Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Guy Threepwood]

No, that's wrong, too. Immigration and emigration are also ways that can happen.

aka distribution as I mentioned: Immigration and emigration of what? pre-existing genes.. created by.. random mutation according to ToE.

Again, you can select exactly nothing into existence, you can only select what already exists, there is simply no way around this I'm afraid.

No. Lamarckism is quite different and did not involve natural selection, but rather a teleological process that most importantly promotes the idea that acquired traits would be inherited.

Darwinism also promotes the idea that acquired traits would be inherited, only spot the difference:
in Lamarkism the mechanism by which that trait is actually created is NOT random chance.

"According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law."

I'm not a creationist, but if you ask one why; if all the animals came from the same place (the ark) and in the same distribution, are they scattered unevenly around the globe? The answer is natural selection- certain environments will obviously favor different designs.

i.e. Natural selection is not in the least bit unique to ToE or controversial, unless somebody claims that you can somehow select something new into existence.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, that's wrong, too. Immigration and emigration are also ways that can happen.

aka distribution as I mentioned: Immigration and emigration of what? pre-existing genes.. created by.. random mutation according to ToE.

Right. So, as you just learned, it's not just mutation. It's also recombination of existing genes.

created by.. random mutation according to ToE.

That's how new genes form. But as you see, existing genes can also just recombine and that is also evolution.

Again, you can select exactly nothing into existence,

Hence random mutation and natural selection is what makes evolution work. And as you now realize, it's not a random process. Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels, showing that mutations don't arrive according to need, but rather do so randomly. Nevertheless, mutations are constantly being added to populations, so evolution has a very, very large number of them with which to work. Most of them don't do much of anything as far as selection goes. Some are harmful in a particular environment, and some are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

Darwinism also promotes the idea that acquired traits would be inherited

Darwin thought perhaps they would, but that is not part of his theory, and the idea was refuted when the discovery of genetics made it clear why Darwinian evolution happens.

I'm not a creationist, but if you ask one why; if all the animals came from the same place (the ark) and in the same distribution, are they scattered unevenly around the globe? The answer is natural selection- certain environments will obviously favor different designs.

No, that assumption won't work. For example when Australia and South America were isolated from the rest of the world, horses and wolves evolved in the the world, but the same environments in those isolated areas produced litopterns and thylacines that look and acted like horses and wolves but were not horses and wolves. There never was a worldwide repopulation from an Ark.

Natural selection is not in the least bit unique to ToE or controversial,

People before Darwin had some idea of this, but Darwin's great discovery was that it was, sufficient with random change, to effect evolutionary change.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Right. So, as you just learned, it's not just mutation. It's also recombination of existing genes.

which came to exist through? random mutation according to the theory- still no way around this one Barbarian

That's how new genes form.

Bingo- by random chance according to the theory, and this is unique to Darwinism,

Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels, showing that mutations don't arrive according to need, but rather do so randomly.

Exactly, the theory, uniquely, posits an entirely random process to originate all new genetic material. I think we have established this now.

Nevertheless, mutations are constantly being added to populations, so evolution has a very, very large number of them with which to work. Most of them don't do much of anything as far as selection goes. Some are harmful in a particular environment, and some are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

precisely, natural selection can only sort through what has already been created.
The creation itself is left entirely to random chance according to the theory.

Darwin thought perhaps they would, but that is not part of his theory, and the idea was refuted when the discovery of genetics made it clear why Darwinian evolution happens.

genetic traits come from random genetic mutations according to the theory, and would be heritable.

No, that assumption won't work. For example when Australia and South America were isolated from the rest of the world, horses and wolves evolved in the the world, but the same environments in those isolated areas produced litopterns and thylacines that look and acted like horses and wolves but were not horses and wolves. There never was a worldwide repopulation from an Ark.

well they use a different geological model, and we could probably both argue against that, but that's the point, natural selection is not the disputed mechanism here, the actual creation of that to be selected is.

People before Darwin had some idea of this, but Darwin's great discovery was that it was, sufficient with random change, to effect evolutionary change.

He titled his book

'Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'

Origin by Selection... As we have firmly established here, you can originate exactly nothing by selection. Something must first be originated to be selected/distributed- and a trillion years is not going to change this.

So ''Origin of Species by Means of Blind Chance' would have been a more descriptive and less paradoxical title, but I think his editor nixed it

 

[The Barbarian]

Bingo- by random chance according to the theory, and this is unique to Darwinism,

No. Even creationists admit that mutations are random. As you now realize, random mutations are acted upon by natural selection, making the process non-random.

Exactly, the theory, uniquely, posits an entirely random process to originate all new genetic material.

Nope. For example, creationists running "Answers in Genesis" admit that evolutionary theory is correct in saying that mutations are random.

precisely, natural selection can only sort through what has already been created.

New mutations are created by several different processes. This is why we see carnivores and thylacines evolving in different places. Same selective pressures produce the same sort of organisms, but the details are all different because of random mutations. And yet, over a relatively short time in Earth's history, both lands came up with the same general solutions from very different mutations with nothing more than random mutations and natural selection. God is a lot smarter and more capable than creationists think He is.

