Nothing is Beyond the Ability of Random Mutation

[combatant]

There was a recent entry in the Uncommon Descent blog that I thought was very interesting and very true. Particularly fascinating was the point that since no predictions can be made regarding random mutations, there are no predictions that can fail. Read the whole post for yourself.

Random mutation is so attractive to chance worshippers because it is easy to demonstrate that unpredictable mutations do happen and that, in principle, any possible outcome can be produced. This is to say that, for instance, a shower of cosmic rays can hit a group of people and change the DNA in their germ cells in any manner whatsoever. It’s just a matter of how probable any given change might be. No change is impossible. Set incredulity aside and the comic book characters “The Fantastic Four” become real possibilities. Hence random mutation can explain ANYTHING and the only argument against it is the argument from incredulity. That’s why it just won’t die. It’s too good at its explanatory ability. Nothing in biology is impossible in light of all powerful random mutation. Even better, because random mutations are by definition unpredictable, there’s nothing to get in the way of it being disproven - no predictions made means no predictions failed. It isn’t science. It’s “Accident of the Gaps” or as I like to call it “Darwin of the Gaps”. Incredible! Literally, incredible. [bold added]

 

[Chalnoth]

Well that's just wrong. Theories about random mutations make predictions about statistical relationships. And once you have large numbers, statistics leads to definite and absolute predictions.

Said simple, one mutation is not as good as any other.

 

[Mystman]

Chalnoth basically said it all.

The chance of just a bunch of random mutations forming something like the photosynthesis machinary is basically 0.

That's why no one is advocating that it's just chance.

Some things can be ascribed to chance (the exact order of amino-acids in hemoglobin for example), while other things can be described to selection pressures (the fact that we have a protein that facilitates Oxygen transport).

 

[Hydra009]

I really wish creationists would stick to their story regarding mutations, it would help things to only have to deal with one PRATT at once.

The old standby: "Random mutations couldn't possibly produce X, therefore evolution is wrong!", has already been addressed at length, and is obviously flawed due to being an argument from credulity and a strawman argument, since no one (besides creationists, it seems) is claiming that evolution is just mutation without selection.

The new one: "Evolution is unfalsifiable (i.e. wrong) because random mutations could potentially produce anything" is equally absurd because evolution does not operate by leaps and bounds, but rather through cumulative, heritible changes. This can indeed be confirmed and potentially falsified in a number of ways: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[TeddyKGB]

Dembski is such a whiny little twit.

 

[JohnR7]

it is easy to demonstrate that unpredictable mutations do happen

Yet they have failed to show mutations with any evolutionary benifit. There are lots and lots of mutations that are not benificial that they do not seem to have any problem identifying and showing. So why can't they show the benificial mutations?

 

[Hydra009]

Yet they have failed to show mutations with any evolutionary benifit. There are lots and lots of mutations that are not benificial that they do not seem to have any problem identifying and showing. So why can't they show the benificial mutations?

They do. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

 

[Biologist]

So why can't they show the benificial mutations?

They are more rare, but I gave you a link in another thread as my opening example. When I can finally post links, I will give a huge amount of examples of evolution. Even some things Talk.Origins doesn't cover. I will even point out false claims and provide evidence against answers in genesis, to an extent you may have not seen before.

 

[Chalnoth]

They are more rare, but I gave you a link in another thread as my opening example. When I can finally post links, I will give a huge amount of examples of evolution. Even some things Talk.Origins doesn't cover. I will even point out false claims and provide evidence against answers in genesis, to an extent you may have not seen before.

Can't wait to see it

But just don't hold your breath. Be aware of JohnR7's post count, and understand that there are a lot of very intelligent and knowledgeable people who have been posting here for a long time

 

[shernren]

Radioactive decay is completely random, therefore all those scientists who tell us that they know how fast it takes for radioactive samples to decay are simply being unscientific liars. Go away! Don't you dare put any of that unpredictable technetium-99m into me!

 

[JohnR7]

They do. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Ok, according to talk origin "Most mutations are neutral."
That does not demonstrate any evolutionary advantage to mutations.
In fact it shows that there is no advantage for the most part.

