Natural selection, naturally wrong

[The Barbarian]

As concluded by members of a meeting at the Royal Society in London a few years ago, Darwinism still lacks a theory of the generative.
In other words, the same inescapable principle we began this thread with; you cannot naturally select something into existence.

As you learned, evolution requires random mutations to produce novel information. It's not the only way that new species can form, but it is an important part of the process. Darwin's theory was that new variation was the source of biological novelty, which was then edited by natural selection. Until Mendel's work was rediscovered and then the function of DNA was understood, no one knew how such novelty was produced in the Darwinian process. But Darwin was correct, even if he didn't know how it worked.

 

[sfs]

pre-existing variants... By that definition my child's unique combination of genes demonstrates evolution.

As @The Barbarian has pointed out, that's not correct. Different combinations of variants aren't considered evolution -- only changes to the frequency of variants.

You can make a semantic case for that of course, but if you are trying to explain a bacteria evolving into a human being, it's clearly an inadequate definition.

It's a definition, not a description of the role evolution has played in the history of life. It delimits the range of phenomena that scientists consider 'evolution'. For example, increasing height in a population because of improved nutrition is not evolution because it doesn't involve genetic changes.

Only the latter is exponentially less probable than the former- the mutations we can actually observe overwhelmingly destroy functional information rather than create it.

I don't know what you mean by 'exponentially' here, but yes, deleterious mutations are certainly far more common than beneficial ones. So what? The whole point of natural selection is that it both weeds out the deleterious changes and increases the chance that the beneficial ones will become common in the population. This is stuff that is actively studied by many thousands of researchers -- have you considered learning about the subject rather than just assuming that biologists are uniformly stupid?

That is correct, but while one mutation in any direction can entirely destroy the function of a protein, it takes many mutations all in the correct direction to build a new functional one.

No, that's not true. 'Functional' isn't some binary state that a protein has or doesn't have. Proteins interact in all sorts of ways with one another and with other molecules. A single mutation can, for example, cause the translation of a new peptide. That peptide will probably do something, at least a little, in the complex molecular environment of the cell. Most of the time, the effect will be negligible or harmful, and the that will be the end of it. But in the cases where the effect is even mildly positive, there is now selection pressure for further mutations to strengthen the positive effect.

We don't have to speculate: we can find out where new genes come from by comparing the genomes of species that have the gene with close relatives that don't. What we find is that, overwhelmingly, the related species has a precursor that could turn into the new gene with just a small number of mutations. Sometimes it's an existing gene and the new gene results from gene duplication. Sometimes the new one comes from noncoding sequence, as in the example offered earlier, and sometimes it comes from known transposable elements that carry their own genes.

 

[sfs]

It was finally conceded that Darwinian evolution could not account for this biological novelty. No amount of random mutation and natural selection could bridge that gap.

Conceded by whom? What are you talking about? I don't know of evolutionary biologist who would argue that purely Darwinian evolution was involved (i.e. that all steps were selected for, rather than occurring neutrally), but nor do I know of any who think it didn't happen through known natural processes.

That list of gaps is ever expanding, but certainly the previously held belief that Darwinian evolution could explain simplest life to man- macro-evolution, has already been accepted as false.

Again, accepted by whom? If you think evolutionary biology (which includes but is not limited to Darwinian evolution) is in any kind of tenuous position within biology, you simply have no understanding of the state of the field.

As concluded by members of a meeting at the Royal Society in London a few years ago, Darwinism still lacks a theory of the generative.

What meeting?

 

[The Barbarian]

No, that's not true. 'Functional' isn't some binary state that a protein has or doesn't have. Proteins interact in all sorts of ways with one another and with other molecules. A single mutation can, for example, cause the translation of a new peptide. That peptide will probably do something, at least a little, in the complex molecular environment of the cell. Most of the time, the effect will be negligible or harmful, and the that will be the end of it. But in the cases where the effect is even mildly positive, there is now selection pressure for further mutations to strengthen the positive effect.

Hall's work with bacteria showed gradually increasing effectiveness of a new enzyme over time. The final product was the result of a series of mutations.

 

[stevevw]

Yes. This is why people of all faiths, or even no faith at all can do science. Science is, by it's very methodology, agnostic. Science can't address the supernatural, even though scientists can.

