A question: Evolution and Mutation

[liamconnor]

More of a question for my learning than for Debate.

The evolutionary model consists, primarily, of two factors: random mutation in the DNA of an organism; and its tendency to survive.

Yes? (I ask no one get pedantic for the sake of pedantry).

Next, the random mutation of DNAs does not always result in a functional organism: there is the problem of irreducible complexity--multiple cooperative mutations have to simultaneously align; like a mousetrap, where each part represents a mutation of DNA--board, spring, etc. More often than not, a cooperative system does not coincide. The result is abortive. It is an error to assume that the mutation involved in evolution simply churns out new species upon every occurrence.

Yes?

[Neatras]

More of a question for my learning than for Debate.

No problem there! I'm sorry, but I have to get pedantic. If there are situations where your understanding of evolution is incomplete, leading to incorrect statements, I'll do my best to provide my understanding such that you'll have a broader perspective on the topic. Let's work together to learn a bit more about biology.

The evolutionary model consists, primarily, of two factors: random mutation in the DNA of an organism; and its tendency to survive.

Yes? (I ask no one get pedantic for the sake of pedantry).

Umm... It's complicated.

The evolutionary model depends on descent with modification, and selection. These are similar, yet different from what you listed! And that's okay. But let's do a comparison of each component of each list.

• Random Mutation
• Copying errors during conception.
• Methylation (the instances where chemical reactions cause changes in the structure/components of DNA).

• Descent With Modification
• The inheritance of genetic material from one or more parents.
• Includes random mutation as anything from radiation to chemical reactions to environmental factors
• The recombination of material (in sexually reproductive organisms) to promote genetic diversity, strengthening the overall adaptability of the gene pool (we should definitely discuss this in more detail when we have time)!

• Survival
• Living in spite of environmental and predatory factors that can kill or severely injure the organism.

• Selection
• Like survival, selection refers to an organism's capabilities, but survival is only incidentally related to how selection is determined. Selection isn't a conscious process, and is merely the aggregated trend that populations are forced to follow, not by compulsion but by exclusion of alternatives.
• First and foremost, when referring to evolution of a population, we're actually referring to the trends in the population's alleles -their different variants for individual genes and how they're expressed. The genes are what's passed on during inheritance, and these genes are like blueprints for producing machines that, at some point, can and will be utilized for the organism's functions. If these functions tend to work in the organism's favor and give them the opportunity to pass on the genes later, then scientists would say that those genes were "selected for," because they weren't wiped out. It's a very sticky definition because it has a lot of connotations, but the more you refine your understanding of evolution, the more you understand how the actual language used to describe selection is more of a really complicated function regarding physical beings interacting. Scary to math out, but easier to analyze when you understanding the dynamic nature of reality.
• Selection does not necessarily mean an organism must survive for any specific length of time. As long as genes are passed down, and some progeny manage to pass their genes on at some point, then selection has not removed those genes from the gene pool. Simple as pie. Survival makes it likelier you'll live longer, and probably have more babies that also live long enough to make more babies in the future. This is why generations are the brute force demonstration of how evolution works. Like discrete points in a long tree of alleles.

I got really wordy right at the end there, and I probably didn't do such a good job pointing out why the distinction matters. But let's get even more pedantic (directed at me), because I don't wanna leave a stone unturned. If there are any unturned though, feel free to raise questions and we'll go deeper down the rabbit hole.

So first off, evolutionary theory predicts that as populations survive (yep, survival matters, I will never say survival has no use in biology, that'd be silly of me to say) and reproduce, the following generation will be similar, yet distinct from all predecessors. This is important, because it means there is almost always genetic diversity, which is required for healthy populations. When populations drop below their minimum viable population, then not only are there so few members that predators and environmental factors can just wipe out the survivors, but also there's not enough genetic diversity to produce healthy offspring past a certain number of generations. Generally speaking, no sexually reproductive species we are aware of can survive solely with one breeding pair. It will either have to hybridize with a compatible species, or go extinct.

Next, mutations can be a variety of things: It can be additions of nucleotide bases, deletions, substitutions (replacing one pair with another), or recombination (swapping positions). Additionally, entire sections of DNA (partial genes, whole genes, or even groups of genes, sometimes whole genomes or chromosomes) can be copied, deleted, recombined, or split apart into smaller fragments. Because these can happen in any order and in any amount, we can occasionally find scenarios where a population has a duplicate gene that had several parts deleted (due to redundancy leading to zero selection to preserve the deleted portions), and portions that are heavily modified or specialized. Then, the original gene can have the portions that are "enhanced" by the new gene copy deleted, removing the redundancy and producing a "stronger" function that is carried between two genes, which started as one functional gene. So irreducible complexity itself can actually be broken up if we allow for all possible gene manipulations available through mutation and descent with modification.

