Creation Mutation (of Mutation)

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Since I first came to this forum, I found the topic of mutations in debate between the two factions. The statement made by many creationists is as the following (in many forms, paraphrases, and lengthy versions)*:

Macro-evolution can not occur because it requires mutations in order to occur. The chance of a beneficial mutation being present in a being is so small that it is virtually impossible for the creature to gain a useful mutation as opposed to a harmful mutation.

However, I have long pondered on the statement. However, I have come to the conclusion that such a proposition is irrelevant, for it leaves out the major component of evolution in the process of its deduction: Natural Selection.

As mutations provide diversity, the enviromental changes select which 'versions' of the creature, if you will, that obviously have the advantage in the situation. However, even if the mutation in question is a negative change, it could still prove to be useful in the context of the situation given.

For example, a variation may appear that would traditionally be harmful to the creature's ability to survive and reproduce. However, that does not apply since things... change

The constantly shifting enviromental changes could easily pick that trait for survival over others. Thus, over time, those who do not possess it are removed from the gene pool, inevitiably.


What I fail to understand about the creationist argument is that given the fact that mutations (good or bad), can or can not be good or bad given the situation given. Good and bad seem to be a marker that we (humans) assign on things, and in the theory of evolution by natural selection, it is not exactly so.

How can macro-evolution not occur therefore, if a harmful mutation can then prove to be good given the fact that the enviroment through natural selection selects the favorable trait in the community, and not vice versa?

*No, this is not a strawman by any means.

 

[lucaspa]

Since I first came to this forum, I found the topic of mutations in debate between the two factions. The statement made by many creationists is as the following (in many forms, paraphrases, and lengthy versions)*:

Macro-evolution can not occur because it requires mutations in order to occur. The chance of a beneficial mutation being present in a being is so small that it is virtually impossible for the creature to gain a useful mutation as opposed to a harmful mutation.

However, I have long pondered on the statement. However, I have come to the conclusion that such a proposition is irrelevant, for it leaves out the major component of evolution in the process of its deduction: Natural Selection.

As mutations provide diversity, the enviromental changes select which 'versions' of the creature, if you will, that obviously have the advantage in the situation. However, even if the mutation in question is a negative change, it could still prove to be useful in the context of the situation given.

For example, a variation may appear that would traditionally be harmful to the creature's ability to survive and reproduce. However, that does not apply since things... change

The constantly shifting enviromental changes could easily pick that trait for survival over others. Thus, over time, those who do not possess it are removed from the gene pool, inevitiably.


What I fail to understand about the creationist argument is that given the fact that mutations (good or bad), can or can not be good or bad given the situation given. Good and bad seem to be a marker that we (humans) assign on things, and in the theory of evolution by natural selection, it is not exactly so.

How can macro-evolution not occur therefore, if a harmful mutation can then prove to be good given the fact that the enviroment through natural selection selects the favorable trait in the community, and not vice versa?

*No, this is not a strawman by any means.

Some good points. There are several fallacies in the creationist argument.

1. Yes, there is no absolute "good" or "bad" to apply to a variation (a better term than mutation).

2. It turns out that only about 2.6 per thousand mutations are directly harmful. That is, that they result in death or lowered fertility. Directly. This means that the number of absolutely directly harmful mutations is very low, not high. Also, the average mutation rate is at least one per individual. For humans, it looks like 4 per individual. So right now among the human population, there are 24 billion mutations. The odds that at least one of them will be beneficial in any particular environment approaches virtual certainty. See #4

3 997.4 mutations per thousand are either neutral in the environment, beneficial in the environment, or harmful in the environment. The key here being, of course, the environment. What is harmful in one environment is either neutral or beneficial in another.

4. Each individual represents one chance in the lottery. Natural selection doesn't care if 999 out of 1,000 individuals get "bad" mutations, because natural selection will preserve the "good" one. So it doesn't matter how "rare" the mutation is (which they are not anyway), because the odds are that one member of a population will be the lucky winner in the lottery. The odds of any particular individual winning is low, but the odds of someone winning are 1 -- certainty.

5. Neutral mutations are kept in the population generation to generation by means of Mendelian genetics. Thus, each population already has a huge amount of variation in the population that has accumulated generation by generation in case the environment changes. It is likely that the variation useful in the new environment is already present in a lucky individual in the population.

 

[Word of Peace]

A large number of mutations that are not directly harmful to a population's survival rate, are harmful in some other way, and are passed down to the next generation. For example, in the human population, familial hypercholesterolemia, cancer (one of the most common results of genetic mutations) (for example, the APC gene is the cause of familial colonic polyps), Down's Syndrome, etc are examples of mutations that are harmful and in some cases lower a population's survival rate, even if they do not directly result in immediate death or lowered fertility. Now granted, there are examples like the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia, but also causes resistance to malaria, but those mutations in reality do much more harm than good, whatever the environment. Random mutations mix up, not create, genetic information, and they are usually harmful.

We continually find one after another harmful gene mutation damaging the human population, but only very occasionally is there an even somewhat beneficial one. There are currently over 4500 genetic diseases in the human population. It is also interesting to note that after extensive experiments with fruit flies and frogs, evolutionists have still found no or very few beneficial mutations.