I think science isn't agnostic but anti theistic. It assumes there is some naturalistic and material cause. So the earth was not ordered to become suited to intelligent life it happened by chance. Of billions of planets one had to end up like earth. This is further supported by the fact that explanations for the earths physical parameters being so suitable that our universe may be one of many within a multiverse where at least one of those universes will have the physics that produced earth and intelligent life by chance out of many universe with varying physical parameters.

The same with evolution. Many chance and random experiements happening where one will produce new information to evolve new physical traits over time. As Dawkins says blind, uncaring and purposeless evolution that has the appearence of design like the blind watchmaker.

 

[sfs]

I think science isn't agnostic but anti theistic. It assumes there is some naturalistic and material cause.

Everyone assumes that there are naturalistic, material causes. If your auto mechanic doesn't look for a material cause when your car doesn't start, you'll look for a new mechanic. If your plumber doesn't look for a material cause for the water dripping out of the ceiling, you'll look for a new plumber. Why do you think only scientists shouldn't be looking for material causes?

So the earth was not ordered to become suited to intelligent life it happened by chance.

Science can't tell whether there is some ultimate purpose for how things are, including why the earth is suited to intelligent life. At most it can tell us how things work. One way to create a planet suited for intelligence would be to create many planets and let natural processes sort out the ones that are suitable.

This is further supported by the fact that explanations for the earths physical parameters being so suitable that our universe may be one of many within a multiverse where at least one of those universes will have the physics that produced earth and intelligent life by chance out of many universe with varying physical parameters.

Given the large, possibly infinite, number of stars, the ubiquity of planets, and the uncertainty about the parameters actually needed for life, I don't think there's any reason to invoke a multiverse to explain Earth's existence.

The same with evolution. Many chance and random experiements happening where one will produce new information to evolve new physical traits over time. As Dawkins says blind, uncaring and purposeless evolution that has the appearence of design like the blind watchmaker.

That's an atheist's metaphysical interpretation of the facts of evolution. Why do you accept his interpretation rather than those of fellow believers?

 

[The Barbarian]

I think science isn't agnostic but anti theistic.

No. Darwin, Newton, Bacon, Einstein, and many other great scientists would laugh at your assumption.

It assumes there is some naturalistic and material cause.

So God says in Genesis. The Earth brought forth living things, as He created it to do. You're confusing efficient and final causes.

So the earth was not ordered to become suited to intelligent life it happened by chance.

“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

God can use whatever He created to do His will. Don't sell God short.

The same with evolution. Many chance and random experiements happening where one will produce new information to evolve new physical traits over time.

It's been directly observed. In fact, it's now been found that retrovirus fragments can evolve new genes. Want to learn about some of that?

As Dawkins says...

I don't put much stock in creationists talking about science or atheists talking about God. Neither of them have the relationship right, IMO.

 

[stevevw]

Everyone assumes that there are naturalistic, material causes. If your auto mechanic doesn't look for a material cause when your car doesn't start, you'll look for a new mechanic. If your plumber doesn't look for a material cause for the water dripping out of the ceiling, you'll look for a new plumber. Why do you think only scientists shouldn't be looking for material causes?

Because science especially associated with the origins of life, existence and reality cannot help be philosophiocal and metaphysical. Science takes a particular position on this Metrhodlogical naturalism which is more about metaphysics. It counts out the ssupernatural before any measure is taken by its very nature. But at the same time its telling us something ontological about reality which is beyond science.

The belief that there is such a thing as 'Matter' outside our minds that is real and is the only way we can know what is real. Every 'cause' and 'cause of cause' has to be assumed to be material and naturalisc even before any evdience is found.

Science can't tell whether there is some ultimate purpose for how things are, including why the earth is suited to intelligent life. At most it can tell us how things work. One way to create a planet suited for intelligence would be to create many planets and let natural processes sort out the ones that are suitable.

Yes so because there cannot be any teleology involved whatever the answer will be its going to be a naturalistic one even before the answer is found. All observations are interpreted that way. So rather than any purpose or design the answers have to conform to naturalistic ideas that involve no purpose or design such as statistics, chance and time.