Next, the random mutation of DNAs does not always result in a functional organism: there is the problem of irreducible complexity

Don't worry, I'll tear this apart in due time, I've already done a good job pointing out how irreducible complexity is not a useful term in support of creationism. In evolutionary biology, nearly all irreducibly complex systems we are aware of can actually be broken up simply by retracing steps and showing that you don't need a whole gene all complete popping out of thin air: You need gradual modification, which is exactly what biology is all about.

--multiple cooperative mutations have to simultaneously align;

Nope, multiple cooperative mutations must gradually "align," and this doesn't necessarily cause the death of the organism.

like a mousetrap, where each part represents a mutation of DNA--board, spring, etc.

Mousetraps are not like living organisms, but even if they were, there is actually a counter here. In the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial, one biologist pointed out how irreducible complexity fails by removing parts and changing the function of other parts, such that the "organism" still has reasons to be selected for. There's a very nice article about this here.

More often than not, a cooperative system does not coincide.

Yup! It's a shame, but throwing random nucleotides at each other isn't highly successful. That's why lots of animals die, and it's really sad. And if they don't die due to catastrophic failure of their biological functions, then it's due to outside interference that meant their genetic makeup wasn't able to keep them alive long enough for their genes to be selected for.

The result is abortive.

A lot of the time, yes. However, this is not absolute. And so we get the diversity we see today.

It is an error to assume that the mutation involved in evolution simply churns out new species upon every occurrence.

Yes?

We won't get a new "species" or "new population" with every mutation. This is not at all what evolutionary biologists claim. If you would like, you can try and spell out your questions more concretely so that I can tell you what is and is not claimed by evolutionary biologists. I assure you, I have no reason to misinform you, and knowing that you might be getting arguments from creationist apologists about what evolutionary biologists think is pretty heart-breaking. You should face the arguments and evidence that evolutionary biologists bring at the source, not secondhand through biased opponents who strawman these positions so that you wind up quoting bunk terms like "irreducible complexity."

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Neatras]

No problem there! I'm sorry, but I have to get pedantic. If there are situations where your understanding of evolution is incomplete, leading to incorrect statements, I'll do my best to provide my understanding such that you'll have a broader perspective on the topic. Let's work together to learn a bit more about biology.

Okay. But bias is always operating on a site like this. So let me be clear, "My Christian belief is NOT based on any scientific discovery. I am NOT a....YEC? Is that the term? Indeed, the theory of evolution kind of appeals to my imagination; I find the idea of species producing other species powerful; but lately it has ceased to satisfy my intellect: I find the theory unlikely, even if powerful.

My current position, based on what I have read, is this: Neo-darwinians tend to fall back on "given enough time" and this is hardly a slam-dunk. There are enormous obstacles.


That is all. If I am AGAINST anything it is the cavalier "Oh, everyone (i.e. "everyone that's smart) knows that evolution explains everything quite matter of factly." This is so ridiculous only the non-initiate would say so. I respect ALL evolutionists who will say, "There is a LOT of questions that need answering".


Now then, you have...sorry...provided a lot of information that either a layman won't understand (my fault) or does not pertain (yours) or complicates things unnecessarily (pedantic...yours). I will ignore the one's that are my fault, because I would not even begin to know how to correct you.


You made a point about the misleading "natural SELECTION". I am not misled by the term. I am fully aware there is no CONSCIOUS DIRECTOR active in the theory.


I don't know what better term there should be: "Hey organisms! Fair Game!"; "On your marks; get set; BREED!".

The whole point is that certain organisms last long enough to produce offspring. We obviously think that an "albino" (so to speak) fox born amidst red-tale foxes has certain advantages in the snow climate he was born into. Of course, his success still faces the basic odds against survival: this odd fox could fall into a ditch; and this fate has nothing to do with his fur. For that matter, this odd fox could still be killed by a predator while his red-tailed foxes get away.

But if enough of these foxes are born, well, surely, SURELY, the "advantage of being white" in a snow setting will "kick in" and secure reproduction.


