Beneficial Mutations

[Job 33:6]

So I was continuing on with this question about operons and I found the following:

The Life-Cycle of Operons

"Second, some operons have undergone accelerated evolution, with multiple new genes being added during a brief period. "

"new operons often comprise functionally unrelated genes that were already in proximity before the operon formed."

"For example, new operons often arise by deleting the DNA between functionally unrelated genes that happen to be near each other. "

The idea of new operons forming, sounds like it would have an opposite effect as operons being "jammed" or stopped from acting, as per the creation.com description.

From creation.com:

"mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment"

The opposite of this could be the observation of the formation of new operons, which would come with new regulating influence.

The loss of regulation of expression would be the opposite of a gain of new operons that would regulate expression. Or the observation of the evolution of new operons would be the opposite of a scenario in which operons ceased regulation.

And so the evolution of new operons and observation of their formation should contradict the creationist position.

Thoughts? Anyone?

 

[sjastro]

This is common enough that it's known as 'The Nobel Disease', although it happens to many others after they reach the peak of their careers; people who have been used to success can come to expect it outside their field of expertise - it's like a lateral Dunning-Kruger effect.

"Preliminary evidence further suggests that intelligent people may have a somewhat larger bias blind spot than other people, meaning they are less aware of their propensity toward biases (Stanovich et al. 2013). Some authors have further argued that high levels of intelligence may exacerbate the risk of critical thinking failures; for instance, Sternberg (2004) proposed that several cognitive errors prevalent among the highly intelligent can predispose to irrationality; several may account for the weird ideas of some Nobel laureates. Unrealistic optimism occurs when people believe that because they are smart, they need not worry about intellectual errors. The sense of omniscience arises when people believe they are so intelligent that they know virtually everything. The sense of invulnerability emerges when people believe they are so smart that they are essentially immune to mistakes. If Sternberg is correct, by virtue of their high intellect Nobel laureates may be at risk for peculiar ideas, especially if they are not sufficiently intellectually humble."​

This could explain what appears to be an arrogant tone behind this quote.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Kylie]

How come you have to be a biologist to know anything about evolution yet countless non-scientists say they believe in evolution. What would they know? They are obviously too dumb to understand the concepts, so they should just leave alone what they do no understand.
Seriously, any intelligent person can have a look at evolution and work out for themselves if it is what they want to believe or not. Of course, that is dependent on giving them the opportunity to decide for themselves. The Evolutionary Gestapo make sure that there is as little opportunity as possible. Funny how a supposedly proven theory is so fragile that scrutiny must be avoided at all costs.

I know something about closed loop temperature control. I'm not an expert, but I know the basics. For a reptile to somehow evolve into a mammal is simply impossible. Reptiles are cold blooded. Something within them enables them to seek out heat to maintain body temperature. Mammals are self regulating. Do you have any idea what that involves? Not only that, every new creature must evolve a mate in the same geographic location and at the same time. Current listing of mammal species is 6,495. No. Just no.

If you need help with your electrical system, do you call a plumber? No, you call an electrician. What you are doing is saying, "But they're both tradespeople, what difference does it make? Besides, electrical work is just wiring. It's easy to see what gets connected to where."

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Aussie Pete]

If you need help with your electrical system, do you call a plumber? No, you call an electrician. What you are doing is saying, "But they're both tradespeople, what difference does it make? Besides, electrical work is just wiring. It's easy to see what gets connected to where."

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I worked with an electrical contractor. He was a good friend. He was also a carpenter, structural engineer, tiler, plasterer, roofer and painter. He knew about air conditioning as he could calculate the size of the aircon to suit the space. No, he didn't do plumbing. It's illegal unless you have a licence. There is such a thing as multiskilling. I learned electronics as well as welding and fitting and turning. The concepts of evolution are not that hard, really. I understand the concepts well enough. I reject them because they are flawed and based on false premises.