So ideas such as a multiverse even though this cannot be verified are better than design or purpose because this increases the viability of chance accounting for the odds of such events. In other words explanations will conform to prior assumptions about the nature of reality which is more about belief than science.

Given the large, possibly infinite, number of stars, the ubiquity of planets, and the uncertainty about the parameters actually needed for life, I don't think there's any reason to invoke a multiverse to explain Earth's existence.

Ok well that seems to be a popular idea floating around. There would seem to be some knowledge of the parameters and agree that they are pretty special. I would seem if there are possibly infinite number of stars that there would be a likelyhood of other life and therefore ours being not so special. I think thats the implication anyway.

Maybe the recent UFO congress investigation may reveal some light on this lol. But at the moment if we are the only intelligent life then I think that testifies to someone more than just chance.

That's an atheist's metaphysical interpretation of the facts of evolution. Why do you accept his interpretation rather than those of fellow believers?

I don't accept it but I thought that this was something he mentioned speaking as a scientist about evolution. I think the Blind Watchmaker was about the science of natural selection and how it can create complex organisms.

So are you saying that evolutionary scientists believe there is some teleology to evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Because science especially associated with the origins of life, existence and reality cannot help be philosophiocal and metaphysical.

Hmmm... "Because science especially associated with force and motion existence and reality cannot help be philosophical and metaphysical."

No, that one doesn't make any sense, either.

The belief that there is such a thing as 'Matter' outside our minds that is real and is the only way we can know what is real. Every 'cause' and 'cause of cause' has to be assumed to be material and naturalisc even before any evdience is found.

Hence your plumber, faced with a stopped-up drain, look for obstructions in the line, not the demons of blockage. Go figure.

Yes so because there cannot be any teleology involved whatever the answer will be its going to be a naturalistic one even before the answer is found.

The key here is that plumbers can believe in the supernatural, even if they don't spend any time exorcising those demons.

So ideas such as a multiverse even though this cannot be verified are better than design or purpose because this increases the viability of chance accounting for the odds of such events.

People who write off the possibility of contingency being part of God's intentions are assuming a smaller and weaker God than the One that exists.

I don't accept it but I thought that this was something he mentioned speaking as a scientist about evolution.

When a scientist wanders off into metaphysics, he's no longer talking science. But we can do that, even if we are scientists. It just isn't science. Which doesn't mean it's bad. I'm often unscientific myself. Science won't work for everything people do.

 

[stevevw]

No. Darwin, Newton, Bacon, Einstein, and many other great scientists would laugh at your assumption.

Yes perhaps they would. But not many of todays scientists. I think as time has gone by a belief in the power of science to account for everything has grown. Thats natural to some extent in that its proven very reliable.

So God says in Genesis. The Earth brought forth living things, as He created it to do. You're confusing efficient and final causes.

Except today many scientists will believe that there was no design in the earth bring forth living things. The default assumption is that it was caused by chance over a long period of time.

“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

God can use whatever He created to do His will. Don't sell God short.

No I agree. So what is the difference between naturalistic causes and divine providence. I am sure that depending on whichever belief you take one being naturalistic and lacking divine providence and one based on divine providence will assume different evidence to look for.

It's been directly observed. In fact, it's now been found that retrovirus fragments can evolve new genes. Want to learn about some of that?

I am not disagreeing with the evdience for evolution. But rather the idea that the information was created by chance. I believe that life was designed to be able to gain new information. Part of that is having a different assumption about natural selection and the central role of genes.

One that takes a more pluralistic view that evolution operates on multilevels and that living things are not passive entities dictated by enviorments and acted up by an outside force of natural selection.

But rather there are several lines of evolution including self organising ones through development, a degree of flexibility of phenotypes, a reciprocal relationship between environments and creatures and between living things and a degree of agency where creatures direct and select their own evolution.

Where natural selection is not the dominate force but just one of several forces at play and that change can come other than through genes and mutations are often not random but directed towards certain outcomes over others.

I don't put much stock in creationists talking about science or atheists talking about God. Neither of them have the relationship right, IMO.

OK I thought he was one of the more prominent and respected scientists regardling evolution. The selfish gene and all that.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. Darwin, Newton, Bacon, Einstein, and many other great scientists would laugh at your assumption.

