Real Science Radio CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 1)

[aharvey]

Your "remark", which triggered my negative comment, was:

"Under normal (read environmentally constrained) conditions, each of those 999,999 deleterious mutations would have an extremely slim chance of persisting, whereas that millionth, beneficial, mutation would have a much better chance of persisting."

This statement implies the usual naive assumption that evolutionary progress is inevitable, but the odds in this particular case would probably more likely favor an inevitable genomic deterioration that would lead to extinction. Hence my negative comment.

Hmm. Other than attacking a statement I neither made nor implied (check any biology textbook and you are sure to see the introductory point "Evolution does not equal progress"), your assertion seems to fly directly in the face of common sense. As far as I can tell, the only way the genome of a species would "inevitably deteriorate" would be if deleterious mutations were more likely to be fixed in the genome of that species than would beneficial mutations. If that were not true, then the genome's overall "quality" could not deteriorate over time.

So how are mutations that would be selected against more likely to become fixed in a population than mutations that would be selected for?

 

[Jukia]

Hmm. Other than attacking a statement I neither made nor implied (check any biology textbook and you are sure to see the introductory point "Evolution does not equal progress"), your assertion seems to fly directly in the face of common sense. As far as I can tell, the only way the genome of a species would "inevitably deteriorate" would be if deleterious mutations were more likely to be fixed in the genome of that species than would beneficial mutations. If that were not true, then the genome's overall "quality" could not deteriorate over time.

So how are mutations that would be selected against more likely to become fixed in a population than mutations that would be selected for?

Yo, you obviously have not been really paying attention. It is all a result of The Fall. Remember? Prior to that all was hunky dory, all animals were vegetarians, Adam and Eve would have lived forever, etc. Well something like that anyway. Then--big mistake, big, big mistake. And here we are. It all flows downhill from there.

 

[bob b]

Hmm. Other than attacking a statement I neither made nor implied (check any biology textbook and you are sure to see the introductory point "Evolution does not equal progress"), your assertion seems to fly directly in the face of common sense. As far as I can tell, the only way the genome of a species would "inevitably deteriorate" would be if deleterious mutations were more likely to be fixed in the genome of that species than would beneficial mutations. If that were not true, then the genome's overall "quality" could not deteriorate over time. So how are mutations that would be selected against more likely to become fixed in a population than mutations that would be selected for?

1) "Beneficial" mutations are not selected by natural selection except in a philosophical sense. There is no general reliable way to predict whether a particular mutation will end up spreading throughout a wild population or not. The best one can do is to look at the results after the fact and if it appears that a mutation has spread throughout a population then one usually assumes that it must have been beneficial in some way (The "last man standing" effect),

2) as we see in sickle cell anemia a mutation can be "beneficial" even though it causes a loss of function in the genome (the term "beneficial" is thus somewhat misleading). Even if a "beneficial" mutation would spread and become fixed in the population the net result may be a loss of function (as in the sickle cell case) and hence a genetic deterioration, hardly a way to transform a bacterium into a human being (i.e. Darwinism).

3) although an individual deleterious mutation could be less likely to become fixed in the population than a beneficial one, the fact that deleterious mutations far outnumber "beneficial" ones (by a million to one in the case at hand) will statistically almost always yield a net deterioration in the population. This point appears to be lost in discussions which focus solely on whether an isolated "beneficial" mutation will spread throughout a population.

4) this point of "net" genome deterioration can be illustrated by taking the situation even further than "a million to one", for example a quadrillion to one in the homo sapien line. In this case because of the low reproduction rate and long generation time a quadrillion to one ratio would yield no more one "beneficial" mutation in the entire history of the human race. In the meantime each generation of humans would receive deleterious mutations which would inevitably spread throughout the population. This extreme case illustrates the fact that there are factors involved in the phenomenon other than just the subjective argument that natural selection will inevitably cause beneficial mutations to spread throughout a population.

I am certain that you already know all this, but like many other evolutionists, the "zeal" of the evolutionary message is more easily propagated by simplistic arguments like "natural selection will inevitably favor those few beneficial mutations and spread them throughout the population" (conveniently ignoring those far more numerous inconvenient deleterious mutations by pretending that natural selection will of course make them all go away).

 

[Johnny]

1) "Beneficial" mutations are not selected by natural selection except in a philosophical sense. There is no general reliable way to predict whether a particular mutation will end up spreading throughout a wild population or not. The best one can do is to look at the results after the fact and if it appears that a mutation has spread throughout a population then one usually assumes that it must have been beneficial in some way (The "last man standing" effect),

That's incorrect. The beauty of our description is that it can be deduced philosophically with the application of logic, modeled mathematically, and thanks to the development of modern genetic techniques, demonstrated empirically on the genetic level. Thus, I am a thoroughly perplexed as to why you think you can get away with a statement like this and still go to bed at night thinking of yourself as an intellectually honest man.