Furthermore, the fact that many harmful mutations do not directly affect survival, means that those mutations will be passed on and proliferate, meaning that we would see a decrease in the overall health of the population's DNA, rather than an increase (not coincidentally, we see the former today). This is because they would not be adequately "selected out" by natural selection.



"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy." Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms

"If any organ existed which could not have been formed by gradual modifications, my theory would break down." - Charles Darwin

 

[lucaspa]

A large number of mutations that are not directly harmful to a population's survival rate, are harmful in some other way, and are passed down to the next generation. For example, in the human population, familial hypercholesterolemia, cancer (one of the most common results of genetic mutations) (for example, the APC gene is the cause of familial colonic polyps),

In this case, the cancer does not show up until after the person has kids. Therefore it is invisible to natural selection. Yes, it lowers the lifespan of the individuals involved but, unless it lowers life expectancy into or below the child bearing years, it has no effect on the population's survival.

Down's Syndrome, etc are examples of mutations that are harmful and in some cases lower a population's survival rate, even if they do not directly result in immediate death or lowered fertility.

1. Down's syndrome are all primary mutations. They are not passed down because men with Down's syndrom are sterile in most cases. Also, without medical care, the person does not live long enough to have kids. So while tragic to the individual, the mutation is continually weeded from the population.

Now granted, there are examples like the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia, but also causes resistance to malaria, but those mutations in reality do much more harm than good, whatever the environment.

Sickle cell does a lot of good in the environment where malaria is endemic. Sickle cell is only harmful if you have both alleles as sickle cell. If you are heteozygotic -- one sickle cell and one normal -- you are resistant to malaria but no side effects.

So, what you tend to have is a population that is heterozygotic. When they mate you get 25% homozygotic non-sickle, 50% heterozygotic, and 25% homzygotic for sickle cell. The homozygotics are removed by the environment or the disease but 50% survive. That is doing good because, without the sickle cell allele, everyone would die of malaria.

Random mutations mix up, not create, genetic information, and they are usually harmful.

Again, the data says that only 2.6 per thousand mutations are actually harmful. We can go into how that data was gathered if you want.

Creation of information comes from selection, not the mutations themselves. Information is created whenever there is a selection among possibilities. That's elementary information theory. So, since each individual represents one possibility and more individuals are born than survive and reproduce, natural selection always increases information.

What some mutations do -- gene duplications and chromosome duplications -- is make more genetic material for information to be stored on.

We continually find one after another harmful gene mutation damaging the human population, but only very occasionally is there an even somewhat beneficial one. There are currently over 4500 genetic diseases in the human population. It is also interesting to note that after extensive experiments with fruit flies and frogs, evolutionists have still found no or very few beneficial mutations.

1. Genetic diseases are biased data, because we can see the sickness. Beneficial mutations can only be found by looking for positive selection. They are small. Here is a partial estimate of beneficial mutations in humans:
6. Pardis C. Sabeti, David E. Reich et. al. Detecting recent positive selection
in the human genome from haplotype structure. Nature 419 24 OCTOBER 2002.
7 Hollox EJ, Poulter M, Zvarik M, Ferak V, Krause A, Jenkins T, Saha N, Kozlov AI,
Swallow DM. Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Jan;68(1):160-172. Epub 2000 Nov 28. Lactase haplotype diversity in the Old World.
8. Gilad Y, Rosenberg S, Przeworski M, Lancet D, Skorecki K. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 22;99(2):862-7. Evidence for positive selection and population structure at the human MAO-A gene.

2. The original fruit fly experiments were designed to test the hypothesis that mutations were heritable. Therefore they looked at multiple and macromutations. The flies and frogs were irradiated with a just-below-lethal dose of x-rays. That is because, in the 1930s, mutations could only be detected with the naked eye. So it meant a large change in appearance. So this meant many mutations per individual and large ones. These are going to be "harmful" because of that. But the experiments showed what they were designed to show -- mutations are heritable.

Furthermore, the fact that many harmful mutations do not directly affect survival, means that those mutations will be passed on and proliferate, meaning that we would see a decrease in the overall health of the population's DNA, rather than an increase (not coincidentally, we see the former today). This is because they would not be adequately "selected out" by natural selection.

If they do not affect survival, then they are not harmful. In humans, we have exempted ourselves from most of natural selection. So you are looking at a biased data set. In other species in the wild, I don't see this happening.

"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy." Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms

Right. Mutations, by themselves are not coherent in time or cumulative toward a direction. They are random with respect to the needs of the individual or population. However, selection is coherent in time and cumulative. What Grasse sees as lacking in mutations is done in the second part of the process -- selection.

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms

Not by themselves. You need variation and selection. BTW, what is your source of the quotes? You did not get them from the original book because you don't have page numbers or the year of publication. I sincerely doubt you have read the book yourself. You can prove me wrong, of course, by putting in the entire paragraph this sentence comes from. I hope you do show me to be wrong, because we have had really nasty experience of misquotes by creationists. It would be refreshing that that was not the case here.

"If any organ existed which could not have been formed by gradual modifications, my theory would break down." - Charles Darwin

Yep. So see this paper that shows that all structures can be accessed by gradual modificatoins:
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/articles/jtb.pdf

 

[lucaspa]

Douglas Futuyma Evolutionary Biology, pages 384-385.

