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?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #2

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

I discovered a thought provoking paper that sheds some light in bacteria and mutations.

The papers goes into some detail and reveals how bacteria when mutated can develop beneficial mutations but often at the the expense (due to pleiotropy) of some other (but less valuable) trait. This seems to be more of a fault tolerance capability (my term, comes from electronics/software) than something that can lead to escalating novelty.

Here's the conclusion from the paper:

Conclusion
Bacteria frequently develop mutations that enable them to survive and adapt to a variety of environmental conditions. These mutations are generated by many different mechanisms, and provide a wide range of phenotypic modifications. However, most of these mutations can be classified as a form of antagonistic pleiotropy. Some existing systems are sacrificed as a means for surviving certain environments.

Antagonistic pleiotropy is a useful feature of a creation model. Bacteria face a variety of environmental conditions and stressful situations. However, in order to survive, they must contend with any environmental condition that confronts them. Antagonistic pleiotropy provides them genetic mechanisms where they can make specific (and potentially detrimental) genetic changes that will then serve in a particular environment. If the environmental conditions change, the mutation usually becomes less beneficial and perhaps even detrimental.

Hence, these mutations do not provide a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of biological systems or functions. Rather, they require the prior existence of the targeted cellular systems. As such, beneficial mutations of bacteria fit concisely within a creation model where (a) biological systems and functions were fully formed at creation, (b) subsequent mutations can provide conditional benefits that enable the organism to survive harsh conditions even though the mutation is generally degenerative, and (c) most bacteria need the ability to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources.
The authors qualifications can be seen here: Kevin L Anderson and Georgia Purdom.

Purdom has written papers published in the Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, the Journal of Leukocyte Biology.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #3

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Lenski's long-term e-coli experiment supports the claim you are making in the OP.
Dr. Richard Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment with E. coli is commonly used to support evolution without distinction between observable limited change and unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Many publications in scientific journals have described the mutations that have provided these bacteria with a benefit in their laboratory environment. A close look at the biochemical basis behind these mutations shows that the vast majority of fitness benefits are due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of unique genetic information. Furthermore, mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed. As the idea of evolution from a simple, common ancestor requires the accumulation of novel genetic information over a long period of time, Lenski’s experiment then actually provides evidence against this idea and instead supports a Biblical creation model of life and origins.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/m ... -creation/

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #4

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #2]

Yes, I was going to mention this also. Any so-called "observed evolution" is at the expense of fitness. Most of the so-called "observed evolution" is in specific environments so organisms lose the ability to live outside that environment.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #5

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:30 am [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

Lenski's long-term e-coli experiment supports the claim you are making in the OP.
Dr. Richard Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment with E. coli is commonly used to support evolution without distinction between observable limited change and unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Many publications in scientific journals have described the mutations that have provided these bacteria with a benefit in their laboratory environment. A close look at the biochemical basis behind these mutations shows that the vast majority of fitness benefits are due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of unique genetic information. Furthermore, mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed. As the idea of evolution from a simple, common ancestor requires the accumulation of novel genetic information over a long period of time, Lenski’s experiment then actually provides evidence against this idea and instead supports a Biblical creation model of life and origins.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/m ... -creation/
Yes, this is very interesting, if bacteria cannot ever do anything that exhibit "fault tolerance" adaptations then escalating novelty seems not to be possible, so an earth populated by such simple life would continue to be populated by nothing more than bacteria - yet it isn't...

The bacteria genome may simply cycle endlessly through a finite number of viable (not fatal) combinations, this is consistent with what I've been told about early life, it was very stable, these organisms adapted and survived for a huge length of time, billions of years.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #6

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #5]
Yes, this is very interesting, if bacteria cannot ever do anything that exhibit "fault tolerance" adaptations then escalating novelty seems not to be possible, so an earth populated by such simple life would continue to be populated by nothing more than bacteria - yet it isn't...
And that's why people are still working on understanding how archaea and bacteria DID eventually evolve into multicellular organisms:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101758.htm

I'm sure the real biologists will chime in here as I suspect there is a lot more work going on in this area. One article suggesting bacteria can only stay bacteria doesn't carry much weight ... especially if it is published in the proceedings of a creationism conference! Of course they will try to discredit evolution and come up with reasons why it could not result in bacteria evolving into multicellular organisms. I wonder what their fatal error was in coming to this conclusion?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #7

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:03 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #5]
Yes, this is very interesting, if bacteria cannot ever do anything that exhibit "fault tolerance" adaptations then escalating novelty seems not to be possible, so an earth populated by such simple life would continue to be populated by nothing more than bacteria - yet it isn't...
And that's why people are still working on understanding how archaea and bacteria DID eventually evolve into multicellular organisms:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101758.htm

I'm sure the real biologists will chime in here as I suspect there is a lot more work going on in this area. One article suggesting bacteria can only stay bacteria doesn't carry much weight ... especially if it is published in the proceedings of a creationism conference! Of course they will try to discredit evolution and come up with reasons why it could not result in bacteria evolving into multicellular organisms. I wonder what their fatal error was in coming to this conclusion?
The authors are qualified educated scientists, like almost all scientists throughout history until very recently, they are creationists, it is irrelevant.

If you cannot assess a scientific paper without putting aside prejudice toward people who do not share your beliefs, then I truly hope you are not in a position to influence hiring or managing others, are you?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #8

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #7]
If you cannot assess a scientific paper without putting aside prejudice toward people who do not share your beliefs, then I truly hope you are not in a position to influence hiring or managing others, are you?
I am, and religion is never discussed in the work place. First, what you linked isn't a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, although you claimed it was. It was published in "The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism" as an article. Therefore, it is not a proper scientific paper ... it is a biased, non-peer-reviewed opinion piece.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #9

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:16 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #7]
If you cannot assess a scientific paper without putting aside prejudice toward people who do not share your beliefs, then I truly hope you are not in a position to influence hiring or managing others, are you?
I am, and religion is never discussed in the work place. First, what you linked isn't a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, although you claimed it was.
No, I did not make that claim.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:16 pm It was published in "The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism" as an article. Therefore, it is not a proper scientific paper ... it is a biased, non-peer-reviewed opinion piece.
The paper was however subject to review by the publisher, the editorial board are all scientists by the usual measure of having earned a degree and doctorate in a scientific discipline.

If a job applicant had a degree and doctorate in the subject relevant to a job you were hiring for, would you disqualify them on the basis they had a paper published in The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism?

If YES then you'd be breaking federal law, if NO then you're agreeing that it is irrelevant to their ability to do science - so which is it?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #10

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #9]
No, I did not make that claim.
You most certainly did in the post I responded to:

"If you cannot assess a scientific paper without putting aside prejudice toward people who do not share your beliefs, then I truly hope you are not in a position to influence hiring or managing others, are you?"
The paper was however subject to review by the publisher, the editorial board are all scientists by the usual measure of having earned a degree and doctorate in a scientific discipline.
And this does not qualify as a proper peer review process for a scientific paper.
If a job applicant had a degree and doctorate in the subject relevant to a job you were hiring for, would you disqualify them on the basis they had a paper published in The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism?
No, but I'd probably read the article and see if it conflicted with the job requirements being hired for, ie. if it showed that the person did not understand the subject well enough to do the job. I'm a spectroscopist by trade, and if their article considered something related to spectroscopy (eg. red shifts, the H2 spectrum characteristics, selection rules, etc.) that conflicted with what we know to be correct (eg. because they argue that the universe is only 6000 years old), then yes ... I'd disqualify them on the basis that they do not understand the subject well enough. But if their article didn't relate to the job being considered, I wouldn't care.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply