Evolution?

[Job 33:6]

And the other 4 papers, do they meet the requirement. The first paper still states clearly that multicellular life experiences smaller populations, higher deleterious mutation rates and extinction rates. And this is supported by the papers of 47 and 48 regardless of what the overall paper is about.

Actually, if you read 48, you would see that it discusses higher rates of speciation in some vertebrates, outweighing their extinction rates, and it isnt associating extinction rates to deleterious mutations, and neither is 47. It also talks about benefits to higher rates of extinction, or rather, higher rates of speciation that come paired up with extinction. Those that are going extinct faster, are also speciating faster and can achieve morphological feats that lower taxon cannot.

And 48 really isnt even discussing smaller populations (neither is 47). Its discussing rates of extinction, but again, it isn't correlating this with deleterious mutations.

Youre making suggestions that have no backing in your sources.

 

[Job 33:6]

Besides the point is probably being over stated now. Whether it is extinction or harm I am just making the point that mutations are more likley to cause harm in evolution and that natural selection is more likley to maintain existing genetic info by purging out any harmful mutations that undermine it.

Your ideas don't make any sense, and you dont have any sources backing or even clearly explaining your ideas either.

You keep referring back to pre-cambrian forms of evolution in a vague sense. But then you turn back to neanderthals and people over and over. But then you source random articles that have nothing to do with deleterious mutations.

You're just all over the place without a clear position nor a clear case to make.

 

[Job 33:6]

". All complex life was created with 4 limbs and that was the first and only choice which points to the code of life being pre-determined and specific and not the result of random gradualism."

So arthropods are not complex?

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, im moving on. I entertained the ideas, and instead all i found was confusion.

When you have a clear position with actual sources that back your ideas, feel free to let me know.

Thanks,

 

[Job 33:6]

And the other 4 papers, do they meet the requirement?

Here is a clip from your second source:

"There is a critical effective size below which a population will on average decline in fitness, but above which beneficial mutations allow the population to persist. With reasonable estimates of the relevant parameters, this critical effective size is likely to be a few hundred. Furthermore, sexual selection can act to reduce the fixation probability of deleterious new mutations and increase the probability of fixing new beneficial mutations. Sexual selection can therefore reduce the risk of extinction of small populations."


Ok, so according to this papers abstract, a species with a population greater than a few hundred, can persist through time with the addition of new beneficial mutations.

There isnt anything about this that indicates that higher taxa cannot evolution with use of variation produced by mutations. Quite the opposite, the article suggests that populations of a few hundred can live throughout time, without being drug down by deleterious mutations, so long as they have at least a population of a few hundred, by which species that currently exist on this planet, typically do, except maybe endangered rhinos or something along those lines. But last i checked, deleterious mutations arent what is driving rhino extinction.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, if you read 48, you would see that it discusses higher rates of speciation in some vertebrates, outweighing their extinction rates, and it isnt associating extinction rates to deleterious mutations, and neither is 47. It also talks about benefits to higher rates of extinction, or rather, higher rates of speciation that come paired up with extinction. Those that are going extinct faster, are also speciating faster and can achieve morphological feats that lower taxon cannot.

And 48 really isnt even discussing smaller populations (neither is 47). Its discussing rates of extinction, but again, it isn't correlating this with deleterious mutations.

Youre making suggestions that have no backing in your sources.

But if you check out paper (13) in the same section it specifically talks about small populations and complex life and higher extinction rates. But once again you are ignoring the additional papers that support what I am saying.

 

[Job 33:6]

But if you check out paper (13) in the same section it specifically talks about small populations and complex life and higher extinction rates. But once again you are ignoring the additional papers that support what I am saying.

None of your papers are suggesting that deleterious mutations are drivers of extinction.

Yes, it is true that populations like the rhino, may go extinct, and yes they suffer from their lack of genetic diversity and small population size.

But this isnt a product of the accumulation of deleterious mutations.

 

[stevevw]

". All complex life was created with 4 limbs and that was the first and only choice which points to the code of life being pre-determined and specific and not the result of random gradualism."

So arthropods are not complex?

Where talking specifically about vertebrates. They all have the same basic body plans.

 

[stevevw]

Alright, im moving on. I entertained the ideas, and instead all i found was confusion.

When you have a clear position with actual sources that back your ideas, feel free to let me know.

Thanks,

No worries

 

[Job 33:6]

Where talking specifically about vertebrates. They all have the same basic body plans.

Why does it matter to you if we are talking about vertebrates or invertebrates?