 

[Shemjaza]

I worked with an electrical contractor. He was a good friend. He was also a carpenter, structural engineer, tiler, plasterer, roofer and painter. He knew about air conditioning as he could calculate the size of the aircon to suit the space. No, he didn't do plumbing. It's illegal unless you have a licence. There is such a thing as multiskilling. I learned electronics as well as welding and fitting and turning. The concepts of evolution are not that hard, really. I understand the concepts well enough. I reject them because they are flawed and based on false premises.

Yet you can never present actual evidence for these flaws.

Logical fallacies and ignorant bald assertions aren't good ways to demonstrate understanding.

 

[pitabread]

The concepts of evolution are not that hard, really. I understand the concepts well enough.

If you understood the concepts, you wouldn't say things like this:

Not only that, every new creature must evolve a mate in the same geographic location and at the same time.

 

[Aussie Pete]

If you understood the concepts, you wouldn't say things like this:

No, I don't understand how intelligent people can be so deluded as to think such things are commonplace.

 

[Speedwell]

No, I don't understand how intelligent people can be so deluded as to think such things are commonplace.

People who understand the theory of evolution know what it has to say about the development of sexual reproduction and know that what you said about it is wrong.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, I don't understand how intelligent people can be so deluded as to think such things are commonplace.

More bravado, still no evidence. It's been months.

 

[Kylie]

I worked with an electrical contractor. He was a good friend. He was also a carpenter, structural engineer, tiler, plasterer, roofer and painter. He knew about air conditioning as he could calculate the size of the aircon to suit the space. No, he didn't do plumbing. It's illegal unless you have a licence. There is such a thing as multiskilling. I learned electronics as well as welding and fitting and turning. The concepts of evolution are not that hard, really. I understand the concepts well enough. I reject them because they are flawed and based on false premises.

Can you describe the ways in which they are flawed and which premises are false?

 

[variant]

The vast majority of mutations are destructive. Very few, if any, have any benefit to an organism. I suggest Professor James Tour can enlighten you much more effectively than I can. He has a number of youtube presentations.

The vast majority of mutations are neutral not harmful.

These sorts of arguments rely on not really understanding how genetics and mutations work. The most simple beneficial/neutral mutation that leads to increased genetic material is the duplication mutation, where a gene is simply duplicated so there are two copies instead of one.

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

What happens after there are two copies is that one is then free to change independently of the other which can lead to a change/gain of function and divergence/genetic diversity over time.

 

[pitabread]

No, I don't understand how intelligent people can be so deluded as to think such things are commonplace.

You're just projecting. Your lack of a conceptual understanding of how evolution works on populations is not shared by everyone else.

This is why arguments based on personal incredulity or ignorance never work.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, I don't understand how intelligent people can be so deluded as to think such things are commonplace.

Never mind. Have you considered basket weaving?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, I don't understand how intelligent people can be so deluded as to think such things are commonplace.

They don't think that. That you think they do shows a fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance of how evolution works.

 

[loveofourlord]

A genome is best viewed as a recipe rather than a blue print.

I like to think of it as more origami.

I remember a interesting article years ago, or was it a book that explained how like a finger is created by the genes. It's not like there is a physical blueprint for a finger, what there is, is genes that produce proteins. In this case a protein that makes cells thinner on one side causing it to loop around the center creating the skin cells of the finger. it's not that the finger is found in the blueprint, it's how the proteins interact with each other and the cells that create the body as a byproduct.

 

[Tanj]

I like to think of it as more origami.

I remember a interesting article years ago, or was it a book that explained how like a finger is created by the genes. It's not like there is a physical blueprint for a finger, what there is, is genes that produce proteins. In this case a protein that makes cells thinner on one side causing it to loop around the center creating the skin cells of the finger. it's not that the finger is found in the blueprint, it's how the proteins interact with each other and the cells that create the body as a byproduct.

The reason it's better to think of it as a recipe is to realise that a bat wing and human hand are made of pretty much identical proteins following the same basic schema, just present in different amounts. or more precisely, with transcription factors present in different amounts and different times during development.

Add an extra egg and some bicarb and a human hand becomes a bat wing.

