Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)

Richard Forrest wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Richard Forrest wrote:


That isn't a testable hypothesis. It's an unfounded assertion.
What set of observations or measurements could demonstrate that a
"specified complex function" is *not* the product of an "intelligence"
when the term "specified complex function" *presumes* the involvement
of an intelligence?

It's the logical fallacy of presuming the consequent.


The term "specified complex function" does *not* presume the involvement
of intelligence. It's merely been observed that intelligence has
produced all known examples of this outside of nature. Who (or what)
produced the functions in nature is still debatable. The fact that
intelligent design (among humans) has produced these types of functions
is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. It's no
more a stretch than the standard evolutionary argument that - although
there's no proof that evolution did produce it, there's ample evidence
that it can (or so you say). Both are testable.


So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems
were created by an unidentified "intelligent designer" using
unspecified methods testable?

I've asked you for a test several times, but all you come up with is
the assertion that if evolution can't do it, this is the only possible
alternative.

That is not a test of the ID assertion.



The main
argument presented by ID is a potentail falsification of evolution by
small incremental steps - exactly the test of his theory proposed by
Darwin!

In science one does not support one hypothesis by falsifying a
completely different one.


That's part of the argument. If it can be shown that evolution *cannot*
produce new complex specified functions (without losing another
function), then evolution *cannot be* the mechanism by which de novo
functions were built up over time.



So what? Even if evolution by small incremental steps were falsified,
that would not provide one iota of support for the assertion that an
"intelligent designer" did it. One cannot support one hypothesis by
falsifying a different hypothesis. It's a scientifically incoherent,
and logically invalid argument.

If I were on trial for murder, you couldn't prove my guilt by proving
your innocence.


That's true. But if not evolution, then what?



Something else. There is an infinite number of potential mechanisms. As
things stand, the evidence that the diversity of living organisms is
the outcome of evolutionary processes is overwhelmingly strong, and
even creations are forced to accept that evolution occurs.



There are *so many* things evolution cannot explain.


Perhaps so, but it's the best theory we have.


I don't think it's the "best".



So what? You haven't offered any alternative which can be tested using
the tools of science.



It succeeds at the level of genetics and biochemistry. That not just
"looking at the surface of things."


It doesn't really. At those levels, most "evidence" for evolution is
purely speculative.


I'm afraid that you are showing your ignorance. The hottest field in
biological science at the moment is what is called "evo/devo", which
looks at the relationships between genetics, development and evolution.
Thousands of papers are being published every year.


I suggest that you remedy the deficiencies of your education before
making such a silly assertion. There exists in nature a progression of
forms of the eye from simple light-sensitive cells to the complexities
of the vertebrate eye. Darwin described them in detail in the "Origin
of the Species".


With no realistic pathway between them. Sure, you can point to different
forms of eyes and *assume* a progression, but you must *explain* how one
became the other. That has not been done - other than with many
*glossings over* of critical developments necessary for one eye to
become another.



Mere assertion again.
The fact is that the progressive changes in the form of the eye can be
explained in terms of evolution in small incremental steps, and you are
not offering any alternative which explains the evidence or is
testable.



You might call it that, but biologists (who are the people who have
actually *studied* the subject) call speciation a macroevolutionary
event. Why are you changing terms to suit your argument?



Show me an observed case of speciation
that has produced a net gain of features in an organism.



What on earth do you mean by a "net gain in features"?


I mean where a new feature evolves without causing the loss of another
feature.


Generally speaking one feature changes into another feature. That's why
homology is so important in understanding anatomy and evolutionary
relationships. Why is a bat wing built from exactly the same set of
basic components as the leg of a dog?


You know - the thing that has to happen for evolution to
produce the net gain of features in life from the beginning until now.


Segmentation, increase in segment number due to mutations in the genes
controlling segmentation, modification of additional segements due to
mutation affecting those segements to produce novel forms. The
development of hox genes to control developmental processes, the
duplication of clusters of hox genes to cause the expression of a
feature several times.

Seems pretty clear to me, and the morphological evidence is backed up
by genetic evidence.

Try reading about the way in which hox genes control development.




> That's not the mechanism of evolution, and completely misreprents
the

modern synthesis. Gene duplication or polyploidy is not "random
corruption". They are the mechanisms whereby "new information" is added
to the geneome, and have been studied in exhaustive depth.


