Classic case of evolution refuted

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nowhere did I say evolution as a whole. Evolution is phenomenon observable in nature, it isn't going to be refuted. What was refuted was the accepted wisdom on molecular adaptation. Why do you say it only applies to the fruit fly then proceed to quote them saying "could be applied to many evolutionary questions"?

It COULD be applied. That is not the same as it CAN be applied.
Again that article is only talking about the evolution of the fruit fly only, not evolution as a whole.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So there isn't any more confusion, I wasn't making an argument, simply pointing out random mutations and natural selection aren't the creative force behind genes people think they are.

That's not what the article says at all. What it says is that in this particular species of fruit fly the adaptation which allowed it to metabolise more alcohol than its close relatives was not caused by the mutation of the particular protein that it had previously been thought was the cause of this adaptation.

This is the original paper: Experimental test and refutation of a classic case of molecular adaptation in Drosophila melanogaster : Nature Ecology & Evolution

A strength of the ADH adaptive hypothesis was that it entailed specific predictions about the effects of genetic divergence along the lineage leading to D. melanogaster on protein function, organismal phenotype and components of fitness. Ancestral sequence reconstruction, engineering of transgenic organisms, and biochemical/physiological assays allowed us to test these predictions directly. Our experiments show that none of these predictions hold.

We did not test any of the innumerable other hypotheses that have been or could be proposed concerning fruit fly adaptation to rotting fruit or ADH evolution. For example, evidence suggests that the increased ethanol tolerance of D. melanogaster may have evolved because of substitutions at other loci 34,36 or in regulatory regions 32,33 of Adh and it is possible that these changes were positively selected. The single amino acid replacement that occurred along the D. melanogaster lineage could have affected functions other than ethanol catabolism, such as the breakdown of other substrates, and, if it did, these changes may or may not have increased fitness. For these or any other claims of molecular adaptation, further work would be required to formulate specific adaptive hypotheses and test their causal predictions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why do you say it only applies to the fruit fly then proceed to quote them saying "could be applied to many evolutionary questions"?

The technique of engineering historical animals could be used to test other hypotheses. This experiment tested one particular hypothesis about one particular adaptation in one particular species of fruit fly.

 

[Papias]

In related news:

Cartographers find a mile long section of highway 669 mislabelled as highway 699 on map from 1995. Flat earth supporters announce that "round earth-ism" is proven false!

 

[KCfromNC]

Your guess would be wrong.
Peer reviewed articles are very carefully worded. When they say "decisively refuted", they mean it.

Just in this case, not about what you're implying that they mean it about. That's quote-mining.

 

[Vaccine]

It COULD be applied. That is not the same as it CAN be applied.
Again that article is only talking about the evolution of the fruit fly only, not evolution as a whole.

Still isn't only, your own quote said otherwise. They also said this:
"Our experiments strongly refute the predictions of the adaptive ADH hypothesis and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence. "

What do you think they mean by appealing accounts?

 

[Vaccine]

Just in this case, not about what you're implying that they mean it about. That's quote-mining.

What exactly do you think I'm implying?
It isn't just about fruit flies.
"Our experiments strongly refute the predictions of the adaptive ADH hypothesis and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Still isn't only, your own quote said otherwise. They also said this:
"Our experiments strongly refute the predictions of the adaptive ADH hypothesis and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence. "

What do you think they mean by appealing accounts?

Again: they're only talking about the evolution of that particular fruit fly, not evolution as a whole.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Nowhere did I conclude this refutes the theory of evolution.

Right. You're another one who needs to read what they post.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The 'case' that was refuted was a generally accepted hypothesis that flows from evolutionary theory. It is not one of the evidences that supports evolution. If you want to argue against evolution, you need to find flaws in its supports.

This result is an example of how we use the scientific method to learn with certainty a bit more of the full story of evolution; it is not the uncovering of a flaw in evolution.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It isn't just about fruit flies.
"Our experiments strongly refute the predictions of the adaptive ADH hypothesis and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence."

They are saying what is a basic scientific/mathematic principle - that correlation does not equal causation. When correlation was the only avenue upon which assessments could be made they were the basis for hypotheses. This experiment demonstrates conclusively that correlative data does not guarantee the correctness of a hypothesis.

What do you think they are saying?

 

[Vaccine]

Right. You're another one who needs to read what they post.

It was clear from my title and the title of the articles I linked to what was being refuted. Don't blame me because you read into it.

 

[Papias]

Nowhere did I say evolution as a whole.

But your thread title certainly implied it:

"Classic case of evolution refuted"

This sounds just like the typical creationist falsehoods and misleading claims we see all the time, such as in the creationist book "Icons of Evolution", which is about "refuting" classic cases of evolution.

So you are saying that you had absolutely no intention of casting doubt on evolution in any way with this thread, Vaccine? Is that your honest answer? Would tell Jesus that?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It was clear from my title and the title of the articles I linked to what was being refuted. Don't blame me because you read into it.

The problem appears to be that you read this:

"We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies' evolution is simply wrong."

And parse it as this:

Their results refute the "accepted wisdom" about molecular adaptation.

That is not an accurate paraphrase of the original quote. The original quote is saying that the accepted wisdom about the specific molecular causes of one adaptation in that one species of fruit fly is wrong, and you repeat it as if it said that the idea of molecular adaptation itself is wrong. As you can see from the quote from the actual paper I posted up thread, the researchers propose alternative hypotheses, including exactly the same molecular adaptation on a different part of the genome.

