Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[tas8831]

The denial and delusion is strong in this one.

I don't have the time nore the energy to address all these PRATTs.
So tiring.

Still waiting for him to explain where Africans and Asians came from if all changes are via hybridization...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Considering that genetic mutations with enough of an effect for selection to act are overwhelmingly deleterious I would agree.

Counter: the most severe deleterious mutations never go beyond the individual, as they are deadly before reproductive age. Additionally, recessive deleterious mutations (of which mutations that result in the loss of the function of a gene almost always are, due to redundant copies and how rare it is for both copies of the chromosome to be afflicted) don't make an impact without inbreeding, so large populations never suffer much from them. In contrast, the more extreme the impact of a benign mutation, the more likely it is to be selected for and the more likely it is to persist and become more prominent in a population.

Given how much reproduction occurs, organisms born with great benign mutations without any seriously hindering deleterious mutations are an inevitability. And since those organisms have a survival/reproduction advantage, they are more likely to successfully reproduce and thus increase the number of individuals which have this mutation.

 

[Speedwell]

Considering that genetic mutations with enough of an effect for selection to act...

How do you know? The subject has been extensively studied and can even be treated mathematically. It's not a WAG like you make it out to be.

Selection coefficient - Wikipedia

And not to be pedantic, but selection does not act on genetic mutation, it acts on phenotypic variation.

 

[tas8831]

Considering that genetic mutations with enough of an effect for selection to act are overwhelmingly deleterious I would agree. If your looking for a straight forward argument to the contrary I wish you lots of luck.

Relatively recent experimentation shows that, in bacteria and yeast, at least, beneficial mutations occur an order of magnitude (or more) more frequently than previously estimated, as high as 1-2% of the total number of mutations. Some experiments with amoeba show that for some fitness effects, the rate may be as high as 40% (The rate and effects of spontaneous mutation on fitness traits in the social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum. - PubMed - NCBI)

If these numbers hold in multicellular eukaryotes, then seeing as how the typical human is borne with 1-200 new mutations...

 

[mark kennedy]

Or Thor, or Ba'al, or Vishnu, or Odin, or Obama, or Tuesday purple farting pixies...

Or some mystical pagan elemental, all pagan traditions went back to earth, air fire or water, they created even the gods. It's not just the religious and spiritual traditions that write folklore and myths, the stone age ape man aka homo habilis is a modern myth.

 

[mark kennedy]

Counter: the most severe deleterious mutations never go beyond the individual, as they are deadly before reproductive age. Additionally, recessive deleterious mutations (of which mutations that result in the loss of the function of a gene almost always are, due to redundant copies and how rare it is for both copies of the chromosome to be afflicted) don't make an impact without inbreeding, so large populations never suffer much from them. In contrast, the more extreme the impact of a benign mutation, the more likely it is to be selected for and the more likely it is to persist and become more prominent in a population.

Given how much reproduction occurs, organisms born with great benign mutations without any seriously hindering deleterious mutations are an inevitability. And since those organisms have a survival/reproduction advantage, they are more likely to successfully reproduce and thus increase the number of individuals which have this mutation.

Yes I'm aware of the neutral or nearly neutral accumulation of mutations. I just haven't seen anything persuasive indicating the mutations drive evolution, on the contrary, they cause genetic malfunction when they have an effect significant enough for selection to act, the vast majority of the time.

I remember the nylon eating bug (bacteria), was purported to be an example of a mutation having a beneficial effect, turns out the reading frame was swapped out, it wasn't a mutation at all. Mutations were said to drive the adaptation of immune systems then they found the CRISPR gene. Mutations are not the answer, there might be a few rare beneficial effects that emerge as an adaptive trait but they do not explain adaptive evolution at large.

 

[Speedwell]

when they have an effect significant enough for selection to act, the vast majority of the time.

As I said before, that is a subject which has been treated mathematically. Let's see your numbers.

 

[mark kennedy]

Relatively recent experimentation shows that, in bacteria and yeast, at least, beneficial mutations occur an order of magnitude (or more) more frequently than previously estimated, as high as 1-2% of the total number of mutations. Some experiments with amoeba show that for some fitness effects, the rate may be as high as 40% (The rate and effects of spontaneous mutation on fitness traits in the social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum. - PubMed - NCBI)

If these numbers hold in multicellular eukaryotes, then seeing as how the typical human is borne with 1-200 new mutations...

Hi tas, someone told me you might jump in here. It's been a while since I got into this kind of thing but here is what I got from the paper:

In summary, for the six fitness components showing evidence for non-zero frequencies of beneficial mutations, i.e., those that increase the value of the fitness component, two show low frequencies of these mutations (affecting just a single MA line), two are consistent with stabilizing selection, implying the increased value for the component is likely deleterious, and just two (slug distance and competitive ability) have a high frequency of bona fide beneficial mutations, one of which is likely under weak selection in nature. The frequency of truly beneficial mutations, i.e., those that would be favored in nature, may thus be lower in D. discoideum than a cursory examination of Table 3 or Table 6 would suggest.
​

That's less then impressive and I'm having a hard time believing these very rare beneficial effects are much of a factor in adaptive evolution overall. As far as the implications for human evolution, we diverge by less then 1% in our comparative genomes with billions of our species inhabiting every ecological niche on the planet. Those inevitable mutations that creep in are generally corrected over time and even beneficial effects can be corrected.

I'm not saying they don't happen, heavens knows, there have been enough found that it's not really a zero sum gain. It's just not an explanation for arctic wildlife adapting so well along the same line, like the arctic cod getting a brand new (de novo) antifreeze gene. The Platypus, amphibians evolving into whales and dolphins and certainly not the nearly three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes over night, two million years ago. On that level, genetic mutations are the worst or at least, least likely explanation available.

Time out for a sec, so you work in the field of genetics? It's none of my business but I'm curious. Could you tell me a little about your work? I could be mistaken but as I recall someone told me you worked in the field, just curious really, is that true or am I mistaken?

 

[pitabread]

turns out the reading frame was swapped out, it wasn't a mutation at all.

So you don't consider frameshift mutations to be mutations? Do you have your own private definition of "mutation"?

 

[mark kennedy]

So you don't consider frameshift mutations to be mutations? Do you have your own private definition of "mutation"?

Of course I consider frameshift mutations to be mutations. I just don't believe every alteration of a protein coding gene is the result of mutations. There is exon shuffling, I've seen explanations involving reading frames being swapped out, then there is the CRISPR that somehow can edit any DNA sequence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do i get a response @mark kennedy

 

[Job 33:6]

If we assumed 2 million years of time, and 27.5 years per generation, and 150 mutations per generation, and 1.5% of mutations being beneficial...

You would have somewhere around 160,000 beneficial mutations.

Is the argument being made that 160,000 beneficial mutations is insufficient to increase brain size?

 

[tas8831]

Hi tas, someone told me you might jump in here. It's been a while since I got into this kind of thing but here is what I got from the paper:

In summary, for the six fitness components showing evidence for non-zero frequencies of beneficial mutations, i.e., those that increase the value of the fitness component, two show low frequencies of these mutations (affecting just a single MA line), two are consistent with stabilizing selection, implying the increased value for the component is likely deleterious, and just two (slug distance and competitive ability) have a high frequency of bona fide beneficial mutations, one of which is likely under weak selection in nature. The frequency of truly beneficial mutations, i.e., those that would be favored in nature, may thus be lower in D. discoideum than a cursory examination of Table 3 or Table 6 would suggest.
​

That's less then impressive and I'm having a hard time believing these very rare beneficial effects are much of a factor in adaptive evolution overall.

I might be impressed that you are not impressed were you to be the first to present real evidence for creation.


