Natural selection, naturally wrong

[sfs]

DNA repairs itself to the original Genotype

No, that's something DNA absolutely cannot do.

 

[sfs]

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

They can also believe that pipes have a purpose even if they operate by natural processes.

 

[sfs]

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.

No, I'm saying that evolutionary scientists can believe anything they like about ultimate purpose or lack thereof when it comes to evolution. With few exceptions, living things do not have a mechanism for purposefully altering their genomes. In that sense, evolution proceeds blindly. Anyone who concludes from that that there is purpose or meaning behind evolution is doing philosophy, not science.

 

[The Barbarian]

They can also believe that pipes have a purpose even if they operate by natural processes.

Good point.

 

[QvQ]

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.

I have heard this "lactose" evolution before so answer this:
That recombination of genes may be present, in fact, may always have been present within the human genome. All people may have genetic material to "mutate" to lactose tolerant. It is then a "variation" within the species and not an evolutionary mutation.
There are variations within all species.

The fact remains that GMO hybrids tend to die out, even in cultivation. That is a known fact. The mutations are eventually erased from the gene pool.

DNA does repair itself as the genome self-selects what is patterned in to itself, reverting to what we could call an archetype. In any GMO or hybrid I have seen, the organism tends to return to the non-GMO, non-hybrid archetype.
So yes, the DNA does have a mechanism for purposely altering it's gene pool.

 

[The Barbarian]

That recombination of genes may be present, in fact, may always have been present within the human genome. All people may have genetic material to "mutate" to lactose tolerant.

Yep. As Darwin pointed out, new traits (we call them mutations because they are new information in the genAnyetic code) plus natural selection makes it work.

A single point mutation in the DNA near to the lactase gene changes the cytosine (C) nucleotide to a thymine (T). Individuals who have the thymine (T) nucleotide are lactose tolerant and can digest milk products in adulthood.

Genes and lactose intolerance

In New Zealand, we drink a lot of milk, so you might be surprised to learn that most adults in the world are lactose intolerant and can’t consume dairy products.

www.sciencelearn.org.nz

It is then a "variation" within the species and not an evolutionary mutation.

Any new information in the genetic code is a mutation.

There are variations within all species.

Caused by mutations. That's what we see happening. Would you like some more examples?

And genetically-modified individuals do not revert to the unmutated form. We are each stuck with the genes we have at birth, absent gene therapy to add something. Populations in the wild would tend to revert to the unmutated form by natural selection, unless the GMO form had some usefulness.

 

[QvQ]

Any new information in the genetic code is a mutation.

Then the original OP is correct.
If a recombination of existing material is "new information" and a mutation rather than a variation within a species, then evolution is just what ever you want it to be.

Yes, populations in the wild do tend to revert to Type.
The curious fact is that even when a GMO or hybridized mutation has usefulness, the organism still reverts to type, not retaining the "useful." That is what is driving researchers batty. According to Darwin, the subsequent generations would "select" those useful traits However the word for the "Revert" is Mongrel, always, plant and animal. It is some programmed Type or pattern within every genome that natural selection selects.

According to Darwin, genetic mutations, if useful, should be selected. We know that is not true with selective breeding. And now, what a surprise, it is also not true with genetic manipulation. The GMO traits, however useful get selected out in "natural selection."

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm saying that evolutionary scientists can believe anything they like about ultimate purpose or lack thereof when it comes to evolution. With few exceptions, living things do not have a mechanism for purposefully altering their genomes. In that sense, evolution proceeds blindly. Anyone who concludes from that that there is purpose or meaning behind evolution is doing philosophy, not science.

So what about when the evolution of certain traits is biased to certain outcomes rather than any outcome. Or when a creature can select its own evolutionary trajectory towards adaptations or environmental changes that produce beneficial heritable outcomes. Or how epigenetics (that is the positive or negative stresses or behaviours implying some sort of agency influencing evolutionary outcomes.

I don't think evolution is the result of just natural selection and genes. NS is just one of a number of selective influences and genes are not causally dominant but one of a number of ways living things can change phenotypes including HGT, epigenetics, cultural, simbiotic, platicity within cells and tissue, developmental and extra genetic influences.

This seems to point to life being equipped with a number of self organising and directed abilities and influences that seem to allow creatures to adapt and live with each others. I mean look at humans we have almost bypassed NS and are adptating through our own agencies to environments that would not be naturally possible.

 

[stevevw]

The talk of information makes me wonder where did that information come from originally. It also points to some form of non material ontology. Perhaps there is more information in every cell than we think. Or more potential for reconsituting itself as new information. All new information is just a combination of the many interconnecting webs created by the release from some orginal cell. Which was the release from some code or natural law within the very fabric of creation. Which then traces back to the ultimate source of information, Gods Word.

