Darwin and Mendel

[mark kennedy]

I already gave you that info. They found the mutations in the Mc1r gene responsible for the change in fur color. The human homolog and its alleles are also involved in determing human skin color.

This isn't the first time I looked into this and as I recall it came down to regulation. If you see something significant there do tell but random links followed by begging the question of proof doesn't interest me.

That naturally occuring variation was caused by mutation.

Ok, so you should have no trouble characterizing the mutations. Are they substitutions, indels, or inversions? Why are these mutations not screened and more importantly, what caused the change in the first place? Any change in the gene is considered a mutation so don't bother trying to lure me into an argument against mutations. I know you are equivocating mutations, variations and epigentic adaptations, even if you don't. I do have to wonder if you are aware of the differences.

Let's see . . . the theory of evolution says that random mutations produce new variation that is then filtered through selection. With this example, we have random mutations producing a new fur coat variant that was then selected for. Can you please explain why this is not an example of evolution?

Would you just stop using 'evolution' as a slogan and a clutch phrase, no one else cares and I think it's lame. Evolution is defined as the change of alleles, any change is a mutation, so a mutation is an example of evolution.

Nonsense, I don't have time to chase circular arguments.

Nothing substantive in the middle of what?

The cause and effect, you really don't understand why that makes it unscientific?

A mutation causes a fur color change.

Begging the question of proof again...

That color provides better camoflage on black basalt rocks.

The new mutation spreads through the population of mice that are living near the black basalt rocks, allowing them to occupy territory that they previously were not adapted to.

What is missing?

The cause.

I know way more about genetics and Mendelian genetics than you do. Perhaps you should read up. I have actually done real experiments mapping genes in the fruit fly genome using Mendelian genetics. Have you?

That's nice that you mapped fruit flies, that was cutting edge stuff fifty years ago. What I know about Mendelian genetics is that adaptations are not the result of random mutations.

They rejected Darwinian evolution. I see that you still can't admit that.

They rejected neodarwinism because it included Medelian genetics, why do you deny the obvious in circles?

Still waiting for scientific papers on hybrids. That is what I asked for.

You mean the one Mendel is famous for, look it up online.

They also rejected Darwinian evolution.

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Soviet Union became the world's first communist state. Parallel to that state's development was the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis and the end of the eclipse of Darwinism. Lysenkoism was a campaign against genetics that was orchestrated by the non-scientific agronomist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898–1976) and supported by Stalin. Lysenko was the leading proponent of the ideas of Ivan Michurin, a form of Lamarckism, during the early years of the Soviet Union. Lysenko's "science" of agriculture was anti-genetic, instead proposing change in species through hybridization and grafting. (Evolutionary theory and the political left)​

Marx and Engels loved Darwinism but Darwin couldn't have cared less about communism. Darwinism has falling out of favor with the intellectual elite and almost utterly disproven by scientists. The Synthesis brought Darwinism back in to the mix by piggy backing it on genetics, a new up and coming science that had great promise. It's a scam, genetics never needed Darwinism and Darwinism would have died of it's own inadequacies had it not been able to leach off of genetics.

I am not the one getting the science wrong. Want to go over ERV's again?

Yea actually you are the one getting it wrong, did you ever find a single germline cell invasion into the human genome documented anywhere? Without a single substantive reason to think so you want me to assume 8% of the human genome is the result of viruses when it makes a lot more sense that they are defunct reading frames.

How many ERV's are in the human genome? How many of those human ERV's have orthologs in the chimp genome? Bet you can't produce the correct answer to those two questions.

You mean why won't I chase your pedantic chants in circles, because it goes nowhere, that's why.

The basics? I'm sorry, but Soviet rejection of Darwinian evolution is not the basics of Mendelian genetics, and that seems to be the only thing you want to talk about. You also refuse to admit that a mutation in the mouse Mc1r gene results in a new phenotype that was selected for.

I wasn't going to talk about it much at all until you made such a big issue of it. The Soviets rejected genetics because they didn't like Mendel but they were strict Darwinians.

In August 1948, teaching and research in genetics were banned in the Soviet Union in favor of the so-called Soviet Creative Darwinism—the doctrine of agronomist Trofim Lysenko. Many Western observers attributed the banishment of genetics to Marxism and saw Lysenko's doctrine as “Marxist genetics.” Lysenko himself declared that his doctrine was Marxist and Darwinist, while dismissing genetics as anti-Marxist and anti-Darwinist. Soviet geneticists (Darwinism, Marxism, and genetics in the Soviet Union)​

Yet again, you have been proven wrong and it won't change your argument one bit. You just going to repeat your error and no one on here will correct you because Creationists will have nothing to do with these forums and none of your cohorts care about the actual facts.