I did mention that these were experimental results, but this is but one of dozens of such papers. Cumulatively, these experiments indicate to me that beneficial mutation rates are probably higher than historically estimated.

As far as the implications for human evolution, we diverge by less then 1% in our comparative genomes with billions of our species inhabiting every ecological niche on the planet. Those inevitable mutations that creep in are generally corrected over time and even beneficial effects can be corrected.

Yes, recombination, drift, etc. are a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (pardon my French). Then again, we are less at the mercy of changing environments, for example, than other taxa. Thus, we are less likely to be the 'victims' of strong selection.
Not sure how this negates the findings.

I'm not saying they don't happen, heavens knows, there have been enough found that it's not really a zero sum gain. It's just not an explanation for arctic wildlife adapting so well along the same line, like the arctic cod getting a brand new (de novo) antifreeze gene. The Platypus, amphibians evolving into whales and dolphins and certainly not the nearly three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes over night, two million years ago.

What about the platypus?

Cite someone that has claimed whales evolved from amphibians.

And re: the 'nearly three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes over night, two million years ago' - I read through those threads on here, and all I see is someone that does not comprehend the relationship between genotype and phenotype as well as they think and who seems to think that there is a real, direct, specific ratio/relationship between mutations and phenotype alteration.

On that level, genetic mutations are the worst or at least, least likely explanation available.

According to you.
What is your evidence-supported alternative?

Time out for a sec, so you work in the field of genetics? It's none of my business but I'm curious. Could you tell me a little about your work? I could be mistaken but as I recall someone told me you worked in the field, just curious really, is that true or am I mistaken?

I have taught genetics, yes, and done research in and teach evolutionary biology. You?

 

[tas8831]

Of course I consider frameshift mutations to be mutations.

And yet you wrote:

"turns out the reading frame was swapped out, it wasn't a mutation at all."

Can you please reconcile those two diametrically opposed claims of yours?

I just don't believe every alteration of a protein coding gene is the result of mutations. There is exon shuffling,

What do you consider the process of exon shuffling to be?

 

[tas8831]

If we assumed 2 million years of time, and 27.5 years per generation, and 150 mutations per generation, and 1.5% of mutations being beneficial...

You would have somewhere around 160,000 beneficial mutations.

Is the argument being made that 160,000 beneficial mutations is insufficient to increase brain size?

My impression is that no number of mutations will suffice.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes I'm aware of the neutral or nearly neutral accumulation of mutations. I just haven't seen anything persuasive indicating the mutations drive evolution, on the contrary, they cause genetic malfunction when they have an effect significant enough for selection to act, the vast majority of the time.

While I have stated that the frequency of benign mutations is generally 5%, that's not necessarily the best representation of benign mutation frequency in all situations. Looking at different studies in regards to it, that number can be highly variable depending on the organism in question, as well as the region of the DNA being mutated. After all, a mutation in an eye color gene is nowhere near as likely to result in death as a mutation in a HOX gene.

I remember the nylon eating bug (bacteria), was purported to be an example of a mutation having a beneficial effect, turns out the reading frame was swapped out, it wasn't a mutation at all.

-_- to be extremely blunt, I can't find any papers on the nylon eating bacteria more recent than 1984 that gives what type of mutation it was without it being a creationist source. Even Wikipedia is using creationist sources for it.

It seems that interest in the subject only persisted because of creationists, which I find very amusing. There isn't any consistency in what mutation these sources claim, but few of them claim 0 mutations at all. The most common type of mutation claimed is a frameshift mutation; a type of mutation which does impact the reading frame of a gene, similarly to this sentence:

The cat has her hat
Frameshift mutation: The caa tha she rha t--

Frameshift mutations entirely scramble a gene, even as a single base pair insertion or deletion. I would consider it to be the fastest way for an organism to end up with a gene with a function entirely different from any gene it already had.

