Why " evolution vs creationism"

[tas8831]

As far as I concerned, the ball is on your side, heldines dilemma has not been solved.

I also note that creationist essays on the subject rarely if ever mentioned these papers:


Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA Vol.71,No.9,pp.3716-3720,
September 1974

An Analysis of the Cost-of-Selection Concept
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/71/9/3716.full.pdf


Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci.USA
Vol.71,No.10,pp.3863-3865,October 1974

Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/71/10/3863.full.pdf

 

[Bear Wild]

I say that random mutations play a minor role. Do we still agree?

No we do not agree! You do not understand genetics if you think that random mutations are not important. All aspects of the creation of genetic variation are important.

 

[tas8831]

I have to make one major retraction/clarification - it was not GC Williams that dismissed Haldane's model, but Warren Ewens.

 

[tas8831]

Warren Ewens interview:

AP: The mention of Crow brings up a further question I had. Were many biologists concerned about the problems of genetic load and mutation load at the time you began your graduate career?


WE: [...]
A second form of the load concept was introduced by the British biologist-mathematician Haldane who claimed, in 1957, that substitutions in a Darwinian evolutionary process could not proceed at more than a certain comparatively slow rate, because if they were to proceed at a faster rate, there would be an excessive “substitutional load.” Since Haldane was so famous, that concept attracted a lot of attention. In particular, Crow and Kimura made various substitutional load calculations around 1960, that is at about that time that I was becoming interested in genetics.
Perhaps the only disagreement I ever had with Crow concerned the substitutional load, because I never thought that the calculations concerning this load, which he and others carried out, were appropriate. From the very start, my own calculations suggested to me that Haldane’s arguments were misguided and indeed erroneous, and that there is no practical upper limit to the rate at which substitutions can occur under Darwinian natural selection.

 

[ecco]

Well I didn't invented the term "natural genetic engineering" the term is widelly available in books research articles etc.

What Audie said.

DNA doesnt "think" .... DNA is simply predisposed to react/change under given circumstances.

How do you think predisposed DNA reacts/changes under what given circumstances?

Do you think DNA recognizes cold and changes itself to make cells warmer?

 

[ecco]

My faith is irrelevant, I would still believe in the resurrection of Christ regardless if my view on evolution is correct or wrong.

More to the point would be the questions:

• What do you believe to be the origins of humans?
• On what do you base your belief?

 

[leroy]

No we do not agree! You do not understand genetics if you think that random mutations are not important. All aspects of the creation of genetic variation are important.

Well, how d you know that they are important? Take for example the flagellum, how do you know that a relevant portion of the mutations involved to build a flagellum where random mutations?

 

[leroy]

Do you think DNA recognizes cold and changes itself to make cells warmer?

How the mechanism works at a fundamental level is still an open question. But yes if organisms detect cold* genes would rearrange themselves, create new proteins and produce tolerance to cold climate

*I don’t know if this specific example of cold/warm has been observed, but other analogous cases have been reported.

 

[leroy]

More to the point would be the questions:

• What do you believe to be the origins of humans?
• On what do you base your belief?

My view is that humans evolved from other species by a process of evolution, but I would argue that random mutations play a minor role, and non random mutations played an important role.

On what do you base your belief?

Because there are things that the process of random mutations and natural selection cannot do + the fact that non random mutations are known to be more efficient in creating new functional information, proteins, genes, etc..so why not assuming that maybe non random mutations are the main mechanism behind the process of evolution?



----
what about God?

My view is that God is the creator of all natural laws, including the laws that build humans, and I would also say that God directly intervened and at some point gave us human’s spirit and soul. But these 2 points are beyond the scope of this thread, (feel free to open a new thread on this topics and I will participate)

 

[Polymath257]

How the mechanism works at a fundamental level is still an open question. But yes if organisms detect cold* genes would rearrange themselves, create new proteins and produce tolerance to cold climate

*I don’t know if this specific example of cold/warm has been observed, but other analogous cases have been reported.

