Most observed evolution is deterioration not advancement

[stcordova]

For evolution to proceed as Darwin and Spencer conceived, "survival of the fittest" would have to mean the children are more genetically advanced than their parents.

What they have actually argued is that the the fittest of the offspring have a slightly higher probabilty of surviving, but that does not imply the offspring themselves are more genetically advanced than the parents. But Darwin and Spencer beguiled the world into thinking that if the most fit kids survived this some how implied the kids were more genetically advanced than the parents.

Since the overwhelming amount of new mutations are harmful (even if to small degree), the kids on average are more defective than parents. Hence, the fittest don't really survive.

Some will argue anti-biotic resistance and pesticide resistance show genetic advancement, but that is dubious. Many anti-biotic resistant strains are more reproductively successful because they have a defect that reduces the likelihood they die from certain anti-biotics and pesticides. Furthermore, in other cases, anti-biotic resitance is evolved because the bacteria acquired genetic information from other sources through plasmid exchange of pre-existing genetic material.

The majority of lab and field observed cases of novel mutations conferring Darwinian advantage involved defects of otherwise functional systems.

To illustrate the point, Octomom is mentally defective and dysfunctional, but she made 14 kids, whereas very brilliant and wealthy scientists like Richard Dawkins had only 1 kid. In the world of Darwin, Octomom is more fit that Richard Dawkins.

But the real question is whether each generation's genomes are sicker than their parents. There is little doubt of that. And if that is the case now, and more importantly, if that is the case in the past, then the fittest die. By fittest, I mean, more genetically complex.

Further, if a species group goes completely extinct, this means there is no more opportunity for advancement of more complex life forms. The number of species are dying off quickly in the present day.

[H.sapiens]

Most evolutionary change is the result of what is called balancing selection,

My apologies, I had a serious brain skip, what I meant to say, through the entire discussion was "stabilizing selection." I have no idea why I wrote "balancing selection," which is something else entirely.

Where I had written:

Additionally, consider an organism's niche, that's an n-dimensional hyper-volume measured across n resource states. Each resource state is in a balancing selection tension and this tension, these vectors, add and subtract to/from the organism's overall fitness much as multiple wave fronts do on the surface of the ocean. Most importantly they combine and cancel each other out, depending on the "location" of the plane that is the air water interface, or in this analogy the plane that describes fitness. So what is wonderful fit in one place may create minimal fitness somewhere else. Multiple fitness peaks in the plane, when combined with a lack of gene flow is what creates new "species" and wide open niche space (e.g., after an extinction event or large local environmental change) punctuates the equilibrium with almost explosive adaptive radiation.

what I had meant to say was:

"Additionally, consider an organism's niche, that's an n-dimensional hyper-volume measured across n resource states. Each resource state is in a stabilizing selection tension and this tension, these vectors, add and subtract to/from the organism's overall fitness much as multiple wave fronts do on the surface of the ocean. Most importantly they combine and cancel each other out, depending on the "location" of the plane that is the air water interface, or in this analogy the plane that describes fitness. So what is wonderful fit in one place may create minimal fitness somewhere else. Multiple fitness peaks in the plane, when combined with a lack of gene flow is what creates new "species" and wide open niche space (e.g., after an extinction event or large local environmental change) punctuates the equilibrium with almost explosive adaptive radiation."

Which makes a lot more sense. Sorry for any confusion I may have created, I guess I just have to chalk it up age.

[wiploc]

For evolution to proceed as Darwin and Spencer conceived, "survival of the fittest" would have to mean the children are more genetically advanced than their parents.

I'm skeptical. Is "more genetically advanced" really a thing?

What they have actually argued is that the the fittest of the offspring have a slightly higher probabilty of surviving,

That works.

but that does not imply the offspring themselves are more genetically advanced than the parents.

True, because "more genetically advanced" doesn't mean anything.

But Darwin and Spencer beguiled the world into thinking that if the most fit kids survived this some how implied the kids were more genetically advanced than the parents.

See above.

Since the overwhelming amount of new mutations are harmful (even if to small degree), the kids on average are more defective than parents. Hence, the fittest don't really survive.

That doesn't follow.

To make a really simple example, suppose that all harmful mutations are immediately fatal. In that case, none of the kids with harmful mutations would survive, but some of the kids with beneficial mutations might.