Yes perhaps they would. But not many of todays scientists.

Guess how I know you don't personally know very many scientists. Francis Collins, for example, directed the Human Genome Project and is a devout evangelical Christian. My department head was on the Vestry of his local church. My first graduate work in immunology was from a devout Christian. And so on.

Except today many scientists will believe that there was no design in the earth bring forth living things. The default assumption is that it was caused by chance over a long period of time.

Engineers have learned that the Darwinian process of random variation and natural selection works better than design for very complex problems. God had it exactly right. Engineers are now copying evolutionary processes where design fails, and it works. I think IDer Michael Denton was on to something in his idea that the "designer" front loaded nature to bring about specific things, even if random variation was involved.

Part of that is having a different assumption about natural selection and the central role of genes.

In science, we make predictions and watch what happens. Assumptions should be explicitly stated, as few as necessary, and always open to revision.

One that takes a more pluralistic view that evolution operates on multilevels and that living things are not passive entities dictated by enviorments and acted up by an outside force of natural selection.

Organisms are part of the environment. So they push just as the rest of the environment pushes. Natural selection works the same way in this regard. Trees, for example, drop leaves that decay and release acids that dissolve nutrients and carry them lower into the soil, putting them out of reach of many smaller plants. The trees didn't plot to change their environment; trees that did this, tended to prosper more than trees that did not. And yes, some smaller plants evolved deeper root systems. It's kind of an arms race, sometimes.

But rather there are several lines of evolution including self organising ones through development, a degree of flexibility of phenotypes, a reciprocal relationship between environments and creatures and between living things and a degree of agency where creatures direct and select their own evolution.

The key is that living things are also part of the environment. Agency doesn't require rational consideration, as it often does in humans.

I don't put much stock in creationists talking about science or atheists talking about God. Neither of them have the relationship right, IMO.

OK I thought he was one of the more prominent and respected scientists regardling evolution. The selfish gene and all that.

He's a very competent scientist. When he talks about God, he seems to be no more competent than a creationist talking about evolution. For the same reason; he has a preconceived notion against it.

 

[QvQ]

Natural Selection has been known and utilized for a very long time.
Natural Selection is:
1) Ability
2) Proximity
3) Opportunity
By limiting and manipulating those three components famers have "Selectively" bred livestock and plants.
The fact is that even though a selectively bred (purebred) animal may be stronger, bigger, and better adapted to the environment, when left to the animal's own devices (natural selection) the animal will revert to type (mongrel).

Genetically manipulated plants, also known as GMO, are artificially "evolved" or "mutated" in the way that evolution is supposed to work, by manipulating the genome to create mutations.
However, those genetically engineered plants cannot, thus far, be stabilized. The plants are sterile or die out in a few generation or revert to the original phenotype.

There are "theoretical" arguments on this thread, whether the "theory" is actually proven by comparing turtles or what not. The fact is, the manipulation of genes has not produced any viable or inheritable mutations.

There was a statement by a very frustrated researcher who said, "We know angiosperms evolved at least once" But nothing so far in research has proved that "knowing" We can't get animals or plants to evolve beyond the genetic codes of their particular phenotype.
But then, of course, we know angiosperms evolved at least once., don't we?

 

[sfs]

There are "theoretical" arguments on this thread, whether the "theory" is actually proven by turtles or what not. The fact is, the manipulation of genes has not produced any viable or inheritable mutations.

That's not correct: GM crop escapes into the American wild - Nature

We can't get animals or plants to evolve beyond the genetic codes of their particular phenotype.
But then, of course, we know angiosperms evolved at least once, don't we?

Um, what? We observe animals and plants evolving to have different phenotypes all the time, both in the wild and in the lab.

 

[QvQ]

That's not correct: GM crop escapes into the American wild - Nature

Perhaps. Those genetically altered plants are growing in ditches along the fields where the canola is grown. It is known that genetically altered crops can survive for several generations and even be used in breeding programs, (I refer you to Iris hybridization) However without selective breeding those genetically manipulated hybrids either die out or revert to the original type. The seeds from genetically manipulated Irises will produce "mongrel" Irises, reverting to the original geno and pheno type.
DNA repairs itself.