 

[Job 33:6]

"That is why natural selection is really only maintaining what is already there and sort of protecting it against the intrusion of mutations that can introduce changes that will destablise things. "

This statement of yours^ runs contrary to your own sources that suggest that species persist with use of beneficial mutations.

 

[stevevw]

None of your papers are suggesting that deleterious mutations are drivers of extinction.

Yes, it is true that populations like the rhino, may go extinct, and yes they suffer from their lack of genetic diversity and small population size.

But this isnt a product of the accumulation of deleterious mutations.

My point is not just about the accumulation of deleterious mutations but that mutations are primarily detrimental to existing genetic codes and that is why there are built-in mechanisms in the genome that rectify the errors mutations bring in changing that code and why natural selections main aim is to eradicate those mutational changes out of the genome. My point is also that random mutations are not the only way life can evolve and adapt and that there are other processes that seem to make more sense in how living things can create new variation besides a process that basically harms or changes what already is working good.

Those other processes are found in the EES and are associated with developmental biology that uses existing development programs, developmental plasticity that allows non-gene phenotypic change, niche construction that allows living things to control their evolutionary destiny ie they change environments instead of being changed to environments. Extra/inclusive genetic inheritance which is associated with processes like epigenetics where the stresses living things are under can affect the expression of genes in future generations and other forces like HGT and symbiosis which also allow genetic info to be shared between living things and their environments and also psychological, cultural and social forces which can influence evolvability.

Taking a gene-centric and adaptive view of evolution which is basically found in the Neo-Darwin view is too narrow and restrictive and cannot account for many new discoveries and perspectives in how living things change through embryology, developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. Basically organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Maybe I am not explaining things well. Grammar was not my strength at school. So perhaps take the time and read of some of the papers on the Extended Evolutionary Theory (EES) and get a better understanding and then come back and discuss the Standard Evolutionart Theory (SET) in the light of these things.
http://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/
Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

 

[Brightmoon]

My point is not just about the accumulation of deleterious mutations but that mutations are primarily detrimental to existing genetic codes and that is why there are built-in mechanisms in the genome that rectify the errors mutations bring in changing that code and why natural selections main aim is to eradicate those mutational changes out of the genome. My point is also that random mutations are not the only way life can evolve and adapt and that there are other processes that seem to make more sense in how living things can create new variation besides a process that basically harms or changes what already is working good.

Those other processes are found in the EES and are associated with developmental biology that uses existing development programs, developmental plasticity that allows non-gene phenotypic change, niche construction that allows living things to control their evolutionary destiny ie they change environments instead of being changed to environments. Extra/inclusive genetic inheritance which is associated with processes like epigenetics where the stresses living things are under can affect the expression of genes in future generations and other forces like HGT and symbiosis which also allow genetic info to be shared between living things and their environments and also psychological, cultural and social forces which can influence evolvability.

Taking a gene-centric and adaptive view of evolution which is basically found in the Neo-Darwin view is too narrow and restrictive and cannot account for many new discoveries and perspectives in how living things change through embryology, developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. Basically organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Maybe I am not explaining things well. Grammar was not my strength at school. So perhaps take the time and read of some of the papers on the Extended Evolutionary Theory (EES) and get a better understanding and then come back and discuss the Standard Evolutionart Theory (SET) in the light of these things.
http://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/
Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

but biologists know this ! I’m also not sure why you think stablizing selection is s big deal .

 

[stevevw]

but biologists know this! I’m also not sure why you think stabilizing selection is s a big deal.

First thanks for acknowledging the EES processes. The post you are replying to comes after a fair amount of debate on mutations and their effects. I was saying that primarily mutations are harmful to living things and not a good way to produce more fit and complex life. That is why I was pointing out that natural selection basically gets rid of the harmful mutational effects and is maintaining the status quo as far as the genome is concerned. If the genome has mechanisms that correct the errors of mutations and natural selection has to continually protect living things from harmful mutations then this shows that mutations are a threat to living things.

The smaller population can be overcome by slightly deleterious mutations which can accumulate and threaten their existence. Hense I was mentioning how there are other processes that can also provide variation that does not involve harmful mutations which are covered in the EES and explain better how living things can change and adapt and make more sense because they are natural inbuilt processes that are meant to help life change.

 

[Brightmoon]

Most mutations don’t do anything! As most of the genome is junk DNA.

 

[stevevw]

Most mutations don’t do anything! As most of the genome is junk DNA.

According to recent research, junk DNA performs an important function.