It is blatantly obvious that a mutation had to have occurred in order for these bacteria to digest nylon, because if the bacteria was initiating a different reading frame in response to a stimulus, then other strains would begin to digest nylon if they were introduced into the same environment, and they don't.

A much better and more well-documented case of bacteria evolving the capacity to digest a substance that they previously could not is an E. coli strain that developed the ability to efficiently digest citrate over the course of an evolution experiment. Not only was the population that could digest citrate derived from a lineage that could not, but it took multiple mutations for the cells to effectively be able to do it. And since samples from every generation were kept on ice, it was very easy to compare and pinpoint the genetic changes and when they occurred. But sure, go after the example actual scientists haven't cared much about for over a decade -_-

Mutations were said to drive the adaptation of immune systems then they found the CRISPR gene. Mutations are not the answer, there might be a few rare beneficial effects that emerge as an adaptive trait but they do not explain adaptive evolution at large.

Mutation is the source of variety; many other factors contribute to evolution, such as natural selection. Unless you can find another inheritable source of variation aside from mutations in genes, this is what you are stuck with. You can have thoughts against the idea all you like, but until you can provide actual evidence, it's just your opinion, dude.

 

[tas8831]

A shame evolution isn't true. Maybe some could evolve out of the need to attack the poster instead of addressing the subject of the post.

Your history shows that addressing the subject only gets diversions and burden shifting. Exhibit A - your 'African+Asian=Afro-Asian hybrid; thus all speciation is just hybridization', yet when asked where the Asian and African came from in the first place, you change the subject, re-assert the same thing, etc.


You invite the scorn you receive, as do most creationists, who typically act the same way.

 

[tas8831]

You shouldn't believe.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species. Neither the Asian nor the African evolve into the Afro-Asian by mutation or any other method. The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. This can be observed with every single species. And such is why every single fossil ever observed remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest found.

So where did the African and the Asian come from in the first place, seeing as how your creation tale posits two identical non-Asian, non-African people being created from dust - the very first people.

Despite my and other people's repeated requests for supporting evidence as to the evidence for and mechanism of this fantastical farce, you never got beyond what you are doing here - to include citing the paper that I explained to you previously does NOT indicate what you claim it does:

Even the Grants had to finally admit this after studying actual changes in animals.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

Another non-scientist creationist misinterprets a scientific paper - shocking, right?

This creationist interprets "New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation" to mean the Grants 'admitted' that speciation is produced solely by hybridization.

No amount of explanation would change the mind of the creationist - it never will.

Also this...

And remember that time you wrote:

"when they interact through interbreeding they are generating new alleles"

THAT was a knee slapper!

 

[PsychoSarah]

If we assumed 2 million years of time, and 27.5 years per generation, and 150 mutations per generation, and 1.5% of mutations being beneficial...

You would have somewhere around 160,000 beneficial mutations.

Is the argument being made that 160,000 beneficial mutations is insufficient to increase brain size?

Woah, consider how much lowballing you are doing for those mutations too. Every individual person born has around 40-60 mutations in their genome. Your calculation assumes that only 3-4 people were born every generation XD.

 

[Job 33:6]

Woah, consider how much lowballing you are doing for those mutations too. Every individual person born has around 40-60 mutations in their genome. Your calculation assumes that only 3-4 people were born every generation XD.

Yea thats true. If you had 100,000 people in a single population, you might have a number around 5,000,000 mutations in a single generation worth of years (assuming 50 mutations per newborn). In which case, even if only 1% of those were beneficial, you would still have the introduction of around 50,000 beneficial mutations per generation. Which, over 2 million years @ 27.5 years per generation, would give you 72,000 generations. So, 50,000 beneficial mutations multiplied by 72,000 generations...

So you could feasibly end up with 3 and 1/2 billion beneficial mutations introduced into a population of 100k people, over the course of 2 million years.

Not sure if this is what you mean, but it does raise the bar a bit.