Acquired characteristics are not inherited. Darwin thought perhaps they would, but that is not part of his theory, and the idea was refuted when the discovery of genetics made it clear why Darwinian evolution happens.

genetic traits come from random genetic mutations according to the theory, and would be heritable.

But they aren't acquired. Acquired traits are those that aren't genetic but are picked up after birth. Like a tattoo or a missing limb. Thought you knew.

'Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'

Yep. That was his great discovery. It isn't random. Because you don't have any idea what Darwin's four points are, this is a mystery to you. Might be a good idea to find out, now.

Origin by Selection... As we have firmly established here, you can originate exactly nothing by selection.

That was Darwin's discovery. Natural selection acts on random changes in organisms, favoring the good ones and tending to remove the bad ones. And "good" and "bad" have meaning only in terms of the environment.

So ''Origin of Species by Means of Blind Chance' would have been a more descriptive and less paradoxical title,

You're still confused about mutation and natural selection. Remember, mutations are random, and natural selection is not. If you can just keep that in mind, it will be easier for you.

As I said, if you learned about Darwin's theory, some of your confusion would clear up.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're still confused about mutation and natural selection. Remember, mutations are random, and natural selection is not.

Correct, natural selection is not random, not in intelligent design, not in Lamarkism, not in Darwinism, not in creationism.

But only Darwinism relies on a random mechanism to produce everything selection has to select from.

 

[The Barbarian]

You're still confused about mutation and natural selection. Remember, mutations are random, and natural selection is not.

Correct, natural selection is not random,

Which was Darwin's point. So now you realize that Darwinian evolution is not random.

But only Darwinism relies on a random mechanism to produce everything selection has to select from.

Which is kinda like saying that the top saleman was just lucky to have run into people who were ready to buy. The process is so effective that (as you just saw) it was capable of producing similar body plans from completely different mutations. (horses and litopterns and carnivores and thylacines)

Those who would demote God to a mere "designer" are mystified by this, but it makes complete sense where God was an omnipotent Creator Who never had to "design" anything.

And if you find it odd that God could use randomness, you're just selling Him short yet again:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency'
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're still confused about mutation and natural selection. Remember, mutations are random, and natural selection is not.



Which was Darwin's point. So now you realize that Darwinian evolution is not random.

The bottom line is, it's not evolution at all if you don't introduce anything new at some point, that's stasis- that would be more like a fundamentalist Biblical perspective would it not?

So according to Darwinism; any actual evolution taking place must do so by a random mutation, and is therefore.. random

Which is kinda like saying that the top saleman was just lucky to have run into people who were ready to buy. The process is so effective that (as you just saw) it was capable of producing similar body plans from completely different mutations. (horses and litopterns and carnivores and thylacines)

Those who would demote God to a mere "designer" are mystified by this, but it makes complete sense where God was an omnipotent Creator Who never had to "design" anything.

And if you find it odd that God could use randomness, you're just selling Him short yet again:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency'
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

I think God uses randomness yes, natural selection, the distribution of pre-existing genes- even random mutations which cause problems, challenges & the motive to better understand God's work.

But those genes require the input of information before they can be subject to randomness, the capacity for anticipation of a specific result where "divine providence conceives" of a future event rather than simply reacting to past ones as natural processes do.

 

[The Barbarian]

The bottom line is, it's not evolution at all if you don't introduce anything new at some point

No, that's wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So can be a population fluctuating back and forth as conditions change. That's not stasis. It's a dynamic equilibrium. Stasis is when a population evolved to become very fit for a constant environment and then natural selection prevents much evolution from happening. This goes back to you not understanding what evolution is. You are also not very clear in your mind as to what the theory that describes it is.

So according to Darwinism; any actual evolution taking place must do so by a random mutation

No. For example, recombination would be evolutionary change, as would changes in the proportion of different alleles in a population. Neither requires mutation.

and is therefore.. random

No. A non-random process, acting on random processes, is a non-random process. I can give you an easy exercise you can do to learn about why that is so. Would you like to try it?

I think God uses randomness yes, natural selection, the distribution of pre-existing genes- even random mutations which cause problems, challenges & the motive to better understand God's work.

Natural selection, as you learned, is not random.

But those genes require the input of information before they can be subject to randomness,

Perhaps you don't know what information is. What do you think it is? Suppose there is a population of 100 organisms, 50 of which have allele a and 50 of which have allele A. No suppose a mutation occurs so that eventually 50 have "a", 30 have "A" and 20 have "α." The information is greater for this gene than it was (I can show you the math if you doubt this); from where did the "information" come to be "input" into the population?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, that's wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So can be a population fluctuating back and forth as conditions change. That's not stasis. It's a dynamic equilibrium. Stasis is when a population evolved to become very fit for a constant environment and then natural selection prevents much evolution from happening. This goes back to you not understanding what evolution is. You are also not very clear in your mind as to what the theory that describes it is.



No. For example, recombination would be evolutionary change, as would changes in the proportion of different alleles in a population. Neither requires mutation.



No. A non-random process, acting on random processes, is a non-random process. I can give you an easy exercise you can do to learn about why that is so. Would you like to try it?



