Random mutations

[Naraoia]

Overall fitness always degrades according to observation.

According to what observation?

Some temporary advantage may be gained.

After how many generations does an advantage stop being "temporary"?

 

[mark kennedy]

According to what observation?

After how many generations does an advantage stop being "temporary"?

It seems to me that it would be the second generation because of the tendency to revert back to the grandparent form. Even if there is a selective advantage the changes can be corrected because of the repair mechanisms that simply maintain the integrity of the genome.

Sooner or later you should consider the cost/benefit of an adaptation because with or without a selective advantage. the selective constraints on the requisite genes remains. What actually changes the genes, the process involved with fixing those changes permanently is where the focus should be.

The way these conversation turn down the first dark alley has always left me wondering if evolutionists are on the defensive, even when no one is attacking them.

BTW, really appreciated the paper you linked me to on brain development. I'm always finding these papers and certain themes begin to emerge.

In contrast, emerging evidence suggests epigenetics (e.g. DNA methylation, RNA associated silencing and histone modifications) is involved in the ability of environmental experiences to regulate the genome and to develop stable alterations in phenotype (Transgenerational Epigenetic Programming of the Brain Transcriptome and Anxiety Behavior)​

This whole business of epigenetics would seem to be the place to look. Common ancestry is far too sweeping and ubiquitous in TOE for simple random copy errors to play a significant role in major adaptive change. The question really isn't whether or not men evolved from apes, that's a foregone conclusion evolutionists are required to make. The real question is how adaptations happen, the molecular mechanisms that facilitate it and the stabilization process that permanently fix the trait expressed in the phenotype.

 

[CabVet]

It seems to me that it would be the second generation because of the tendency to revert back to the grandparent form. Even if there is a selective advantage the changes can be corrected because of the repair mechanisms that simply maintain the integrity of the genome.

You had me at "it seems to me". There is no tendency to revert back to grandparents. If there is a selective advantage the changes will not be corrected. Repair mechanisms act before selection by preventing change. Selection acts in changes already present in the population.

Sooner or later you should consider the cost/benefit of an adaptation because with or without a selective advantage. the selective constraints on the requisite genes remains. What actually changes the genes, the process involved with fixing those changes permanently is where the focus should be.

Mutations change genes. Selection or drift fix (or eliminate) them permanently.

The way these conversation turn down the first dark alley has always left me wondering if evolutionists are on the defensive, even when no one is attacking them.

We are not on the defensive, we are trying to answer your questions. The fact that we have answers does not equal being on the defensive.

BTW, really appreciated the paper you linked me to on brain development. I'm always finding these papers and certain themes begin to emerge.

In contrast, emerging evidence suggests epigenetics (e.g. DNA methylation, RNA associated silencing and histone modifications) is involved in the ability of environmental experiences to regulate the genome and to develop stable alterations in phenotype (Transgenerational Epigenetic Programming of the Brain Transcriptome and Anxiety Behavior)​

This whole business of epigenetics would seem to be the place to look. Common ancestry is far too sweeping and ubiquitous in TOE for simple random copy errors to play a significant role in major adaptive change. The question really isn't whether or not men evolved from apes, that's a foregone conclusion evolutionists are required to make. The real question is how adaptations happen, the molecular mechanisms that facilitate it and the stabilization process that permanently fix the trait expressed in the phenotype.

I wasn't the one who linked the paper, but it sounds interesting, so I will take a look.

As for the second part of your statement, you are mixing different mechanisms in the same bunch, but I will try to answer some of them.

1. Evolutionists are not required to assume that men evolved from apes; the evidence that we have supports it, big difference. If we found new evidence supporting a better hypothesis we would accept it, that is how science works. Right now the evidence we have supports men evolving with and from apes.

2. Adaptations happen because of the interaction between the genome and the environment.

3. The study of genome/environment interactions (i.e. epigenetics) is in it's infancy, the first whole genome was sequenced only 10 years ago. We need more evidence to draw any sort of well supported conclusion in this subject.

4. The processes that fix or eliminate mutations from populations are very well understood and are selection and drift, which in turn are influenced by migration and population size.

 

[Naraoia]

It seems to me that it would be the second generation because of the tendency to revert back to the grandparent form.

... you and I are having different conversations, I think...

In the case I was referring to (the Lenski E. coli experiment), fitness did show a consistent long-term increase (10 000 generations in those summary tables). I'm not sure what you mean by the tendency to revert back to the grandparent form, but it sure doesn't sound applicable here...

In any case, I was asking Zaius how many generations he'd need before he would consider such an observed fitness increase permanent. I wasn't asking how long a fitness increase lasts, because I knew that these ones lasted thousands of generations at least.

Even if there is a selective advantage the changes can be corrected because of the repair mechanisms that simply maintain the integrity of the genome.