They keep trying to come up with same silly list of "benificial mutations". Yet the fact that they keep repeating the same list of mutations over and over again would falisy the theory. It would take millions of billions of mutations for evolution to be true. You would be finding them ever where you look. Yet all they can do is come up with this silly little list of the same old stuff they repeat over and over again. A list that does not even show any benificial mutations in the first place.

 

[Hydra009]

A list that does not even show any benificial mutations in the first place.

Keep looking, I'm confident you'll find it.

Btw, here's another list that you can claim doesn't exist: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

[Biologist]

Ok, according to talk origin "Most mutations are neutral."
That does not demonstrate any evolutionary advantage to mutations.

Key word being: "most"

Which is true most mutations are neutral. But every once in a while, a mutation that gives an advantage comes along. It doesn't have to neccessarily be a good mutation.

In fact it shows that there is no advantage for the most part.

Keep tract of my previous key word.

They keep trying to come up with same silly list of "benificial mutations". Yet the fact that they keep repeating the same list of mutations over and over again would falisy the theory.

There's a limited amount of people researching it and a limited amount of resources going towards evolutionary Biology research. Don't expect to see a half million observable examples occuring and being recorded in such a short time.

It would take millions of billions of mutations for evolution to be true.

That depends, you are changing the definition of evolution to what you think it is. What is an absurd attempt at falsifing something. I could just as easy try to change the definition of creationism to flying invisible rabbits making spaghetti out of dirt. But then, I would be just as wrong as you for trying to redefine something with unwarranted assumptions about that something.

You would be finding them ever where you look.

You have a limited amount of people doing the observations. The changes are super tiny, and many can't be seen without a detailed study. Evolution is not a drowning dog giving birth to a fish, as some try to make it out to be.

Yet all they can do is come up with this silly little list of the same old stuff they repeat over and over again.

The reason why we use to same list over and over, is because people ignore that list over and over.

A list that does not even show any benificial mutations in the first place.

It depends on what you consider "benificial."

Beneficial: [SIZE=-1]promoting or enhancing well-being.

We can translate that to something which helps a species survive. Which many things you would consider a negative mutation, helps a species survive. It Evolution, benificial is not only a distint advantage, it also includes the lesser of to evils advantage.
[/SIZE]

 

[Amora]

Keep looking, I'm confident you'll find it.

Btw, here's another list that you can claim doesn't exist: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Many of the studies in there, do NOT show benificial mutations, they just show ADAPTATION. This can certainly be from silenced unused genes already in the genome.

another point, even where there WERE positive mutations, they happend over 500-10000 generations. do you know how many years that is in human years? 5000-500000 years! and thats just for one to a small % of mutations! in an organism that has far far higher population. and has less sophisticated DNA repair mechanisms!

Which is true most mutations are neutral. But every once in a while, a mutation that gives an advantage comes along. It doesn't have to neccessarily be a good mutation.

isnt a good mutation defined by it giving an advantage?? even if it destroyed a protein, (that would be "bad") but if that protein enabled an antibiotic to kill the cell, then its still a "good" mutation.

There's a limited amount of people researching it and a limited amount of resources going towards evolutionary Biology research. Don't expect to see a half million observable examples occuring and being recorded in such a short time.

So why are there so many of the other kind around?

You have a limited amount of people doing the observations. The changes are super tiny, and many can't be seen without a detailed study. Evolution is not a drowning dog giving birth to a fish, as some try to make it out to be.

No one here thinks that. like another poster said, people here are smart and have been doing this for awile. Thats why _I_ came here...

The reason why we use to same list over and over, is because people ignore that list over and over.
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

not exactly. its the same way pure evolutionist feel when some new creationist comes along and says : "I can prove to you that god did it! Look, see the eye and photosynthesis". It gets tireing.

 

[notto]

Many of the studies in there, do NOT show benificial mutations, they just show ADAPTATION. This can certainly be from silenced unused genes already in the genome.

Which are activated by . . . come on, say it with me.

Which study specifically does not show beneficial mutations and how did you come to that conclusion?

How do these changes take place if not for mutation? What mechanisms causes it?

