The evolutionary origin of complex features
RE Lenski, C Ofria, RT Pennock, C Adami
A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms—computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.
For 150 years the jokers of evolution have been saying that evolution is science but they have had no explanation for the development of organic features! Finally a truthful admission from an evolutionist!
We examined this issue using digital organisms—computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured.
A 'function' is an algorithm. No one has ever seen matter write either a function or an algorithm. So the question must be asked: how can this be a real life simulation of matter by itself creating complexity?
However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.
It takes a lot of gibberish to hide the fact that the author is hiding a big problem in the experiment - the fitness cost of non-performing functions. According to evolution unfit functions must dissappear. However this program does not delete them as natural selection would, instead it lets them hang around without punishment.
This indeed is in real life one of the great problems of Darwinian evolution. How can an organism become increasingly fit through the large number of small steps required in gradual evolution at every point in the process. This is clearly impossible.
However, the question that this article raises is even more important than what it says: why cannot evolutionists give real evidence for their theory from real life? Why can they not find examples of these supposed processes occurring in living, breathing organisms?
Surely, we in the US have been spending uncounted billions on biological research for decades. There are millions of scientists throughout the world working on biological questions. How come none of these in the many decades of this intense biological research have been able to find the process of evolution actually occurring in any living thing?????????