 

[QvQ]

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."

I couldn't read it as posted so I did some research.
There are reports of "stacking" in the escaped plants to create a double GMO, either a big bonus or the dread super weed.

What I don't see is reports of farmers or other interested parties sneaking out at night with flashlights to gather the seeds. Seeds are extremely valuable and can be used, even in small quantities for hybridization and can certainly be saved to be replanted year after year. Monsanto aggressively protects its GMO yet I don't see any Monsanto patrols protecting against seed collectors.

And why isn't anyone collecting those seeds? Because GMO seeds are not viable long term. 1st generation, great, subsequent generations, not so great,, some longer term success but same outcome. GMO progeny dies out, unlike selectively bred progeny which simply reverts.

What I do see is Monsanto, who is a very interested party, stating that the annual GMO Canola plants are from seed dropped from trucks, windblown or washed from growing areas. Monsanto recommended mowing the escaped GMO Canola for weed control. (yawn)

 

[sfs]

I have heard this "lactose" evolution before so answer this:
That recombination of genes may be present, in fact, may always have been present within the human genome. All people may have genetic material to "mutate" to lactose tolerant. It is then a "variation" within the species and not an evolutionary mutation.
There are variations within all species.

The answer is that what you've just stated is wrong. It's certainly possible for existing genetic variation to be selected for if selection pressures change (as they did for some humans when they started herding animals). That's call selection on standing variation and we see plenty of it occurring. But we also see plenty of cases of selection for newly arisen mutations. We can tell the difference because the selected genetic variant occurs on a single genetic background (i.e. only one set of other genetic variants nearby on the same chromosome) and brings that background with it when it increases in frequency. That's what we see with lactose tolerance.

It's straightforward to show the same process happening in the lab, as long as you're using an organism that reproduces rapidly. For example, we can take a sample of malaria parasites, all genetically identical, expose them to moderate amounts of an anti-malaria medication, and they will reliably become resistant to the medication because of new mutations that arise in the lab.

DNA does repair itself as the genome self-selects what is patterned in to itself, reverting to what we could call an archetype.

Again, this is simply false. New variants (which is what GMOs have) may be selected against, so that they fail to thrive in the population. But that is not the same thing as DNA actually repairing itself. We have an enormous amount of data on how DNA behaves and what you're describing isn't true.

Why do you think you know more about genetics than geneticists?

The curious fact is that even when a GMO or hybridized mutation has usefulness, the organism still reverts to type, not retaining the "useful." That is what is driving researchers batty.

Could you list some of the researchers who are being driven batty by this? Because I'm an active researcher in genetics and what you're describing sounds like total fantasy.

 

[sfs]

So what about when the evolution of certain traits is biased to certain outcomes rather than any outcome.

What about it? Natural selection can certainly favor systems that, for example, minimize harmful mutations. Such biases, which occur in a variety of ways, are well-recognized parts of genetics and evolutionary biology. That's not at all the same thing as purposefully altering their genomes. Such alteration does occur, but the only example I can think of is the incorporation of fragments of viral genetic material into bacterial genomes to serve as a template for CRISPR-based defense against that virus in the future.

Or when a creature can select its own evolutionary trajectory towards adaptations or environmental changes that produce beneficial heritable outcomes.

What cases are you talking about here? Beyond the limited exception I gave above, I'm not aware of examples of creatures selecting their own evolutionary trajectory, at least if I'm understanding the claim. James Shapiro has argued at length that organisms have the capacity to engineer their own genomes in purposeful ways but he seems to have convinced just about no one in the field except himself.

The overwhelming picture we see in biology is still that adaptive evolution occurs via natural selection acting on random mutations, where 'random' means the absence of any mechanism by which the organism can select specific beneficial mutations to occur.

Or how epigenetics (that is the positive or negative stresses or behaviours implying some sort of agency influencing evolutionary outcomes.

Trans-generational epigenetic inheritance certainly occurs, albeit probably less widely than has sometimes been claimed, but it seems to have little evolutionary impact. Again, what cases are you talking about?

 

[QvQ]

they will reliably become resistant to the medication because of new mutations that arise in the lab.

And they all do it. The organism has the inherent ability to do that, and the material to do it. The "variation" occurs in the lab so where in the lab did the organism obtain any "new" material to do that? The organism does that within the limits of inherent ability and pre-existing material. Yes, there are individuals that would be resistant to antibiotics and through selective breeding those strains would become dominant but that is an "variation" not a "new mutation."