So successive generations would be, on average, more fit than their predecessors.

So your claim is not effectively supported. I don't think you can support it, but I invite you to try.

Some will argue anti-biotic resistance and pesticide resistance show genetic advancement, but that is dubious. Many anti-biotic resistant strains are more reproductively successful because they have a defect that reduces the likelihood they die from certain anti-biotics and pesticides. Furthermore, in other cases, anti-biotic resitance is evolved because the bacteria acquired genetic information from other sources through plasmid exchange of pre-existing genetic material.

The majority of lab and field observed cases of novel mutations conferring Darwinian advantage involved defects of otherwise functional systems.

If the environment they're trying to survive in includes antibiotics, and the mutation helps the organism survive in that environment, then it is perverse to call it a "defect."

To illustrate the point, Octomom

Do you really believe that in five hundred years, Octomom's descendents will outnumber those of Richard Dawkins?

[H.sapiens]

For evolution to proceed as Darwin and Spencer conceived, "survival of the fittest" would have to mean the children are more genetically advanced than their parents.

I'm skeptical. Is "more genetically advanced" really a thing?

No.

What they have actually argued is that the the fittest of the offspring have a slightly higher probabilty of surviving,

That works.

Actually it doesn't. Survival is not necessary, but access to the gene pool of succeeding generations is the real name of the game.

but that does not imply the offspring themselves are more genetically advanced than the parents.

True, because "more genetically advanced" doesn't mean anything.

But Darwin and Spencer beguiled the world into thinking that if the most fit kids survived this some how implied the kids were more genetically advanced than the parents.

See above.

Since the overwhelming amount of new mutations are harmful (even if to small degree), the kids on average are more defective than parents. Hence, the fittest don't really survive.

That doesn't follow.

To make a really simple example, suppose that all harmful mutations are immediately fatal. In that case, none of the kids with harmful mutations would survive, but some of the kids with beneficial mutations might.

So successive generations would be, on average, more fit than their predecessors.

So your claim is not effectively supported. I don't think you can support it, but I invite you to try.

Again survival does not matter, it is access to the gene pool of the future that counts (e.g., male praying mantis or altruism with sibs).

Some will argue anti-biotic resistance and pesticide resistance show genetic advancement, but that is dubious. Many anti-biotic resistant strains are more reproductively successful because they have a defect that reduces the likelihood they die from certain anti-biotics and pesticides. Furthermore, in other cases, anti-biotic resitance is evolved because the bacteria acquired genetic information from other sources through plasmid exchange of pre-existing genetic material.

The majority of lab and field observed cases of novel mutations conferring Darwinian advantage involved defects of otherwise functional systems.

If the environment they're trying to survive in includes antibiotics, and the mutation helps the organism survive in that environment, then it is perverse to call it a "defect."

To illustrate the point, Octomom

Do you really believe that in five hundred years, Octomom's descendents will outnumber those of Richard Dawkins?

The question is not approval or denigration of Octomom or Dawkins, the question is whose genes will be more widespread in the future, one, two, ten, a hundred generations from now?

[sfs]

My apologies, I had a serious brain skip, what I meant to say, through the entire discussion was "stabilizing selection." I have no idea why I wrote "balancing selection," which is something else entirely.

Much better.

[stcordova]

True, because "more genetically advanced" doesn't mean anything.

It does, otherwise the notion of reductive evolution would make no sense.

Here is a recent paper that uses the term "reductive evolution"
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v ... o2077.html

And a better paper that describes what is actually observed in the lab and field
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/inf ... bi.1001082

Bacteria have found many niches in which to live, and one of them is inside eukaryotic cells. These intracellular bacteria include endosymbionts like Buchnera aphidicola, which provides its host, an aphid, with essential amino acids, as well as many pathogenic bacteria such as Mycobacterium leprae and Rickettsia prowazekii, the causative agents of leprosy and typhus, respectively. Even though they all evolved their intracellular lifestyle independently, all these bacteria lost a large number of genes as they adapted to their hosts, presumably because the rich environment where they found themselves no longer required such functions. For example, biosynthetic genes are frequently lost. It has been a matter of debate what decides whether a gene can be lost in evolution, and intracellular bacteria have been used as model systems to study these processes. In our study, we propose that when adopting an intracellular lifestyle, these bacteria extensively lost duplicated genes. We propose that this represents loss of copy redundancy that is possible because the host cell represents a predictable environment in which there is little pressure for the bacteria to retain these backups. In simplistic terms, if the road is always smooth, you are probably OK without a spare tire.