Their findings, published recently in the journal eLife, indicate that this genetic "junk" performs the vital function of ensuring that chromosomes bundle correctly inside the cell's nucleus, which is necessary for cell survival. And this function appears to be conserved across many species.
Scientists discover a role for 'junk' DNA

And it seems mutations in the non-coding sections of DNA can cause harm like cancer. As junk DNA is being found to have some contribution to the function of genes it may be that as we discover more about the non-coding so-called junk DNA we may find that it contains more mutations that are related to diseases.
Researchers identify 200 mutations in non-coding DNA that play role in cancer
Researchers identify 200 mutations in non-coding DNA that play role in cancer

 

[Brightmoon]

Non coding dna is not always junk . Biologists know this . And ...

. I don’t get why you think that the minuscule amount of stuff you learn in high school about evolution is what scientists who study it understand about it

 

[Brightmoon]

As far as organisms fitting to an environment that they in turn change , that also isn’t news. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make . That scientific ideas change when we get better data? That some things are more nuanced than laymen think ? SJ Gould wrote this dictionary-thick tome about evolution and I’m sure he didn’t cover everything we know about genetics or evolution. And that book was written awhile ago so it’s not current

 

[stevevw]

As far as organisms fitting to an environment that they in turn change, that also isn’t news. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. That scientific ideas change when we get better data? That some things are more nuanced than laymen think? SJ Gould wrote this dictionary-thick tome about evolution and I’m sure he didn’t cover everything we know about genetics or evolution. And that book was written awhile ago so it’s not current

The point is from what I understand the write-ups on the EES are saying is that this may be seen as a conceptual change to evolution which is relegating Neo-Darwinism to a lesser role. Rather than random mutations producing variation, new forms are produced by developmental processes that can tap into existing genetic info. Developmental bias produces certain forms over others. Developmental plasticity produces new forms that are not initially based on gene change so this also bypasses random mutations. Both these processes can produce well suited and integrated changes which are already beneficial so natural selection plays a smaller role in having to weed out non-beneficial change because the new forms are well suited and already beneficial.

Niche construction allows creatures to control their own destiny. Rather than having to be changed in form through mutations to adapt to an environment they can change the environment to suit their present form. In this sense, they are bypassing the need to genetically change and are directing natural selection because they are in fact doing the selecting and making changes that benefit their lifestyle. The extra genetic changes such as from epigenetics can also be derived from the differential expression of existing genes and not mutated changes.

These process control what natural selection can and cannot do and do not stem from mutational changes so, therefore, are not based on Neo-Darwinism. They are becoming more prominent than the standard evolutionary synthesis and may end up changing how we see the way living things change altogether. This is not really already acknowledged by many evolutionists because these processes have been diminished at the expense of the adaptive view (all change is caused by adaptations to environments). That is why some people explain everything in terms of creatures having to survive and adapt rather than considering the many other influences mentioned in the EES.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

While much of the evolutionary biology community resists the notion of an evolutionary framework that begins to consider the role of determinants beyond the gene, as the Extended Synthesis does, the momentum of the new synthesis is undeniable (see Google for "the Altenberg 16"). And there are other scientists and philosophers of science--avowed non-creationists--who say the Extended Synthesis does not go far enough in relegating natural selection to a reduced role.
The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual - Archaeology Magazine Archive


The Scientific Revolution in Evolution
The theory of evolution that is accepted by most biologists and is taught in our schools is proving to be inadequate for explaining the world as we know it today because of its pre-DNA roots, its inability to explain body forms, and its antiquated formulation that renders it irrelevant to other new discoveries in modern biology. The 150 year old theory of Charles Darwin was last upgraded 70 years ago in the form of neo-Darwinian evolution. All accounts indicate that a major shift is about to occur again, away from the population genetic-centered conception that has been currently adopted.

The role that natural selection plays in evolution in filtering out those characteristics that are unfavorable for survival is mistakenly assumed by many to be the central mechanism for evolution. But the process that creates a particular organism to be selected is not a product of natural selection.
The Scientific Revolution in Evolution | Darwin Under Siege

 

[Brightmoon]

You you do know that punk eek is accepted as how most species change. Not all but most. . Gradualism is observed but it’s rare . The abrupt appearance of new species mean that the change from species A to species B is rapid - geologically speaking . If you’re claiming that evolution is inadequate to explain how species change over time then you’re mistaken . We don’t need magic to explain a natural phenomena if that where you’re going with this. ( I’m not an IDer and I think it’s silly to mistake that discredited pseudoscience for real science)