Uh, what? I really can't imagine what you are referring to. Do you have any specific examples?

Sooner or later you should consider the cost/benefit of an adaptation because with or without a selective advantage. the selective constraints on the requisite genes remains.

If the selective constraint on the gene outweighs the advantage of a mutation, it's not really an advantage, is it?

What actually changes the genes, the process involved with fixing those changes permanently is where the focus should be.

That process is called natural selection Did you perhaps mean the mechanisms of overcoming pre-existing selective constraint?

The way these conversation turn down the first dark alley has always left me wondering if evolutionists are on the defensive, even when no one is attacking them.

The short answer is no

In contrast, emerging evidence suggests epigenetics (e.g. DNA methylation, RNA associated silencing and histone modifications) is involved in the ability of environmental experiences to regulate the genome and to develop stable alterations in phenotype (Transgenerational Epigenetic Programming of the Brain Transcriptome and Anxiety Behavior)​

This whole business of epigenetics would seem to be the place to look.

For what? I'd say epigenetics is certainly an interesting place to look in general, but I'm not sure how much novelty epigenetic mechanisms can contribute to evolution. Of course, at some point epigenetics and genetics become blurred together. For example, non-coding RNAs might act as epigenetic agents, but (barring experimentally injected small RNAs ) they are encoded in the genome, and mutations will directly affect their epigenetic activities.

Common ancestry is far too sweeping and ubiquitous in TOE for simple random copy errors to play a significant role in major adaptive change.

I recognise the words, but I can't make sense of this sentence.

The question really isn't whether or not men evolved from apes, that's a foregone conclusion evolutionists are required to make.

No one is "required" to make it. The evidence is out there, and yes, it's pretty much incontestable at this point.

The real question is how adaptations happen, the molecular mechanisms that facilitate it and the stabilization process that permanently fix the trait expressed in the phenotype.

I think that goes without saying. It isn't us who keeps disputing that they do in fact happen, though

 

[Naraoia]

3. The study of genome/environment interactions (i.e. epigenetics) is in it's infancy, the first whole genome was sequenced only 10 years ago.

The first mammalian genome, perhaps Phages were done back in the seventies. I believe the first animal genome to be published was C. elegans in 1998.

 

[CabVet]

The first mammalian genome, perhaps Phages were done back in the seventies. I believe the first animal genome to be published was C. elegans in 1998.

Oh, specifics Point being, only with the current and very new pyro-sequencing methodology we can start to think about sequencing multiple genomes and analyzing them side by side, for any animal.

Completely off-topic: Isn't it absolutely amazing that today the limiting factor for genomic research is computer power and not DNA sequencing?

 

[selfinflikted]

Completely off-topic: Isn't it absolutely amazing that today the limiting factor for genomic research is computer power and not DNA sequencing?

Yes! And processing power seems to grow exponentially every few years, so I doubt that this will be a limiting factor for too long.

 

[Naraoia]

Completely off-topic: Isn't it absolutely amazing that today the limiting factor for genomic research is computer power and not DNA sequencing?

Absolutely. As is the fact that you can assemble whole vertebrate genomes... from Illumina reads. Average read length fifty-two bases. Holy crap.

 

[CabVet]

Hey, with all of this discussion about fertility and mutation I remembered something very interesting, doesn't the Bible say that back in the day people lived hundreds of years and had 50+ children? Bring on the mutations, we can take many more!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am aware of the doctrine of random mutation, but I am not sure. Science changes it's mind from time to time. A while ago the universe began with a Big Biang, and now multiverse theory is becoming standardised.

Thank God for the prophetess Kate :

Katy Perry Hot N Cold (HDTV) - YouTube

 

[CabVet]

I am aware of the doctrine of random mutation, but I am not sure. Science changes it's mind from time to time. A while ago the universe began with a Big Biang, and now multiverse theory is becoming standardised.

Thank God for the prophetess Kate :

Well, it can't be a doctrine if it changes, can it?

 

[Naraoia]

I am aware of the doctrine of random mutation, but I am not sure. Science changes it's mind from time to time.

Is that your only reason for being "not sure"?

A while ago the universe began with a Big Biang, and now multiverse theory is becoming standardised.

As far as I know, the Big Bang is still regarded as the beginning of our universe in its current form, at least. Multiverse theories simply posit that there could be other big bangs and other universes outside our own chunk of spacetime. The BB merely went from being the whole picture to being just part of it.

(P.S.: Kate Perry forfeited all rights to my respect with California Gurls... )

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is that your only reason for being "not sure"?

No. Like I hinted, science is provisional. In the field of genetics epigenetic effects were not known of 50 years ago. Knowledge (or what is held to be knowledge) changes and advances. I think if I were to be sure mutation was randon, then I would have to be a specialist in the field of genetics and have clearly demonstrated scientific proofs. As a layman, I am just takling people's word for it to a certain degree. I don't think that warrants confidence in random mutation on the level of certainty or sureness. It would be overstepping the mark.