Natural selection, as you learned, is not random.



Perhaps you don't know what information is. What do you think it is? Suppose there is a population of 100 organisms, 50 of which have allele a and 50 of which have allele A. No suppose a mutation occurs so that eventually 50 have "a", 30 have "A" and 20 have "α." The information is greater for this gene than it was (I can show you the math if you doubt this); from where did the "information" come to be "input" into the population?

And once again, according to the theory, the Alleles are created by.... random mutation.

And once again natural selection can only distribute what has already been created.

Obviously a human child may have a distinct combination of Alleles determining skin pigmentation, hair and eye color, height, blood type, etc but they are still 100% human, they do not represent an evolutionary progression towards anything other than another 100% human. The Alleles merely determine how certain genes are expressed. The misunderstanding of this, the interpretation of Darwinism that suggested everything is continually gradually evolving into something else- is what led to the horrors of eugenics. Certainly not to tar all Darwinist with that brush, but it is a very important distinction to make.

Variation within a species is an essential design feature to cope with varying environments, it cannot be extrapolated into a design mechanism for all biodiversity.

 

[The Barbarian]

And once again, according to the theory, the Alleles are created by.... random mutation.

And once again natural selection can only distribute what has already been created.

... as Darwin pointed out, it cannot be a random process. My offer for an exercise to show this fact to you remains open.

Obviously a human child may have a distinct combination of Alleles determining skin pigmentation, hair and eye color, height, blood type, etc but they are still 100% human, they do not represent an evolutionary progression towards anything other than another 100% human.

So you think Neanderthals were not 100% human? What about Cro-magnons, who were distinct from anatomically modern humans? How do you measure 100% human as opposed to say, 99% human. I'm curious as to how you think that works.

The Alleles merely determine how certain genes are expressed.

No. They are different versions of the same gene.

The misunderstanding of this, the interpretation of Darwinism that suggested everything is continually gradually evolving into something else- is what led to the horrors of eugenics.

No, that wouldn't work. First, Darwin wrote that to even allow weaker humans to die would be an "overwhelming evil." And Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that even the most Draconian eugenics program would take hundreds of years to remove even a few "inferior" alleles.

However, Hitler and American eugenicists like Institute for Creation Research co-founder William Tinkel, were enthusiastically in favor of restricting human reproduction (they did differ on tactics) to improve "the race."

This is one of the important differences between creationism and evolution. I would not tar all anti-Darwinians with that brush, but it is a very important distinction to make.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

... as Darwin pointed out, it cannot be a random process. My offer for an exercise to show this fact to you remains open.

Darwin also explicitly considered the source of all variation necessary for evolution to be random, the modern synthesis proposes random mutation to be the source of this random variation. But in either case... it's random. Don't take my word for it, I gave you a source earlier.

So you think Neanderthals were not 100% human? What about Cro-magnons, who were distinct from anatomically modern humans? How do you measure 100% human as opposed to say, 99% human. I'm curious as to how you think that works.

Well scientists can make genetic comparisons where the material is available, but it's still open to interpretation. Point being that mixing and matching already existing genes in a species is not evolution, certainly not in the Darwinian/macro sense.
You cannot get from a single celled bacteria like organism by mixing and matching it's genetic information, nor by mutating and destroying functions of the bacteria.

At some point you need vast amounts of novel functional genetic information, appearing in very short timescales during events like the Cambrian, that's where random chance becomes mathematically far more problematic than it seemed in the Victorian age the theory was born into, and why scientists today seek alternative explanations.

No. They are different versions of the same gene.

exactly, the same gene, which expresses differently depending on the particular 'version' of that gene or allele. Often because it has been broken by a random mutation- which is what random mutations tend to do.

No, that wouldn't work.

I'm glad we agree, but unfortunately Hitler and many followers thought it would, and that it was even morally justified for the 'greater good of society'

However, Hitler and American eugenicists like Institute for Creation Research co-founder William Tinkel, were enthusiastically in favor of restricting human reproduction (they did differ on tactics)

you think? My own grandparents fled Germany under it's National Socialist Party, lucky to escape with their lives, millions were not so lucky.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin also explicitly considered the source of all variation necessary for evolution to be random, the modern synthesis proposes random mutation to be the source of this random variation.

As I showed you, Darwin and his later followers showed that variation is random. However, as you just learned natural selection is not random and random variation acted on by natural selection results in non-random evolution. The offer to give you a way to test it for yourself is still open. Want to learn about it?

So you think Neanderthals were not 100% human? What about Cro-magnons, who were distinct from anatomically modern humans? How do you measure 100% human as opposed to say, 99% human. I'm curious as to how you think that works.

Well scientists can make genetic comparisons where the material is available, but it's still open to interpretation.

No. For example most people of non-African descent have Neanderthal genes. You think Europeans aren't 100% human? Maybe you've got a really bad idea what "100% human" means.

You cannot get from a single celled bacteria like organism by mixing and matching it's genetic information, nor by mutating and destroying functions of the bacteria.