All of this, of course, assuming that the mechanism of random mutation is mimicked specifically in numerous cases in a snow climate; for of course it is naive to assume that the first deviant (i.e., the first white haired fox) just automatically survives and reproduces (the hardship of life, after all, prevails--a single white fox born among red foxes is NOT SUPERMAN; he is just a white fox); or that evolution is "trying to produce a white fox in a snow environment"; after all, a mutation is more likely to produce "non-white foxes" in a snow environment, as there are more colors than white.

So then, we have multiple "crap shoots", yes? Crap shoots: Mutation occurs AT all in a pool of red foxes; mutation occurs which affects an offspring in a beneficial matter (most mutations will either be irrelevant or deleterious); this extremely lucky offspring somehow survives long enough to copulate. Perhaps, PERHAPS! other offspring also just happened to undergo the same genetic mutation; but they also have to face the odds of life.

....So then, random mutation randomly (not in concert) produces this same mutation numerous times, and one or more survive long enough to reproduce. And the family tree grows.

Is this a better model for Neo-Darwinism?

You need gradual modification, which is exactly what biology is all about.

This is specifically what every single study I have read in micro-biology has stated. Even those that aim to defend Neo-Darwiniasm. It is the zoologists that talk of "gradual modification". The micro-biologists suggest that what evolutionists talk of gradual is like talking of BMW gradually being put together by natural forces: sure, the engine, and then frame work.....except all of these are so complex no gradual model will allow for it.

liamconnor wrote:
--multiple cooperative mutations have to simultaneously align;

Nope, multiple cooperative mutations must gradually "align," and this doesn't necessarily cause the death of the organism.

Gradually align in a single organism? Do we have evidence that "mutations" work in this manner? As far as I know, we have cancer and other mutations.

liamconnor wrote:
It is an error to assume that the mutation involved in evolution simply churns out new species upon every occurrence.

Yes?

We won't get a new "species" or "new population" with every mutation. This is not at all what evolutionary biologists claim. If you would like, you can try and spell out your questions more concretely so that I can tell you what is and is not claimed by evolutionary biologists

Rather, it seems you are trying to kill my belief in evolution, lol.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 3 by liamconnor]

If you're going to vomit senseless nonsense about what you think evolutionary theory is, and I correct you, you don't get to then act like I'm somehow doing a bad job arguing for evolutionary theory. Your intellectual and comprehensive failures aren't my responsibility, y'know.

[Divine Insight]

My current position, based on what I have read, is this: Neo-darwinians tend to fall back on "given enough time" and this is hardly a slam-dunk. There are enormous obstacles.

Actually there are no "enormous obstacles". Evolution is indeed a "slam-dunk" once it is truly understood. The only people who claim that there are "enormous obstacles" are those who tend to have ulterior motives for wanting evolution to be false. (i.e. religious motives)

Something you said in the OP caught my eye as well:

Next, the random mutation of DNAs does not always result in a functional organism: there is the problem of irreducible complexity--multiple cooperative mutations have to simultaneously align; like a mousetrap, where each part represents a mutation of DNA--board, spring, etc. More often than not, a cooperative system does not coincide. The result is abortive. It is an error to assume that the mutation involved in evolution simply churns out new species upon every occurrence.

Yes?

It doesn't churn out a new species upon every occurrence. If it did that the number of species would be far greater than what actually exist. Keep in mind that while the number of species may seem overwhelming at first glance, they are actually small enough in number that scientists are able to actually classify them all and list them all. Obviously even scientists don't claim to have recognized every possible species in existence, especially when we get down to the simpler life forms such as insects and below.

None the less, the number of actual species is quite small when it comes to higher level animals. Certainly within a manageable range in terms of what humans can keep track of.

So evolution doesn't need to be very efficient. It had a very long time to create the diversity of species that we actually see.

And yes the time factor is something that humans find difficult to comprehend. After all, our entire lifespan is on the order of 100 years or less. We can't even truly imagine how long a thousand years truly is. That would be 10 entire lifetimes. Ten thousand years would be 100 human lifetimes. And 10,000 years is but a blink of an eye in evolutionary time which takes place over 100's of thousands of years or even millions of years. Time spans that we truly cannot even grasp at all. How could we possibly have an intuitive understanding of time spans that are 100's or 1000's of times longer than our entire lifespan?