My reasonable doubt is not earth shattering though, because I am not an expert in the field. A certain level of doubt may well be more rational to me because I don't actually claim to know that much, and anything else might be pretentious, because I don't actually hold the credentials or qualifications which would possibly lead me to a rationally warranted degree certainty.

 

[CabVet]

No. Like I hinted, science is provisional. In the field of genetics epigenetic effects were not known of 50 years ago. Knowledge (or what is held to be knowledge) changes and advances. I think if I were to be sure mutation was randon, then I would have to be a specialist in the field of genetics and have clearly demonstrated scientific proofs. As a layman, I am just takling peoples word for it to a certain degree. I don't think that warrants confidence on the level of certainty. It would be overstepping the mark. My reasonable doubt is not earth shattering though, because I am not an expert in the field. Doubt may well be more rational to me because I don't actually claim to know that much, and anythink else might be pretentious.

So, what exactly are you not sure about? That mutation is random? This can be demonstrated, in real time, just ask Hiroshima survivors or the parents of kids with genetic defects.

 

[Naraoia]

So, what exactly are you not sure about? That mutation is random? This can be demonstrated, in real time, just ask Hiroshima survivors or the parents of kids with genetic defects.

I do see the point about GS not being an expert. The humility is quite admirable

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that doing science, experts speak of error bars and degrees of confidence ect. Then laypeople come along and say they can be equally sure of science as a scientist, even if the actual justification they are using (possibly just argument from authority) is different from the one the scientist is using (many years of detailed experimental work and theoretical study). I think epistemologically speaking that might be a little lax, and although scientific knowledge might be shared, all forms of knowing scientific truth are not equal.

Thanks to Naronia for the complement.

 

[Naraoia]

I think that doing science, experts speak of error bars and degrees of confidence ect. Then laypeople come along and say they can be equally sure of science as a scientist, even if the actual justification they are using (possibly just argument from authority) is different from the one the scientist is using (many years of detailed experimental work and theoretical study). I think epistemologically speaking that might be a little lax, and although scientific knowledge might be shared, all forms of knowing scientific truth are not equal.

Yes. But it's important to remember that you don't need a lifetime of study to understand the evidence presented by those who do the science. And I think so long as you have that understanding, you are not arguing from authority, and it's fair to say that you "know" what you claim to know.

Of course, an in-depth understanding of the evidence (i.e. certainty that equals an expert talking about their own field) requires you to read and digest the relevant papers, because that's where the data are, and that's where you can find any holes in the methodology that produced them. I would say that not even scientists read most papers at that level of detail unless they are directly relevant to our work. Simply not enough time in the world.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So, what exactly are you not sure about? That mutation is random? This can be demonstrated, in real time, just ask Hiroshima survivors or the parents of kids with genetic defects.

Go ahead, but I am not sure I will understand everything you say. And even if I do, what can you expect of a theist anyway? If my thinking is so sloppy in other areas, why presume I ought to have the capacity to grasp science at an adequate level. Is that not like asking a cat to swim?

 

[CabVet]

Go ahead, but I am not sure I will understand everything you say. And even if I do, what can you expect of a theist anyway? If my thinking is so sloppy in other areas, why presume I ought to have the capacity to grasp science at an adequate level. Is that not like asking a cat to swim?

Don't take me wrong, all I am asking is exactly what you not believe. If it's "evolution" in general it will be hard to convince you because it's a complicated subject and it would take some reading. But if it's random mutation, it's actually easy to demonstrate they do happen. And from your first post you gave the impression it was mutation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Don't take me wrong, all I am asking is exactly what you not believe. If it's "evolution" in general it will be hard to convince you because it's a complicated subject and it would take some reading. But if it's random mutation, it's actually easy to demonstrate they do happen. And from your first post you gave the impression it was mutation.

No thats wrong. I believe in random mutations, yeah I believe. From time to time anyway. But whether I know them to be randon is another thing. And why should a belief be sure if it is not a knowing belief? So therefore I ought not be sure they are random. That would be inappropriate sureness, certainty out of place. Hence "I'm not sure they are" is the right attitude for me.

I believe in various things from day to day. First its regular theism, then reincarnation, next I'm in a multiverse, then I'm a computer programme, next some sort of dream and then back to square one. With such an inconsistent set of habits and a carefree attitude I am not sure I can actually know that much because my general principles of approach are hardly that disciplined. So even if you teach me random mutation, I wouldn't suppose, and don't you suppose I know it or can surely believe it because such knowledge or rational confidence takes a certain type of psychological and behavioural attitude towards the world.

Plus there's the regular arguments like "science changes" etc.