Nonetheless, assume we induced a mutation into a selected site on the genome for a bacteria. The induced mutation enhances the bacteria's ability to metabolize resources relative to the wild-type bacteria. Are you so foolish as to claim we cannot successfully predict as to whether or not this mutation will be incorporated into the gene pool?

2) as we see in sickle cell anemia a mutation can be "beneficial" even though it causes a loss of function in the genome (the term "beneficial" is thus somewhat misleading). Even if a "beneficial" mutation would spread and become fixed in the population the net result may be a loss of function (as in the sickle cell case) and hence a genetic deterioration, hardly a way to transform a bacterium into a human being (i.e. Darwinism).

Perhaps if you were more familiar with our theory you would not confuse "beneficial" with "increasing complexity". Your charge that the term is misleading is baseless. Beneficial does not imply complexity at all. If I'm trying to ride to school in the mornig, a bicycle is more beneficial to me than 747 airliner even though the 747 airliner is more complex. Beneficial does not imply complexity. Even the freshman biololgy student should be able to make this distinction because there is no mechanism which selects for complexity. Maybe you could benefit from freshman biology. Ever thought about auditing some evolutionary biology classes?

I'm also rather tired of this whole "loss of function" business because you are looking at a two-way street and pretending it is one way. Why do you consider cell structure stability in hypoxic environments a function but you do not consider malarial resistance a function? I'll tell you why: because one is the wild-type with which you are familiar and one is the mutant type with which you were not familiar. Were we to live in a backwards world where sickle cell trait and malarial resistence were the normal genotype and cellular stability in hypoxic environments were the mutant type, you would be screaming that a mutation which increased cellular stability was just a "loss of function" of malarial resistance. It's such nonsense, because almost any mutation is going to induce a loss of "normal function". Don't believe me? I could lose information all the way from an ape to a human, according to your definition. Loss of body hair? Loss of information. Bigger brain? Loss of regulatory control on cranial and neural growth. Strict bipedal body type? Loss of the ability to navigate the trees. Loss loss loss. Any change of function is going to be interpreted as a "loss" of function by you.

3) although an individual deleterious mutation could be less likely to become fixed in the population than a beneficial one,

Very interesting, so you assert "Beneficial" mutations are not selected by natural selection except in a philosophical sense. " but then you admit that "although an individual deleterious mutation could be less likely to become fixed in the population than a beneficial one". Fascinating.

the fact that deleterious mutations far outnumber "beneficial" ones (by a million to one in the case at hand) will statistically almost always yield a net deterioration in the population. This point appears to be lost in discussions which focus solely on whether an isolated "beneficial" mutation will spread throughout a population.

Why? You are assuming all deleterious mutations are incorporated into the gene pool with the same frequency beneficial mutations are. They are not. Deleterious mutations do happen quite often, but they are relegated to the level of the individual and not the population because they are not selected for. Beneficial mutations also begin at the individual level, but they are promoted to the populational level because they conferred an advantage.

 

[aharvey]

Let me just add a couple points to Johnny's excellent response.

1) "Beneficial" mutations are not selected by natural selection except in a philosophical sense. There is no general reliable way to predict whether a particular mutation will end up spreading throughout a wild population or not. The best one can do is to look at the results after the fact and if it appears that a mutation has spread throughout a population then one usually assumes that it must have been beneficial in some way (The "last man standing" effect),

As Johnny so clearly noted, we can do things of which you are apparently completely unaware. And while we aren't especially good at tracking a particular mutation's fate (you know, it's kind of hard to spot them as they happen and all), there is this neat mathematical tool called probability, and we certainly can make predictions about the probability that a mutation with a given fitness effect will spread in a population. Think Las Vegas; the casinos don't have much chance of predicting whether a given person will win or lose on a given hand/dice roll/etc., but their income stream is highly predictable, and the success of individual gamblers is indeed predictable depending on what games they play and their relative skill, if applicable, at each.

3) although an individual deleterious mutation could be less likely to become fixed in the population than a beneficial one, the fact that deleterious mutations far outnumber "beneficial" ones (by a million to one in the case at hand) will statistically almost always yield a net deterioration in the population.

Not in normal populations (i.e., under normal selection intensities). If mutations that are selected for have a difficult time spreading in a normal population, then mutations that are selected against have an astronomically difficult time. If the populations are not under selection pressures, then the whole concept of "deleterious vs. beneficial" becomes rather trivial.

This point appears to be lost in discussions which focus solely on whether an isolated "beneficial" mutation will spread throughout a population.

Since this discussion does not, and has never focused "solely on whether an isolated 'beneficial' mutation will spread throughout a population," why are you claiming it is?

4) this point of "net" genome deterioration can be illustrated by taking the situation even further than "a million to one", for example a quadrillion to one in the homo sapien line. In this case because of the low reproduction rate and long generation time a quadrillion to one ratio would yield no more one "beneficial" mutation in the entire history of the human race.

