Evolution?

[Job 33:6]

Here is a statement that I doubt.

"Evidence shows that the more mutations are added the more the cost to fitness regardless of what type of mutation including beneficial mutations through epistasis. "

Can you support this particular statement?
@stevevw

Does this statement assume that natural selection does not exist?

 

[stevevw]

You're still not making a clear argument, you're just randomly speaking.

The only meaningful statement I could pull from the above is this:

"Errors are not normally associated with making something better and fitter but rather making something less fit and broken. Can you see how it does not make sense and you have to appeal allowing something illogical to happen?"

Yep that is basically my point.

The word "mistake" implies sentience. Like someone doing something wrong and saying "oops" afterwards. I made my statement knowing that it was conjecture in hopes that you would see that yours is conjecture as well.

I would not call random mutations mistakes.

OK well it is maybe more along the lines of a virus similar to a computer program. A computer program is not sentient either but any change to its original setup will cause problems to its running and the virus software restores things back to the original state. It would be illogical to think that a random change in the computer program such as a virus can make a computer program run better.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yep that is basically my point.

OK well it is maybe more along the lines of a virus similar to a computer program. A computer program is not sentient either but any change to its original setup will cause problems to its running and the virus software restores things back to the original state. It would be illogical to think that a random change in the computer program such as a virus can make a computer program run better.

The virus in the case of DNA, with each individual mutation doesn't corrupt the program. It might change the program, but it wouldn't necessarily make it any worse.

For example let's say we have a program that depicts an apple. And a virus changes the apples color from red to green. This occurance does not make the program worse off than it was.

Viruses are designed by manipulative people who typically have malicious intent.

Mutations aren't sentient attackers of our DNA. Harm could come through a mutation, but just the same, benefit could come through mutation as well.

And in the case of red and green apples, if there is a selective value for being green, well now the virus has just made the program better off than it was.

 

[stevevw]

The virus in the case of DNA, with each individual mutation doesn't corrupt the program. It might change the program, but it wouldn't necessarily make it any worse.

The point is any change from the original setup is going to be second best because the original setup is already the best and working good and the chances of a mutation being introduced any things remaining the same is very low. There is a very high chance that any random mutation will change things for the worse because any mutation changes the original setup regardless of what mutation happened.

In fact, the more complex a creature becomes the more they risk to lose with the introduction of mutations undermining such complex and finely tuned setups. That is why it is imperative that there is a mechanism that can restore things back to its original state. That is why natural selection is really only maintaining what is already there and sort of protecting it against the intrusion of mutations that can introduce changes that will destablise things.

For example let's say we have a program that depicts an apple. And a virus changes the apples color from red to green. This occurrence does not make the program worse off than it was.

But is not this just utilizing the existing program, just switching on the alternative colour just like a computer program is designed to be able to switch between different colours for the font.

Harm could come through a mutation, but just the same, the benefit could come through mutation as well.

Yes that is what is said but some say that even the so-called neutral and beneficial mutations come with a slight cost to fitness in the long run. As with the papers already posted when mutations are working with each other they can cause negative effects on each other. Any mutation changes the previous good working setup and this is the problem because the previous setup was working fine and therefore is undermined even if the change is very slight. It is only perceived as being neutral because the individual effect is so small that it is not noticed at first.

A mutation that is perceived as beneficial is usually changing the original function which involves knocking out some other ability which then allows the organism to adapt to a new environment. Sometimes this means the organism loses an important part of its function related to other areas to do this. But in both cases, no new info is used because it either switches on or off existing genetic info or knocks out existing ability.

And in the case of red and green apples, if there is a selective value for being green, well now the virus has just made the program better off than it was.

I would question the ability for the apple to switch on the aspect of the gene to turn green would be classed as a virus as it is something that is part of its existing program and not something that was additional and alien and introduced like a virus is. As mentioned earlier some changes associated with development programs is perceived as a mutation but are actually a normal ability of a creatures development setup to change and adapt by tapping into existing genetic info and switching it on.

The thing is the apple could not turn purple or pink and if it could it would be an artificially induced change. When the apple is then returned it its natural situation those colours would disappear and it would return to being red or green which shows that the apple can only tap into the existing genetic info for colours.