"If the heterozygote has higher fitness than either homzygote, both alleles are necessarily propagated in successive generations, in which, of course, union of gametes yields all three genotypes among the zygotes. Hterozygote advantage is also termed overdominance or heterosis for fitness. If the fitness of AA, AB, and BB are 1-s, 1, and 1-t respectively, selection wil bring the allele frequences from any initial value to the stable equilibrium
p = t/(s+t, q = s/(s+t) where p and q are the equilibrium frequencies of A and B respectively. The equilibrium frequencies of the allesles and genotypes thus depend on the balance of fitness of the two homozygotes."

"Single locus heterozygote advantage has been documented in a few cases, including WAtt's study of PGI in Colias butterflies. The best known case is is the beta-hemoglobin locus in some African and Mediterranean human populations. One allele at the is locus, sickle-cell hemoglobin (S) ... The relative finesses have been estimated as W(aa) = 0.89, W(as) =1, W(ss) =0.2 [where aa is homozygote normal and as is heterozygote, and ss is homozygote sickle
cell]. The heterozygote advantage therefore arises from a balance of opposing selective factors: anemia and malaria. IN the absence of malaria, balancing selection yields to directional selection, because then the AA genotype has the highest fitness. In the African-American population, the frequency of S is about 0.05 and is declining due to mortality."

 

[david_84]

1. Yes, there is no absolute "good" or "bad" to apply to a variation (a better term than mutation).

2. It turns out that only about 2.6 per thousand mutations are directly harmful. That is, that they result in death or lowered fertility. Directly. This means that the number of absolutely directly harmful mutations is very low, not high. Also, the average mutation rate is at least one per individual. For humans, it looks like 4 per individual. So right now among the human population, there are 24 billion mutations. The odds that at least one of them will be beneficial in any particular environment approaches virtual certainty.

While both of these are probably true (I'm not sure about the data in point #2, but I don't doubt it) there are still major problems with turning to mutation/variation for the answer to evolution.

1. When mutations occur, information in a species DNA is either lost or copied incorrectly. A fly with an extra set of wings didn't get anything new because it already had the information needed for a pair of wings. This allows for a new species of fly to come about, but a fly could never evolve into a bird because it does not already have the information available that is necessary to have feathers or a beak. "Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ" (Michael Pitman 'Adam and Evolution' pp.67-68).

4. Each individual represents one chance in the lottery. Natural selection doesn't care if 999 out of 1,000 individuals get "bad" mutations, because natural selection will preserve the "good" one. So it doesn't matter how "rare" the mutation is (which they are not anyway), because the odds are that one member of a population will be the lucky winner in the lottery. The odds of any particular individual winning is low, but the odds of someone winning are 1 -- certainty.

2.As you said, there are many, many mutations among humans today, but at the same time none of us has evolved into any new kind of organism. For that to happen we would have to see mutation upon mutation upon mutation. It may be a certainty that one person will win the lottery, but what are the odds that the same person will win the lottery next month and the month after that and so on. This idea has been likened to taking a thousand turtles to a busy one thousand lane interstate highway and trying to get them to cross it. Odds are one of them will make it across the first lane before it gets killed in the second. However, the scientists conducting this experiment want to prove it's possible to accomplish, so instead of starting all over, they airlift another thousand turtles to the beginning of the second lane until one of them happens to make it across then repeat the process until all one thousand lanes have been crossed. They claim that it proves a turtle can cross a busy one thousand lane interstate highway but all they have really proven is that out of a thousand turtles one of them can make it across one lane of that highway.

So it is with the proposed theory of evolution.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Incorrect analogy, because evolution does not require many beneficial mutations to happen to one individual. What happens is that one individual out of many gets a beneficial mutation, avoids general bad luck, and survives long enough and mates often enough to have many offspring. Half of these have beneficial mutation and so servive and breed better then those that do not and eventually those with beneficial mutation come to dominate population. Then one individual out of many gets another beneficial mutation - etc.

A better analogy would be if there was a big traffic island between each lane. 2000 turtles try to cross the first, one pair survives. They settle on the island, breed, and after a while a population of 2000 turtles has grown up on the island. They then try to cross the next lane and a pair survive - etc. No need for airlifting, just plenty of sex

 

[david_84]

Incorrect analogy, because evolution does not require many beneficial mutations to happen to one individual.

Thanks for pointing that out. After rereading my post I can see that you're right. Somewhere along the line while I was typing that my thinking must have switched over from mutation to amino acids and proteins and cells forming or something along that line.

 

[lucaspa]

1. When mutations occur, information in a species DNA is either lost or copied incorrectly. A fly with an extra set of wings didn't get anything new because it already had the information needed for a pair of wings. This allows for a new species of fly to come about, but a fly could never evolve into a bird because it does not already have the information available that is necessary to have feathers or a beak. "Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ" (Michael Pitman 'Adam and Evolution' pp.67-68).

Again, this is the shell game. Remember, natural selection is a two-step process.

Pitman is correct but irrelevant. Natural selection does not "manipulate" mutations, but selects among them for those mutations that do produce a new hormone, enzyme system, or organ.