Also, extinction is the ultimate reductive evolution, where the genome size becomes zero.

The fundamental problem with Darwin's viewpoint is that it argues elimination of variety as a means of creating biological diversity. It is logically contradictory.

Given most observed evolution in the lab and field (versus the imagination of paleotologists) is either outright extinction or reductive evolution, not increase in integrated complexity ( like novel protein-protein binding reactions, novel developmental mechanisms, etc.).

No one here has been able to successfully argue that what is happening in the lab and field indicates:

1. an average increase in the emergence of novel protein cascades and interactions
2. an average increase in the number of species


Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more proteins are being evolved than lost? NO!

Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more species are being evolved than lost? NO!


The only place more proteins and species are evolved is in the imagination of evolutionists in the supposed deep past, nothing that is directly observed with our own eyes.

[H.sapiens]

True, because "more genetically advanced" doesn't mean anything.

It does, otherwise the notion of reductive evolution would make no sense.

Here is a recent paper that uses the term "reductive evolution"
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v ... o2077.html

And a better paper that describes what is actually observed in the lab and field
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/inf ... bi.1001082

There is no concept of genetically "advanced" or, for that matter, genetically "retarded," all there is is fitness. Reductive evolution makes complete sense in the proper context.

Reductive evolution is a descriptive term for a process in which genome reduction (the process by which a genome shrinks relative to its ancestor) occurs. Genomes fluctuate in size, however, genome size reduction is most significant in bacteria, but this is neither advanced nor retarded, it simply is.

Bacteria have found many niches in which to live, and one of them is inside eukaryotic cells. These intracellular bacteria include endosymbionts like Buchnera aphidicola, which provides its host, an aphid, with essential amino acids, as well as many pathogenic bacteria such as Mycobacterium leprae and Rickettsia prowazekii, the causative agents of leprosy and typhus, respectively. Even though they all evolved their intracellular lifestyle independently, all these bacteria lost a large number of genes as they adapted to their hosts, presumably because the rich environment where they found themselves no longer required such functions. For example, biosynthetic genes are frequently lost. It has been a matter of debate what decides whether a gene can be lost in evolution, and intracellular bacteria have been used as model systems to study these processes. In our study, we propose that when adopting an intracellular lifestyle, these bacteria extensively lost duplicated genes. We propose that this represents loss of copy redundancy that is possible because the host cell represents a predictable environment in which there is little pressure for the bacteria to retain these backups. In simplistic terms, if the road is always smooth, you are probably OK without a spare tire.

Also, extinction is the ultimate reductive evolution, where the genome size becomes zero.

No, there is no evidence of reductive evolution being a pathway in which a genome continues to shrink until the organism is extinct. Obligate endosymbionts such as mitochondria, rizobia or chloroplasts are not extinct, rather, they are highly successful organisms that have specialized by reduced their genome. The paper you cite notes Buchnera aphidicola as another example of a endosymbiot and some pathogenic bacteria such as Mycobacterium leprae and Rickettsia prowazekii as organisms undergoing reductive evolution, but there is no indication that any are on the way to extinction. It's all part of the push/pull, finding a sweet spot as an endosymbiot or a pathegen.

The fundamental problem with Darwin's viewpoint is that it argues elimination of variety as a means of creating biological diversity. It is logically contradictory.

It might be, if that was what Darwin argued or that was the history of life, but neither is the case. In fact you have nothing to offer but stawman claims of your own creation (or perhaps a foolish construct that you failed to see through and lifted uncredited and unreferenced from some other biological illiterate).

Given most observed evolution in the lab and field (versus the imagination of paleotologists) is either outright extinction or reductive evolution, not increase in integrated complexity ( like novel protein-protein binding reactions, novel developmental mechanisms, etc.).

I'd like to know what labs you've observed that in and what field studies you've done that reached that conclusion, because you clearly are breaking new ground and deserve at least a McArthur Genius Grant, if not a Nobel Prize for your as yet unrecognized and unobserved discovery.