So yes, the argument "Given enough time" should not be dismissed so readily. Amazing things can happen given enough time. The number of failed mistakes can be astronomical and you can still end up with the number of individual species we see today.

~~~~~~ Consider the Theological Implications.

Let's not forget about the alternative "explanation": The idea that some designer God actually designed all these different species. If you want to talk about "enormous obstacles" for a theory this idea of a Designer God certainly has enormous obstacles to be certain.

For one thing why would a Designer God have bothered to design the countless numbers of species that have since become extinct? That is a huge problem for any idea that some Designer God is purposefully designing life on earth by constant intervention.

Also, why design animals to eat each other?

Why design bacteria and viruses to infect animals and cause them harm or death?

The very moment we propose that a Designer God is behind this all manner of "enormous obstacles" arise.

Also, why would this God have created a universe in the first place that would be hostile to life? If the argument is that the universe is not "Designed" for abiogenesis or evolution to occur, then why would a God who designed a universe intended for life have designed a universe that he would constantly need to fight against to create the life that he wants to design?

I wouldn't even call these "enormous obstacles", I would call them "insurmountable obstacles".

In order to propose an intervening God who is required to baby-sit a hostile universe we must first assume that this intervening God created a universe that is hostile to life to begin with. And that is already extremely problematic.

~~~~~ A Universe that is Fine Tuned for Life?

Often times theists want to argue that the universe actually is fine-tuned for life. But this then wipes out the need for an intervening God. This takes us into Deism where the creator God only needed to create a universe that could then evolve into life on its own.

In other words, now we're right back to embracing evolution via natural processes again since this is how a Deistic God would have done it.

So if the theist wants to argue for Deism, then they need to embrace evolution.

But if they want to reject evolution in favor of a conscious intervening Designer God, then they are right back to having the "enormous obstacles" of why this Designer God would have designed so many species that have become extinct, etc.

So the idea that Natural Evolution has "enormous obstacles" while some form of Creationism does not cannot be supported.

The idea that Creationism could somehow become a less problematic theory than Evolution is nothing short of nonsense.

Evolution wins hands-down as being the far better explanation to be sure.

Of course this leaves open the possibility of a Deistic type of God, but a Deistic type of God would not be an intervening designer. So evolution is no longer a problem if a theist wants to move over to Deism.

But the idea that an active intervening "Designer God" is required as an explanation for life on earth is not a credible idea. It has far more "enormous obstacles", than natural evolution to be certain.

Edited to Add:

If life on earth actually appeared to be "Well-designed" then theists might have a valid point. But that's just not what we see. Animals are are "designed" to prey on other animals is not what I would consider to be a "Divine Design".

Some with all manner of disease bacteria and viruses.

Theists seem to forget (or ignore) the fact that there are many undesirable lifeforms on earth. They would need to explain why their Designer God is such a malicious designer.

So yeah, if we lived in a nice neat, well-ordered world that actually appeared to have been intelligently designed then theists would have a point. But that's not the reality of our situation.

[wiploc]

It is an error to assume that the mutation involved in evolution simply churns out new species upon every occurrence.

Yes?

Yes, that would be an error.

For instance, I think I read once that crossover error happens often enough that the cells in your right hand won't be a perfect genetic match for those in your left hand. If so, then mutation doesn't always have to do with a new individual, let alone a new species.

Neither are you a genetic match for the person across the street, but she's of the same species as you.

[Willum]

This is kind of the evolutionists Holy Grail.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/ ... over-world

This crayfish mutated in one generation to a new species.

We have the finches, who can mutate or evolve in two generations.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/ ... enerations

So, evolution, observed, is popping up all over, and versions we'd never expect, and even Christians should be able to agree on, and understand.

Not taking centuries to change a small pinion feather, but a generation to become haploid.

[benchwarmer]

I want to zone in on this:

The whole point is that certain organisms last long enough to produce offspring. We obviously think that an "albino" (so to speak) fox born amidst red-tale foxes has certain advantages in the snow climate he was born into. Of course, his success still faces the basic odds against survival: this odd fox could fall into a ditch; and this fate has nothing to do with his fur. For that matter, this odd fox could still be killed by a predator while his red-tailed foxes get away.

But if enough of these foxes are born, well, surely, SURELY, the "advantage of being white" in a snow setting will "kick in" and secure reproduction.

The first sentence is absolutely correct. Biologic evolution is all about reproduction. In it's most simplistic form, we can almost stop right there. i.e. Things reproduce and in doing so pass on various traits as well as mutations.

The thing to be careful of is that just because something has a mutation, does not mean this mutation is advantageous. Even if it might seem to be 'obvious'.

Let's pick this apart a little to see what I'm talking about. You mention albino foxes. Without really fully understanding foxes one might jump to the conclusion that albino foxes have some overwhelming advantage of some sort. Why would that be the case? Because they are harder to spot? Ok. Are foxes primarily prey animals or predator animals? Perhaps a mix of both to some degree? Does fur color really play a vital role in fox survival? I think one would have to answer that question fully before jumping to conclusions.