Depends on the overall mutation rate, too, don't you think? And just so everyone's clear on this, why are you changing the deleterious/beneficial ratio to a quadrillion to one, other than to make your case seem stronger? I mean, why not make the ratio 10^600 to one and use an imaginary species that produces one offspring every 6,000 years?

In the meantime each generation of humans would receive deleterious mutations which would inevitably spread throughout the population.

Once more, bob, you are skirting the all-important issue. Why the hell would a deleterious mutation "inevitably spread throughout the population"??? Please don't say "chance alone," because selection is the antithesis of chance. That's why your quadrillion to one fantasy is irrelevant: the ratio does not represent the relative odds, because the deck is stacked in favor of the better players.

This extreme case illustrates the fact that there are factors involved in the phenomenon other than just the subjective argument that natural selection will inevitably cause beneficial mutations to spread throughout a population.

No one has said that selection is the only determinant of the fate of mutations, nor has anyone said that selection will inevitably cause beneficial mutations to spread through a population. I see you are resorting to dishonesty again. Pity.

I am certain that you already know all this, but like many other evolutionists, the "zeal" of the evolutionary message is more easily propagated by simplistic arguments like "natural selection will inevitably favor those few beneficial mutations and spread them throughout the population" (conveniently ignoring those far more numerous inconvenient deleterious mutations by pretending that natural selection will of course make them all go away).

So who exactly made the boldfaced quote above to which you are supposedly reacting, or is this more outright fabrication designed to obscure the issue? Because I'm getting pretty sick of your efforts to imply that I've said things that I haven't.

 

[bob b]

That's incorrect. The beauty of our description is that it can be deduced philosophically with the application of logic, modeled mathematically,

As I said, philosophy not science. If a mathematical model cannot predict what will happen then it remains philosophy, not science.

and thanks to the development of modern genetic techniques, demonstrated empirically on the genetic level.

Baloney.

Nonetheless, assume we induced a mutation into a selected site on the genome for a bacteria. The induced mutation enhances the bacteria's ability to metabolize resources relative to the wild-type bacteria. Are you so foolish as to claim we cannot successfully predict as to whether or not this mutation will be incorporated into the gene pool?

Yes. Your problem is that you cannot reproduce the "wild" environment in the laboratory, because the real world wild environment consists of a mixture of different types of bacteria.

Perhaps if you were more familiar with our theory you would not confuse "beneficial" with "increasing complexity".

"Straw man". I never mentioned "increasing complexity".

Your charge that the term is misleading is baseless. Beneficial does not imply complexity at all.

Who said it did? Not I. In fact I stated that a loss of function could be beneficial.

I'm also rather tired of this whole "loss of function" business because you are looking at a two-way street and pretending it is one way. Why do you consider cell structure stability in hypoxic environments a function but you do not consider malarial resistance a function?

Because a result is not a function. Malarial resistence is the result of a loss of normal function.

I'll tell you why: because one is the wild-type with which you are familiar and one is the mutant type with which you were not familiar. Were we to live in a backwards world where sickle cell trait and malarial resistence were the normal genotype and cellular stability in hypoxic environments were the mutant type, you would be screaming that a mutation which increased cellular stability was just a "loss of function" of malarial resistance.

You seem to be confused. You site an increase of function as the result of a mutation as a hypothetical case. To be a good argument you need to demonstrate that such cases happen in the real world without intelligent intervention.

It's such nonsense, because almost any mutation is going to induce a loss of "normal function". Don't believe me? I could lose information all the way from an ape to a human, according to your definition.

I didn't give any "definition", and further I don't believe that apes can "transform" into humans.

Loss of body hair? Loss of information. Bigger brain? Loss of regulatory control on cranial and neural growth. Strict bipedal body type? Loss of the ability to navigate the trees. Loss loss loss. Any change of function is going to be interpreted as a "loss" of function by you.

Net gain of function thru random mutation is a myth.

Very interesting, so you assert "Beneficial" mutations are not selected by natural selection except in a philosophical sense. " but then you admit that "although an individual deleterious mutation could be less likely to become fixed in the population than a beneficial one". Fascinating.

Quite logical actually. A beneficial mutation could "remain standing" after some deleterious ones are "selected" for elimination. Natural selection in theory eliminates the weakest (who were the weakest? The ones not eliminated of course). Elementary.

Why? You are assuming all deleterious mutations are incorporated into the gene pool with the same frequency beneficial mutations are.

I made no such assumption regarding individual mutations. I simply stated the obvious, which was a preponderance of deleterious mutations would be incorporated into a genome as long as the population size remains constant (the usual "hidden" assumption). In other words one has to not only consider the incorporation of beneficial mutations into a population but also the incorporation of deleterious mutations as well, something conveniently overlooked in most considerations of the phenomena.