The evidence shows that you're right. But not the way you'd like. Endosymbiosis, the evidence shows, is how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. The joining of several cells together produced our domain. For example, you have small bodies called "mitochondria" in all your cells. These little bacteria-like bodies have their own bacterial DNA and repreoduce on their own. But they cannot live outside your body and you cannot live without them. They are endosymbionts, and they are found in almost all eukaryotic cells. Chloroplasts in cells are like this, and there are other examples.

"So," you might ask, "is there any direct observation of such an endosymbiosis forming and becoming obligate for both cells?"

Turns out there is:
Journal of Cellular Physiology
Endosymbiosis in amoebae: Recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components

K. W. Jeon, M. S. Jeon

Abstract

A strain of large, free-living amoeba that became dependent on bacterial endosymbionts which had infected the amoebae initially as intracellular parasites, was studied by micrurgy and electron microscopy. The results show that the infected host cells require the presence of live endosymbionts for their survival. Thus, the nucleus of an infected amoeba can form a viable cell with the cytoplasm of a noninfected amoeba only when live endosymbionts are present. The endosymbiotic bacteria are not digested by the host amoebae and are not themselves used as nutritional supplement. While the host amoebae are dependent specifically on the endosymbionts, the latter can live inside amoebae of different strains, indicating that their dependence on the host cells is not yet strain specific.

More examples:
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae. | Semantic Scholar

At some point you need vast amounts of novel functional genetic information, appearing in very short timescales during events like the Cambrian

Happened over much less than a human lifetime. Directly observed.

exactly, the same gene, which expresses differently depending on the particular 'version' of that gene or allele. Often because it has been broken by a random mutation- which is what random mutations tend to do.

"Broken" seems an odd description for the evolution of a new function.

I'm glad we agree, but unfortunately Hitler and many followers thought it would, and that it was even morally justified for the 'greater good of society'

And creationists in this country. But Darwinists, as you see, pointed out that it wasn't only morally repugnant; it was scientifically mistaken.

Eugenicists used an incorrect and prejudiced understanding of the work of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel to support the idea of “racial improvement.”
Eugenics: Its Origin and Development (1883 - Present)

you think?

Yep. Punnett showed that it would take many generations of strict selection to remove even a few harmful recessives. And it now appears that some "harmful" alleles, including some that in homozygotes cause serious diseases, may also enhance intelligence. Which would put them for some Jewish populations in the same class as sickle cell gene in African populations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As I showed you, Darwin and his later followers showed that variation is random. However, as you just learned natural selection is not random and random variation acted on by natural selection results in non-random evolution. The offer to give you a way to test it for yourself is still open. Want to learn about it?

So you think Neanderthals were not 100% human? What about Cro-magnons, who were distinct from anatomically modern humans? How do you measure 100% human as opposed to say, 99% human. I'm curious as to how you think that works.



No. For example most people of non-African descent have Neanderthal genes. You think Europeans aren't 100% human? Maybe you've got a really bad idea what "100% human" means.



The evidence shows that you're right. But not the way you'd like. Endosymbiosis, the evidence shows, is how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. The joining of several cells together produced our domain. For example, you have small bodies called "mitochondria" in all your cells. These little bacteria-like bodies have their own bacterial DNA and repreoduce on their own. But they cannot live outside your body and you cannot live without them. They are endosymbionts, and they are found in almost all eukaryotic cells. Chloroplasts in cells are like this, and there are other examples.

"So," you might ask, "is there any direct observation of such an endosymbiosis forming and becoming obligate for both cells?"

Turns out there is:
Journal of Cellular Physiology
Endosymbiosis in amoebae: Recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components

K. W. Jeon, M. S. Jeon

Abstract

A strain of large, free-living amoeba that became dependent on bacterial endosymbionts which had infected the amoebae initially as intracellular parasites, was studied by micrurgy and electron microscopy. The results show that the infected host cells require the presence of live endosymbionts for their survival. Thus, the nucleus of an infected amoeba can form a viable cell with the cytoplasm of a noninfected amoeba only when live endosymbionts are present. The endosymbiotic bacteria are not digested by the host amoebae and are not themselves used as nutritional supplement. While the host amoebae are dependent specifically on the endosymbionts, the latter can live inside amoebae of different strains, indicating that their dependence on the host cells is not yet strain specific.

More examples:
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae. | Semantic Scholar



Happened over much less than a human lifetime. Directly observed.



"Broken" seems an odd description for the evolution of a new function.



And creationists in this country. But Darwinists, as you see, pointed out that it wasn't only morally repugnant; it was scientifically mistaken.

Eugenicists used an incorrect and prejudiced understanding of the work of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel to support the idea of “racial improvement.”
Eugenics: Its Origin and Development (1883 - Present)



Yep. Punnett showed that it would take many generations of strict selection to remove even a few harmful recessives. And it now appears that some "harmful" alleles, including some that in homozygotes cause serious diseases, may also enhance intelligence. Which would put them for some Jewish populations in the same class as sickle cell gene in African populations.

So in summary I think we have established some important points that we actually agree on:

Natural selection can select exactly nothing into existence.

That leaves an entirely random process to provide all new genetic information according to Darwinism.