Now, some mutations make new DNA. That is, new genes. Copying errors include copying the gene twice instead of once -- gene duplication -- so that now you have two copies instead of one. Since you still have the original function in one copy, the second copy can now have mutations that give a new function. Whole chromosomes can be duplicated. Or you can copy part of the chromosome (a single strand of DNA) and then attach it to another chromosome. If you do this backwards, it is completely new DNA. This is called a transposition. There is also cases where DNA is inserted into a genome. This is done via transposons. Many of the growth factors in humans started out as viral genes that got inserted into our genome. This is new information to us.

A fly is an invertebrate. So it can't evolve into a bird anyway. However, a tetrapod (dinosaur) could. Sometimes when an allele is modified, you do get something new.

Also, in development, you often don't have to have a completely new gene to get a new feature. You simply have to change how long the gene is expressed. This happens in the transition from dinos to birds.
Science 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41
Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosis and scale formation.
Zou H, Niswander L
"Interdigital cell death leads to regression of soft tissue between embryonic digits in many vertebrates. Although the signals that regulate interdigital apoptosis are not known, BMPs--signaling molecules of the transforming growth factor-beta superfamily--are expressed interdigitally. A dominant negative type I BMP receptor (dnBMPR-IB) was used here to block BMP signaling. Expression of dnBMPR in chicken embryonic hind limbs greatly reduced interdigital apoptosis and resulted in webbed feet. In addition, scales were transformed into feathers. The similarity of the webbing to webbed duck feet led to studies that indicate that BMPs are not expressed in the duck interdigit. These results indicate BMP signaling actively mediates cell death in the embryonic limb."

Turn off BMP and you turn scales into feathers. No new gene.

2.As you said, there are many, many mutations among humans today, but at the same time none of us has evolved into any new kind of organism.

Uh, that's not entirely true. Andean and Himalayan highlanders have genetic adaptations for living at high altitudes. That's a new type of human. The !Kung are showing the beginning of reproductive isolation. They don't interbreed among the rest of the humans in Africa and they are adapted to living in the Kalahari desert.

For that to happen we would have to see mutation upon mutation upon mutation. It may be a certainty that one person will win the lottery, but what are the odds that the same person will win the lottery next month and the month after that and so on.

You forget selection. This is where population genetics comes in and where selection "fixes" alleles of genes. Fixation is where every member of the population has the allele. Alleles are different forms of the gene. A mutation makes a new allele. So, what you have is selection favoring one allele over all the others in the population. After several generations (depending on how severe the selection pressure is) every member of the population has the first mutation. So when the second one appears, it occurs in an individual with the first one. Cumulative selection cuts down those odds that worry you.

Humans are a poor example to use because we are not subject to most selection pressures because our technology alters our environment and, as a species, we are very young. So, what you see happening elsewhere in nature doesn't necessarily happen to us.

This idea has been likened to taking a thousand turtles to a busy one thousand lane interstate highway and trying to get them to cross it. Odds are one of them will make it across the first lane before it gets killed in the second. However, the scientists conducting this experiment want to prove it's possible to accomplish, so instead of starting all over, they airlift another thousand turtles to the beginning of the second lane until one of them happens to make it across then repeat the process until all one thousand lanes have been crossed. They claim that it proves a turtle can cross a busy one thousand lane interstate highway but all they have really proven is that out of a thousand turtles one of them can make it across one lane of that highway.

Your analogy is flawed. The odds are that more than one will get across the first lane. Then they breed and you now have a thousand to start across the second lane. Again, since it is only one lane being crossed, many will make it. Again they breed and you have a thousand to try getting across the third lane. Again, that is only one lane and many make it. And so on. The odds are that some will make it across all the lanes.

I have a better analogy for you. This is across generations of testing.

You have a 1 in 1024 chance of correctly winning 10 coin tosses in a row. But I can guarantee you I can find someone who can do so. How? Simple, use cumulative selection in the form of a single elimination tournament. I start with 1024 people and pair them up. Then each pair tosses a coin. The 512 winners are selected to go to the next round. Again they are paired and do a coin toss; the 256 winners are selected to go to the next round. Repeat this 7 more times. Now you have 2 people who have won 9 coin tosses in a row. The winner of this round has won 10 coin tosses in a row. And it is a certainty that such a person will be found with this method. We have taken odds of 1 in 1024 and converted that into virtual certainty. Now, I don't know which individual will win the tosses, but it is certain that one of them will, given the algorithm of the competition. Evolution by natural selection is a competition algorithm, more complex but analogous to the single elimination tournament algorithm.

You aren't using selection. You are simply having everyone in the generation survive and thus you have to have the second mutation land in one individual among millions. But you can't ever forget selection.

 

[judge]

Random (unpredictable to us) mutation and natural selection are important parts of at least some special creationist paradigms.

Here is an example.
http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/

Your closing statement is a strange one though. "How can macro-evolution not occur therefore, if a harmful mutation can then prove to be good given the fact that the enviroment through natural selection selects the favorable trait in the community, and not vice versa?"

It does not automatically follow that because random (unpredictable to us) mutation and natural selection do in fact occur, therfore any kind of change is possible.
Just because random mutation and natural selection do occur does not mean that microbes turned into men.
The onus is on you to demonstrate this happened not on creationists to demonstrate it cannot happen.
But as naturalism precludes creation as a legitimate theory it has no choice but to hypothesise that it did happen

 

[lucaspa]

It does not automatically follow that because random (unpredictable to us) mutation and natural selection do in fact occur, therfore any kind of change is possible.