 

[Job 33:6]

"The point is any change from the original setup is going to be second best because the original setup is already the best and working good"

There's no such thing as a perfectly fit lifeform. The original setup being the original sequence of DNA prior to mutation. The planet is always fluctuating in it's environment. No organism is perfectly suited for it at any or all times.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your ideas seem to suggest that there was once a time in which you believe that perhaps mutations didn't exist

"Any mutation changes the previous good working setup and this is the problem because the previous setup was working fine "

What is this previous setup that you're referring to? A setup at a time in which mutations didn't exist?

 

[Archivist]

The thing is the apple could not turn purple or pink and if it could it would be an artificially induced change. When the apple is then returned it its natural situation those colours would disappear and it would return to being red or green which shows that the apple can only tap into the existing genetic info for colours.

But there are Pink Lady Apples that are very pink. Also very tasty.

 

[Job 33:6]

"But is not this just utilizing the existing program, just switching on the alternative colour just like a computer program is designed to be able to switch between different colours for the font. "

@stevevw you are suggesting that mutations are all bad. I'm just pointing out that mutations could benefit a species, regardless of whether the computer program already exists or not.

 

[stevevw]

"The point is any change from the original setup is going to be second best because the original setup is already the best and working good"

There's no such thing as a perfectly fit lifeform. The original setup being the original sequence of DNA prior to mutation. The planet is always fluctuating in it's environment. No organism is perfectly suited for it at any or all times.

That's only if you view everything in adaptive terms. I am talking about the state in which a creature is born. There is an agreed state in which humans are born healthy and fit. If the environment changes then this is not because the creature is unhealthy and does not have normal functioning organs etc. But as we have seen with the many genetic disorders that humans are born with a mutation can change a normal healthy born baby and cause it to be sick because it has changed the normal genetic makeup that is regarded as being healthy.

Also, the environment is not the best way to determine fitness. Humans and many other creatures and organisms can change the environment to suit them rather than being genetically adapted to an environment so mutations as far as changing their phenotypes is irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

But there are Pink Lady Apples that are very pink. Also very tasty.

Whoops, you got me there. Probably picked the wrong colour on that one. But sure Pink Lady apples are another variety but they are not so much pink but a combination of the red and green apple they are crossed with. This is like dog breeding where you can cross breed and get another variety within the same species. Still, there are limits as we know with dogs. You can only get certain colours, sizes, limbs, etc that are within the existing range of the genes for that specific feature. Still we could not get a purple apple and this is not exactly from random mutational changes.

 

[Archivist]

Whoops, you got me there. Probably picked the wrong colour on that one. But sure Pink Lady apples are another variety. But I think this is actually the crossing of the green and red apples. This is like dog breeding where you can cross breed and get another variety within the same species. Still, there are limits as we know with dogs. You can only get certain colours, sizes, limbs, etc that are within the existing range of the genes for that specific feature. Still we could not get a purple apple.

Agreed on purple apples. You just picked the wrong color when you said pink. I only mentioned them because they, along with Gala and Sugar Crisp, are among my favorite apples.

 

[stevevw]

"But is not this just utilizing the existing program, just switching on the alternative colour just like a computer program is designed to be able to switch between different colours for the font. "

@stevevw you are suggesting that mutations are all bad. I'm just pointing out that mutations could benefit a species, regardless of whether the computer program already exists or not.

But the way I understand it when they are switching on existing genetic info this is not the same as introducing a random mutation that could have any effect including a high chance of being harmful. As mentioned with non-random mutations (more like a developmental process than a random mutation) they are directed towards certain pre-specified outcomes and are not random so they will switch on certain existing developmental programs that will produce the change. Developmental bias will produce certain outcomes rather than any possible outcome as with random mutations. This makes more sense and still allows life to adapt to environments without the risk of having to also introduce harmful mutational changes just to eventually get a beneficial outcome.

But not just this process but a number of other processes that allow living things to change that do not even involve genes and therefore mutational changes such as niche construction, developmental plasticity. These allow phenotypic change to happen first which is more about creatures responding directly to their environments and environments acting directly on their bodies which induce change and this is later cemented by gene change. Or creatures just change their environments and avoid having to adapt in the first place. HGT allows creatures to share existing genetic info from surrounding organisms and environments and also epigenetic changes which have been shown to also affect the way a gene is expressed. These influence and cause phenotypic change without random mutations so therefore it is not just as simple as all change is through neo-Darwinian evolution.