That's Lamarckian evolution and would have significantly different patterns of inher proteins itance than natural selection. That alone says that if this effect exists, it is a minor contributor to overall evolution.



Furthermore, the known cases of Lamarckian patterns have to do with things like methylation. That means it is not a difference in the genes, but a difference in the expression of already existing genes. it isn't the DNA changing to adapt to cold weather (to use the example given), but proteins changing to determine which DNA is expressed based on the cold. That means that the controlling proteins evolve via regular natural selection.

 

[tas8831]

I am not in the “far fridges” of science, I mentioned Shapiro as an example, but the trend in the last 20+ years in the field is that scientists are constantly discovering non random genetic changes that contribute to the adaptation and diversity of species.

Please present 5 clear-cut examples of non-random adaptive genetic change. And not mere assertions buy the likes of Shapiro (who, interestingly, 'argues' a bit like professional creationists when his claims are challenged - saw the comments on an essay he had posted to HuffPo a few years ago, and some folks cast doubt on his claims and he chowed up in the comments calling them names), but actual scienctific papers.

 

[leroy]

That's Lamarckian evolution and would have significantly different patterns of inher proteins itance than natural selection. That alone says that if this effect exists, it is a minor contributor to overall evolution.



Furthermore, the known cases of Lamarckian patterns have to do with things like methylation. That means it is not a difference in the genes, but a difference in the expression of already existing genes. it isn't the DNA changing to adapt to cold weather (to use the example given), but proteins changing to determine which DNA is expressed based on the cold. That means that the controlling proteins evolve via regular natural selection.

Please provide details, how do you know that these mechanisms cause a minor contribution? What limits the mechanism to produce “big” evolutionary changes?

 

[leroy]

Please present 5 clear-cut examples of non-random adaptive genetic change. And not mere assertions buy the likes of Shapiro (who, interestingly, 'argues' a bit like professional creationists when his claims are challenged - saw the comments on an essay he had posted to HuffPo a few years ago, and some folks cast doubt on his claims and he chowed up in the comments calling them names), but actual scienctific papers.

Stop acting as if the concept of non random mutations (also called directed mutations or adaptative) is some sort of “creationist thing” there is a true controversy in the scientific community on how relevant are these type of mutations and many independent authors have concluded that these mutations play a primary role.

Only fanatic evolutionists from forums and youtube (or those who what to sale books) seem to be unaware of this controversy. Scientists know and admit that evolution by random mutations and NS is far from being an established fact. This paper summarizes the controversy

The directed mutation controversy in an evolutionary context. - PubMed - NCBI

you asked for 5 examples...And for some arbitrary reason, you decided that I am not allowed to quote Shapiro...
Are the authors of this sources also part of the conspiracy? Maybe creationists and others that have made a case against Neo-Darwinism, have secret meetings in secret rooms, and every week they invent a new lie just to bother atheist from forums

Directed mutagenesis was re-proposed in 1988[4] by John Cairns who was studying Escherichia coli that lacked the ability to metabolize lactose. He grew these bacteria in media in which lactose was the only source of energy. In doing so, he found that the rate at which the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize lactose was many orders of magnitude higher than would be expected if the mutations were truly random. This inspired him to propose that the mutations that had occurred had been directed at those genes involved in lactose util

Directed mutagenesis - Wikipedia

Later support for this hypothesis came from Susan Rosenberg, then at the University of Alberta, who found that an enzyme involved in DNA recombinational repair, recBCD, was necessary for the directed mutagenesis observed by Cairns and colleagues in 1989. The directed mutagenesis hypothesis was challenged in 2002, by work showing that the phenomenon was due to general hypermutability due to selected gene amplification, followed by natural selection, and was thus a standard Darwinian process.[6][7]Later research from 2007 however, concluded that amplification could not account for the adaptive mutation and that "mutants that appear during the first few days of lactose selection are true revertants that arise in a single step"