Let's remember what 'random' means here. Random means the variation is random in reference to the needs of the individual or the population. That is, in a climate growing colder, just as many deer with shorter fur will be born as deer with longer fur. It does not mean that any base sequence can change to any other base sequence in a single movement.

What natural selection does mean is that populations will be designed to fit the design problems posed by the environment. This means that populations will change over many generations and look very different from the starting population. It also means that natural selection has the potential to explore all possible genomes over time. Let's call the set of all possible genomes the Library of Mendel. In practice, some genomes in the Library will become inaccessible as traits are previously selected. This is the source of homologies. Once a trait is under selection by two or more positive selection pressures, it becomes unchangeable later.

Just because random mutation and natural selection do occur does not mean that microbes turned into men.
The onus is on you to demonstrate this happened not on creationists to demonstrate it cannot happen.

The first is true, but the data is there to back up the claim. The second is false because the creationist claim is exactly that: it cannot happen. Or, put another, more rigorous way: the hypothesis is that evolutionary processes will give the diversity of life from a common ancestor. It is the responsibility of everyone involved to try to show that this either did not or could not happen. That is the essence of how science works: it tries to show hypotheses to be false. Evolutionary biologists have done this. From Darwin on they have tried to show common ancestry and natural selection to be wrong. The data presented as support are the result of unsuccessful attempts to show the hypothesis to be wrong. So, if you can show us a successful attempt, then we can say evolution is falsified.

But as naturalism precludes creation as a legitimate theory it has no choice but to hypothesise that it did happen

There are several fallacies here.
1. There are two types of naturalism -- methodological and philosophical. Methodological says nothing about creation or a Creator. It simply is looking for the material method by which the Creator accomplished creation. This was Darwin's attidude and his quotes in Origin are at the end of the post. Darwin certainly didn't preclude a Creator or creation. Now, philosophical naturalism is a faith. And yes, philosophical naturalists (atheists) have to exclude creation. But philosophical naturalism is not part of science. It is a personal faith.
2. What you call "creation" is really creationism. Creation is simply a theological statement that God created. Science can't touch that one because methodological materialism won't let it. Science cannot deny that God created. (Science can't confirm it either. Science is agnostic.) Creationism is a how God created. Instantaneous formation in present form. But evolution is also a how God created. Again, see Darwin. Notice the phrase "secondary cause".
3. If the data had supported creationism rather than falsified it, we would indeed have concluded that God created according to creationism. In the period 1700-1831 science did think that. Creationism was the accepted scientific theory. But the scientists of the time -- all theists, nearly all Christians, and many of them ministers -- falsified creationism.

Random (unpredictable to us) mutation and natural selection are important parts of at least some special creationist paradigms.

Here is an example.
http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/

The site does not take into account
1. Observed mutations that increase the amount of DNA.
2. Observed mutations that yield new traits, increased enzyme activity, or new structures.
3. Observation that selection is a means of creating information.

So the site has got natural selection all wrong. And is falsified by observations.

 

[lucaspa]

Sorry, the Darwin quotes:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

In the Fontispiece of Origin we have the following quotes. Notice that the second explicitly denies philosophical naturalism:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

]"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

 

[judge]

Let's remember what 'random' means here. Random means the variation is random in reference to the needs of the individual or the population. That is, in a climate growing colder, just as many deer with shorter fur will be born as deer with longer fur. It does not mean that any base sequence can change to any other base sequence in a single movement..

Thanks for the reply Luscapa. I think you have ststed the commonly accepted meaning of random WRT mutations very well here, but even amongst "evilutionists" there seems to be no full consensus. see here...
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69103
And even so the definition you have provided is impossible to ever really confirm empirically IMHO.
.

What natural selection does mean is that populations will be designed to fit the design problems posed by the environment. This means that populations will change over many generations and look very different from the starting population. It also means that natural selection has the potential to explore all possible genomes over time. Let's call the set of all possible genomes the Library of Mendel. In practice, some genomes in the Library will become inaccessible as traits are previously selected. This is the source of homologies. Once a trait is under selection by two or more positive selection pressures, it becomes unchangeable later. .

Yes...but this is not so different to the ideas in the link I provided (at least it seems so to me)

.

The first is true, but the data is there to back up the claim. The second is false because the creationist claim is exactly that: it cannot happen. Or, put another, more rigorous way: the hypothesis is that evolutionary processes will give the diversity of life from a common ancestor. It is the responsibility of everyone involved to try to show that this either did not or could not happen. That is the essence of how science works: it tries to show hypotheses to be false. Evolutionary biologists have done this. From Darwin on they have tried to show common ancestry and natural selection to be wrong. The data presented as support are the result of unsuccessful attempts to show the hypothesis to be wrong. So, if you can show us a successful attempt, then we can say evolution is falsified..

some scientists would disagree.
Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 2001 May;76(2):255-89.

Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific?
Murray BG Jr.

Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutger University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-2882, USA. bmurray@rci.rutgers.edu

ABSTRACT: Scientists observe nature, search for generalizations, and provide explanations for why the world is as it is. Generalizations are of two kinds. The first are descriptive and inductive, such as Boyle's Law. They are derived from observations and therefore refer to observables (in this case, pressure and volume). The second are often imaginative and form the axioms of a deductive theory, such as Newton's Laws of Motion. They often refer to unobservables (e.g. inertia and gravitation). Biology has many inductive generalizations (e.g. Bergmann's Rule and 'all cells arise from preexisting cells') but few, if any, recognized universal laws and virtually no deductive theory. Many biologists and philosophers of biology have agreed that predictive theory is inappropriate in biology, which is said to be more complex than physics, and that one can have nonpredictive explanations, such as the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Other philosophers dismiss nonpredictive, explanatory theories, including evolutionary 'theory', as metaphysics. Most biologists do not think of themselves as philosophers or give much thought to the philosophical basis of their research. Nevertheless, their philosophy shows in the way they do research. The plethora of ad hoc (i.e. not universal) hypotheses indicates that biologists are reluctant inductivists in that the search for generalization does not have a high priority. Biologists test their hypotheses by verification. Theoretical physicists, in contrast, are deductive unifiers and test their explanatory hypotheses by falsification. I argue that theoretical biology (concerned with unobservables, such as fitness and natural selection) is not scientific because it lacks universal laws and predictive theory. In order to make this argument, I review the differences between verificationism and falsificationism, induction and deduction, and descriptive and explanatory laws. I show how these differ with a specific example of a successful and still useful (even if now superseded as explanatory) deductive theory, Newton's Theory of Motion. I also review some of the philosophical views expressed on these topics because philosophers seem to be even more divided than biologists, which is not at all helpful. The fact that biology does not have predictive theories does not constitute irrefutable evidence that it cannot have them. The only way to falsify this philosophical hypothesis, however, is to produce a predictive theory with universal biological laws. I have proposed such a theory, but it has been presented piecemeal. At the end of this paper, I bring the pieces together into a deductive theory on the evolution of life history traits (e.g. clutch size, mating relationships, sexual size dimorphism).

.

(snip)
3. If the data had supported creationism rather than falsified it, we would indeed have concluded that God created according to creationism. In the period 1700-1831 science did think that. Creationism was the accepted scientific theory. But the scientists of the time -- all theists, nearly all Christians, and many of them ministers -- falsified creationism. .

See above..creationism has not been falsified.

.

The site does not take into account
1. Observed mutations that increase the amount of DNA..

Nitpick...this does not change the basic theory and may in fact be an argument over the meaning of "information"...

.

2. Observed mutations that yield new traits, increased enzyme activity, or new structures..

Again this does not change the basic structure of the arguments IMO. The book itself relates changes in pigment for example in various animals. This is certainly a different trait

.

3. Observation that selection is a means of creating information. .

Not sure what you mean here
.

So the site has got natural selection all wrong. And is falsified by observations.

It claims IIRC that natural selection removes degenerate organisms. Do you think this is wrong?

thanks for an interesting and thoughtful reply though. I hope I have understood you properly in all my replies

 

[lucaspa]

Thanks for the reply Luscapa. I think you have ststed the commonly accepted meaning of random WRT mutations very well here, but even amongst "evilutionists" there seems to be no full consensus. see here...
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69103

Many "evolutionists" on debate boards on not totally familiar with the subject. So I am not surprised on a philosophy forum that you get several different opinions. What you need to do is comb the evolutionary biology literature, since it is in that specialty that you are talking.

And even so the definition you have provided is impossible to ever really confirm empirically IMHO.

It has been tested and supported. That is what population genetics did. You can measure traits of individuals born in the population and see that they are indeed a bell-shaped curve around a mean -- random with respect to the needs of the individual and population. Then over generations you can see the bell-shaped curve shift in one direction or another as a result of selection.

.Yes...but this is not so different to the ideas in the link I provided (at least it seems so to me)

Your link only has exploration in one "direction" -- degradation. However, the data indicate that genomes can also become more "complex" and that organisms can acquire new traits. The website states that organisms can only lose traits.

.some scientists would disagree.
Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 2001 May;76(2):255-89.

Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific?
Murray BG Jr.

Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutger University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-2882, USA. bmurray@rci.rutgers.edu

ABSTRACT: Scientists observe nature, search for generalizations, and provide explanations for why the world is as it is. Generalizations are of two kinds. The first are descriptive and inductive, such as Boyle's Law. They are derived from observations and therefore refer to observables (in this case, pressure and volume). The second are often imaginative and form the axioms of a deductive theory, such as Newton's Laws of Motion. They often refer to unobservables (e.g. inertia and gravitation). Biology has many inductive generalizations (e.g. Bergmann's Rule and 'all cells arise from preexisting cells') but few, if any, recognized universal laws and virtually no deductive theory. Many biologists and philosophers of biology have agreed that predictive theory is inappropriate in biology, which is said to be more complex than physics, and that one can have nonpredictive explanations, such as the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Other philosophers dismiss nonpredictive, explanatory theories, including evolutionary 'theory', as metaphysics. Most biologists do not think of themselves as philosophers or give much thought to the philosophical basis of their research. Nevertheless, their philosophy shows in the way they do research. The plethora of ad hoc (i.e. not universal) hypotheses indicates that biologists are reluctant inductivists in that the search for generalization does not have a high priority. Biologists test their hypotheses by verification. Theoretical physicists, in contrast, are deductive unifiers and test their explanatory hypotheses by falsification. I argue that theoretical biology (concerned with unobservables, such as fitness and natural selection) is not scientific because it lacks universal laws and predictive theory. In order to make this argument, I review the differences between verificationism and falsificationism, induction and deduction, and descriptive and explanatory laws. I show how these differ with a specific example of a successful and still useful (even if now superseded as explanatory) deductive theory, Newton's Theory of Motion. I also review some of the philosophical views expressed on these topics because philosophers seem to be even more divided than biologists, which is not at all helpful. The fact that biology does not have predictive theories does not constitute irrefutable evidence that it cannot have them. The only way to falsify this philosophical hypothesis, however, is to produce a predictive theory with universal biological laws. I have proposed such a theory, but it has been presented piecemeal. At the end of this paper, I bring the pieces together into a deductive theory on the evolution of life history traits (e.g. clutch size, mating relationships, sexual size dimorphism).