Heres an interesting question I have always wondered relating to adaptive evolution. If you have 30 different trees in the same small area/environment and they all have different leaf shapes and are different species how did they get those differences when they occupy the same environment and are under the same environmental pressures.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's only if you view everything in adaptive terms. I am talking about the state in which a creature is born. There is an agreed state in which humans are born healthy and fit. If the environment changes then this is not because the creature is unhealthy and does not have normal functioning organs etc. But as we have seen with the many genetic disorders that humans are born with a mutation can change a normal healthy born baby and cause it to be sick because it has changed the normal genetic makeup that is regarded as being healthy.

Also, the environment is not the best way to determine fitness. Humans and many other creatures and organisms can change the environment to suit them rather than being genetically adapted to an environment so mutations as far as changing their phenotypes is irrelevant.

What are you talking about? You're saying that all babies are born perfectly healthy and fit? What?

Nothing on earth is perfectly fit for it's environment, not at birth nor later in life.

As if all species originate genetically perfect, as if prior to mutations occuring within them, they're genetically superior than their state later in time after having a beneficial mutations fixate in a population.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Any mutation changes the previous good working setup and this is the problem because the previous setup was working fine "

What species was ever perfectly fit prior to fixation of a beneficial mutation?

 

[Job 33:6]

"But as we have seen with the many genetic disorders that humans are born with a mutation can change a normal healthy born baby"

Mutations do not automatically equate to genetic disorders.

I'm talking about other mutations that are beneficial to a species survival or that are neutral.

When did mankind ever exist in a genetically superior way, prior to how mankind exists today?

When we were still cave people, dying at the age of 20 in the stone age?

And babies are born with plenty of random mutations, in which there are mixes of mutations including beneficial ones.

 

[stevevw]

What are you talking about? You're saying that all babies are born perfectly healthy and fit? What?

Nothing on earth is perfectly fit for it's environment, not at birth nor later in life.

As if all species originate genetically perfect, as if prior to mutations occuring within them, they're genetically superior than their state later in time after having a beneficial mutations fixate in a population.

That doesn't make any sense.

Obviously, there are babies that are born with some problems some are permanent but others can be fixed and they can get back to being fully fit and healthy. What about when you often here the obstetrician delivering a baby say congratulations you have just given birth to a 7lb healthy baby boy. What about top athletes who are at peak fitness or those entering the army or police academy who are given a rigid fitness test and then pass the test and are deemed fully fit.

The point is we can measure the health of a person and that is why people have medical checkups and the doctor can deem the person fully fit or in a good healthy condition. They are fit and healthy living in their environments. Some people are fit and others are unfit in the same environment. But a mutation can come along and make them less fit living in the same environment. It is not the environment that has made them sick it is the mutation changing their fit state into a less fit state or the unhealthy lifestyle.

 

[stevevw]

When did mankind ever exist in a genetically superior way, prior to how mankind exists today?

Yes all humans have some kind of slight disorder genetically when they are born. But this just makes a case for the fact that mutations do cause a fitness cost and that natural selection is not able to weed out these harmful mutations before they have an effect on fitness. But when a baby is born the doctor will determine they are healthy despite carrying those mutations as they may be a very small effect and the person can still be fit. It is the collection of these mutations that are gradually having more and more of a fitness cost and it is the accumulation of mutations that are gradually weighing down on human fitness.

If humans are collecting these mutations then they must have had fewer mutations in the past. Scientists say that there are now well over 10,000 Monogenic diseases and growing. The number of Polygenic diseases is numerous and they are discovering over 250 genetic disorders every year and the numbers are increasing.
How Many Genetic Diseases are there in Human Beings

Other scientists say that humans were more healthy in the past, Neanderthals were stronger and humans are less smart because we do not use our brains as we did in the past where we had to have original thought. Now everything is accumulated knowledge and we do not have to exert our mental capacity as much.
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...er-and-more-disease-prone-than-your-ancestors
REVEALED: Disturbing Trend In Human Intelligence

When we were still cave people, dying at the age of 20 in the stone age?

That may not have been because of mutations but because humans did not have any medical awareness and technology. Even 60 or 70 years ago people were dying young because of poor hygiene and a lack of medical technology.

And babies are born with plenty of random mutations, in which there are mixes of mutations including beneficial ones.

That just makes a case for mutations basically being a cost to fitness more than anything else as I cannot see any real benefits but rather more disadvantages as seen with the increase in the many diseases.