Directed mutagenesis - Wikipedia

The article concludes with a speculative but far-reaching epigenetic theory of intelligence that does not require DNA mutation as the exclusive source of evolutionary change. Instead, cranial feedback relating brain chemistry, as affected by brain activity including education, with the genome. When it comes to the fast rate of evolution, and the dissemination of the intelligence trait worldwide, cranial feedback could make all the difference.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02604027.2017.1319669

However, in lysine-tested cells, recombination continued to occur even without selection for it. Steele and Jinks-Robertson concluded that recombination occurred in all circumstances, adaptive or otherwise, while mutations were present only when they were beneficial and adaptive

Evolutionary theory says mutations are blind and occur randomly. But in the phenomenon of adaptive mutation, cells can peek under the blindfold, increasing their mutation rate in response to stress. Scientists have observed that an apparent 'back channel' for genetic information called retromutagenesis can encourage adaptive mutation to take place in bacteria.
Adaptive mutation mechanism may explain some forms of antibiotic resistance: Retromutagenesis: Mutations occur in RNA first

The consensus in the scientific community is: “we don’t know perhaps these adaptative mutations played a major role, perhaps they don’t , maybe random mutations play an important role, maybe they don’t, let’s keep an open mind and see what future discoveries say.” why disagreeing with what scientists seem to be agreeing?

 

[Bear Wild]

Please present 5 clear-cut examples of non-random adaptive genetic change. And not mere assertions buy the likes of Shapiro (who, interestingly, 'argues' a bit like professional creationists when his claims are challenged - saw the comments on an essay he had posted to HuffPo a few years ago, and some folks cast doubt on his claims and he chowed up in the comments calling them names), but actual scienctific papers.

So true. He is one of those scientists who have interesting research then makes statements to the public make that his research does not actually support. This is where he has drawn criticism and shows his own agenda to misuse information to make sensational statements that are unsupported.

 

[leroy]

Please present 5 clear-cut examples of non-random adaptive genetic change. And not mere assertions buy the likes of Shapiro (who, interestingly, 'argues' a bit like professional creationists when his claims are challenged - saw the comments on an essay he had posted to HuffPo a few years ago, and some folks cast doubt on his claims and he chowed up in the comments calling them names), but actual scienctific papers.

By the way, Shapiro has written actual scientific papers, can you present a positive case against Shapiro? Or is this an other example of “I don’t like his views therefore he must be wrong”?

 

[leroy]

So true. He is one of those scientists who have interesting research then makes statements to the public make that his research does not actually support. This is where he has drawn criticism and shows his own agenda to misuse information to make sensational statements that are unsupported.

Well then let’s focus on his research and ignore his propaganda (assuming that he is making some)

But I am curious, what is Shapiro’s agenda?

 

[tas8831]

Stop acting as if the concept of non random mutations (also called directed mutations or adaptative) is some sort of “creationist thing” there is a true controversy in the scientific community on how relevant are these type of mutations and many independent authors have concluded that these mutations play a primary role.

I don;t think it is a creationist thing - I do know that creationists hopped on that bandwagon without question.

Only fanatic evolutionists from forums and youtube (or those who what to sale books) seem to be unaware of this controversy.

I knew about this in the early 1990s when the first papers on the subject came out. I also followed it all as the papers debunking the early claims were published.

Scientists know and admit that evolution by random mutations and NS is far from being an established fact. This paper summarizes the controversy

The directed mutation controversy in an evolutionary context. - PubMed - NCBI

I note that paper is from 2003 and quotes Cairns quite heavily.

Here is one form 2012 co-authored by one of Cairns' collaborators, documenting that what appeared to be 'directed mutation' are really the results of increases in mutagenesis overall in response to stress:

Stress-Induced Mutagenesis

From the conclusion:

"Stress-induced mutagenesis was initially thought to be a mechanism by which mutations could be “directed” to the specific loci that would alleviate selective pressures. Subsequent studies have revealed that this is not the case."

you asked for 5 examples...

