Challenge/Offer To Bob B...

[TheLaughingMan]

Last weekend I wrote a small program that mutates a given gene into a target sequence given parameters such as genome size, population size, generation time, mutation rate, and selection coefficient. Basically it randomly inserts the gene into a genome of whatever size you specify. Then it starts to mutate the genome. Each mutation has a 70% chance of being an point mutation, a horrendously small chance of being a mutation in the actual gene (depends on the genome size you specify), and even smaller chance of being the right base. If the mutation happens to be a point mutation at the right base, it then has a 33% chance of mutating towards the target sequence (i.e. 1 / 3 chance to be the correct base mutation), and a (2 * selection coefficient) chance of being integrated into the genome. If it is actually incorporated into the genome, the program then runs a quick calculation to determine the number of years it would take to incorporate the gene into the entire genome given the population size, the selection coefficient, and the generation time. After it calculates the number of years necessary to insert into the genome, it begins the process all over again. This is done until the input gene matches the target gene. The output is the # of years / generations / total mutations / etc.

Then I wrote another program which takes the same parameters and simply does a statistical analysis -- no actual mutating of the genome. The predicted evolution rates and the actual evolution rates (given the above program) correlate very nicely.

The problem with running such simulations, as Bob b touched on, is that we must apply some selection criteria. And since we're not really using life-forms, reproductive success isn't really a viable option. Dawkins chose to use "anything towards the goal" as his selection criteria. If we were trying to apply his program as a real-life analogy, the assumption made is not that evolution works towards a specified product, rather evolution works as an algorithm towards a goal. That goal is increased reproductive fitness. Thus, with Dawkins program and in mine, the underlying assumption is that each mutation is a positive mutation (i.e. it must benefit the organism, or at least not harm the organism). Consider the following simulation of the evolution of a gene sequence.

TTT CTT CTG TTC AAG AAC ATC TCC TTG
TTT CTT CTG TCC AAG AAC ATC TCC TTG
TTT ATT CTG TCC AAG AAC ATC TCC TTG
TTT ATT CTG TCC AAG AAC ATC TCC TTA

Final sequence:
TTT ATT CTG TCC AAG AAC ATC TCC TTA

The assumption at each of those intermediate sequences is that it is working towards a goal. In my simulation, that goal is the target sequence. In real life, that goal is increased reproductive fitness. So while the program may spit out a number in the form of years (that sequence took 547 years to evolve in a population of 15000 organisms with 100k genes each replicating once a year with a mutation rate of one per replication), there is also the assumption that each intermediary stage is beneficiary. In real life, we are not guaranteed that. So a real simulation is actually very difficult to accomplish, because you to program a defined set of instructions or a guidelines by which to compare each intermediate form.

I don't know why I just ranted on about all that. Just wanted to tell you about my program and the difficulties of modeling natural selection.

Interesting, so what you're saying is bob's challenge should give us 547 letter changes to make a meaningful sentence

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Bob, your error is that you argue evolutionary theory and English sentence structure to be analogous. The glaring problem with your analogy is that the result of any genetic mutation, so long as the host organism survives and reproduces, IS a meaningful intermediate sequence (assuming descendents of this mutated organism also mutate [regardless of when the descendents mutate], hence the term "intermediate"). Therefore, an accurate analogy (in regard to evolutionary theory) would state that "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and 'QETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and, "QETHINKS IT IS LIKZ A WEASEL" are all meaningful intermediate sequences. This is because nature's only criteria of meaningful is "able to survive and reproduce". With the English sentence structure aspect of your analogy, there are a predetermined set of letter and word combinations (albeit extremely vast) that constitute a meaningful intermediate sequence. Therefore, maintaining a cohesive sentence or paragraph by changing one letter at a time is practically impossible (depending on the amount of changes you are making). In nature, while it is also rare that mutations prove to be beneficial to their host organism, it is not nearly as rare/impossible as your English sentence structure analogy, because the predetermined guidelines as to what constitutes a meaningful intermediate sequence are more feasible in nature than those for continually creating a cohesive sentence/paragraph.* As I have stated earlier, survival is the sole guideline. Now, if you deny that beneficial mutations occur, I will gladly present evidence to the contrary. However, your analogy fails to prove much of anything.

(EDIT) * Reason being: With regard to evolutionary theory, there is a general criteria of what constitutes a "meaningful intermediate sequence"; survival. Your sentence analogy, on the other hand, goes above and beyond this general criteria, and requires not only the general criteria, but also an additional predetermined criteria (it must remain a "meaningful" sentence by our predetermined standards of English sentence composition). Obviously your analogy would be nearly impossible in regard to evolutionary theory if the genetic mutations had to transform the organism into a "target organism", as your sentence structure example does. If you believe evolution is supposed to work in that manner, I am afraid you are greatly mistaken.