"Polyploidy is when the number of chromosomes in a cell becomes doubled.
This can happen by a mutation that simply makes two copies. It can also
happen when the chromosomes from two different species are mixed.
One obvious consequence is that the resulting creature has no one it can
breed with."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polyploidy.html

Hmmm... No one it can *breed* with? How is this "new information" then
passed on? Unless the organism is a plant or an earthworm, this
mechanism is useless to the standard evolutionary requirement for
natural selection - namely *breeding*!!!


Which is why polyploidy is most common in plants. Since when have
plants not been living organisms?


Gene duplication also produces no new information. Redundancy is not an
increase in information content.



Well, as duplicated genes have been identified in the genome, and the
mutations affecting the duplicated genes identified, your unfounded
assertion is simply wrong.


Selection act on the variation produced by mutation. They are
intimately linked.


I was asking what *embryonic development* has to do with the mutation
and selection - not what mutation has to do with selection.


Mutations affect the ontogenetic development of organisms.
Morphological changes can arise from changes in developmental timing.
It's called heterochrony. There's an awful lot of scientific literature
about it.


What about gene duplication and polyploidy? That is how "new
information" is added to the genome.


Sorry - no good - doesn't work.



So once again you resort to mere assertion.
The scientists who study such mechanisms think it works. What do you
know that they don't?



You are ignoring it. I've descibed the processes by which "new
information" is added to the genome. Natural selection acts on mutation
in the duplicated sections of the genome to produce novel structures.


Is this observed or assumed?



The evidence for it is preserved in the genome.
Or do you think that the evidence was planted there to confuse
researchers?


Apparently evolution has more explaining to do. Bats not only have
complex specified auditory navigational systems, they also have
touch-sensitive receptors built into their wings that allow them to
"feel" the air and "help them maintain their flight path and snag their
prey"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=35065

On the supposed evolution of the bat:

"The oldest known skeleton, supposedly 60 million years old (Wilson p.
79), is a fully-formed bat which apparently could echo-locate (UCMP
Berkeley).
When you ask an evolutionist to show you the ancestor of a bat, he will,
in all likelihood (as does the ZooBooks volume on "Bats"), show you a
mythical creature with elongated limbs connected by stretched skin
gliding from branch to branch like a modern flying squirrel.



Yes, it's called "forming an hypothesis" in science, and one which can
be tested against the fossil evidence.



It will
have paws on all four limbs, and may be seen perching on a branch with
skin folds hanging down (Wood and Rink, p. 6). What the evolutionist
will not show you is any kind of transition between paws used for
standing and running, and hand-wings used for flying.


He can show you the "flying frogs" which do just that: the gliding
membrane in these frogs is the webs between the toes - just as is the
case in the bat's wing.



He won't show you
because there is no fossil of such a creature,


Such a creature would have been small, fragile and unlikely to become
fossilised.




and he can't imagine what
one would look like.


Excuse me? The author has just given a reference to a descrition of
what such a creature would look like.



He also can't explain how "survival of the
fittest" would produce it.


He can explain it perfectly well. Small increases in gliding ability
give slightly increased chances of reproductive success. The
accumulation of such small increments over time leads to an increase in
gliding abilty. Muscular control of the gliding surfaces gives more
maneoverability, and increased the chances of reproductive success.
Incremenal increase in the size and power of these muscles leads to the
development of powered flight rather than gliding.

Seems a pretty good explanation to me.



At some point elongating front toes would
interfere with quadrupedal (four-footed) movement long before they could
become the ribs of functional wings.


Bats can move on the ground using four feet pretty well.



And why and how upside-down?


Because it frees the wings.



Birds perch very well right-side up.


So what? Birds are not bats, and have acheived flight by a different
evolutionary path. They are descended from bipedal dinosaurs, not
mammals with a quadripedal gait.



How does "survival of the fittest"
turn an animal upside down, with all the physiological changes necessary
for maintaining that position?


What physiological changes?



Try swallowing while hanging
upside-down.


Bats don't feed when they are hanging upside down. They feed on the
wing.



And what happens to your blood after a while?


Not a problem if you weigh only a few ounces. It's a scaling factor
thing.