They are not. Deleterious mutations do happen quite often, but they are relegated to the level of the individual and not the population because they are not selected for.

Deleterious mutations are normally the ones "selected for" not the beneficial ones. You have it "arse backwards".

Beneficial mutations also begin at the individual level, but they are promoted to the populational level because they conferred an advantage.

You seem to have missed the entire point of my argument, which is that unless the deleterious mutations are eliminated by the environment (natural selection for short) at a faster rate than they are being generated (by inheritance and more mutations) they will get into the genome of the individuals which survive and hence eventually spread into the population as a whole.

Natural selection does not "select for" beneficial mutations. They can of course also spread into the population as a whole, but if the rate of deleterious mutations continuously getting into the population has an overall deleterious effect greater than the hypothetical constructive effect of the "beneficial" mutations then the net population genomic state of individuals will be in decline and this will result in a decline of the genomic state of the population as a whole.

Thus it is a myth that the net genomic state of the population cannot decline due to deleterious mutations as long as there are any "beneficial" mutations (even as rare as one in a million for the case at hand).

 

[aharvey]

Wow, bob, you've really outdone yourself here. I was all set to get into this post, but was stopped in my tracks by this one statement:

Deleterious mutations are normally the ones "selected for" not the beneficial ones. You have it "arse backwards".

Which is not merely a typo, as it is consistent with your other claims.

And it illustrates that, contrary to your own opinion, you lack even the most basic understanding of the subject of evolutionary theory, which makes a point-by-point rebuttal rather, er, pointless!

Just on the off-chance (odds that I'd rate lower than the odds of a deleterious mutation reaching fixation in a large population under strong selection) that you ever want to actually understand, rather than merely spin for your own religious ends, evolutionary theory, let me correct the above statement.

Natural selection is the differential survival and/or reproduction of individuals within a population. The immediate currency of natural selection is the number of offspring an individual contributes to the next generation relative to other individuals in the population. Any genetically based traits that are found in individuals that leave relatively more offspring are selected for. Any genetically based traits that are found on individuals that leave relatively fewer offspring are selected against. A "beneficial" allele, by definition, leads to a relative increase in the expected number of offspring produced. A "deleterious" allele, by definition, leads to a relative decrease in the expected number of offspring produced.

Thus, contrary to your various and assorted mental gyrations, one of the most ground-level, ultra-basic, sine qua non, definitional statements one can make is that natural selection always selects for beneficial traits and against deleterious traits. And the more beneficial they are, the more strongly selection favors them, the more deleterious they are, the more strongly selection selects against them (this doesn't mean that all beneficial traits become fixed or that no deleterious traits can become fixed. So don't waste any more of your energy trying to hang that claim on me).

Perhaps once you understand this you'll realize the speciousness of the rest of your arguments, but I'm guessing that's exactly why you'll never back down!

 

[Jukia]

As I said, philosophy not science. If a mathematical model cannot predict what will happen then it remains philosophy, not science.

.

A question then, bob b, is creationism by definition then philosophy, not science?

 

[bob b]

Wow, bob, you've really outdone yourself here. I was all set to get into this post, but was stopped in my tracks by this one statement:


Which is not merely a typo, as it is consistent with your other claims.

And it illustrates that, contrary to your own opinion, you lack even the most basic understanding of the subject of evolutionary theory, which makes a point-by-point rebuttal rather, er, pointless!

Just on the off-chance (odds that I'd rate lower than the odds of a deleterious mutation reaching fixation in a large population under strong selection) that you ever want to actually understand, rather than merely spin for your own religious ends, evolutionary theory, let me correct the above statement.

Natural selection is the differential survival and/or reproduction of individuals within a population. The immediate currency of natural selection is the number of offspring an individual contributes to the next generation relative to other individuals in the population. Any genetically based traits that are found in individuals that leave relatively more offspring are selected for. Any genetically based traits that are found on individuals that leave relatively fewer offspring are selected against. A "beneficial" allele, by definition, leads to a relative increase in the expected number of offspring produced. A "deleterious" allele, by definition, leads to a relative decrease in the expected number of offspring produced.

Thus, contrary to your various and assorted mental gyrations, one of the most ground-level, ultra-basic, sine qua non, definitional statements one can make is that natural selection always selects for beneficial traits and against deleterious traits. And the more beneficial they are, the more strongly selection favors them, the more deleterious they are, the more strongly selection selects against them (this doesn't mean that all beneficial traits become fixed or that no deleterious traits can become fixed. So don't waste any more of your energy trying to hang that claim on me).

Perhaps once you understand this you'll realize the speciousness of the rest of your arguments, but I'm guessing that's exactly why you'll never back down!

I would hope that you also agree that the rate of mutations and the ratio of deleterious mutations to "beneficial" ones are factors in determining the status of individual genomes and hence ultimately the genomic status of populations. Your defence of "a million to one shot" of a so-called beneficial mutation was the reason for my initial comment ridiculing your posting.