Very well articulated. bob b...awaiting your rebuttal.

 

[bob b]

Bob, your error is that you argue evolutionary theory and English sentence structure to be analogous. The glaring problem with your analogy is that the result of any genetic mutation, so long as the host organism survives and reproduces, IS a meaningful intermediate sequence (assuming descendents of this mutated organism also mutate [regardless of when the descendents mutate], hence the term "intermediate"). Therefore, an accurate analogy (in regard to evolutionary theory) would state that "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and 'QETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and, "QETHINKS IT IS LIKZ A WEASEL" are all meaningful intermediate sequences. This is because nature's only criteria of meaningful is "able to survive and reproduce". With the English sentence structure aspect of your analogy, there are a predetermined set of letter and word combinations (albeit extremely vast) that constitute a meaningful intermediate sequence. Therefore, maintaining a cohesive sentence or paragraph by changing one letter at a time is practically impossible (depending on the amount of changes you are making). In nature, while it is also rare that mutations prove to be beneficial to their host organism, it is not nearly as rare/impossible as your English sentence structure analogy, because the predetermined guidelines as to what constitutes a meaningful intermediate sequence are more feasible in nature than those for continually creating a cohesive sentence/paragraph.* As I have stated earlier, survival is the sole guideline. Now, if you deny that beneficial mutations occur, I will gladly present evidence to the contrary. However, your analogy fails to prove much of anything.

(EDIT) * Reason being: With regard to evolutionary theory, there is a general criteria of what constitutes a "meaningful intermediate sequence"; survival. Your sentence analogy, on the other hand, goes above and beyond this general criteria, and requires not only the general criteria, but also an additional predetermined criteria (it must remain a "meaningful" sentence by our predetermined standards of English sentence composition). Obviously your analogy would be nearly impossible in regard to evolutionary theory if the genetic mutations had to transform the organism into a "target organism", as your sentence structure example does. If you believe evolution is supposed to work in that manner, I am afraid you are greatly mistaken.

Justin,

I want to congratulate you for bringing up an extremely important feature of English language communication between two intelligent entities.

This feature is that of human beings to work with sentences which contain typos and "fill in" letters which are missing so as to determine what the sentence was really trying to say. Without the intelligent recipient of the message this would be extremely difficult to do, say with a computer program (although there would be ways that a clever computer programmer might use to get around this somewhat).

I wanted to bring this factor up myself, but avoided doing so earlier so as not to get too many "balls in the air" at once and create too much confusion before other more basic things had been more clearly seen.

The reason for bringing this up was to suggest that this factor may be related to how cells are able to edit out errors in DNA and so generate correct proteins even when the DNA is not perfect. In addition, errors in the final protein do not necessarily result in "no function" but instead in many cases may only result in a "reduced" function. Finally, there is redundancy in biological mechanisms which allow some function to be performed although at a reduced level.

Engineers are familiar with some analogous human engineered mechanisms and refer to them as "fail safe" and "fail soft". In some rare cases in biology a "fail soft" mechanism may actually permit a degraded mechanism to perform better and hence be labelled "beneficial". The classic case of this is of course "sickle cell anemia".

Now considering all of this, what we see in nature as "microevolution" may in fact be an example of "fail soft" at work. What we may be seeing is an ultra slow deterioration of genomes instead of an ultraslow improvement in genomes. The process may be too slow to be certain which is the case. Of course when the environment changes then those lifeforms in a non-uniform population (which is always the case, because no two lifeforms are ever perfectly identical) then natural selection may prefer a slightly different optimum creature and hence the population would slowly change over time to a new optimum point which favors a slightly different average creature. This could be called microevolution.

The real question then is how one gets to a creature that is very much different than the norm.

This is where the language analogy comes in.

If functional proteins (and their slightly altered siblings) are like English words (and their slightly altered garbles) then we would expect that functional proteins are fairly rare, just like meaningful semtences are fairly rare.

If it is difficult to get from one meaningful sentence to another without encountering vast regions of completely "unmeaningful" sentences, then it is probably difficult to get from one (small set) of functional proteins to a completely difficult set of functional proteins via random mutations of DNA (small changes), because there would be too many opportunities to encounter protein configurations which would not "fold" properly and hence would have no functionality at all.