This criticizer doesn't get a free ride. For instance, natural selection is completely deductive. Mendelian genetics is also universal. So two of Murray's claims about biology are falsified right there. Also, evolution is "predictive" in the scientific sense of predicting new knowledge to be found. Murray is using "predictive" in the physical sense of predicting future events. This is so because all conditions can be known. Predicting the future direction of designs/natural selection is tough because we have to completely know the environment, and that is so complex we rarely do. In that regard, evolution is more like Chaos Theory and not like Newtonian gravity -- change the initial conditions a little and the result is very different.

However, some experiments in limited environments are being able to predict natural selection in the future. Murray doesn't seem to be aware of them.
Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.

This is an excellent study of natural selection at work. Guppies are preyed upon by species that specialize in eating either the small, young guppies, or older, mature guppies. Eleven years ago the research team moved guppies from pools below some waterfalls that contained both types of predators to pools above the falls where only the predators that ate the small, young guppies live. Thus the selection pressure was changed. Eleven years later the guppies above the falls were larger, matured earlier, and had fewer young than the ones below the falls. The group then used standard quantitative morphology to quantify the rate of evolution.

So we have a study in the wild, not the lab, of natural selection and its results. The rate of evolution was *very* fast. In this study natural selection was measured quantitatvely, and even predicted since it was predicted that, in the absence of predators that fed on large guppies but in the presence of ones that fed on young guppies, the guppies would grow larger and mature earlier to avoid the predators. That is exactly what happened.

1. Case, TJ, Natural selection out on a limb. Nature, 387: 15-16, May 1, 1997. Original paper in the same issue, pp. 70-73 (below). Discusses natural selection in the wild where lizards were introduced to various islands in the Bahamas. Length of limbs varied according to the plant life present on the islands.
JB Losos, KI Warheit, TW Schoener, Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards. Nature, 387: 70-73,1997 (May 1)

See above..creationism has not been falsified.

I'm sorry, but it has. The Murray article isn't arguing for creationism, and the website simply ignores too much evidence -- evidence that does falsify creationism. Falsification does not depend on people admitting the theory is falsified. There were phlogiston chemists who went to their grave not admitting phlogiston was falsified. Didn't matter. Nor did it matter that Einstein never admitted that strict determinism was falsified.

BTW, not only is fitness observable but is mathematically calculable, just like Newtonian gravity is calculable. The formula for fitness is:

Fitness is the ratio of the progeny actually produced to the progeny expected from Mendelian inheritance (fitness = f(p)/f(0) ). Fitness is therefore always relative (Understanding Evolution, pp. 153-154.) We can also get a selection coefficient that measures the selective advantage, or disadvantage. S = 1.0 - fitness.

Nitpick...this does not change the basic theory and may in fact be an argument over the meaning of "information".

The site specifically says that no new traits or information evolve. In terms of "information", it has been shown that evolution increases the information of an enzyme -- its specificity for example.
Ohta T, J Theor Biol 1987 Jan 21;124(2):199-211 A model of evolution for accumulating genetic information.

National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan.

"By taking into account recent knowledge of multigene families and other repetitive DNA sequences, a model of evolution by gene duplication for accumulating genetic information is studied. Genetic information is defined as the sum of distinct functions that the gene family can perform. A coefficient, "genetic diversity" is defined and used in this study, that is highly correlated with genetic information. Initially, a multigene family with a few gene copies is assumed, and natural selection starts to work on this gene family to increase genetic diversity contained in the gene family. As an important mechanism, unequal crossing-over is incorporated. Together with mutation, it is responsible for supplying genetic variability among individuals for selection to work. A specific model, in which individuals with less genetic diversity are selectively disadvantageous, has been studied in detail. Through approximate theoretical analysis and extensive Monte Carlo studies, it has been shown that the system is an extremely efficient way to accumulate genetic information."

45: Fukuchi S, Okayama T, Otsuka J. Evolution of genetic information flow from the viewpoint of protein sequence similarity. J Theor Biol. 1994 Nov 21;171(2):179-95.

Again this does not change the basic structure of the arguments IMO. The book itself relates changes in pigment for example in various animals. This is certainly a different trait

But not a "new" one according to the website. We are talking new traits that never existed before. Those observations contradict the statements in the website. Remember, Judge, it is not the supporting evidence that is most important. It is the observatiosn that can't be there if the theory is true. And that is what I am talking.

