Bounded mutation

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Sherlock Holmes

Bounded mutation

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

I was reading this article earlier, in there we read:
To better understand the impact of this situation, think of it this way: With a genome size of 2.8 × 10^6 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 10^10 base pairs, it would take a single bacterium 30 hours to grow into a population in which every single base pair in the genome will have mutated not once, but 30 times! Thus, any individual mutation that could theoretically occur in the bacteria will have occurred somewhere in that population—in just over a day.
This seems to be an admission that even if every possible mutation (from the finite set of possibilities) occurs at some point in the colony, then we still have - bacteria, surely with these rates of reproduction and probabilities of mutation and so on, doesn't this show that the bacteria evolving never leads to anything other than a variant of the bacteria? That the set of all possible mutants is either dead or still more or less the same bacteria.

Given the rate at which bacteria reproduce and their number on earth and in societies, shouldn't we see evidence that the genome has developed more and more novelty? yet it seems all we see is just bacteria...

So is there evidence that bacteria can become something quite different given enough time and if not, why not? are the possible states that the genome can get into simply insufficient to ever lead to escalating novelty?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #51

Post by The Barbarian »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:10 pm I don't see much contention of the actual facts here.

Yes, the "but they're still bacteria" is a fundamentally valid point. Bacteria do seem, from the experiments yet done, to be unable to acquire the complexity needed to, for example, evolve into multicellular hexapods and walk around. Even the first steps toward something like that, at least haven't been observed. (Nod to Barbarian though, and yes I read about the amoebas eating the little gram-negative rod buggies and keeping them).
Notice that the large bacterium has evolved a nuclear membrane. So it's clear enough that things formerly imagined to be "too complex" to evolve, do evolve.
Bacterium to insane complexity can't (as far as we know) be achieved with just evolution. It required extra, a sudden extraevolutionary event such as endosymbiosis.
Endosymbiosis is an evolutionary event. It's just that biology is a lot more creative than a lot of people thought it is. Notice that endosymbiosis was directly observed to evolve.
It requires some special thing to actually happen beyond just genomes changing.
No. For example, the amoebae and bacteria in the observed evolution of endosymbiosis both evolved to become mutually dependent on each other.
If there weren't any religious people equating creation to some bearded ogre of a god with anger management issues shaping people out of clay, creation would simply be a fact that everyone accepted.
The problem is that many people are willing to accept God's creation, but only if it doesn't involve evolution.
Evolution (in the sense of classical natural selection) can't do it alone.
A lot of people mistake evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population) with agencies of evolution like natural selection.
Required that special event. So that's technically a Y on whether some special creation event happened and was needed.
The miraculous happened when God made the universe with the capability for such things to happen naturally. Endosymbiosis clearly works entirely by natural processes.
An amoeba ate poop.
Ingested a bacterium.
A thing did a thing,
Several things. The bacteria and the amoebae evolved (changed genomes) and became dependent on each other for survival. They can do without each other no more than you and your mitochondria could survive without each other. As you know, this thing (change in genome) is evolution.
and without that thing, there would not be all these cool things. There you go.
Yep.
More of these special events may well have happened.
Almost certainly. Mitochondria, chloroplasts, and some other organelles, for example.
None of it requires any gods.
At least no tinkering with the system. Seems to me that an omnipotent creator would do it, exactly as it is. Why not just create the rules to do what One wants creation to do?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #52

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amNotice that the large bacterium has evolved a nuclear membrane. So it's clear enough that things formerly imagined to be "too complex" to evolve, do evolve.
Right, that's exactly why I specified as far as we know. I need to acknowledge your point that isn't yet shown absolutely does not mean cannot happen, but if there have been experiments that failed to find it, that means something beyond mere speculation too.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amEndosymbiosis is an evolutionary event. It's just that biology is a lot more creative than a lot of people thought it is. Notice that endosymbiosis was directly observed to evolve.
It's extraevolutionary in that it required a special event, not just genomes changing.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amNo. For example, the amoebae and bacteria in the observed evolution of endosymbiosis both evolved to become mutually dependent on each other.

A lot of people mistake evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population) with agencies of evolution like natural selection.
Yes, evolution is part of this. Things other than merely genomes changing, mutation, natural selection, are at play. Special things happening. You can define that as evolution if you want, but then (as you seem to agree) if some god did it all, set all of this in motion, then that's an evolutionary event too. There's nothing wrong with this definition scheme but it doesn't represent a contention of facts with the creationists, just a contention of definitions.

