Classic case of evolution refuted

[Vaccine]

"Nevertheless, because of technical and conceptual advances, it should now be possible to experimentally assess the causal predictions of many previously untested or weakly tested hypotheses of historical molecular adaptation, allowing them to be corroborated or, like the classic hypothesis of ADH divergence in D. melanogaster, decisively refuted."

Yes, we can experimentally test our hypotheses and find that some are right and some are wrong.

You may have heard of a method used in science called the scientific method. This is a bit of it.

This isn't just about tweaking a hypothesis.
Maybe you think falsifying predictions is just routine too:
"Our experiments strongly refute the predictions of the adaptive ADH hypothesis.."

Finding natural selection and random mutations played no role in its evolution is just a minor detail.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because they found that random mutation and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolution of the fruit fly.

Citation needed. And even if you weren't making stuff up about the paper, the fact that it showed that evolution wasn't responsible says nothing about the changes being supernatural. You're way off the deep end here.

 

[Vaccine]

No, they didn't. You're now lying about this paper.

You just agreed with me natural selection didn't have a role here. And this is from the paper:
"The signature of adaptive evolution in the ADH coding sequence is not caused by substitutions on the D. melanogaster lineage. "

It was about testing a cause and to their suprise the classic well-known causes were refuted. It's as if nobody knows (or is willing to admit) what appealing historical narriative they're talking about. Darwin? never heard of him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So the story goes, a gene with function a gets duplicated, random mutation provides a new function b, natural selection refines this new function and viola new species.
So they decide to test this and pick a well known case of the fruit fly. They engineer it back 4 million years where it diverged from a common ancestor. To their suprise there is no detectable difference between the ancestral and extant versions of the gene. So natural selection sits on the sidelines while all this evolving is going on. And they say random mutation isn't the cause:
"The signature of adaptive evolution in the ADH coding sequence is not caused by substitutions on the D. melanogaster lineage. "

So without natural selection or random mutations, what caused all that evolution?

You should not attempt to draw conclusions from papers that you clearly do not understand.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You just agreed with me natural selection didn't have a role here. And this is from the paper:
"The signature of adaptive evolution in the ADH coding sequence is not caused by substitutions on the D. melanogaster lineage. "

It was about testing a cause and to their suprise the classic well-known causes were refuted. It's as if nobody knows (or is willing to admit) what appealing historical narriative they're talking about. Darwin? never heard of him.

They were only testing ONE gene in ONE species of fruit fly. How are you not getting this or are you being deliberately dense?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe you think falsifying predictions is just routine too:

Emphatically yes. That's exactly what the scientific method is based on. That's why scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable.

Finding natural selection and random mutations played no role in its evolution is just a minor detail.

It would completely destroy Darwinian evolution, had that been what they'd found. You'd find it widely reported in the mainstream press, and these researchers would undoubtedly win the Nobel Prize.

As that isn't what the paper says at all, you won't see this on news bulletins or chat-shows, and they are very, very unlikely to win a Nobel Prize for it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And this is from the paper:
"The signature of adaptive evolution in the ADH coding sequence is not caused by substitutions on the D. melanogaster lineage. "

Yes. The adaptation was found not to be caused by the protein they tested, despite the signature which formed the hypothesis indicating that it might be.

It was about testing a cause and to their suprise the classic well-known causes were refuted.

The hypothesised cause of one adaptation in in species of fruit fly was refuted.

It's as if nobody knows (or is willing to admit) what appealing historical narriative they're talking about.

Alternatively, it's as if everybody except you understands the paper.

 

[sfs]

Note what they say elsewhere in the paper: "Advances in genetic mapping, experimental studies of molecular function and transgenic engineering have allowed hypotheses of molecular adaptation between recently diverged populations to be tested with increasing rigour 11,12,13,14,15,16". Those numbers are references to studies in which researchers confirmed hypotheses about natural selection driving particular molecular changes. There have been other cases where more detailed studies have refuted similar hypotheses. This paper falls into the latter class. It's good, solid work, but it says nothing at all about the overall role of natural selection in molecular evolution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This isn't just about tweaking a hypothesis.

Correct, this hypothesis has been discarded. That's how the scientific method works. But there are other hypotheses that can be built on the evolutionary framework. As I have already pointed out.

"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 32,33of 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."

The experiment did not refute all potential pathways, it refuted one potential pathway.