I would agree that natural selection is "defined" in the textbooks in the way you have described, but that is why it is metaphysical instead of science. In the "real world" the environment acts to eliminate individuals and perhaps their unborn progeny, not to "select for" an individual with a "beneficial" mutation. The problem is that there is no way to predict which individuals and lines of descent will be eliminated (and hence which will survive) except after the fact.

The concept of "selection pressure" is also metaphysical and not tangible or "real world".

------------

For Jukia:

Definitions of philosophy on the Web:

doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The term philosophy derives from a combination of the Greek words philos meaning love and sophia meaning wisdom. What philosophy is, or should be, is itself a philosophical question that philosophers have understood and treated differently through the ages.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

the study of truths about reality. The search for wisdom.
www.imh.org/imh/china/ed/glos.html

love of wisdom (Plato)
home.salamander.com/~wmcclain/ev-glossary.html

The love, study, or pursuit of wisdom or of knowledge of things and their causes, whether theoretical or practical, the study of all Wisdom at the Source and of all Principle as Creation.
miriams-well.org/Glossary/

-------------

The answer then is of course creationism falls under the category of philosophy. One cannot prove scientifically that God exists, because humans cannot scientifically investigate things that are non-material. We are limited in our scientific investigations to material things.

However, creationists are not working to prove that God exists, instead they are doing things that counter the current paradigm that life appeared naturally as a hypothetical primitive protocell and diversified naturally from that starting point to every organism that has ever lived. These creation scientists are working to not only falsify the natural explanations for certain phenomena in nature, but also to demonstrate that the stories in Genesis provide a better alternative for how nature got the way we see it today.

In a much narrower way, Intelligent Design scientists are working to identify a relatively small number of cases of what they call "specified complexity" in organisms, and then scientifically eliminating the possibilities of "necessity and chance" for their origin, which then leaves only the possibility of design (which being always the result of intelligence, means that the term "Intelligent Design" is strictly speaking redundant: Design is really the only word required).

ID is a much broader "tent" than creationism, because it does not seek to identify the Designer, and hence attracts any scientist (including an agnostic) who has doubts that Nature alone could "design" the "specified complex" biological mechanisms found in organisms.

 

[Stripe]

ID is a much broader "tent" than creationism, because it does not seek to identify the Designer, and hence attracts any scientist (including an agnostic) who has doubts that Nature alone could "design" the "specified complex" biological mechanisms found in organisms.

this is why i reject ID .. not on scientific grounds .. but philosophically

 

[aharvey]

I would hope that you also agree that the rate of mutations and the ratio of deleterious mutations to "beneficial" ones are factors in determining the status of individual genomes and hence ultimately the genomic status of populations.

I've never disagreed with even this simple-minded view; my point has always been that selection by definition stacks the odds against deleterious mutations (and in favor of beneficial mutations), so unless the "deleteriousness" of these mutations is completely trivial, it hardly matters how much more common they are than beneficial mutations.

Incidentally, in all this I'm surprised you haven't mentioned transposable elements and other selfish genetic elements. Well, I guess they do represent a double-edged sword, don't they?

Your defence of "a million to one shot" of a so-called beneficial mutation was the reason for my initial comment ridiculing your posting.

My defence? Well, since there was no such "defence," we are forced to conclude that you are in fact not telling the truth here.

I would agree that natural selection is "defined" in the textbooks in the way you have described, but that is why it is metaphysical instead of science. In the "real world" the environment acts to eliminate individuals and perhaps their unborn progeny, not to "select for" an individual with a "beneficial" mutation.

Well, this is either a straw man or just plain wrong. It could be a straw man to the extent that it's like saying that when we toss a coin, we're really seeing which side ends up facing down rather than up, which is what all the textbooks would have you believe! It's wrong to the extent that it ignores mutations that give bearers an actual advantage over wild types (e.g., a brighter male cardinal who is therefore more attractive to females).

The problem is that there is no way to predict which individuals and lines of descent will be eliminated (and hence which will survive) except after the fact.

So you're repeating yourself and totally ignoring my initial (look for the word "probability" response. Should I be impressed?

The concept of "selection pressure" is also metaphysical and not tangible or "real world".

Do you similarly consider the concepts of, oh, "sex ratio," "per capita growth rate," "acceleration," "air pressure," to name a few, to be metaphysical and intangible? If so, what's your point?

 

[bob b]

I've never disagreed with even this simple-minded view; my point has always been that selection by definition stacks the odds against deleterious mutations (and in favor of beneficial mutations), so unless the "deleteriousness" of these mutations is completely trivial, it hardly matters how much more common they are than beneficial mutations.

Incidentally, in all this I'm surprised you haven't mentioned transposable elements and other selfish genetic elements. Well, I guess they do represent a double-edged sword, don't they?

My defence? Well, since there was no such "defence," we are forced to conclude that you are in fact not telling the truth here.