Yet bats
eat,


No, they eat on the wing.



sleep, and mate upside down,


Nope, they mate on the wing.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Lasiurus_borealis.html


Your "evidence" for the development of the bat wing is still just an
assertion that it could happen - with no logical reason why it should or
any real evidence that it did.



The evidence is in the genetic relationships of bats to other mammals
and the homology of the elements of the bat wing to the mammalian
forelimb.

That's real evidence.

What other explanation do you have, and what evidence can you produce
to support it?



and many also give birth in that
position."
http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm




Gene duplication.
Polyploidy.
They are mechanisms which add new features.


Asserted and assumed.



No, observed and measured, and entirely consistent with evolutionary
theory.




First off, this is not *observed* evolution, it is conjecture based on
the study of fish genetics.


So what alternative theory of equal explanatory power can you present?
It's consistent with all that we know of genetics, evolutionary theory,
morphology and biochemistry.



The fact that non-electric fish have both
genes expressed in their muscles and the electric have only one, is not
conclusive evidence that one evolved into the other.


So what alternative theory of equal explanatory power can you present?


That these systems were designed.


That is an assertion, not a theory.



He goes on to say that these electrical systems are "so simple", they
aught to be able to figure it out. We'll see.


And what alternative theory of equal explanatory power are you
offering?


Design. The evidence being that these systems are "finely tuned".


We can apply evolutionary algorythms to the design of engineered
structures and they produce finely tuned solutions without the need for
intelligent intervention.

These model evolutionary processes. They are widely used in industry.

"Fine tuning" is what evolution does best. It's the conceptual leaps it
doesn't do.


Finely
tuned systems are known to be produced by intelligence - therefore these
systems could have been produced by intelligence. If finely tuned
systems were *known to be* produced by natural means - you could argue
otherwise.



Finely tuned systems can be produced by mimicking evolution in a
computer. Once the programme is running, it requires no intelligent
intervention.

So one can get finely tuned systems without intelligent intervention.




Nevertheless, even if it *did* evolve, it fits well within my hypothesis
for "built in" variation among designed families.



You don't have a "hypothesis" for "built in variation". All you have is
an assertion.

How do you propose to test your hypothesis? There is no evidence in
genetics or morphology for any boundaries to variation between families
- a term which, as I have pointed out before, is one of pragmatic
convenience which cannot be defined clearly in biological terms.


The boundaries are there.


Where?


Whenever an organism crosses the boundary - it
dies or cannot breed. Do you deny this as well?


What boundary? Between species? Sorry, no. Closely related species can
hybridise and in some cases produce fertile offspring. Plants do so
promiscuously. It is hard to define the concept of species in clear
biological terms - the boundaries are blurred because species have
evolved.

All the taxonomic ranks about species are of pragmatic value, but do
not relate to any biological reality.




I didn't state that very clearly. I meant that complexity can come into
existence without being specified. A random sequence will be complex.
The longer it is, the more complex it is.


You need to educate yourself on the nature of complexity to avoid
making statements such as this one. Complexity itslelf is a complex
concept, and there are several differnt definitions of the term in
mathematics and information theory.


OK, what part of "complexity" did I get wrong?



Do a google scholar search on "Definitions of complexity" and start
reading.


This is *not* the standard
used to determine design. Complexity must be specified to perform a
biological function.


And this is the unsupported assertion on which you build your argument.
Why must such complexity be "specified"?



Random complexity won't do.


"Random complexity" is a meaningless term.


No it's not. Complexity does not *require* specificity. A random string
can be complex. In fact a random string is generally more complex than a
specified one.


..depending on which defintion of complexity you are using....


However, in order to produce a *function*, a random
string will not do. *That* requires a specified string.
Why are you acting so dense about this?



Oh please!
Your argument is built entirely in unfounded and untestable assertions
and you acuse me of acting dense?

Perhaps you can start by describing a test which could falsify your
assertion.


And this is relevant why, exactly?
All you are doing is asserting that biological functions *must* be
specified.


I'm saying they are specified. If you know of some that aren't, please
enlighten me.



None of them are. They are evolved, and there is vast evidence to
support that hypothesis.

What evidence (as opposed to unfounded and untestable assertions) can
you offer for their being specified?