 

[Job 33:6]

"If humans are collecting these mutations then they must have had fewer mutations in the past. "

Numerically, of course a species that has a mutation, by default, has had fewer mutations in the past. Just as when I type this message, I have typed fewer words in the past.

"Neanderthals were stronger and humans are less smart because we do not use our brains as we did in the past where we had to have original thought. "

Well, we didn't originate as cave people, we go back much further. Do you think fish were stronger than we are? Do you think fish were smarter?

 

[Job 33:6]

" did not have any medical awareness and technology. Even 60 or 70 years ago people were dying young because of poor hygiene and a lack of medical technology."

Yea sure. And a few million years ago we didn't even have the intellectual capacity to mass produce crops, nor were we even at the top of the food chain.

We have increased in fitness as it pertains to survival of our species. Even though we've accumulated more mutations, other mutations, such as those that have advanced our intellect, have allowed us to become more successful through time.

Unless you think that global domination and 60+ years average life span does not equate to success versus 20 year and less average lifespan and situations in which our species was historically near extinction and much fewer in number.

 

[sfs]

I understood the paper to be saying that living things can only tolerate a certain amount of mutations and therefore risk extinction.

That's an implication of the paper. If the mutation rate were so high that individual proteins were accumulating deleterious mutations faster than they could be purged by selection, then yes, that species will go extinct. I know of no such species, though. Measured mutation rates are quite tolerable.

I have posted a number of papers along these lines. But it is the accumulation of perhaps small amounts of slightly harmful mutations that are doing the damage.

But that's something that isn't actually happening.

I am not saying there is a specific amount of mutations that bring a creature to ruin but that random mutations are basically an error in what is already working good and the fact that the DNA has a mechanism to correct those errors shows that mutations are not meant to be something that can create fitter and more complex life.

Mutations aren't meant to be anything, as far as we can tell. They're inevitable errors. Most of them either do nothing or damage the organism, while some of them improve it. Those are simply facts.

First off I noticed you did not address what was said about non-random directed mutations being a source of variation rather than random mutations which is the main source of variation for neo Darwinism.

I know of only one class of mutations that are non-random (in the sense that evolutionary biology means), and I doubt those are mutations that you're thinking of.

As seen with recent research humans are accumulating many slightly harmful mutations and natural selection cannot keep up in purging them out of our genomes so therefore we have a building number of diseases.

That's completely wrong. No recent research says that humans are accumulating slightly harmful mutations. Because our population size has soared in recent millennia, we are actually reducing the number of deleterious mutations that we carry.

So you are saying that apart from smaller populations slightly harmful mutations do not accumulate.

Correct.

From what I have read it seems they do and there are different reasons why natural selection may not be able to weed them out. For example

Despite the current status as the dominant organism on earth, the human species is confronted with substantial mutational challenges imposed by at least three baseline genetic features: (i) a relatively high per-generation germline mutation rate at the nucleotide level; (ii) a further inflation in the mutational rate of production of defective alleles associated with aspects of gene structure; and (iii) a large cumulative burden of somatic mutations imposed by a relatively late onset at maturity.
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation

Every time a cell divides, genetic errors can occur, leading to variations in the DNA sequence that may proliferate and—in some cases—cause disease. Now that genetic sequencing and other technologies have made it easier to recognize mutations that occur in only a subset of cells, researchers are finding more and more harmful mutations hidden among unaffected cells.
Harmful mutations can fly under the radar

Neither of those says anything at all about mutations accumulating over multiple generations. They're just talking about the rate of deleterious mutations.

The relentless accumulation of deleterious mutations is primarily due to the existence of un-selectable “nearlyneutral” mutations, but the genetic load problem is greatly amplified when mutation rates are high. Intensified natural selection only marginally slows the accumulation of deleterious mutations.
http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf

That's wrong. As I suspected, it's from Sanford, who's a creationist who has some odd ideas about population genetics.

Even if we believed that we would need a multitude of beneficial mutations at only 1% of all mutations to get the level of variety and complexity we have today. If that's the case we would also need an overwhelming amount of harmful mutations as well. Under normal circumstances this level of mutations is associated with sickness, malfunction and cancer let along creating something fitter.

The deleterious mutations come and go, every generation. The beneficial mutations stick around (well, some of them anyway). This filtering process is highly effective.