Well, this is either a straw man or just plain wrong. It could be a straw man to the extent that it's like saying that when we toss a coin, we're really seeing which side ends up facing down rather than up, which is what all the textbooks would have you believe! It's wrong to the extent that it ignores mutations that give bearers an actual advantage over wild types (e.g., a brighter male cardinal who is therefore more attractive to females).

So you're repeating yourself and totally ignoring my initial (look for the word "probability" response. Should I be impressed?

Do you similarly consider the concepts of, oh, "sex ratio," "per capita growth rate," "acceleration," "air pressure," to name a few, to be metaphysical and intangible? If so, what's your point?

Apparently your "cardinal" example was intended as a counter to my comment that natural selection does not select for a trait but instead only selects against traits. If that was your intent then I fail to get your point. In the case you presented the progeny with the so-called beneficial coloration mutation do not survive to sexual maturity because of their coloration, and even if they did they would not be "selected for": the less fortunate would be "selected against" and presumably eliminated. In any case such a hypothetical situation is metaphysical because it would not be practical to measure such an effect scientifically, meaning that it is merely a subjective explanation arrived at metaphysically.

There are very few cases where effects like these are able to be measured in the wild even in principle. Even the classic moth case has been shown to be far from clear cut. Ditto for the finches. And the role of "beneficial" mutations in such cases is far from clear since the trait which hypothetically was important was already present in the population to start with. Same with antibiotic resistence. All these cases show is that populations and their gene frequencies can change over time in response to hypothetical changes in those unmeasurable environmental factors which are lumped under the general title "Natural Selection".

It seems to me that logic would tell us that traits that only become useful when the environment changes would not be present in the population if the usual idea that natural selection "selects for" beneficial traits, causing them to inevitably spread throughout a population, thus eventually eliminating all members of the population which do not possess the "beneficial" trait. If that were true then there would generally not be a spectrum of traits persisting in a population from which adaptation could select when the environment changes.

And successful adaptation does necessitate that there exist a spectrum of traits present in a population, since it defies rational belief to think that there would be sufficient time for the exceedingly slow process of random mutation to generate a new favorable trait in response to a change in the environment.

 

[Johnny]

In the "real world" the environment acts to eliminate individuals and perhaps their unborn progeny, not to "select for" an individual with a "beneficial" mutation.

That's because your looking at death as an eliminatory endpoint instead of reproduction as a selection endpoint. Indeed they are two sides to the same coin like aharvey explained. If you choose death as your primary endpoint, then you will view natural selection process as a "weeding out of unfavorable". But if you choose reproduction as your primary endpoint, then you will view natural selection as "selecting in of favorable". Indeed, both terms are common in the literature depending on the context: "selected for" or "selected against".

And successful adaptation does necessitate that there exist a spectrum of traits present in a population, since it defies rational belief to think that there would be sufficient time for the exceedingly slow process of random mutation to generate a new favorable trait in response to a change in the environment.

Gasp. You're getting there! So when the bell curve of a trait shifts one way or another, does a new bell curve of the NEW trait appear, does the same bell curve of the OLD trait stay in place, or does the curve disappear complete? Hint: the answer can be empirically measured.

 

[Jukia]

Gasp. You're getting there! So when the bell curve of a trait shifts one way or another, does a new bell curve of the NEW trait appear, does the same bell curve of the OLD trait stay in place, or does the curve disappear complete? Hint: the answer can be empirically measured.

Oh, my goodness, if it can be empirically measured it might even be "science" according to bob b!!

 

[aharvey]

Apparently your "cardinal" example was intended as a counter to my comment that natural selection does not select for a trait but instead only selects against traits. If that was your intent then I fail to get your point. In the case you presented the progeny with the so-called beneficial coloration mutation do not survive to sexual maturity because of their coloration,

Say what? If they didn't survive to sexual maturity, then there really wouldn't have been any opportunity for females to be more attracted to their brighter coloration, now, would there? So I guess you're going the "wrong" route.

and even if they did they would not be "selected for": the less fortunate would be "selected against" and presumably eliminated.

Okay, so now you're going the straw man route ("that's not heads, that's tails! See, look which side's facing down: the tail!").

In any case such a hypothetical situation is metaphysical because it would not be practical to measure such an effect scientifically,

Well, maybe not for you, but you're not a biologist, are you? There are plenty of experimental studies that track just this sort of data.

meaning that it is merely a subjective explanation arrived at metaphysically.

No more than any other scientific explanation. I noticed you kept your mouth shut about the metaphysical nature of air pressure. Wonder why?

There are very few cases where effects like these are able to be measured in the wild even in principle. Even the classic moth case has been shown to be far from clear cut. Ditto for the finches.

Just because it's not as simple-minded as you seem to need it to be (when it suits you, at least) doesn't mean that biologists aren't able to deal with it.