The function of the eye is sight.


How is this different from arguing that the function of wind is to
carry objects?



The function of the wing is flight.


How is this different from arguing that the function of wind is to
carry objects?



The function of the heart is circulation.


How is this different from arguing that the function of wind is to
carry objects?



These functions are specified


Again, this is simply an unfounded assertion.



and complex. How did that come about?



By evolution.
What better testable explanation do you have?


Please go into a little more detail than just "by evolution".



Why not read some literature on the subject?
Evolution is the paradigm which undelies the biological sciences.




That depends on which definition of complexity you use.


Name one that does not depend on these elements.


Specificity is a function of exclusiveness. If a DNA
sequence is aperiodic (they all are - AFAIK)


If by "aperiodic" you mean that the same sequences are not repeated
several times, you are flatly wrong. There are large sections of the
genome which consist of the repetition of the same sequence many times.


OK.


and exclusive (IOW it can't
be modified without causing a loss of function),


DNA functions can be modified without causing a "loss of function".
Within the human genome there are many examples of modified versions of
genes providing the same function. The genome is not a rigid as you
would like to imagine.


I never said it was rigid. I said it was specified and complex and it
conveys information. The degrees of these qualities vary - but they are
there.



It's complex, sure. It's had 3.5 billion years of evolution to generate
that complexity.


I never said "supernatural"


So what are you suggesting? An entitity which evolved by natural
selection on another planet, and came here to earth to fiddle with
normal evolutionary processes?


Maybe.



Which begs the question of how that entity evolved, of course.
Or was that also the product of intelligent design? Are we dealing with
an infinite recursion here?



If this was not a supernatural entity, why don't we find the
laboratories and factories in which large-scale modifications of the
genome were made in the geological record?


Why would large scale factories and labs be required?



So how were the changes made, and what evidence is there for the
methods by which such changes were made, and what evidence exists for
the "intelligent designers"?



The point it that the assertion that life was "designed" is untestable.
If you think that it is testable, please suggest a test which could
potentially falsify the assertion that it was designed.


If it can be shown that complex specified information arises naturally -
where it didn't previously exist - that would falsify it.



No it wouldn't. It would falsify evolution by small incremental steps.


I'd think that the numerous examples of poor design in nature -
starting with my bad back - are evidence enough that even if a designer
were involved, he sure as hell was not very intelligent (or if
intelligent, a vindictive ***).


You know your intelligence level is nowhere near the level required to
design and create life, yet you presume that - because the design is not
"perfect", any designer is a fool. It's really kind of pathetic.



That's a real cop-out! So even if a design appears to be poor, it might
be good because we are not as intelligent as your "intelligent
designer".

So how can you falsify the assertion that an intelligent designer did
it?



It's an *observed* phenomenon.


Why does that mean that it has to be extended to include phenomena in
living organisms?


It doesn't - only that it can be.


Why should it be if there is no evidence for it?



What about complex systems in nature?
Your agument is
1) Humans specify and manufacture complex systems
2) Humans are intelligent
3) We observe complex systems in nature
4) Therefore those complex systems have to be made by intelligent
beings.


Could have been. If you've got evidence to the contrary - please present it.


It's your theory: provide the evidence to support it.
Evolutionary theory explains complex systems very well, is supported by
evidence and is falsifiable.



This assumes that because intelligent humans manufacture complex
systems, all complex systems have be manufatured by intelligent beings.
It is exacly the same logical falacy as the mackerel example.


Evolution: Because evolution produces changes in systems, and because
life's systems are different, evolution produced these systems.
Same fallacy.



No, because we have vast amounts of evidence to support the fact that
evolution happens. We can observe it in action.


Naturalism?


Yes. Or perhaps you can point out some branch of science which operates
on the basis of "God did it"?


There are plenty of branches of science which say "Intelligence did it".
Anthropology, archaeology, forensics, and SETI to name a few.


No, they recognise the products of human manufacture, based on a
knowledge of the processes involved.

SETI does that?



Until we had studied the methods

used to knap flint tools, it was hard to distinguish between naturally
broken flints and those which were the product of human manufacture.

It is only by understanding the processes involved that we can conclude
that "intelligence did it".


That's part of it. But what about objects for which we don't know the
process? Can the process be learned *from the object*?
I think it can.