Not sure what you mean here

Read Dembski. I choose Dembski since he is an IDer/anti-evolutionist and therefore you can trust him.
"Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of these N offspring M succeed in reproducing. The amount of information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. Take a simple non-biological example. If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them. Here N equals 2 and M equals 1. The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one. This is of course as things should be. Now this example from communication theory is mathematically isomorphic to the case of cell-division where only one of the daughter cells goes on to reproduce. On the other hand, if both daughter cells go on to reproduce, then N equals M equals 2, and thus -log2(M/N) = -log2(2/2) = 0, indicating that selection, by failing to eliminate any possibility failed also to introduce new information. "

Now, since natural selection always has more born than live, selection is going to increase information.

It claims IIRC that natural selection removes degenerate organisms. Do you think this is wrong?

Natural selection, if you read Darwin, is about preservation, not removal. "But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

That the less fit individuals do not survive the "struggle for existence" is incidental. So yes, the site is wrong. The site also indicates that removal of "degenerate organisms" is the only function of natural selection. And that is clearly wrong. The site igores the propagation and retention of beneficial and innovative variations.

thanks for an interesting and thoughtful reply though. I hope I have understood you properly in all my replies

You're welcom. And yes, thank you for trying to understand what I have said. That always makes for a productive discussion. In turn, I hope I have addressed your new points.

 

[judge]

Many "evolutionists" on debate boards on not totally familiar with the subject. So I am not surprised on a philosophy forum that you get several different opinions. What you need to do is comb the evolutionary biology literature, since it is in that specialty that you are talking.

Small nitpick, although the main section of forums is philosophy the specific subforum linked to is evolution/creation.
and the point is that even scientists even biologists such as Dr Caporale whoi is mentioned in the discussion do not limit themselves to the definition of random you provided.

 

[lucaspa]

.some scientists would disagree.

I just wanted to comment on the fallacy of the general argument being used.

The general argument is that, if someone has a contrary position, that position is automatically valid. But that is not so. Our prisons are full of people who have a contrary opionon about their guilt. We don't consider their opinion valid.

For a theory to be valid or falsified, it is not necessary to have everyone agree that it is valid or falsified. Ideas --and theories are ideas -- are independent of the people who advocate them. Therefore, objectively a theory can be valid or falsified whether everyone agrees or not. That's why we evaluate evidence and arguments.

Now, in the Abstract that you posted, Murray makes several erroneous statements:

Biology has many inductive generalizations (e.g. Bergmann's Rule and 'all cells arise from preexisting cells') but few, if any, recognized universal laws and virtually no deductive theory.

Hardy-Weinberg is a recognized universal law. So is Haldan's Rule and Cope's Rule. However, evolution is a recognized universal principle. As Theodosius Dobzhansky put it "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

If you look at Darwin's summary of natural selection, it is deduction.

Many biologists and philosophers of biology have agreed that predictive theory is inappropriate in biology, which is said to be more complex than physics, and that one can have nonpredictive explanations, such as the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Here Murray is misuing the term "predictive". Evolution has been remarkably successful at predicting new knowledge to be found, and this is the general use of the term in science. But neo-Darwinism has also now been used to predict outcomes. For instance, the PBS show Evolution demonstrated how evolution by natural selection predicted the course of a treatment for AIDs. That the patients are still alive attests to the accuracy of the prediction.

Biologists test their hypotheses by verification.

Biologists test their hypotheses the same way every other scientist does -- by attempting to falsify them.

I argue that theoretical biology (concerned with unobservables, such as fitness and natural selection) is not scientific because it lacks universal laws and predictive theory.

Both fitness and natural selection are not only observable and have been observed, but are quantifiable and have been. Selection coefficients and fitness coefficients are routinely calculated. You only have to give the most cursory of glances at the population genetics literature to see this. How Murray missed this I have no idea. But I will order the paper and look. But with all the known errors in the Abstract, I don't have much hope for Murray's new theory. Any theory has to account for the known data and Murray doesn't seem to even be aware of that. Not a good sign.

 

[lucaspa]

Small nitpick, although the main section of forums is philosophy the specific subforum linked to is evolution/creation.

Right. Which title right there tells you that you have two opposing philosophies being debated. "Creation" is a theological concept. Creationism is the scientific theory. The overall board is Infidels.org. What you have here is a philosophical debate on atheism vs theism with evolution standing in for atheism and creation standing in for theism.

and the point is that even scientists even biologists such as Dr Caporale whoi is mentioned in the discussion do not limit themselves to the definition of random you provided.

Judge, I am not going to read the entire thread. Why don't you put the relevant objections here and I'll look at them.

"Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss that they do about the "randomness" of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the process. It is not necessary that mutation should be random in order for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance." R Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable, pp 80- 82.

There are several studies that show that mutations are not "random" with respect to the place on the genome where they occur. Some areas are "hotspots" for mutations and have a lot. Other areas are very much protected against mutations and have few.

All the evolutionary biology texts I have read (and I have read several) define "random" for mutations as I have given it.

Again, that Dr. Caporale disagrees does not automatically mean his position is valid.