 

[tas8831]

Tour has over 715 research publications and over 140 patent families, with an h-index = 150 with total citations of >107,000. Tour became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020 and in the same year was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology. Based on the impact of his published work, in 2019 Tour was ranked in the top 0.004% of the 7 million scientists who have published at least 5 papers in their careers. He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2019; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.

How does your CV compare?

Wow! He must be right about EVERYTHING!

Say - are you familiar with the fallacy of appeal to (false) authority?

A few years ago, your hero claimed nobody he had ever talked to could explain macroevolution to him. Nick Matzke volunteered to do so, but only if the meeting was recorded. Tour declined.
Wonder why...

 

[tas8831]

So what? When he applies his considerable intellect to OOL (which he is highly qualified to discuss)

How so?

and evolution, he is well able to understand the principles involved and the flaws in evolutionary theory. When you break it down, every living being is a cocktail of chemicals, mostly water.

I do wonder if Tour - apparently the greatest scientist in history - has read any of Robert Hazen's work on the topic (just for the 2 most recent years he lists on his old website):

2017

Moore EK, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Jelen BI, Meyer M, Hazen RM and Falkowski PG Geological and chemical factors that impacted the biological utilization of cobalt in the Archean Eon. (in review)

Hao J, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Limits on the partial pressure of H2 in the Archean atmosphere during weathering of basaltic minerals. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Selective adsorption of calcium-aspartate ligands onto [Mg(OH)2]-brucite: Implications for calcium in prebiotic chemistry. Astrobiology (in review)

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Enhanced and inhibited adsorption of D-ribose with Ca2+ and Mg2+ onto brucite [Mg(OH)2]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)

Hazen RM Chance, necessity, and the origins of life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (in review)

54. Estrada CE, Mamajanov I, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD and Hazen RM (2017) Aspartate transformation at 200 °C with brucite [Mg(OH)2], NH3, and H2: Implications for prebiotic molecules in hydrothermal systems. Chemical Geology 457:162-172

53. Gherase D, Hazen RM, Krishnamurthy R and Blackmond DG (2017) Mineral-Induced Enantioenrichment of Tartaric Acid. Synlett 28(1):89-92

Wenge J, Pacella MS, Athanasiadou D, Nelea V, Vali H, Hazen RM, Gray JJ, McKee MD (2017) Chiral acidic amino acids induce chiral hierarchical structure in calcium carbonate. Nature Communications 8:15066



2016

Ertem G, Ertem MC, McKay CP and Hazen RM (2016) Shielding biomolecules from effects of radiation by Mars analogue minerals and soils. Astrobiology 6(3):280-285

Grew ES, Krivovichev SV, Hazen RM and Hystad G (2016) Evolution of structural complexity in boron minerals. Canadian Mineralogist 54(1):125-143

 

[tas8831]

How come you have to be a biologist to know anything about evolution yet countless non-scientists say they believe in evolution. What would they know? They are obviously too dumb to understand the concepts, so they should just leave alone what they do no understand.

Your tendency to misrepresent your opponents is noted.

You do not have to be a biologist to "know anything" about evolution. But if you are going to make specific, technical arguments against it, it stands to reason that you should have done more than just skim a few websites.

Seriously, any intelligent person can have a look at evolution and work out for themselves if it is what they want to believe or not.

"...want to believe or not..." "Want" is the key term there - you clearly do NOT wat to believe or accept anything that runs counter to your faith beliefs - and to that end, you dismiss, reject, mock, ignore that which goes against your "want", regardless of merit.

Add to that the fact, as far as I can tell, your rather shallow grasp of the scientific issues, and we have a prime target for creationist propaganda.

The Evolutionary Gestapo make sure that there is as little opportunity as possible. Funny how a supposedly proven theory is so fragile that scrutiny must be avoided at all costs.

Bogus scrutiny built on disinformation and mere "want" does not deserve to be taken seriously.

You should take heed of this insightful passage:

"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."

- Jerry Bergman. Creationist.​

Pity that like most creationists, ol' Jerry did not take his sage advice.