
  • 68,088
  • 11
  • 141
  • 234