Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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."
It wasn't just about one particular case of adaptation in a fruit fly.
They had a much broader goal in mind, see the part in bold:
"But hypotheses about adaptive divergence between species or at higher taxonomic levels are explicitly historical, so testing them requires the effect of genetic changes that occurred on phenotype and fitness in specific evolutionary lineages from the distant past to be measured. Here we address this challenge."
What do you think they meant by "forged by chance"?
But sequence signatures of selection can be forged by chance or demographic processes and it is difficult to predict from sequence alone how genetic changes affect phenotypes and fitness 5,6,7,8 .
As has been pointed out already, a particular evolutionary pathway for a particular enzyme in a particular species of fruit fly was the "decisively refuted" thing. From the article you've quoted,Your guess would be wrong.
Peer reviewed articles are very carefully worded. When they say "decisively refuted", they mean it.
Again, to correct your understanding, the "molecular causes of the flies' evolution", being the Adh enzyme pathway was the "simply wrong" bit, the pathway that evolutionary change occurred in is somewhere else in this fly's genome, just not where they had that close look. In no way were they stating that the flies' genome didn't change at all, or that evolution is wrong by any stretch!If you're suggesting "We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies' evolution is simply wrong." is just a minor adjustment, you're wrong. This challenges the accepted wisdom about adaptation, a fundamental principle of Darwin's theory. They plan on testing more cases and I wouldn't count on it getting better.
Again, wrong as stated above. Natural selection acting on random mutation is Exactly an "airtight case".Nowhere did I conclude this refutes the theory of evolution. Species evolve and adapt over time, duh. Their results refute the "accepted wisdom" about molecular adaptation. 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,"
So all the people who think natural selection acting on random mutations is an "airtight case" to explain everything are simply wrong.
No, as stated earlier, the accepted science regarding one evolutionary pathway of one particular enzyme in one particular species of fruit fly was examined in great detail, and was found to be wrong. They accept it happened via evolutionary mechanisms and even say this, just not in the way that it was thought to have happened.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."
Nope, again, one particular evolutionary pathway of one particular enzyme in one particular species of fruit fly was examined in great detail, and found to be wrong.In plain english, they're cautioning about the creative force of random mutations.
Intuition can be as unreliable at findings of fact as faith is. Intuition should therefore always be applied sparingly, if at all, and only where absolutely unavoidable. Always seek to verify correlation with experimentation to be absolutely sure, and this is an excellent method to do so.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."
Honestly, I thought people would actuallly read the articles ....
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?
What exactly do you think I'm implying?
simply pointing out random mutations and natural selection aren't the creative force behind genes people think they are.
As has been pointed out already, a particular evolutionary pathway for a particular enzyme in a particular species of fruit fly was the "decisively refuted" thing. From the article you've quoted,
"There is no doubt that D. melanogaster did adapt to high-alcohol food sources during its evolution, but not because of changes in the Adh enzyme. "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," Thornton said. "That's why we wanted to test the hypothesis directly, now that we finally have the means to do so."
They clearly state that evolution carried on just fine, so all the mechanisms of the Theory of Evolution are left perfectly in tact.
Again, to correct your understanding, the "molecular causes of the flies' evolution", being the Adh enzyme pathway was the "simply wrong" bit, the pathway that evolutionary change occurred in is somewhere else in this fly's genome, just not where they had that close look. In no way were they stating that the flies' genome didn't change at all, or that evolution is wrong by any stretch!
Again, wrong as stated above. Natural selection acting on random mutation is Exactly an "airtight case".
No, as stated earlier, the accepted science regarding one evolutionary pathway of one particular enzyme in one particular species of fruit fly was examined in great detail, and was found to be wrong. They accept it happened via evolutionary mechanisms and even say this, just not in the way that it was thought to have happened.
Nope, again, one particular evolutionary pathway of one particular enzyme in one particular species of fruit fly was examined in great detail, and found to be wrong.
Intuition can be as unreliable at findings of fact as faith is. Intuition should therefore always be applied sparingly, if at all, and only where absolutely unavoidable. Always seek to verify correlation with experimentation to be absolutely sure, and this is an excellent method to do so.
my contribution to this thread's Point Refuted A Thousand Times.... anyone keeping count?
I've said all along it was about testing a cause.
That isn't correct too say 'All the mechanisms' were left perfextly in tact. They "caution against accepting intuitively appealing accounts of historical molecular adaptation that are based on correlative evidence."
It's absurd to think it was only about a fruit fly enzyme pathway.
They are testing the evolutionary effects of genetic change and this is just their first test case.
They are testing the whole 'forged by chance' hypothesis and after only 1 test case are issuing a caution.
Random mutations as a vehicle for molecular change is being tested, and found to be wanting.
Makes perfect sense to decisively refute something then just issue a caution, because that narriative about that one specific pathway, of that one specific enzyme, in that one specific species is just so darn appealing that some silly scientist can't help but propose it again.
That quote concerns one of the two methodologies that they combined in order to create the flies that they used in the experiment. It is not talking about the results of the experiment.Speaking of PRATT:
"This strategy has yielded major insights into the mechanisms by which biochemical functions evolve"
They certainly thought it more than just about one pathway, one enzyme, or one species.
We tested a widely held hypothesis of molecular adaptation—that changes in the alcohol dehydrogenase protein (ADH) along the lineage leading to Drosophila melanogaster increased the catalytic activity of the enzyme and thereby contributed to the ethanol tolerance and adaptation of the species to its ethanol-rich ecological niche.
Nowhere did I say it refutes evolution in general or the theory.
You didn't answer my question. I'll happily answer your question if you want to have an actual discussion, and that means answering my question to you first.
I asked you:
Well?
In Christ-
Papias
If by evolution you meant change over time, no. That is observable, testable and repeatable.I had no intention of casing doubt on that.
If by evolution you meant the variations that happen, are selected for, and produce changes, for example the bacteria enzyme for nylon. Again, no. I have no issues with directed evolution.
If by evolution you mean purely materialistic mechanisms for change, such as random mutations producing all the genetic differences we see, then yes I absolutely meant cast doubt on that narrative and cited a peer reviewed source cautioning against that narriative as well.
If by evolution you mean purely materialistic mechanisms for change, such as random mutations producing all the genetic differences we see, then yes I absolutely meant cast doubt on that narrative and cited a peer reviewed source cautioning against that narriative as well.
That's an overstatement. They did not caution against basing hypotheses on correlative data; there is no problem with such hypotheses. They're cautioning against drawing conclusions from such data without functional followup. A hypothesis is fine, as long as you remember it's a hypothesis and find a way to test it.You cited an article about a peer-reviewed source, which cautioned against basing hypotheses on correlative data.
That's an overstatement.
If by evolution you mean purely materialistic mechanisms for change, such as random mutations producing all the genetic differences we see, then yes I absolutely meant cast doubt on that narrative and cited a peer reviewed source cautioning against that narriative as well.
No, it seems to be about testing one particular proposed molecular pathway. And finding it wanting.
Well, no. Their goal is to test particular hypotheses about the phenotypic effect of particular mutations and the hypothesized selection pressure that drove their success. Their goal is not to test whether natural selection is responsible for genetic differences between species or for adaptive evolution.The whole purpose of the experiment was to experomantally test causes of molecular adaptation, that one particular pathway was just their first test case. Everyone asserting it is only about ADH pathway is just ignoring the press release, the abstract and their conclusions.
Where does the paper advocate for non-naturalistic explanations?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?