And the role of "beneficial" mutations in such cases is far from clear since the trait which hypothetically was important was already present in the population to start with.

Is that right? And you know this how?

Same with antibiotic resistence.

Is that right? Is that what creationsafaris tells you?

All these cases show is that populations and their gene frequencies can change over time in response to hypothetical changes in those unmeasurable environmental factors which are lumped under the general title "Natural Selection".

Is that really all they show, bob? You sure you wouldn't be tempted to use them, say, to justify your claims of utterly spectacular rates of adaptation, differentiation, and speciation in the few thousand years following the Flood? In any case, I suggest you actually read some of the studies you disparage (no, reading the creationsafari's, er, summaries is not the same!).

It seems to me that logic would tell us that traits that only become useful when the environment changes would not be present in the population if the usual idea that natural selection "selects for" beneficial traits, causing them to inevitably spread throughout a population, thus eventually eliminating all members of the population which do not possess the "beneficial" trait. If that were true then there would generally not be a spectrum of traits persisting in a population from which adaptation could select when the environment changes.

Notice how, again, dear bob slips words into his opponent's view with the express intent of making said view seem more ridiculous, even after said opponent calls him on said words (in this case, inevitably).

Anyways, any basic biology textbook can address bob's worries here (see under "Limits to Selection," or "Why doesn't selection eliminate variation?"). It's elementary stuff.

And successful adaptation does necessitate that there exist a spectrum of traits present in a population, since it defies rational belief to think that there would be sufficient time for the exceedingly slow process of random mutation to generate a new favorable trait in response to a change in the environment.

Again, you're displaying appalling ignorance, or deceptiveness, in characterizing the prevailing scientific view. There is no "process," exceedlingly slow or not, by which environmental changes cause "random mutation" to generate new favorable traits.

And one mutation per million gene copies may sound like mutation must be a rare event, and thus that population-level changes must be excruciatingly slow, until you start multiplying out by the number of genes in a genome, the number of copies produced per individual per generation, the number of individuals in a population, and the number of generations over time. Again, I look forward to a creationist someday stepping forward and showing how those utterly spectacular rates of adaptation, differentiation, and speciation in the few thousand years following the Flood can occur without mutation, but rather through the mixing action of sexual recombination, which, if you listen carefully, is the same mechanism behind the argument that selection cannot cause major changes in populations!

 

[SUTG]

Intelligent Design scientists are working to identify a relatively small number of cases of what they call "specified complexity" in organisms, and then scientifically eliminating the possibilities of "necessity and chance" for their origin, which then leaves only the possibility of design (which being always the result of intelligence, means that the term "Intelligent Design" is strictly speaking redundant: Design is really the only word required).

Hi bob,

Can you provide the names of some of these scientists and inofrmation on the experiments they are working on? Also, please let us know what the results of their scientific test have been so far.

I look forward to your answer.

thanks,
SUTG

 

[aharvey]

In a much narrower way, Intelligent Design scientists are working to identify a relatively small number of cases of what they call "specified complexity" in organisms, and then scientifically eliminating the possibilities of "necessity and chance" for their origin, which then leaves only the possibility of design (which being always the result of intelligence, means that the term "Intelligent Design" is strictly speaking redundant: Design is really the only word required).

Thanks, SUTG, I totally missed this part of that post. My question is slightly different. bob has made much in this thread about what is "scientific" and what is not, being instead rather "philosophical," "intangible," "metaphysical," or whatever, and claiming things like "If a mathematical model cannot predict what will happen then it remains philosophy, not science." So, my question to bob is how do ID, er, scientists scientifically (i.e., using your criteria for what is and is not "scientific") eliminate the possibilities of "necessity and chance" for the origin of what is whimsically referred to as "specified complexity"?

I'll also note that I do appreciate bob's careful wording here: the IDers, he writes, are "working to identify a relatively small number of cases of what they call 'specified complexity' in organisms;" in other words, they haven't actually identified any yet, much less successfully shown the need to invoke a supernatural designer. But they're working on it! And, as I've heard an ID proponent state in a talk on campus here a few years ago, "there are some smart people working on this, and I'm sure they're going to come up with something soon!"

 

[bob b]

Say what? If they didn't survive to sexual maturity, then there really wouldn't have been any opportunity for females to be more attracted to their brighter coloration, now, would there? So I guess you're going the "wrong" route.

Okay, so now you're going the straw man route ("that's not heads, that's tails! See, look which side's facing down: the tail!").

Well, maybe not for you, but you're not a biologist, are you? There are plenty of experimental studies that track just this sort of data.

No more than any other scientific explanation. I noticed you kept your mouth shut about the metaphysical nature of air pressure. Wonder why?

Just because it's not as simple-minded as you seem to need it to be (when it suits you, at least) doesn't mean that biologists aren't able to deal with it.

Is that right? And you know this how?

Is that right? Is that what creationsafaris tells you?