Yet you offer no evidence to support your assertion.



I'm sorry, but "intelligent agency" is not a mechanism. The
"intelligent agency" may design the mechanism and use it to manufacture
the product, but it is not a mechanism in itself.

I am an "intelligent agency", but I am not a mechanism.


You are able, using only intelligent agency and your voice, to create
great and moving words which can change history.


I can't build a physical object using only my voice.


The same voice, without
intelligent agency, would only be capable of unintelligible grunts and
would achieve nothing. The *only* difference between the two is
*Intelligent Agency*.


Which is completely irrelevant because I don't build physical objects
using my voice. If I persuade or instruct others to make objects, they
use mechanisms to do so.






I'm confident that it can.

You made the assertion that evolution is limited to changes within
families. If you think that this is the case, how do you propose to
test that hypothesis?


By the observed evidence that any big changes in the DNA of an
individual result either in death or the lack of ability to breed.


DNA does not change in individuals. You have the DNA you were born
with.


Big
changes are needed to get from family to family. It's never been shown
to be possible.



All the evidence suggests that it can.
No evidence suggests that it can't.





It didn't, and nobody has ever suggested that it did. RNA replication
has been suggested as a precursor to DNA replication. It's a testable
hypothesis which is supported by evidence.

Read about the "RNA world".


It's also just an assumption.


No, it's a testable hypothesis.



Biogenesis and biochemistry is not my field - I'm a vertebrate
palaeontologist working on marine reptiles. However, a brief search
using google scholar produces large numbers of papers formulating
hypotheses in the subject.
Here's one:
http://laplace.compbio.ucsf.edu/~voelzv/research/papers/pdf_files/yockey1999.pdf


Why not read it, and then come up with another hypothesis which can be
tested, and is supported by evidence, not assertion?


Reading it now.
It's interesting so far that he mentions such concepts as "specificity",
"complexity", "information" and "meaning" when referring to the genetic
code - yet you seem to imply that it cannot be described in those terms.


Where did I say that?
It's the unsupported assertion that the involvement of an intelligent
agency is needed to explain that complexity that I'm arguing against.


You seem to have great difficulty understanding how these terms apply to
genetics.



In what way? Whether it applies to genetics or not, it's still no more
than an unsupported assertion.


Just finished it.
He basically takes the position, after discussing the fallacies of most
of the abiogenesis theories, that we may never know the answer.


Quite so. Science does not claim to know all the answers, and to find
out what happened to fragile organic molecules 3.5 billion years ago is
something which may well be impossible to determine.

This is why research into abiogenesis is working on different lines of
enquiry.


OK. But you offered this paper as an explanation of the origin of
Protein Synthesis. Where is the explanation?



RNA syntheses proteins.



He examines all the "non-intelligent agency" theories and finds them
wanting. He does not discuss ID, but it's the obvious "elephant in the
room" IMO.


Why? It's an untestable assertion, and scientifically useless.
What predictions does ID make which can be tested against the evidence?
And please, don't repeat the canard of "specified complexity", because
that is an assertion which presumes the intervention of an intelligent
agency.


If you've already closed your mind to the evidence, I won't bother
restating it.


Your "evidence" is not more than the assertion that complex systems
require a designer.
How do you propose to test your assertion?



I found particularly interesting his discussion of the error correcting
mechanism inherent in protein synthesis. He described it as a "curious
phenomenon" that such a "proofreading" mechanism exists.

This curious phenomenon is an expected one for ID.


There is nothing which ID does not "expect"!
Is there any possible phenomenon which could theoretically *not* be
explained by ID?


Yes. Fish that suddenly became lizards, or any observed large scale
evolution that did not result in the death or sterilization of the lifeform.



Why are fish becoming lizards not explicable by ID? The powers and
methods of the intelligent designer are unspecified and possibly
supernatural.



Read about the "RNA world"


I will.


Here's a guy who has no answers as to how evolution produced *even one*
of life's basic building blocks accusing *me* of having no explanations.
Interesting.


As I have said, this is not my field. People working in the field of
abiogenesis have several testable hypotheses as to how this came about.
There was a recent paper in Nature on the subject.


Testable? How so?