No one here has been able to successfully argue that what is happening in the lab and field indicates:

1. an average increase in the emergence of novel protein cascades and interactions
2. an average increase in the number of species

Clearly there is ongoing change. Change can only occur through the creation of novel protein cascades (such as the novel new one that results in the phosphorylation of hsp27) but the concept of an "average" increase in either (1) or (2), especially in the face of the current sixth great extinction that is now underway is also a meaningless straw-man argument iced with semi-technical bloviation for enhanced effect.

Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more proteins are being evolved than lost? NO!

Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more species are being evolved than lost? NO!

That's like asking why there are not lots of new trees growing where you are standing, just as the surrounding forest fires laps at your toes.

The only place more proteins and species are evolved is in the imagination of evolutionists in the supposed deep past, nothing that is directly observed with our own eyes.

Directly observed? Of course not. Clear, multiple, unambiguous sets of tracks are there for all who are not wearing blinders to see. There is virtual consensus on that ... with a few outlying dissenters like yourself hugging their strawmen tight to try and get to sleep.

[wiploc]

True, because "more genetically advanced" doesn't mean anything.

It does, otherwise the notion of reductive evolution would make no sense.

Feel free to enlarge, to explain what you're talking about, to make sense of this claim.

Here is a recent paper that uses the term "reductive evolution"
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v ... o2077.html

And a better paper that describes what is actually observed in the lab and field
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/inf ... bi.1001082

Are these papers somehow related to your claim?

Bacteria have found many niches in which to live, and one of them is inside eukaryotic cells. These intracellular bacteria include endosymbionts like Buchnera aphidicola, which provides its host, an aphid, with essential amino acids, as well as many pathogenic bacteria such as Mycobacterium leprae and Rickettsia prowazekii, the causative agents of leprosy and typhus, respectively. Even though they all evolved their intracellular lifestyle independently, all these bacteria lost a large number of genes as they adapted to their hosts, presumably because the rich environment where they found themselves no longer required such functions. For example, biosynthetic genes are frequently lost. It has been a matter of debate what decides whether a gene can be lost in evolution, and intracellular bacteria have been used as model systems to study these processes. In our study, we propose that when adopting an intracellular lifestyle, these bacteria extensively lost duplicated genes. We propose that this represents loss of copy redundancy that is possible because the host cell represents a predictable environment in which there is little pressure for the bacteria to retain these backups. In simplistic terms, if the road is always smooth, you are probably OK without a spare tire.

How does this relate to your claim?

Also, extinction is the ultimate reductive evolution, where the genome size becomes zero.

And therefore ... ?

The fundamental problem with Darwin's viewpoint is that it argues elimination of variety as a means of creating biological diversity. It is logically contradictory.

That does sound weird. How does it relate?

Given most observed evolution in the lab and field (versus the imagination of paleotologists) is either outright extinction or reductive evolution, not increase in integrated complexity ( like novel protein-protein binding reactions, novel developmental mechanisms, etc.).

No one here has been able to successfully argue that what is happening in the lab and field indicates:

1. an average increase in the emergence of novel protein cascades and interactions
2. an average increase in the number of species


Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more proteins are being evolved than lost? NO!

Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more species are being evolved than lost? NO!

We sometimes have diebacks. We're in one now, because one species is crowding out others. It isn't reasonable to generalize from this to conclude that we're always dying back. The same sort of logic would observe a sunset and conclude that the sun never rises. It's not an argument to be taken seriously.

[stcordova]

Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more proteins are being evolved than lost? NO!

Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more species are being evolved than lost? NO!


That's my point. Anyone disagree?

[stcordova]

My apologies, I had a serious brain skip, what I meant to say, through the entire discussion was "stabilizing selection." I have no idea why I wrote "balancing selection," which is something else entirely.

Much better.

Thank you. Sheesh. This was getting aggravating.

[wiploc]

Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more proteins are being evolved than lost? NO!

Do evolutionists estimate that in the present day more species are being evolved than lost? NO!


That's my point. Anyone disagree?

I don't even agree that that was your point.

You can't prove that the oceans are drying up by showing that the tide is going out right now, and you can't show that evolution doesn't provide diversity of species by showing that we're in one of our intermittent periods of extinction right now.

If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.