Consider AIDS, 10% of the population is immune. If AIDs were widespread, that Variation would become dominant but it doesn't require mutation or new material. It was already an existing variation within the population.

Do you understand? The human genome may have the inherent ability for lactose tolerance? It is not a "mutation," it is a variation within the species.
The human genome does not have the inherent ability for snake bite tolerance but skunks do. The environmental pressure from snakes is certainly no greater to skunks than humans.

Or a better example, Cats. Cats actively hunt snakes. The Egyptians kept cats to hunt snakes as much as rats. Cats are fascinated by snakes yet cats are not immune to snake venom.

It is one thing to sit is a lab with a outcome already decided by Darwin's theory, cut and paste all the information to fit the pre-conceived pattern. It is another thing to look at What is Actually Happening. But then, just ignore it because it doesn't fit the theory.

According to Darwin, Skunks have mutated to be immune to Snake venom because of natural selection
According to Darwin Cats have not mutated to become immune to Snake venom because...well?

The OP Is that "natural selection" as defined by Darwinists is just whatever fits the current Darwinist narrative.

 

[stevevw]

What about it? Natural selection can certainly favor systems that, for example, minimize harmful mutations. Such biases, which occur in a variety of ways, are well-recognized parts of genetics and evolutionary biology. That's not at all the same thing as purposefully altering their genomes. Such alteration does occur, but the only example I can think of is the incorporation of fragments of viral genetic material into bacterial genomes to serve as a template for CRISPR-based defense against that virus in the future.

I was thinking more along the lines of how creatures interject themselves into the evolutionary process and control outcomes such as environments, nesting, ecosystems, behaviours, cooperative behaviours. They actually direct natural selection sometimes overriding NS or bypassing it altogether towards certain outcomes usually beneficial and hereditary rather than being passively acted upon by outside forces like environmental stresses.

Environmental stresses or conditions may act directly on bodies through cell and tissue (plasticity) or trigger developmental processes usually not through random mutations but biased towards certain phenotype changes which are adaptive. THese biased changes will be naturally selected because bodies and environments are not disconnected but rather work together. Sometimes the phenotype change comes first due to and the genes come later to cement them.

What cases are you talking about here? Beyond the limited exception I gave above, I'm not aware of examples of creatures selecting their own evolutionary trajectory, at least if I'm understanding the claim. James Shapiro has argued at length that organisms have the capacity to engineer their own genomes in purposeful ways but he seems to have convinced just about no one in the field except himself.

The overwhelming picture we see in biology is still that adaptive evolution occurs via natural selection acting on random mutations, where 'random' means the absence of any mechanism by which the organism can select specific beneficial mutations to occur.
Trans-generational epigenetic inheritance certainly occurs, albeit probably less widely than has sometimes been claimed, but it seems to have little evolutionary impact. Again, what cases are you talking about?

There are a raft of influences such as Inclusive inheritance (epigenetic, behavioural, ecological and cultural forms of inheritance [3,9]),
Developmental bias (phenotype evolution is biased towards certain outcomes over others and dictated by developmental processes rather than random processes), niche construction (the process whereby organisms, through their metabolism, their activities, and their choices, modify their own and/or each other’s niche’) thus acting as selections of niches which direct evolution towards self selected behaviours and plasticity (the ability of an individual to modify its development in response to environmental conditions).

 

[sfs]

I was thinking more along the lines of how creatures interject themselves into the evolutionary process and control outcomes such as environments, nesting, ecosystems, behaviours, cooperative behaviours.

Creatures certainly control many things about their environment, and the environment certainly affects their subsequent evolution, but as far as I know (with limited exceptions for humans), creatures do not control their environment in order to direct their later evolution.

There are a raft of influences such as Inclusive inheritance (epigenetic, behavioural, ecological and cultural forms of inheritance [3,9]),
Developmental bias (phenotype evolution is biased towards certain outcomes over others and dictated by developmental processes rather than random processes), niche construction (the process whereby organisms, through their metabolism, their activities, and their choices, modify their own and/or each other’s niche’) thus acting as selections of niches which direct evolution towards self selected behaviours and plasticity (the ability of an individual to modify its development in response to environmental conditions).

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the claims of the EES crowd, some of which are obviously correct, but few of which, as far as I can tell, actually change the fundamental role of natural selection in adaptive evolution. Take a look at the second response here; it reflects my views pretty well.

 

[May the facts be with you]

I mean, other than the fact that we can trivially observe natural selection acting as a mechanism for evolution in the lab and in the wild, no, no reason.

The article is hilarious. It reads like it was written by a high school student mocking something he doesn't understand. There's a reason scientists pay no attention to creationists.