Directed mutagenesis - Wikipedia

Directed mutagenesis - Wikipedia

Foster was a co-author of the 2012 paper I referenced above. Interesting that the most recent paper cited in your wiki link was 2007.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02604027.2017.1319669

Weird that your quote does not appear in the linked paper - which, by the way, did you actually read it? it is pretty zany stuff...


Also - hoping you are not going to ignore my Haldane's dilemma posts - I made them just for you.

 

[leroy]

Yes, I am well versed in it.

Explain.

I will insert come comments into this creation dot com essay.

A misrepresentation right out of the box - why would they both have to have it?

If this scenario had merit, the selection coefficient would be off the charts!


So? Why would the whole genome need to be generated? These people are lying to you, Leroy - they rely on the fact that their main targets (folks like you) have no understanding of genetics and will just accept what they say.

Apples and oranges and plums and nonsense...

Interestingly, I just did a search and came across an essay by a young creationist I had first encountered on another forum about 15 years ago - he is now a scientist working in genetics. His essay (not, interestingly, a peer-reviewed paper), though, shows how strong his creationist brainwashing was - he writes about Haldane's dilemma, cites electrical engineer creationist ReMine, and comes to the same basic conclusion, premised on the same basic emotional position (though his numbers vary somewhat from ReMine's) - similar to what you just wrote - that the number of fixed beneficial mutations allowed via his calculations just, darn it, don;t seem like enough.

Missing in this guy's essay is the same thing that was missing in ReMine's book which is missing in the creation dot com essay - an explanation as to WHY the 'allowed' amount of beneficial mutations are not 'enough.'

ReMine came up with 1667, this guy (not going to give his name) came up with about double that, but they both imply that it is just not enough.

One of the main reasons that they think this way is based, IMO, in their anthropocentrism and their lack of understanding of the effects of mutation on phenotype.

Why, how could ONLY 1667 (or around 3000) beneficial mutations separate us, God's own creations, from mere dirty apes?

When we couple that basic position with other creationist writings about ridiculously large number of 'trait changes' "required for X*', we can see how ignorance gives these creationists some confidence.

*Once was in a discussion with a computer scientist creationist who runs like 4 websites about creationism declare that he believed that more than 1 million mutations would have been required to produce just the skeletal and muscular structures needed to get bipedality from a quadrupedal ape. I asked for 100 such structures that needed their own specific mutations, and I never heard from him again.

You don’t seem to understand the point made by the article that I quoted, the point was that even in a far too convenient and unrealistic scenario, you can add a maximum of 500,000 beneficial mutations.

The claim is that 500,000 mutations are not even near the amount of mutations required to produce a modern human and a modern chimp from a common ancestor who lived 10M years ago.

You can falsify the argument by:

Showing that 500,000 mutations are enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans

Showing that there is a realistic scenario that would produce much more beneficial mutations.

And even more important, rather than cherry picking minor details in the analysis, can you make a positive case explaining how chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor by a process of random mutations + NS? (consider the low rate of beneficial mutations, and the low rate of reproduction in primates)

 

[leroy]

Stress-Induced Mutagenesis

From the conclusion:

"Stress-induced mutagenesis was initially thought to be a mechanism by which mutations could be “directed” to the specific loci that would alleviate selective pressures. Subsequent studies have revealed that this is not the case."
.

Just curios, according to you what is the article suppose to prove? To my understanding the author simply explores and proposes different possible explanations on how directed mutations occur, he doesn’t deny that such mutations do occur.

 

[tas8831]

By the way, Shapiro has written actual scientific papers, can you present a positive case against Shapiro? Or is this an other example of “I don’t like his views therefore he must be wrong”?

Yes, I know all about Shapiro. It has nothing to do with not liking his views, it is more about him making unwarranted extrapolations, followed by public declarations, regarding the 'truth' of his work. Like creationists, Shapiro has taken his work to the public well before it has been vetted by the scientific community. I am not advocating his work - YOU are, so the burden is on you to make a positive case.