The point is that the Soviets rejected Darwinian evolution. When are you going to admit that?

If I thought you had the capacity to see the obvious error of this fundamentally ignorant statement I would show you again.

I am not the one getting the science wrong. You keep claiming that I am using a homology argument when I am acutally using a phylogenetic argument. When will you get the science right?

You've never argued from or for science, you have always trolled the forum for creationists and taunted them till they left. It's called trolling and as far as I can tell the only ones left are the trollers.

I've brought this up before and you have demonstrated a zero comprehension of how genetics relates to the origins debate. I'll bet you never even made that actual insight, all we are talking about is origins, evolution is something that happens after life has started.

The flame war started when you dropped the Godwin card.

There's no reason for a flame war unless your ready to concede an argument that you have already lost. This would be a really good time to take an interest in genetics and some of the research that has been so important to us over the years. The problem is that you do little more then post links and chant slogans and it's a shame. There is so much to be learned here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[sfs]

Ok, so you should have no trouble characterizing the mutations. Are they substitutions, indels, or inversions?

Substitutions.

Why are these mutations not screened

Screened? What would screen them? Germ-line mutations have by definition already evaded any error-checking mechanisms.

and more importantly, what caused the change in the first place?

Who cares? The mechanisms of mutation are pretty well understood and completely irrelevant here. Mutations happen all the time -- billions upon billions of them every day. Some of them are beneficial. This was one of them. In other words, it was exactly what you were looking for.

The existence of beneficial mutations is not exactly a secret. They come in many varieties. The beneficial mutation in humans in the gene EDAR was an amino-acid changing single-base substitution. The mutation conferring lactose tolerance was a substitution in a regulatory region. One mutation conferring drug resistance on malaria was a duplication of the gene pfMDR.

Any change in the gene is considered a mutation so don't bother trying to lure me into an argument against mutations. I know you are equivocating mutations, variations and epigentic adaptations, even if you don't. I do have to wonder if you are aware of the differences.

Huh?

 

[mark kennedy]

Substitutions.

All of them?

Screened? What would screen them? Germ-line mutations have by definition already evaded any error-checking mechanisms.

We are talking about 8% of the human genome and you want me to accept that it's the result of germline invasions....no. They look like they were some kind of reading frame for a protein, who know what it did originally.

Who cares? The mechanisms of mutation are pretty well understood and completely irrelevant here. Mutations happen all the time -- billions upon billions of them every day. Some of them are beneficial. This was one of them. In other words, it was exactly what you were looking for.

No Steve they are not irrelevant when you want to seriously argue that such a high percentage of the human genome is the result of germline invasions. This is the worst time for an infection, this is a crucial time of development.

The existence of beneficial mutations is not exactly a secret. They come in many varieties. The beneficial mutation in humans in the gene EDAR was an amino-acid changing single-base substitution. The mutation conferring lactose tolerance was a substitution in a regulatory region. One mutation conferring drug resistance on malaria was a duplication of the gene pfMDR.

Think about it Steve, think in terms of actual traits. One of the most accessible is hair, skin and fur color. Do you mean to tell me that arctic wildlife all randomly acquired the specific mutation they need to be white, some only at certain times? That has always been an argument for design for me, something in the genomic mechanisms was triggered by the arctic cold. It happened across too many species for it to be random, there must be an adaptive mechanism.

You may well be the only person I have talked to about these things who can tell me what this mechanism is. I would think this would be an easy one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[sfs]

All of them?

In the particular case you were pointed to, and which you're trying to ignore, yes.

We are talking about 8% of the human genome and you want me to accept that it's the result of germline invasions....no. They look like they were some kind of reading frame for a protein, who know what it did originally.

No, we're not talking about 8% of the human genome. I'm talking about beneficial mutations, which can easily be observed in the lab and in the wild, and which you were asking about. I have no idea what you're talking about.

No Steve they are not irrelevant when you want to seriously argue that such a high percentage of the human genome is the result of germline invasions. This is the worst time for an infection, this is a crucial time of development.

Your response seems to have nothing at all to do with my post.

Think about it Steve, think in terms of actual traits.

You mean, think about what I do for a living? I really don't need any reminders.

One of the most accessible is hair, skin and fur color. Do you mean to tell me that arctic wildlife all randomly acquired the specific mutation they need to be white, some only at certain times?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean to tell you, except there's no single "specific mutation" required. There are usually (but not always) multiple ways of reaching the result.