Um, what? We observe animals and plants evolving to have different phenotypes all the time, both in the wild and in the lab.

Example? I meant Genotype so, yes animals can change phenotype within a limited range but no, an animal cannot change Genotype.

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps. Those genetically altered plants are growing in ditches along the fields where the canola is grown. It is known that genetically altered crops can survive for several generations and even be used in breeding programs, (I refer you to Iris hybridization) However without selective breeding those genetically manipulated hybrids either die out or revert to the original type.

Natural selection, you know. Why wouldn't they?

 

[The Barbarian]

Example? I meant Genotype so, yes animals can change phenotype within a limited range but no, an animal cannot change Genotype.

Populations change genes. Individuals do not.

 

[QvQ]

A ten-year study initiated in 1990 demonstrated that there is no increased risk of invasiveness or persistence in wild habitats for GM crops (oilseed rape, potatoes, corn, and sugar beet) and traits (herbicide tolerance, insect protection) tested when compared to their unmodified counterparts.13 The researchers stated, however, that these results “do not mean that genetic modifications could not increase weediness or invasiveness of crop plants, but they do indicate that productive crops are unlikely to survive for long outside cultivation.”

The modified, either selectively bred or genetically modified do not survive outside cultivation. And the unmodified counterparts do not inherit the modifications.

This is an old concern about GMO, escaping or interbreeding with non-GMO. DNA repairs itself to the original Genotype and does not absorb the "GMO" modifications. If the GMO even escapes and since it can't survive outside cultivation, the case is closed.

As for populations changing? Not through natural selection or through genetic manipulation. Naturally selected DNA repairs itself the same as GMO.

 

[The Barbarian]

A ten-year study initiated in 1990 demonstrated that there is no increased risk of invasiveness or persistence in wild habitats for GM crops (oilseed rape, potatoes, corn, and sugar beet) and traits (herbicide tolerance, insect protection) tested when compared to their unmodified counterparts.13 The researchers stated, however, that these results “do not mean that genetic modifications could not increase weediness or invasiveness of crop plants, but they do indicate that productive crops are unlikely to survive for long outside cultivation.”

The modified, either selectively bred or genetically modified do not survive outside cultivation. And the unmodified counterparts do not inherit the modifications.

Natural selection. Maize, for example, would die out in one generation. However, cases like BT corn pollen on milkweed has raised some concerns over Monarch butterflies. So far, the damage appears minimal, but we need to consider environmental affects with BT crops.

BT is Bacillus thuringensis, a bacterium found in the soil. It produces an inclusion crystal in the cell that is specifically quite lethal to lepidopterans. An ideal biological control for the corn borer. Then some inserted a BT gene into corn that produced the toxin (which remember, is toxic to butterflies, moths, and skippers). Great result. But the corn pollen sometimes ends up on milkweed plants that are eaten by Monarch caterpillars. So far, the consensus is that it's not a major issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

Naturally selected DNA repairs itself the same as GMO.

Generally, back mutations are the exception, not the rule.

 

[sfs]

Perhaps. Those genetically altered plants are growing in ditches along the fields where the canola is grown.

You didn't read it, did you?
"Sagers says the previous discoveries in other countries of transgenic canola populations growing outside of cultivation were often in or near fields used for commercial transgenic canola production. By contrast, her research team found feral populations of herbicide-resistant canola growing along roads, near petrol stations and grocery stores, often at large distances from areas of agricultural production."

Example? I meant Genotype so, yes animals can change phenotype within a limited range but no, an animal cannot change Genotype.

Your statement is not only incorrect, it's as incorrect as it could be -- every population of animals that we've looked at is changing genotype all the time. We see new genetic variants arising by mutation, and variants increasing and decreasing in frequency, sometimes because of natural selection (the subject of this thread) and more often because of genetic drift. Are you not aware of the appearance and spread of insecticide resistance in all kinds of insect populations? The famous example of light and dark peppered moths was a change in phenotype caused by a change in genotype (and no, the example was not faked). Humans in populations that had access to milk developed the ability to digest lactose as adults because of a change in genotype, with the specific change varying by population. There are scores of studies (at least) of natural selection changing phenotypes by changing the genotypes of populations.