The analogy of the English language with DNA (and ultimately proteins) is of course not an equality and hence is not "proof" that macroevolution cannot happen, but it does suggest that when more is learned about how proteins must fold in order to work (and hence how many good ones there might be compared to the number of bad ones) that surprises may be in store for those who believe that microevolution can be extrapolated to macrovolution because "what's to stop it"?

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

The real question then is how one gets to a creature that is very much different than the norm.

Bob, I already addressed this very question earlier in this thread...

"Small transformations around a given theme" create divergent evolutionary paths, i.e., common descent. As these new individual paths continue to make "small transformations around their given theme", more new individual paths are formed. This process continually repeats, and given enough time, the "end result" of one of the individual paths bears little resemblence to the original organism. Given the incredibly long period of time evolution has taken place on Earth (800 million+ years), it is perfectly reasonable to expect a wide variety of life forms.

If it is difficult to get from one meaningful sentence to another without encountering vast regions of completely "unmeaningful" sentences, then it is probably difficult to get from one (small set) of functional proteins to a completely difficult set of functional proteins via random mutations of DNA (small changes), because there would be too many opportunities to encounter protein configurations which would not "fold" properly and hence would have no functionality at all.

As I have stated repeatedly throughout this thread, evolutionary theory and English sentence composition are not analogous. With my last post, I even went into detail as to why the two are not analogous. That being said, your argument of "X is difficult/nearly impossible, therefore Y is difficult/nearly impossible" is of no meaning. Had you drawn a valid analogy, yes, it would be reasonable to conclude that Y is difficult/nearly impossible, but you have failed to do so (refer to my previous post).

However, to specifically address one of your misconceptions...

...it is probably difficult to get from one (small set) of functional proteins to a completely difficult set of functional proteins via random mutations of DNA (small changes), because there would be too many opportunities to encounter protein configurations which would not "fold" properly and hence would have no functionality at all.

If the protein configurations are not conducive to life/harmful to the organism, the organism will die. Back to the "drawing boards" . However, if the mutation is beneficial (or of no effect, which the majority of mutations are), the organism (and the descendents of the organism) will retain that beneficial mutation. Eventually, at some distant (or not so distant point in the future), further mutation will occur with the descendents of the already mutated organism. If this mutation is not conducive to life/harmful to the organism, and the organism will die. However, this does not mean that other descendents of the originally mutated organism will not eventually retain a new, beneficial mutation. And so the process continues...for millions, upon millions, upon millions of years. You are correct, there are many instances where the mutation is harmful to the organism, in which the organism is not able to survive. But unless that harmful mutation occurred within the entire population (which is incredibly, incredibly unlikely), there will be numerous other opportunities for the organism to retain a beneficial mutation. Time, my friend...time is the key to this entire process.

 

[bob b]

Bob, I already addressed this very question earlier in this thread...

Yes you did, but you only stated that there would be divergent paths. Of course that is true. But there is no assurance that any of the divergent paths would lead to anything, because there may be no possible paths that would continue to lead to a completely different type. Only if one assumes no blockages would such a scheme be successful in leading to a completely different creature. Gould showed that there are no intermediate forms or at least that they are extremely rare. This is evidence that such blockages do exist. It is like a maze which has no solution.

As I have stated repeatedly throughout this thread, evolutionary theory and English sentence composition are not analogous. With my last post, I even went into detail as to why the two are not analogous. That being said, your argument of "X is difficult/nearly impossible, therefore Y is difficult/nearly impossible" is of no meaning. Had you drawn a valid analogy, yes, it would be reasonable to conclude that Y is difficult/nearly impossible, but you have failed to do so (refer to my previous post).

I believe you have a misconception about the purpose of an analogy, which is only to suggest a line of reasoning that should be considered. You are correct that one cannot use an analogy to prove a point, but I wasn't doing that. I was using it to suggest a line of investigation, which is to examine proteins to see if they are similar to other languages in the fact that one can make small changes without completely destroying the meaning (function) but one cannot continue such a process and create completely different meaning (function). So far I have found that people committed to macroevolution
seem to emotionally resist considering this possibility with an open mind.

I was hoping that you might be able to overcome this emotional barrier. I suppose that it is very hard to do.

, to specifically address one of your misconceptions...