That has always been an argument for design for me, something in the genomic mechanisms was triggered by the arctic cold. It happened across too many species for it to be random, there must be an adaptive mechanism.

That's simply a story you made up -- it has no connection to the biological data. For example, as humans migrated away from the tropics, their skin got lighter in color. We know the change was the result of changes to their DNA, because we've looked at the DNA. We know that many of the changes are different in different populations (specifically, different in Europe than in East Asia). We know that each of these new genetic variants started as a single copy on a single chromosome -- in other words, as a mutation -- because all copies share an identical genetic background.

This isn't a mystery; it's bread and butter genetics.

You may well be the only person I have talked to about these things who can tell me what this mechanism is. I would think this would be an easy one.

It is an easy one: the mechanism is mutation filtered by natural selection. We observe the mutations appear, and we observe selection acting on them, and we see the new trait spread. But for some reason you insist it's impossible.

 

[Vaccine]

Which of the 40 million indel and substitution mutations that separate humans and chimps could not have been produced by the known processes of mutation?

Sounds like some proselytizing for the belief in common ancestry. You're pushing mutation rates beyond and reasonable rate to think that explains 40 million indel and substitution mutations. Another mistake is assuming those mutations are the only differences between humans and chimps.
How about you SHOW us not tell us how mutations created new genes? Specifically the SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D genes flanking the centromere?

 

[Vaccine]

Why rare mutations, and why difficult to believe? We know that mutations happen all the time. We know that some of them are beneficial to the organism. We know that beneficial mutations are naturally selected for and spread in the population. We can observe all of this in the lab and in the wild. Where is faith required?

As a rule mutations are not beneficial, so that's an argument from an exception. Takes faith to believe those arguments. It takes even more faith to believe an unprecedented duplication of SRGAP2a and stable mutations happened on the centromere to account for SRGAP2b,c and d.

A classic example of someone extrapolating a mathematical model into domains where it makes no physical sense. Kondrashov didn't observe large numbers of very slightly deleterious mutations; he simply formulated a model that had them and assumed the model reflected reality. In reality, evolutionary theory does not predict that such mutations should occur more frequently than very slightly beneficial mutations, and the entire problem doesn't exist.

Most mutations are deleterious so I think his model is valid.
Above, you extrapolated mutations account for most the benefits to an organism, even though most are neutral. Is extrapolation is only valid when it supports Darwinism?

The article is exactly right: the modern synthesis has been replaced with much more realistic, nuanced and complex evolutionary models, since we now know far more about the subtleties of genetic processes. And you're quoting this article because . . . why, exactly?

You act as if it's common knowledge the modern synthesis has been replaced.

Don't be ridiculous. The "principle of genetic homeostasis" is violated all the time. Sure, most functional elements in the genome are under purifying selection, but that does nothing at all to inhibit positive selection when a better genetic variant comes along.

Can you show us, not tell us, where genetic homeostasis is violated?

Nothing you've cited here leads in any way to the conclusion of design or in any way undercuts evolutionary biology. So what facts are you talking about?

The genetic code being a language for example.
The origin of gene regulatory circuits in new species for another.

 

[Phenotype]

The genetic code being a language for example.
The origin of gene regulatory circuits in new species for another.

I would like to read sfs's responses to the previous post.

Using the metaphor that the genetic code is a language, therefore God? Call it a recipe, code whatever.

What new species? Speciation is a transitional process by tiny increments. Richard Dawkins's 'The Extended Phenotype,' is essential reading.

Don't, then. Don't read Daniel C Dennett either. Be very wary.

 

[mark kennedy]

In the particular case you were pointed to, and which you're trying to ignore, yes.

Interesting

No, we're not talking about 8% of the human genome. I'm talking about beneficial mutations, which can easily be observed in the lab and in the wild, and which you were asking about. I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's just something that makes no sense to me, the ERVs are the result of highly unlikely viral invasions in the Germline. This happens about 25 million years ago so it's right when the primates were separating along broad taxonomic lines. I can't believe I'm the only one who ever had a problem with that.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean to tell you, except there's no single "specific mutation" required. There are usually (but not always) multiple ways of reaching the result.

That is what I'm actually interested in, specific change for specific reasons. There is more then one kind of change in the genome, not all of them are random copy errors.

That's simply a story you made up -- it has no connection to the biological data. For example, as humans migrated away from the tropics, their skin got lighter in color. We know the change was the result of changes to their DNA, because we've looked at the DNA. We know that many of the changes are different in different populations (specifically, different in Europe than in East Asia). We know that each of these new genetic variants started as a single copy on a single chromosome -- in other words, as a mutation -- because all copies share an identical genetic background.