If you had picked rabbits, one might find it a little easier to see why color plays an important role since they are primarily prey animals. Pretty much the only thing that has to hide from them is vegetables So it might be easier to find examples of rabbits that use color to a bigger advantage. It's still not a slam dunk though.

Just because one particular animal has an advantage, doesn't mean it comes into play. If anything, it's probably DISADVANTAGES that really weed out breeding opportunities, leaving specimens that don't have obvious disadvantages able to carry on.

To take the color example you bring up, if a fox or a rabbit was born bright orange in a snowy environment one could see how that might make it harder for that animal to survive. Not only does it have to deal with regular issues of survival, now it has to survive being a beacon in the snow where ever it goes. Probably reducing its chances of survival.

Some food for thought.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

More of a question for my learning than for Debate.

The evolutionary model consists, primarily, of two factors: random mutation in the DNA of an organism; and its tendency to survive.

Where some mutations aid in survival, there's plenty that don't. We don't hear about them that don't, 'cause ya know, they led to the critter a-dyin' to quick to do him a survey.

Next, the random mutation of DNAs does not always result in a functional organism: there is the problem of irreducible complexity
...

"Complexity" is a relative, subjective term. There's also the issue of evolution "erasing previous itterations", such that when we look at a given deal there, well how 'bout that. Just because we can't figure out how something came to be is no reason to conclude evolution had it nothing to do with it.

multiple cooperative mutations have to simultaneously align
...

Yes and no.

Mutations are not near "cooperative" as they are, well, mutations.

like a mousetrap, where each part represents a mutation of DNA--board, spring, etc.

Mousetraps can have many components removed, and still serve as tie-clips, or even paper-weights.

Your argument here is about twenty years behind the times.

More often than not, a cooperative system does not coincide. The result is abortive.

Please provide supporting documents, arguments, pictures, or mouse traps.

It is an error to assume that the mutation involved in evolution simply churns out new species upon every occurrence.

A single change in alleles is not so much likely to produce a new species. However, bag you up enough of 'em, and a mouse can become a mouse trap maker.

Please find more recent data.

[TSGracchus]

More of a question for my learning than for Debate.

The evolutionary model consists, primarily, of two factors: random mutation in the DNA of an organism; and its tendency to survive.

Yes? (I ask no one get pedantic for the sake of pedantry).

Well, do bear in mind that the selection process is the removal of variation from the gene pool.

Next, the random mutation of DNAs does not always result in a functional organism: there is the problem of irreducible complexity--

Can you cite an example of "irreducible complexity?

-- multiple cooperative mutations have to simultaneously align;...

Consider a population of small furry mammals. The population exhibits variations. Some are lean. Some are chubby. Some have long limbs. Some have short limbs. Some have thick fur and some have thinner fur. Call them type A. Now the environment gets suddenly very much cooler. Within a few generations the population consists solely of individuals who are chubby and short-limbed with thick fur. Call them type B.
The same type A population exposed to a much warmer environment will be lean and long limbed with thinner fur. Call them type C. In the original environment individuals of type B or type C might be at a disadvantage because they would get too hot or too cold. Two points to remember are that environment can simultaneously select for whole suites of genetically independent traits, and evolution usually (almost always!) works on traits that are already present in the gene pool.
Now environment can switch some genes on or off. (See, for instance: The Dutch Hunger Winter.) That seems to be fairly rare.

... like a mousetrap, where each part represents a mutation of DNA--board, spring, etc. More often than not, a cooperative system does not coincide. The result is abortive. It is an error to assume that the mutation involved in evolution simply churns out new species upon every occurrence.

One problem that I immediately spotted when I first read Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, many years ago, was that sometimes evolution involves the simplification of more complex system. As a metaphor: Consider an arched stone bridge. You need to support of some sort of scaffold during construction, but once the keystones are in place the scaffolding can be removed.
Then there is the barnacle, an arthropod that swims around, attaches itself to a crab, then sends digestive cells inside the crab to eat the crab alive and, when ready, the only other type of cell it has produces gametes that when fertilized become free swimming larva that are almost impossible to differentiate from "normal" barnacles that attach themselves to solid substrates like rocks, hulls, or pilings, to live out their lives as filter feeders. The crab eating barnacles are much simpler than the filter feeders they evolved from. Many parasites have evolved by simplification. And you might think they were irreducibly complex.

Any questions?