Darwinists now openly concede that Darwinism falls short of explaining macro evolution at the largest scale, with other theories like endosymbiosis required to attempt to bridge irreducibly complex gaps in the theory, the question now is how far short it falls.

Humans interbred with Neanderthals, and so Neanderthals do not present the missing link that has proven elusive ever since Piltdown man.

Eugenics was directly inspired by Darwinism, but we both agree that it was not only morally repugnant but scientifically erroneous:
because the human genome is much harder to alter or 'evolve' into anything else than once thought.

 

[The Barbarian]

So in summary I think we have established some important points that we actually agree on:

Natural selection can select exactly nothing into existence.

So says evolutionary theory. Since natural selection by definition, acts on existing populations, that's always been obvious.

That leaves an entirely random process to provide all new genetic information according to Darwinism.

Yep. Contrary to IDer beliefs, mutations do not appear in response to need. It is true that in some cases, selective pressure can cause an increase in mutation rates, but that's not the same thing.

Darwinists now openly concede that Darwinism falls short of explaining macro evolution at the largest scale,

No, that's wrong. For example, the fossil record clearly shows that it does happen over a period of time. Would you like to see some examples?

with other theories like endosymbiosis required to attempt to bridge irreducibly complex gaps in the theory,

Actually, endosymbiosis was found before scientists realized that it would explain the evolution of eukaryotes. BTW, that was apparently a very difficult process; it took longer than almost any other major step in evolution. Which makes sense.

Humans interbred with Neanderthals

Neanderthals were humans. They are either of our own species or a very closely related species of human. They clearly were capable of interbreeding with anatomically modern humans. They seem really different to us, because there are no biological human races today. But they are humans in every way.

Eugenics was directly inspired by Darwinism, but we both agree that it was not only morally repugnant but scientifically erroneous:

Eugenics was merely an attempt by racists like Hitler and ICR co-founder William Tinkle to justify oppressing "inferior" people. As you know, Darwin derided it as an "overwhelming evil" even if it was no more than a justification for letting weaker humans perish, and later Darwinists showed that it was refuted by evolutionary theory.

because the human genome is much harder to alter or 'evolve' into anything else than once thought.

No. We see that happening constantly. What's really hard is to remove harmful recessives from the human genome. That was the target of eugenics, but evolutionary theory debunked the idea.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So says evolutionary theory. Since natural selection by definition, acts on existing populations, that's always been obvious.



Yep. Contrary to IDer beliefs, mutations do not appear in response to need. It is true that in some cases, selective pressure can cause an increase in mutation rates, but that's not the same thing.



No, that's wrong. For example, the fossil record clearly shows that it does happen over a period of time. Would you like to see some examples?



Actually, endosymbiosis was found before scientists realized that it would explain the evolution of eukaryotes. BTW, that was apparently a very difficult process; it took longer than almost any other major step in evolution. Which makes sense.



Neanderthals were humans. They are either of our own species or a very closely related species of human. They clearly were capable of interbreeding with anatomically modern humans. They seem really different to us, because there are no biological human races today. But they are humans in every way.



Eugenics was merely an attempt by racists like Hitler and ICR co-founder William Tinkle to justify oppressing "inferior" people. As you know, Darwin derided it as an "overwhelming evil" even if it was no more than a justification for letting weaker humans perish, and later Darwinists showed that it was refuted by evolutionary theory.



No. We see that happening constantly. What's really hard is to remove harmful recessives from the human genome. That was the target of eugenics, but evolutionary theory debunked the idea.

So we're right back where we started,

Natural selection can still create exactly nothing, it can only select what has already been created.
Leaving the creation and origin of all diversity in the biosphere down to literal pure blind chance-
according to the hypothesis.

While in reality, in stark contrast, we empirically observe these random errors to overwhelmingly destroy existing biological functions, not assemble new ones. Which is hardly surprising in a digital information system which is inherently unforgiving of errors.

Random variation certainly made sense in the Victorian age, back when a handful of 'immutable' laws + lots of time and space to bump around in, were all that were required to explain physical reality. Without knowing anything about the actual mechanism, of course it could be assumed that random changes had a half decent chance of improving an organism. So the actual mechanism of change , the very essence of evolution itself, was entirely overlooked in Origin of Species.

But not anymore, science has come a long way, & the lack of a viable creative mechanism is a problem that has only grown since the Victorian age inception.

 

[The Barbarian]

Natural selection can still create exactly nothing

No one said it did. You seem to be arguing with yourself. So we're right back where we started.

Leaving the creation and origin of all diversity in the biosphere down to literal pure blind chance-
according to the hypothesis.

But as you see, the results are not by blind chance. Whatever chance presented, natural selection was able to fit populations to niches for horses and carnivores. Even if the mutations weren't the same. So we see litoptern "horses" and marsupial "carnivores." God did a great job of pre-loading creation to handle this kind of thing. If you're an IDer, this should make you happy.

And as you know, God is quite capable of using random events to effect His will. Don't underestimate omnipotence. The offer is still there to give you a procedure to see why random events, acted on by non-random processes, produce non-random outputs. Would you like to try it?