But specifically white fur, which of course has the advantage of camouflage. You missed the question, why white? Let's not put the cause before the effect, there has to be a reason for the coat to change white. What's more I don't think a northern migration of various species that adapted on an evolutionary scale qualifies as a made up story. We know of some pretty dramatic evolutionary adaptations resulting from populations moving further and further north. This is one of my favorites:

Thr-Ala-Ala coding element, and de novo amplification of the coding element gave rise to an entirely new coding region that encodes the repetitive tripeptide backbone of AFGP. The deletion, recruitment, and amplification events did not need to occur in the order given. Indeed, an AFGP/trypsinogen hybrid protein coding region formed by some amount of duplication of the 9-nt Thr-Ala-Ala coding element before bulk deletion of trypsinogen sequence might in fact be a more stable structure for the evolving gene than large deletion first and amplification later. Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish​

I'm just saying, arctic wildlife had to evolve with one very important trait that is vital, the white coat and skin. There is also the issue of this enigmatic protein coding sequence apparently built from a simple repeat. Surely this interests you, making comparisons to populations of other climates.

It is an easy one: the mechanism is mutation filtered by natural selection. We observe the mutations appear, and we observe selection acting on them, and we see the new trait spread. But for some reason you insist it's impossible.

That's putting the effect before the cause and not all changes in the genome are random. I'm sure there are adaptive mechanisms and I suspect they can be found by comparing arctic wildlife to populations that live in warmer climates. White is a very specific color and some wildlife is only white at birth like the seals, that doesn't sound random to me.

I'll be honest, I haven't a clue where to look for a mechanism like this. I just think random copy errors is the worst possible answer.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

As a rule mutations are not beneficial, so that's an argument from an exception. Takes faith to believe those arguments. It takes even more faith to believe an unprecedented duplication of SRGAP2a and stable mutations happened on the centromere to account for SRGAP2b,c and d.

That's very true, mutations are beneficial on rare occasions and the benefit is usually short term and not adaptive on an evolutionary scale. I would like to see a single adaptive trait that emerged from a known mechanism, we know they have to exist but how do they work?

Most mutations are deleterious so I think his model is valid.
Above, you extrapolated mutations account for most the benefits to an organism, even though most are neutral. Is extrapolation is only valid when it supports Darwinism?

That's because overall mutations happen in areas that don't do much. The most important place to look are changes in the protein coding genes which rarely respond well to changes, the sequence is too specific. Doesn't it make sense that God would include adaptive molecular mechanisms? So why are we chasing random mutations in circles I have to wonder.

You act as if it's common knowledge the modern synthesis has been replaced.

The Modern Synthesis is actually an interesting phenomenon in and of itself. After what has been called 'the eclipse of Darwinism' there was a search for ways to save it. Darwinian natural selection was used as a unifying theme at a time when Genetics was struggling to get cause (molecular biology) and effect ('traits' genetics). It's a macabre and dark philosophy, it's the death of the less fit, Darwin tied this closely with random variation. Do note there is a difference between a variation and a mutation.

Can you show us, not tell us, where genetic homeostasis is violated?

He's going to say a beneficial allele of course, just doesn't know or want to talk about how it got there.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Using the metaphor that the genetic code is a language, therefore God? Call it a recipe, code whatever.

Code sounds about right to me, they do code for proteins.

What new species? Speciation is a transitional process by tiny increments. Richard Dawkins's 'The Extended Phenotype,' is essential reading.

Think about it, the Ark touches down about 4,000 years ago and from that barge emerged the common ancestors of all mammals, birds and reptiles. Now there are anywhere from 2 to 60 million species, depending on how you define species. Don't you think maybe they evolved?

Don't, then. Don't read Daniel C Dennett either. Be very wary.

I thought he came up with the best description of Darwinism ever. He called it universal acid that eats through everything. Then he goes into some fantasy about sky hooks and such, it just got silly. I would like to know what the actual mechanisms are and I'm really puzzled that Darwinians are not more curious.

Your thoughts...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Code sounds about right to me, they do code for proteins.



Think about it, the Ark touches down about 4,000 years ago and from that barge emerged the common ancestors of all mammals, birds and reptiles. Now there are anywhere from 2 to 60 million species, depending on how you define species. Don't you think maybe they evolved?