 

[Tomk80]

Many of the studies in there, do NOT show benificial mutations, they just show ADAPTATION. This can certainly be from silenced unused genes already in the genome.

Adaptation of a population = evolution.

If there were silenced genes, they would still need a mutation to be activated. Take example 1. E. coli reproduces asexually. So all it's offspring are going to have the same genetic load, unless they have a mutation. If some adaptation to new environments occurs, it has to have come from mutations.

another point, even where there WERE positive mutations, they happend over 500-10000 generations. do you know how many years that is in human years? 5000-500000 years! and thats just for one to a small % of mutations! in an organism that has far far higher population. and has less sophisticated DNA repair mechanisms!

The diversitfication of humans and chimps happened 6 million years ago. It's not like we are evolving in a hurry or something.

isnt a good mutation defined by it giving an advantage?? even if it destroyed a protein, (that would be "bad") but if that protein enabled an antibiotic to kill the cell, then its still a "good" mutation.

I have no idea what a "good" mutation is supposed to be. There's just mutations. Some have beneficial, most neutral and some harmful effects. But that is determined by the environment, it is not a property of the mutation.

So why are there so many of the other kind around?

They are easily spotted, because they make things not work. That's also what makes them more interesting for medical research, so on top of being more easily spotted, they also receive more attention.

No one here thinks that. like another poster said, people here are smart and have been doing this for awile. Thats why _I_ came here...

Johnr7 has a repeated record of implying the very thing you are denying here. The problem arises from using the word "smart" in relation to Johnr7.

not exactly. its the same way pure evolutionist feel when some new creationist comes along and says : "I can prove to you that god did it! Look, see the eye and photosynthesis". It gets tireing.

I would really, actually, like to see someone actually addressing the list instead of using handwaving answers like you did above. I have yet to witness that.

 

[Chalnoth]

another point, even where there WERE positive mutations, they happend over 500-10000 generations. do you know how many years that is in human years? 5000-500000 years! and thats just for one to a small % of mutations! in an organism that has far far higher population. and has less sophisticated DNA repair mechanisms!

First of all, the 10,000 number was for a population of bacteria that were just allowed to grow in a neutral environment (i.e. one they had already adapted to), to find out about genetic drift. Don't forget that in each case the "500" or so generations was an upper limit: the particular mutation that was beneficial could have happened much sooner.

In every case where the bacteria were placed in a new environment, a beneficial mutation showed up within a few hundred generations (with the possible exception of the algae that started to form colonies: the number of generations for that mutation, which would likely have taken longer due to its significance, was not measured).

The bacteria in question also reproduce asexually, which means that for a significant change in the population over time, a series of beneficial mutations must happen in sequence. Then there's the fact that due to this asexual reproduction, each colony was very small for the first few generations, meaning that beneficial mutations are more likely in later generations.

Humans are different: we produce sexually. Thus beneficial mutations can be transferred to neighboring populations, allowing beneficial mutations to occur in parallel.

But whichever way you slice it, we are still talking about time scales of millions of years for evolution. Something on the order of 500,000 to 250,000 generations separate us from apes. That's a lot of time for a lot of beneficial mutations in a sexually-reproducing species.

 

[Apos]

Good grief, this isn't even a reasoanble thing on which to debate. It is IMPOSSIBLE for mutations to only ever be harmful. If they can cause harm, then they can cause benefit. It's the EXACT same process: it can't just do one and not the other.

Uncommon Descent's clais ludicruous. There are many many many different ways in which genetics could change that are utterly and totally inconsistent with random mutation. We don't observe any of these in actual life: that's telling. But just because something is never falsified in practice doesn't mean that it isn't falsifiable. Just because every Terminator is a murderer doesn't mean that it's impossible to prove that Terminators are murderers. That's idiotic.

 

[Gottservant]

That's what is crazy about evolution. Just because you find a skull doesn't mean you can't prove that skulls existed in a life of purpose.

I think the original post makes an excellent point, you just need to understand that it is an argument towards coherence and away from prediction following evidence.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's what is crazy about evolution. Just because you find a skull doesn't mean you can't prove that skulls existed in a life of purpose.

What does "a life of purpose" have to do with biology?