While in reality, in stark contrast, we empirically observe these random errors to overwhelmingly destroy existing biological functions

No, that's wrong, too. The vast majority of mutations don't do much of anything. You have maybe 100 of them that were not present in either of your parents. This is one more example why it's important for you to know something about genetics if you want to talk about these things.

However, as we've discussed, there are many mutations that turn out to be quite useful, such as the nylon gene, the Milano mutation, Hemoglobin C, and so on. Should we go over them, again?

Without knowing anything about the actual mechanism, of course it could be assumed that random changes had a half decent chance of improving an organism. So the actual mechanism of change , the very essence of evolution itself, was entirely overlooked in Origin of Species.

That's the interesting thing about it. Ironically, Mendel sent his work to Darwin, who apparently never got around to reading the paper. It would have solved a huge problem for his theory. You see, people thought heredity was in the blood, and mating was like mixing paint. So Darwin had a real problem with the question about how a new trait survived. If people were right about heredity, it would be like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white. No way for natural selection to work on that. But then Mendel discovered that it was more like sorting beads than like mixing paint. And genetics rescued Darwin's theory.

Genetics made it clear how evolutionary change works on the molecular level. And that was reinforced by the discovery of DNA function which again confirmed evolutionary theory. Science has come a long way, and the creative process in evolution is now understood.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, that's wrong, too. The vast majority of mutations don't do much of anything. You have maybe 100 of them that were not present in either of your parents. This is one more example why it's important for you to know something about genetics if you want to talk about these things.

This is an often repeated misunderstanding so it's worth expanding on.

For starters it is worth noting that the definition of 'neutral' regarding mutations is usually something like 'not significantly deleterious' in that it is not directly observed to have a significantly deleterious effect to the point of being eliminated by selection, And therein lies a crucial limitation of the power of the selection process:
In that it cannot eliminate those non selectable slightly deleterious mutations which would vastly outnumber non selectable slightly beneficial ones, and accrue over time.
This in direct contrast to the Darwinian notion of incrementally accruing slight benefits over time.

But other than that, it can certainly be neutral if you are mutating genes that are already broken and/or non coding. In which case it is perfectly true to say that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious to functional genes. (obviously it's difficult to make a broken or non coding gene even less useful than it already is)

i.e. It's a little like saying most random alterations to cars don't make much difference to their performance... in a salvage yard full of broken cars.

In some cases mutating a gene can alter a codon (group of three nucleotides)
into another codon which codes for the same amino acid, as there is some redundancy in the number of codons that code for the same amino acid.

But mutations in functional genes still overwhelmingly destroy the function because functional gene sequences are very sensitive to errors.
It's largely down to the way amino acids fold in relation to each other to create proteins. It's a lot like directions which tell you which intersections at which to turn left, right, go straight or make a U turn.

If one of those directions is incorrect or missing, any subsequent ones will also be rendered incorrect. This is why destroying the function of a gene by random error is a lot easier than repairing it, far less assembling it in the first place. And this is born out in direct observation of variation by mutation being caused by old genes being accidentally broken v new genes being accidentally assembled.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is an often repeated misunderstanding so it's worth expanding on.

No, it's quite true that most people have about 100 mutations, and that none of them will cause any significant harm or benefit in their lives. You were misled about that.

For starters it is worth noting that the definition of 'neutral' regarding mutations is usually something like 'not significantly deleterious' i

Almost. "Not significantly beneficial or deleterious." It's true that some do provide some incremental benefit or harm, depending on the environment.

And therein lies a crucial limitation of the power of the selection process:

In that it cannot eliminate those non selectable slightly deleterious mutations which would vastly outnumber non selectable slightly beneficial ones, and accrue over time.

No, that's wrong, too. The misconception is that there are mutations that are inherently "good" and those that are inherently "bad." But for many reasons, they aren't like that. Neutral mutations tend to be good or bad depending on the individual, the environment and the other genes the person has. It's more interesting and complicated than you imagine. Further, such mutations tend to be recessive, so that they are only expressed when one has two copies of them.

And contrary to your assumption, all of us have many harmful recessives. It's why you don't marry a close relative. BTW, there are species with very few harmful recessives. Turns out they inbreed as a regular thing. I think you could probably see why they have few harmful recessives.

This in direct contrast to the Darwinian notion of incrementally accruing slight benefits over time.

Nope. You see epistasis is a thing for useful mutations as well.

. 2011 Jun;7(6):e1002075. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002075. Epub 2011 Jun 2.
Epistasis between beneficial mutations and the phenotype-to-fitness Map for a ssDNA virus

But other than that, it can certainly be neutral if you are mutating genes that are already broken and/or non coding. In which case it is perfectly true to say that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious to functional genes.

No, that's wrong, too. Ironically, one important source of new genes, is mutation of non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA" or "broken genes."

A new study from researchers at the University of California, Davis, published Jan. 23 in Science Express, shows that new genes are created from non-coding DNA more rapidly than expected.

"This shows very clearly that genes are being born from ancestral sequences all the time," said David Begun, professor of evolution and ecology at UC Davis and senior author on the paper.