I thought he came up with the best description of Darwinism ever. He called it universal acid that eats through everything. Then he goes into some fantasy about sky hooks and such, it just got silly. I would like to know what the actual mechanisms are and I'm really puzzled that Darwinians are not more curious.

Your thoughts...

My thoughts are that if you go into a debate assuming the opposing views have no value, you will never gain anything from the debate at all. You don't need to change your views, but you do need to respect those of others and not dismiss them before they are even posted.

 

[mark kennedy]

My thoughts are that if you go into a debate assuming the opposing views have no value, you will never gain anything from the debate at all. You don't need to change your views, but you do need to respect those of others and not dismiss them before they are even posted.

Those are very mild statements, the implication for the Genesis account of creation is a much shorter time line. As far as Dennet he did call Darwinism universal acid.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. Interesting poem, a little fatalistic for my taste.

 

[bhsmte]

Those are very mild statements, the implication for the Genesis account of creation is a much shorter time line. As far as Dennet he did call Darwinism universal acid.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. Interesting poem, a little fatalistic for my taste.

In what context did Dennett make that statement? By the way, does Dennett agree with evolution?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Those are very mild statements, the implication for the Genesis account of creation is a much shorter time line. As far as Dennet he did call Darwinism universal acid.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. Interesting poem, a little fatalistic for my taste.

And people like Dennet don't treat ideas such as evolution with any respect, and often they don't even completely understand the ideas they trash (I assume Dennet to be a creationist). To get a proper view of ideas, you need to look at perspectives from both sides, and not just look at extremists.

Also, mild is good, better to take a middle ground than get completely swept up in any idea. But I think you view your position as more mild than it actually is.

My poem in my signature is just part of a larger one called "The Sins of the Saved", a comment on how some people become more prone to sin as a result of being religious but losing site of the messages in their religion. This part is the last, pride. My best poems usually are a little dark or serious.

 

[mark kennedy]

In what context did Dennett make that statement? By the way, does Dennett agree with evolution?

Dennett is a Darwinian, one of the more intellectual of them, a lot like Richard Dawkins in that respect.

“it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.” Darwin's Dangerous Idea​

I actually thought that's what the thread was going to be about. Darwinism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I imagine that the context was likely that he called it a universal acid in that it ate away at previously held ideas. Note however that I honestly didn't know who Dennet was, but I do recognize the book (never read it or any other book of that nature).

 

[mark kennedy]

And people like Dennet don't treat ideas such as evolution with any respect, and often they don't even completely understand the ideas they trash (I assume Dennet to be a creationist). To get a proper view of ideas, you need to look at perspectives from both sides, and not just look at extremists.

'No design' would be the best way to sum up Dennett:

The crux of the argument is that, whether or not Darwin's theories are overturned, there is no going back from the dangerous idea that design (purpose or what something is for) might not need a designer.​

Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life is a 1995 book by Daniel Dennett,

Darwinism has always been one long argument against design.

the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)​

It's marked by a categorical rejection of miracles.

Also, mild is good, better to take a middle ground than get completely swept up in any idea. But I think you view your position as more mild than it actually is.

Ok...

My poem in my signature is just part of a larger one called "The Sins of the Saved", a comment on how some people become more prone to sin as a result of being religious but losing site of the messages in their religion. This part is the last, pride. My best poems usually are a little dark or serious.

That's why I seldom write poetry, it's usually about something somber. I kind of see what you mean about losing the message, there should come a time when you have to look at the message. Sometimes you have to navigate around the interpretations to understand the passage, I do a lot of Bible study so I run into it all the time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Pretty sure that if evolution was completely refuted most people would end up concluding a designer was necessary, unless it was refuted with a better theory which also didn't include a designer.

Your bible study include addressing translation issues in the bible?

 

[mark kennedy]

I imagine that the context was likely that he called it a universal acid in that it ate away at previously held ideas. Note however that I honestly didn't know who Dennet was, but I do recognize the book (never read it or any other book of that nature).

Exactly!!! Traditional ways of thinking being the intent I think. When you think about it when we say liberal or conservative we are talking about tradition. We are either liberal with regard to reform as opposed to being conservative with regards to tradition. Conservatives are usually strict constructionalists for example.

He is talking about traditional ways of thinking.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly!!! Traditional ways of thinking being the intent I think. When you think about it when we say liberal or conservative we are talking about tradition. We are either liberal with regard to reform as opposed to being conservative with regards to tradition. Conservatives are usually strict constructionalists for example.

He is talking about traditional ways of thinking.

Just because an idea has been traditionally held for a long time doesn't make it better, but it doesn't make it bad either. What matters is whether or not it works for the present.