Is that really all they show, bob? You sure you wouldn't be tempted to use them, say, to justify your claims of utterly spectacular rates of adaptation, differentiation, and speciation in the few thousand years following the Flood? In any case, I suggest you actually read some of the studies you disparage (no, reading the creationsafari's, er, summaries is not the same!).

Notice how, again, dear bob slips words into his opponent's view with the express intent of making said view seem more ridiculous, even after said opponent calls him on said words (in this case, inevitably).

Anyways, any basic biology textbook can address bob's worries here (see under "Limits to Selection," or "Why doesn't selection eliminate variation?"). It's elementary stuff.


Again, you're displaying appalling ignorance, or deceptiveness, in characterizing the prevailing scientific view. There is no "process," exceedlingly slow or not, by which environmental changes cause "random mutation" to generate new favorable traits.

It is interesting that that the same person who claims I mischaracterize the evolutionary position (or multiple conflicting positions as the case may be) reciprocates regarding my statements.

And one mutation per million gene copies may sound like mutation must be a rare event, and thus that population-level changes must be excruciatingly slow, until you start multiplying out by the number of genes in a genome, the number of copies produced per individual per generation, the number of individuals in a population, and the number of generations over time.

Haldane took care of that one, at least for the hypothetical ape to human transition. The answer was a maximum of 1667 favorable mutations, probably far less.

Again, I look forward to a creationist someday stepping forward and showing how those utterly spectacular rates of adaptation, differentiation, and speciation in the few thousand years following the Flood can occur without mutation, but rather through the mixing action of sexual recombination, which, if you listen carefully, is the same mechanism behind the argument that selection cannot cause major changes in populations!

It is not selection that is your presumed "magical" source of increased function, but instead random mutation. How dumb.

I doubt if creationists will uncover the answer, because there are too few creation scientists, at least those creation leaning scientists willing in the current politically correct atmosphere to admit their heresy. No, the answer will come from research scientists who are investigating how cells work in the here and now, such as I am reporting on in the thread Cell Trends. Read and learn.

 

[aharvey]

It is interesting that that the same person who claims I mischaracterize the evolutionary position (or multiple conflicting positions as the case may be) reciprocates regarding my statements.

Here's the quote again: show me where I mischaracterized it:

"And successful adaptation does necessitate that there exist a spectrum of traits present in a population, since it defies rational belief to think that there would be sufficient time for the exceedingly slow process of random mutation to generate a new favorable trait in response to a change in the environment."

Haldane took care of that one, at least for the hypothetical ape to human transition. The answer was a maximum of 1667 favorable mutations, probably far less.

Care to bet on that? Did Haldane really calculate this value for the ape to human transition? Not only that, but even if we go with your "Haldane said 1667" value, which you arrived at before you ever read the paper, I'll remind our studio audience, that number has nothing to do with the number of favorable mutations generated.

It is not selection that is your presumed "magical" source of increased function, but instead random mutation. How dumb.

This makes absolutely no sense in the present context. Is that on purpose? Here, let me repost the statement to which this purportedly "responds":

"Again, I look forward to a creationist someday stepping forward and showing how those utterly spectacular rates of adaptation, differentiation, and speciation in the few thousand years following the Flood can occur without mutation, but rather through the mixing action of sexual recombination, which, if you listen carefully, is the same mechanism behind the argument that selection cannot cause major changes in populations!"

You choose the most inopportune times to call someone else dumb!

I doubt if creationists will uncover the answer, because there are too few creation scientists, at least those creation leaning scientists willing in the current politically correct atmosphere to admit their heresy.

And because creation scientists stop using the scientific method when they talk about "creation." Don't forget that point.

No, the answer will come from research scientists who are investigating how cells work in the here and now, such as I am reporting on in the thread Cell Trends. Read and learn.

Yes, I know cells are complex, and I know creationsafaris is anti-evolution, and I know you don't read the primary literature. Other than that, bob, I'm quite sure I'm years ahead of you in this field. It surely will not provide the mechanism I asked for, you know, the one that shows how those utterly spectacular rates of adaptation, differentiation, and speciation in the few thousand years following the Flood can occur without mutation, but rather through the mixing action of sexual recombination, which, if you listen carefully, is the same mechanism behind the argument that selection cannot cause major changes in populations!

 

[bob b]

Yes, I know cells are complex, and I know creationsafaris is anti-evolution, and I know you don't read the primary literature. Other than that, bob, I'm quite sure I'm years ahead of you in this field. It surely will not provide the mechanism I asked for, you know, the one that shows how those utterly spectacular rates of adaptation, differentiation, and speciation in the few thousand years following the Flood can occur without mutation, but rather through the mixing action of sexual recombination, which, if you listen carefully, is the same mechanism behind the argument that selection cannot cause major changes in populations!

If you are able to tell us how these cells arose by natural means, please do not hesitate to do so, oh wise one who is years ahead of us in the field.