Geneticists have long puzzled about how completely new genes appear. In a well-known model proposed by geneticist Susumu Ohno, new functions appear when existing genes are duplicated and then diverge in function. Begun's laboratory discovered a few years ago that new genes could also appear from previously non-coding stretches of DNA, and similar effects have since been discovered in other animals and plants.
New genes spring from non-coding DNA

i.e. It's a little like saying most random alterations to cars don't make much difference to their performance... in a salvage yard full of broken cars.

If you think a car is a good model for a living organism. However, engineers have learned to solve problems to difficult for design, by copying evolutionary processes:

SAE International
2003-05-19
Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR,Injection Timing and Multiple Injections 2003-01-1853
The present study extends the recently developed HIDECS-GA computer code to optimize diesel engine emissions and fuel economy with the existing techniques, such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and multiple injections.

Genetic algorithms mimic biology to find optimal solutions. The program starts with a feasible but non-optimal solution and then generates several others with "mutations." Those with mutations that improve function are retained for the next generation,when each produces new solutions with mutations. Eventually, the process converges on an optimal solution.

Just like in biology.

But mutations in functional genes still overwhelmingly destroy the function because functional gene sequences are very sensitive to errors.

You've been misled about that, too. Most mutations in a protein don't affect it's biological function at all:
The first way this happens is in a same-sense mutation where the new codon still codes for the same amino acid. The other way it happens is when the different amino acid doesn't significantly change the 3-dimensional form of the protein.

Or it could increase or slow the activity of the protein, and both effects can be useful or harmful in organisms. And this is born out of direct observation of such changes. The nylon mutation appeared in that way. So did the lac operon in Dr. Hall's bacteria. And since there are often duplicate copies of genes one's genome, it is not a problem of one copy changes.

It's more interesting and complicated than you imagine.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it's quite true that most people have about 100 mutations, and that none of them will cause any significant harm or benefit in their lives. You were misled about that.



Almost. "Not significantly beneficial or deleterious." It's true that some do provide some incremental benefit or harm, depending on the environment.



No, that's wrong, too. The misconception is that there are mutations that are inherently "good" and those that are inherently "bad." But for many reasons, they aren't like that. Neutral mutations tend to be good or bad depending on the individual, the environment and the other genes the person has. It's more interesting and complicated than you imagine. Further, such mutations tend to be recessive, so that they are only expressed when one has two copies of them.

And contrary to your assumption, all of us have many harmful recessives. It's why you don't marry a close relative. BTW, there are species with very few harmful recessives. Turns out they inbreed as a regular thing. I think you could probably see why they have few harmful recessives.



Nope. You see epistasis is a thing for useful mutations as well.

. 2011 Jun;7(6):e1002075. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002075. Epub 2011 Jun 2.
Epistasis between beneficial mutations and the phenotype-to-fitness Map for a ssDNA virus



No, that's wrong, too. Ironically, one important source of new genes, is mutation of non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA" or "broken genes."

A new study from researchers at the University of California, Davis, published Jan. 23 in Science Express, shows that new genes are created from non-coding DNA more rapidly than expected.

"This shows very clearly that genes are being born from ancestral sequences all the time," said David Begun, professor of evolution and ecology at UC Davis and senior author on the paper.

Geneticists have long puzzled about how completely new genes appear. In a well-known model proposed by geneticist Susumu Ohno, new functions appear when existing genes are duplicated and then diverge in function. Begun's laboratory discovered a few years ago that new genes could also appear from previously non-coding stretches of DNA, and similar effects have since been discovered in other animals and plants.
New genes spring from non-coding DNA



If you think a car is a good model for a living organism. However, engineers have learned to solve problems to difficult for design, by copying evolutionary processes:

SAE International
2003-05-19
Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR,Injection Timing and Multiple Injections 2003-01-1853
The present study extends the recently developed HIDECS-GA computer code to optimize diesel engine emissions and fuel economy with the existing techniques, such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and multiple injections.

Genetic algorithms mimic biology to find optimal solutions. The program starts with a feasible but non-optimal solution and then generates several others with "mutations." Those with mutations that improve function are retained for the next generation,when each produces new solutions with mutations. Eventually, the process converges on an optimal solution.

Just like in biology.



You've been misled about that, too. Most mutations in a protein don't affect it's biological function at all:
The first way this happens is in a same-sense mutation where the new codon still codes for the same amino acid. The other way it happens is when the different amino acid doesn't significantly change the 3-dimensional form of the protein.

Or it could increase or slow the activity of the protein, and both effects can be useful or harmful in organisms. And this is born out of direct observation of such changes. The nylon mutation appeared in that way. So did the lac operon in Dr. Hall's bacteria. And since there are often duplicate copies of genes one's genome, it is not a problem of one copy changes.

It's more interesting and complicated than you imagine.