Perhaps an analogy would help.

Say I've got a box in front of me and on the box there are a hundred switches. There's a wire that comes out of the box and it's attached to a light which is on. I have been told that turning off switch #1 is likely to turn the light off. I turn off switch #1 and the light remains on. I publish a paper in which I say that I have demonstrated that turning off switch #1 does not turn off the light, but that turning off other switches might. You then post an article about this paper to a forum and claim that it says that I have demonstrated that none of the switches turn the light off.

You go even further, seeing this quote:

They said "The Adh story was accepted because the ecology, physiology, and the statistical signature of selection all pointed in the same direction. But three lines of circumstantial evidence don't make an airtight case,"

And parsing it as:

So all the people who think natural selection acting on random mutations is an "airtight case" to explain everything are simply wrong.

Again, you're taking someone saying that the people who said turning off switch #1 would turn off the light was wrong, and claiming that it says not only that no switches turn the light off, but also that the box itself has been established not to exist.

And, BTW, you say that you've not claimed that this paper refutes evolution, but "natural selection acting on random mutations" is a pretty good (albeit very condensed and simplified) description of the theory of evolution. So yes you have.

 

[Vaccine]

The 'case' that was refuted was a generally accepted hypothesis that flows from evolutionary theory. It is not one of the evidences that supports evolution. If you want to argue against evolution, you need to find flaws in its supports.

This result is an example of how we use the scientific method to learn with certainty a bit more of the full story of evolution; it is not the uncovering of a flaw in evolution.

Are you trying to say adapting to an environment ISN'T a central tenet of evolutionary theory? It is and has many documented cases, lizards placed into a new environment evolving a novel feature in their digestion is just one example. Which makes me wonder how little people (not you, other posters) seem to know about evolutionary theory that they read the title and assumed I was attacking evolution as a whole or the theory in general. Since nobody seems to understand the article, it's about a testing a cause: variation aka random mutation. It is about more than one isolated case of fruit flies too:
"...and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence."

In plain english, they're cautioning about the creative force of random mutations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you trying to say adapting to an environment ISN'T a central tenet of evolutionary theory? It is and has many documented cases, lizards placed into a new environment evolving a novel feature in their digestion is just one example. Which makes me wonder how little people (not you, other posters) seem to know about evolutionary theory that they read the title and assumed I was attacking evolution as a whole or the theory in general. Since nobody seems to understand the article, it's about a testing a cause: variation aka random mutation. It is about more than one isolated case of fruit flies too:
"...and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence."

In plain english, they're cautioning about the creative force of random mutations.

Because that is a typical tactic of creationists. They tend to take quotes out of context.

So why do you like this article? It only shows how scientists test and refine a theory. I thought that you were a denier. This article only supports the theory of evolution and helps to explain why we know that it is correct.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Since nobody seems to understand the article, it's about a testing a cause: variation aka random mutation.

No it's not. It was testing one particular hypothesis about the cause of one particular adaptation in one particular species of fruit fly. It demonstrates that the hypothesis was false, and the authors caution against utilising the correlative methods which led to the hypothesis, as well as saying that the methodology they used can be used to test other hypotheses.

And you don't have to keep referring back to the article - I posted the paper itself upthread. You'd do better to read that, not least because it's interesting.

It is about more than one isolated case of fruit flies too:
"...and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence."

In plain english, they're cautioning about the creative force of random mutations.

No they're not. In plain English they're cautioning creating hypotheses based on nothing more that correlative data. There is no reference to "random mutations", and I'm not even sure what you think you mean by the phrase "creative force", but it is neither a scientific term nor one that the authors use or allude to.

 

[Vaccine]

But your thread title certainly implied it:

"Classic case of evolution refuted"

This sounds just like the typical creationist falsehoods and misleading claims we see all the time, such as in the creationist book "Icons of Evolution", which is about "refuting" classic cases of evolution.

So you are saying that you had absolutely no intention of casting doubt on evolution in any way with this thread, Vaccine? Is that your honest answer? Would tell Jesus that?

In Christ-

Papias

Honestly, I thought people would actuallly read the articles I linked to which is why I said so little in the OP. I thought it interesting they experimentally tested a cause of evolution. I thought people could understand the difference between refuting a mechanism (variation) for macroevolution and refuting a theory in general. I thought wrong, people here think you are either a cheerleader for Darwin or some really weird YEC.
Considering you accused me of blasphemy for doubting Darwinism, what did you think about this part of the peer reviewed article:
" ..and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence."

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Honestly, I thought people would actuallly read the articles I linked ...

Which I did.

I cannot speak for Papias, but the article you posted absolutely did not refute 'evolution' nor did the experiment which failed.

The discussion here is your title and lead in seemed to announce how a scientific experiment refuted evolution en masse. Obviously, several of the readers understood your entry in that manner.

Now you say that's not what you meant, nor what you said.

There's a discordant note somewhere.

 

[bhsmte]

Honestly, I thought people would actuallly read the articles I linked to which is why I said so little in the OP. I thought it interesting they experimentally tested a cause of evolution. I thought people could understand the difference between refuting a mechanism (variation) for macroevolution and refuting a theory in general. I thought wrong, people here think you are either a cheerleader for Darwin or some really weird YEC.
Considering you accused me of blasphemy for doubting Darwinism, what did you think about this part of the peer reviewed article:
" ..and caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence."

LOL