Most creationists concede that evolution happens now. What their contention is, is that life as it exists now, required a special event. That is not false! It clearly did.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amThe problem is that many people are willing to accept God's creation, but only if it doesn't involve evolution.
Look, as I see it, the idea that evolution doesn't happen is irredeemable. You can't save that, at least, as far as I see. I'm not a sanitary mary who won't eat out of the rubbish bin (hey, I was poor until I was over 20). I will not drink the garbage water at the bottom of the garbage.

I have some good questions about the idea that genetic information is always lost, and that all kinds of animals were created in more or less their current form, so for example, there is one ancestral cat, and over time, the different species of cat lost different information to become what they are. I don't believe this... I believe they all diverged from an ancestral carnivore, but I have to admit it's one of the things that lines up well enough with directly observed reality for me to file it away for later in the "maybe, 10% or less" pile. Which is huge btw.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amAt least no tinkering with the system. Seems to me that an omnipotent creator would do it, exactly as it is. Why not just create the rules to do what One wants creation to do?
I see that as the more reasonable option as well. So there you go, no contention with most creationists.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #53

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amNotice that the large bacterium has evolved a nuclear membrane. So it's clear enough that things formerly imagined to be "too complex" to evolve, do evolve.
Purple Knight wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 3:26 pm Right, that's exactly why I specified as far as we know. I need to acknowledge your point that isn't yet shown absolutely does not mean cannot happen, but if there have been experiments that failed to find it, that means something beyond mere speculation too.
So far, every time these assertions have been tested, we see verification, but never falsification. The latest argument was "complex cellular structures can't evolve." But this newly-found bacterium has evolved a nuclear membrane. At some point one needs to explain the discrepancy between continued verification and an absence of falsification.

Endosymbiosis is an evolutionary event. It's just that biology is a lot more creative than a lot of people thought it is. Notice that endosymbiosis was directly observed to evolve.[/quote]
It's extraevolutionary in that it required a special event, not just genomes changing.
A change in environment. Part of Darwin's theory. Environment, according to Darwin, changes before we see directional change in genomes.

For example, the amoebae and bacteria in the observed evolution of endosymbiosis both evolved to become mutually dependent on each other.
A lot of people mistake evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population) with agencies of evolution like natural selection.
Yes, evolution is part of this. Things other than merely genomes changing, mutation, natural selection, are at play.
Mutation is genome changing. Every new mutation in a population changes the genetic information in that population.
Special things happening. You can define that as evolution if you want,
Darwin included it in his theory. Changes in alleles are just the result.
but then (as you seem to agree) if some god did it all, set all of this in motion, then that's an evolutionary event too.
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things.
There's nothing wrong with this definition scheme but it doesn't represent a contention of facts with the creationists, just a contention of definitions.

Most creationists concede that evolution happens now. What their contention is, is that life as it exists now, required a special event. That is not false! It clearly did.
Darwin's theory. He gets to say.

The problem is that many people are willing to accept God's creation, but only if it doesn't involve evolution.
I have some good questions about the idea that genetic information is always lost,
Claude Shannon destroyed that belief a long time ago. He managed to quantify and measure information, including that in genomes. This is how we know that every new mutation increases information in a population. Incidentally, evolution can involve a loss of information as well. Many speciations happen this way, followed by a sudden increase in information. Hawaiian fruit flies are a good example.
and that all kinds of animals were created in more or less their current form, so for example, there is one ancestral cat, and over time, the different species of cat lost different information to become what they are. I don't believe this... I believe they all diverged from an ancestral carnivore, but I have to admit it's one of the things that lines up well enough with directly observed reality for me to file it away for later in the "maybe, 10% or less" pile. Which is huge btw.
Thing is, the genetic data shows ancestry far beyond carnivores. The Boreotheria includes all of these guys, who are genetically related:
Image
The Barbarian wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:15 amAt least no tinkering with the system. Seems to me that an omnipotent creator would do it, exactly as it is. Why not just create the rules to do what One wants creation to do?
I see that as the more reasonable option as well. So there you go, no contention with most creationists.
I sure don't see that kind of reasonableness from AiG or the ICR. But maybe they are evolving to a more realistic concept.

Post Reply