Actually, no- the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious to function versus beneficial is hardly even controversial among scientists today, and the reasons are well understood. Any other impression you have been given is just misleading.

https://biologywise.com › what-does-deleterious-mutation-mean
What Does Deleterious Mutation Mean? - Biology Wise
Most mutations in organisms are deleterious by nature.
"when considering population genetics, mutations are usually deleterious in nature; very few are beneficial or neutral."

because there will always be infinitely more ways to degrade functional design rather than improve on it by random error, and there is really no way around this. Labeling some errors 'not really all that harmful' doesn't change the direction of entropy.

The other way it happens is when the different amino acid doesn't significantly change the 3-dimensional form of the protein.

well no, that's just yet another example of a mutation that is a degradation of the original design, accumulate enough of those errors and you do destroy function. Even if the effect is not immediately significant, you are still overwhelmingly turning the process towards devolution, destruction of existing function, not assembly of new function.

Slight random degradation of your tires or roof shingles is not immediately harmful, but this process of degradation cannot be used to build new tires and roofs- it will ultimately lead to complete destruction of the design.

And yes there are many similarities to human engineering, especially regarding the hierarchical digital information systems employed in DNA and the software you are using right now.

Ultimately we do know how such systems can be created, we have many examples, we just don't know how they can be created by purely naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it's quite true that most people have about 100 mutations, and that none of them will cause any significant harm or benefit in their lives. You were misled about that.

Almost. "Not significantly beneficial or deleterious." It's true that some do provide some incremental benefit or harm, depending on the environment.

Actually, no- the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious to function versus beneficial is hardly even controversial among scientists today, and the reasons are well understood.

Sorry, you're just wrong. It's highly unlikely that any of the maybe 100 mutations you have (which were not present in either of your parents) will cause you any grief at all. Probably won't help you significantly either. If you were right, we'd all have problems with those mutations. And most of us clearly don't.

https://biologywise.com › what-does-deleterious-mutation-mean
What Does Deleterious Mutation Mean? - Biology Wise
Considering the vast timeline of the existence of life on Earth, the amount of accumulated mutations is staggering. To put this in perspective, if we consider humans, each generation includes 100 new errors into the human genome, and at the current population growth rate, each generation of humans on the entire planet has a cumulative 100 billion mutations. Over the years, this vast aggregation of mutations has provided the raw material for the development of various genetic alleles, which increase the genetic variation and diversity, thereby providing the groundwork for the process of evolution and natural selection.

Despite the usefulness of mutations with respect to genetic variability, not all of them are desirable with regards to the overall fitness of the organism. Hence, they are segregated into three types: neutral, beneficial, and deleterious. Neutral mutations have no observable effect on the organism. They merely increase the genetic variation. Beneficial mutations provide the organism with a vital advantage for its survival and proliferation. Finally, deleterious mutations, as the name suggests, pose a threat to the fitness of the organism, as they have harmful effects of the general health of the organism. In general, when considering population genetics, mutations are usually deleterious in nature; very few are beneficial or neutral.

There's an easy way to test this. I don't have any alleles that have given me any health problems. How many have caused you health problems? By you own definition, harmful mutations must have harmful effects on the health of one having them.

You've confused individual genomes with population genomes.

You've been misled about that, too. Most mutations in a protein don't affect it's biological function at all:
The first way this happens is in a same-sense mutation where the new codon still codes for the same amino acid. The other way it happens is when the different amino acid doesn't significantly change the 3-dimensional form of the protein.

Or it could increase or slow the activity of the protein, and both effects can be useful or harmful in organisms. And this is born out of direct observation of such changes. The nylon mutation appeared in that way. So did the lac operon in Dr. Hall's bacteria. And since there are often duplicate copies of genes one's genome, it is not a problem if one copy changes.

It's more interesting and complicated than you imagine.

well no,

Everything seems simple if you don't know much about it. It is that complicated.

that's just yet another example of a mutation that is a degradation of the original design,

The thing is, the mutated enzyme (for example) initially had a very,l very tiny effect on the chemical bonds of nylon. Would take hundreds of years to work on even a small amount of substrate. Essentially useless. And then a mutation changed the enzyme so that it was effective on nylon oligomers. Suddenly, natural selection quickly spread the mutation through the population and then by conjugation into other species of bacteria. No point in denial. If you want to call that "degradation", you could, but it is certainly a useful mutation that quickly gave some bacteria a huge advantage over others. The people with the Milano mutation have a mutated Apolipoprotein that just works better than the normal version in helping to remove plaque from arteries. The gene isn't damaged at all. The protein it codes for, just works better with this mutation.

Would you like to see some other examples?

Slight random degradation of your tires or roof shingles is not immediately harmful,

But the immediate mutation of the Milano allele provided an instant improvement over the normal allele. People with this mutation don't get hardening of the arteries and often live to be over 100.

And yes there are many similarities to human engineering, especially regarding the hierarchical digital information systems employed in DNA and the software you are using right now.

As you see, evolutionary processes can be copied by engineers to solve very difficult problems:

Genetic algorithms mimic biology to find optimal solutions. The program starts with a feasible but non-optimal solution and then generates several others with "mutations." Those with mutations that improve function are retained for the next generation,when each produces new solutions with mutations. Eventually, the process converges on an optimal solution.

Just like in biology. Remarkable system, and copied from nature.

God is a lot smarter than creationists would like Him to be.