By laboratory experiment and the investigation of environments in other
parts of the solar system in which conditions similar to those of the
early earth still exist.

I *do* have an explanation BTW. Such things as transcription processes,
proofreading mechanisms, and translators of information from one form to
another, are clear hallmarks of intelligent design.





That was one paper. I'm not denying the existence of review papers in
science. I'm working in one myself. But you miss the point. There are
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of papers out there which
describe original research. None of them are the product of ID
research.

So why not answer my question: what original research has been done in
support of ID, and where has it been published?



As a scientist working outside the USA in the evolutionary sciences I
can confirm that m assertion is true.


Perhaps it's the company you keep.



That of other evolutionary scientists on the whole.



As would many others.



So what original research have they published which supports ID?


If by "published" you mean only in peer-reviewed journals, then only a
few papers have been published. If however by "published" you're
allowing for books on the subject, then many many have been written.


Books are not subject to rigid peer-review processes.



Spetner, Lee M., "Errors in power spectra due to finite samples,"
Journal of Applied Physics (May 1954)


Try
Spetner, L.M. (1968). "Information transmission in evolution," IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. IT-14, pp. 3-6
and
Spetner, L.M. (1970). "Natural selection versus gene uniqueness,"
Nature, vol. 226, pp. 948-949


No answer here?



Which of these papers provided support for ID?
It would be curious if they did because they were published before the
term was invented.


They don't directly mention ID. They are more along the lines of the
impossibility of evolution increasing the information content in a genome.



Which potentially falsified evolution in small incremental steps.
Such a falsification would not support any other hypothesis.



That is what you assert.



the lack of redundancy in its

systems,

Designed systems don't incorporate redundancy? How many bathrooms in the
buildings you design? How many toilets in each? How many windows? Doors?
I hope the answer to all these questions is more than "one"!



That's not redundancy. That's response to a brief. Redundancy would be
builing a wall and then knocking it down again for no reason.


Why does redundancy require the destruction of it's first product?


Tails in human embros are redundant. They form and are reabsorbed,


and the balance between cost and function in its construction.

Organisms have this as well. They are very efficient self-sustaining
systems.


So why do human embryos grow tails and then reabsorb them? That's not
very efficient.
When I get cold, the thin hairs on my skin erect and form pimples,
which increases the surface area of my skin so that I loose heat more
quickly. That's not very efficient.


Why do cars break down? Why don't they fly? Why do headlights only point
straight ahead?


More irrelevancies. Are you now asserting that this designer of
superhuman intelligence was no more competent than the engineers at
General Motors?




In many cases, yes. Nature is rather poor at "designing" internal
combustion engines, for example. Or wheels for that matter.


And man is poor at designing cells and protein synthesis.


So what?



So why did this designer equip us with a retina which is wired so that
the nerve cells block part of the light reaching it, whereas he equiped
squid with more efficient eyes which are wired up from the back? And
please don't point me at that stupid AiG article which claims that it
is to protect us from ultra-violet radiation: most vertebrates live in
the same environment as squid, and all have inverted retinas.


I don't know why the designer designed it that way. If you've got a
better idea, how about getting to work designing a better eye. I'm sure
you could make a bundle!



More irrelevance.



No you haven't. You have made the assertion that complexity demands
design, and that therefore complexity is evidence for design. You have
presented no hypothesis whatsoever of how they were made.


Not complexity, *specified* complexity. Big difference.



Yes, and a falacy of presuming the consequent.


Let me ask you another question:
How would you determine if an artifact found on Mars was designed?


By looking for evidence of manufacture, and forming hypotheses of
manufacturing processes which can be tested against the evidence.


That's it? No other evidence such as "structural purpose of components"?
No considering of features?
Please?


"Purpose" is an assumption which cannot be tested by scientific
hypothesis.

In science one investigates by testing hypotheses.


So where is the testable falsifiable hypothesis for how evolution
produced protein synthesis?

Given the fact that we are able to design and build systems similar to
the systems involved in protein synthesis, and given the fact that we
are able to manipulate DNA, it is no stretch to say that an advanced
intelligent agent could put together something along the lines of
protein synthesis from scratch. The closer we get, the more it proves my
point.

Yet where is the falsifiable testable progression from the precursor to
protein synthesis to the final process via evolution?

.