 

[Vaccine]

That that mutation had no detectable effect on the organism's survival means that they weren't testing natural selection. Instead they demonstrated that this particular mutation didn't make the fly subject to natural selection.

Testing natural selection was their premise. They expected there would be a difference in fitness, giving selection something to work with. Instead there was no difference, evolution proceeded just fine without Darwin. Which is why they cautioned against believing such appealing historical narriatives.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Testing natural selection was their premise. They expected there would be a difference in fitness, giving selection something to work with. Instead there was no difference, evolution proceeded just fine without Darwin. Which is why they cautioned against believing such appealing historical narriatives.

That was not what they were testing! You obviously did not read your own link!

 

[Vaccine]

That "in other words" is entirely disconnected from the previous sentence. You're right that they tested one particular hypothesis. That their results refuted it does not mean that they refuted natural selection or random mutation any more than my paper refuting that turning off switch #1 turns off the light refutes switch-flipping.

I note you've not answered my request in post #50. Could you do so, please?

They plainly stated their reasons:
"Thornton and Siddiq reasoned that by combining ancestral gene reconstruction with techniques for engineering transgenic animals, they could study how genetic changes that occurred in the deep past affected whole organisms-their development, physiology, and even their fitness."
And if you still think this is only about one particular fruit fly:
"This strategy of engineering 'ancestralized animals' could be applied to many evolutionary questions," Thornton said.
Hoping they are talking about some other well known appealing historical hypothesis out there is childish. Everyone knows when they say classic causes of evolution they mean natural selection working on random mutations.

 

[KCfromNC]

Testing natural selection was their premise.

Natural selection as a whole, or a specific case of it?

 

[Vaccine]

That was not what they were testing! You obviously did not read your own link!

They were testing classic well known hypothesis of adaptation. Maybe they meant Eras and warning against eugenics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They were testing classic well known hypothesis of adaptation. Maybe they meant Eras and warning against eugenics.

What the heck does that have to do with anything?
Look: the article was about scientists testing one gene in one species of fruit fly to see where it evolved from. It turns out that the gene did not evolve via natural selection. That DOES NOT refute the whole theory of evolution as you claims it does.

 

[KCfromNC]

They were testing classic well known hypothesis of adaptation.

List it here.

 

[Loudmouth]

So the story goes, a gene with function a gets duplicated, . . .

I see no mention of gene duplication. From everything I read they are looking at mutations within the gene without duplication.

So they decide to test this and pick a well known case of the fruit fly.

You can't determine if random mutations plus natural selection provides an increase in fitness for all of life by looking at one gene in one species.

They engineer it back 4 million years where it diverged from a common ancestor. To their suprise there is no detectable difference between the ancestral and extant versions of the gene. So natural selection sits on the sidelines while all this evolving is going on.

How can you determine that natural selection is not active by looking at a few mutations in one gene? Do you think the D. melanogaster genome is made up of a single gene?

And they say random mutation isn't the cause:
"The signature of adaptive evolution in the ADH coding sequence is not caused by substitutions on the D. melanogaster lineage. "

That's not what that says. It says that random mutations in the ADH gene were not responsible for the evolution of alcohol tolerance in D. melanogaster.

So without natural selection or random mutations, what caused all that evolution?

Random mutation and natural selection elsewhere in the genome is what caused the evolution of alcohol tolerance in D. melanogaster.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point was they were testing causes of evolution.

No, they weren't. They were testing to see if a specific random mutation in a specific gene was the cause of alcohol tolerance in D. melanogaster.

 

[Loudmouth]

This isn't just about tweaking a hypothesis.
Maybe you think falsifying predictions is just routine too:
"Our experiments strongly refute the predictions of the adaptive ADH hypothesis.."

Finding natural selection and random mutations played no role in its evolution is just a minor detail.

Natural selection plays no role in the vast majority of genetic divergence between species because the vast majority of mutations are neutral.

Also, they didn't demonstrate that natural selection and random mutations played no role in the evolution of alcohol tolerance in D. melanogaster, contrary to your claims. All they did was demonstrate that a specific mutation in a specific gene was neutral with respect to alcohol tolerance. There are millions and millions more mutations that have to be checked before they can make the claim that NS and RM had no role.

 

[Loudmouth]

They were testing classic well known hypothesis of adaptation.

How do you test the hypothesis that all life evolves through random mutations and natural selection by looking at a handful of mutations in one gene in one species?

Do you realize that genomes are made up of more than one gene?