I know, I read an awesome paper - Professor Stroud said the following

Stroud said. “Now we know that even if animals appear to be staying the same, evolution is still happening.”

I spilled my coffee 'cos I was laughing. - Let's rephrase "even though we have no evidence, evolution is still happening". Creationists may have a point after all

 

[sfs]

I know, I read an awesome paper - Professor Stroud said the following

Stroud said. “Now we know that even if animals appear to be staying the same, evolution is still happening.”

I spilled my coffee 'cos I was laughing. - Let's rephrase "even though we have no evidence, evolution is still happening". Creationists may have a point after all

Aside from the fact that your rephrasing is exactly wrong, um, okay. Why don't you summarize the evidence that the paper (the actual paper, not the thing you quoted from) presents?

 

[stevevw]

Creatures certainly control many things about their environment, and the environment certainly affects their subsequent evolution, but as far as I know (with limited exceptions for humans), creatures do not control their environment in order to direct their later evolution.

So what about all the examples of how creatures build dams, nests, mothering environments, webs, change soil makeup other niche constructions which create an environment that suits the creature/organism thus controlling their evolutionary trajectory by ensuring beneficial environments conducive to their offsprings needs. In other words rather the creatures are doing the selecting.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the claims of the EES crowd, some of which are obviously correct, but few of which, as far as I can tell, actually change the fundamental role of natural selection in adaptive evolution. Take a look at the second response here; it reflects my views pretty well.

The SET and EES both see these additional influences and processes. The difference is the SET sees them as (add on's) and not causually prominent whereas the EES sees them as being causually prominent on the same par as NS and random genetic changes to contribute to phenotype traits and evolvability.

The more these additional influences are stuied the more they become understood and can deminish the roles of NS and random mutations as being causually central. The SET has many explanatory gaps which seem hard to explain in terms of chance or luck or through NS alone. The EES expands the possibilities thus offering a more comprehensive and better explanatory power. '

Its not too disimilar to other fields like in physics and how QM has expanded and even changed the paradygm and ontology of physics especially considering the role of the observer and consciousness in the equation which the classical explanations find hard to explain and account for.

The same with evolution. The SET has always relegated the subject to a passive role and empahsized a programmed approached based on genomics and the forces of nature alone in a mathmatical sense. This doesn't allow for the dynamic ways living things can change things and influence their surroundings and own lives and that of their offspring in more self organised, reciprocal and constructive ways

Its more a case of a paradygm and ontological shift in assumptions and the way evidence and nature is seen rather than a dispute over the evdience itself and how this fits in with the range of influences involved in life existing on the planet especially that of agency.

The EES can accommodate aspects of SET but also by expanding possibilities it begins to place the core assumptions of SET as part of a bigger picture thus making NS and random mutations just two of a number of influences and not causually dominent and therefore adding new lines of investigation and predictions.

 

[sfs]

So what about all the examples of how creatures build dams, nests, mothering environments, webs, change soil makeup other niche constructions which create an environment that suits the creature/organism thus controlling their evolutionary trajectory by ensuring beneficial environments conducive to their offsprings needs. In other words rather the creatures are doing the selecting.

You're mixing up two things here. Lots of creatures modify their environments to suit their needs (presumably as a result of previous natural selection). That's always been perfectly consistent with standard evolutionary theory. That is not the same as controlling their evolutionary trajectory in a way that will ultimately beneficial. Any change to their evolution is strictly a by-product, not a target of their behavior. Changing the environment may in fact be harmful to the species in the long run, but either way, future evolution is not the goal and choice is not involved.

Its not too disimilar to other fields like in physics and how QM has expanded and even changed the paradygm and ontology of physics especially considering the role of the observer and consciousness in the equation which the classical explanations find hard to explain and account for.

Having done professional scientific research in both QM and evolution, I have to say that this is a terrible analogy, and only incidentally because consciousness plays no role in QM physics.

The EES consists of a grab bag of processes and ideas. Some of them do occur and are actually additions to evolutionary theory -- of these, trans-generational epigenetic inheritance is the best example. Sure it occurs, but it appears to play almost no role in the actual evolution of actual species. Contrast this with horizontal gene transfer, which was also an addition to prior evolutionary theory, but which turns out to be very common (in large parts of the tree of life) and to play a major role -- and which has accordingly been adopted as a major feature of evolutionary studies. Another set of ideas, like the role of developmental constraints on phenotypic evolution, can provide important ways of conceptualizing evolution and can help guide researchers. None of these real processes, however, do anything to remove the fundamentally random nature of new genetic and phenotypic variation or to replace natural selection as the only real source of adaptive evolution.