If the protein configurations are not conducive to life/harmful to the organism, the organism will die. Back to the "drawing boards" . However, if the mutation is beneficial (or of no effect, which the majority of mutations are), the organism (and the descendents of the organism) will retain that beneficial mutation. Eventually, at some distant (or not so distant point in the future), further mutation will occur with the descendents of the already mutated organism. If this mutation is not conducive to life/harmful to the organism, and the organism will die. However, this does not mean that other descendents of the originally mutated organism will not eventually retain a new, beneficial mutation. And so the process continues...for millions, upon millions, upon millions of years. You are correct, there are many instances where the mutation is harmful to the organism, in which the organism is not able to survive. But unless that harmful mutation occurred within the entire population (which is incredibly, incredibly unlikely), there will be numerous other opportunities for the organism to retain a beneficial mutation. Time, my friend...time is the key to this entire process.

Actually time may be the enemy of such a process, but let us grant all that you have said for discussion purposes. Natural selection works to eliminate those descent lines which are least beneficial, as you said.

But it may be easier to see this fallacy in your purely subjective scenario by considering orrganism types which have limited reproductive capacity, for instance primates. Assume a generation time of 20 years and average number of offspring at say six ( other numbers in these ranges would work equally well. Also make the usual assumption that the total population size is limited by food supply.

How many generations would there be in say a million years? How many offspring.

These numbers are not as big as some assume. There are a lot of changes to be sure, but if evolution is any guide, the vast majority of these are of no consequence because the population will tend to move only toward those lines which are the most beneficial to survival. Thus, focusing one's attention on the vast number of potential paths causes one to forget that natural selection will remove almost all of them, because they are less beneficial than the ones that are the most beneficial. The number of the almost good enough beneficial ones can never exceed the size of the total population, and in practice will be far less because the most beneficial one will predominate.

On the other hand if another line of descent accidentially, via a mutation, becomes the one that is the most beneficial then Natural Selection will start work toward eliminating the line which previously was the most beneficial. There is no guarantee however that this new line will not end up being blocked as well, or would essentially "run out of gas" and not be able to continue to progress any further. The evidence that this actually happens is in the fossil record where stasis is the rule rather than the exception, and also in artificial breeding where one can go only so far in enhancing a trait before it eventually cannot be enhanced any further.

The language analogy suggests that this happens in any language (It also happens in a computer language). The question then is "will this happen in the DNA language as well?"

I believe it will because if one examines the DNA in families of creatures, it is easy to see that there are small differences between creatures belonging to the genera, but huge differences when moving to the next higher levels of taxonomy.

If macroevolution were true, this would be hard to explain, although some, like Gould, have invented stories to try. His story is hard to believe because population geneticists tell us that evolution happens most rapidly in large populations whereas the Gould idea says exactly the opposite.

So the bottom line is that the analogy suggests a line of research (and this is the purpose of an analogy). If the number of functional proteins is relatively small compared to the number of possible proteins, and if the proteins that are functional are clustered around creature groupings like genera, then we have a phenomenon which explains why one can have what is called "micoevolution", but that what is called "macroevolution" is probably not feasible.

The frog is sitting on a grouping of lilypads that are close enough from one another so he can jump from one to another, but that other grouping of lilypads is way off in the distance so that he is forever constrained to jump around only on his relatively local "turf". In other words, the population of functional proteins is not distributed uniformily across "protein space". There is no question in my mind that this is the case, because the English language, as well as all other languages which are known, including computer languages, are structured this way. Is the language of life a unique exception?

 

[BillyBob]

bob b is a liar.

 

[BillyBob]

:mock: bob b [Liar]

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Yes you did, but you only stated that there would be divergent paths. Of course that is true. But there is no assurance that any of the divergent paths would lead to anything, because there may be no possible paths that would continue to lead to a completely different type. Only if one assumes no blockages would such a scheme be successful in leading to a completely different creature. Gould showed that there are no intermediate forms or at least that they are extremely rare. This is evidence that such blockages do exist. It is like a maze which has no solution.

Would you like to cite the Gould paper you are referring to?

I was using it to suggest a line of investigation, which is to examine proteins to see if they are similar to other languages in the fact that one can make small changes without completely destroying the meaning (function) but one cannot continue such a process and create completely different meaning (function).

We have been through this multiple times...

The glaring problem with your analogy is that the result of any genetic mutation, so long as the host organism survives and reproduces, IS a meaningful intermediate sequence (assuming descendents of this mutated organism also mutate [regardless of when the descendents mutate], hence the term "intermediate"). Therefore, an accurate analogy (in regard to evolutionary theory) would state that "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and 'QETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and, "QETHINKS IT IS LIKZ A WEASEL" are all meaningful intermediate sequences. This is because nature's only criteria of meaningful is "able to survive and reproduce".

To put it bluntly, THE LANGUAGES ARE NOT ANALOGOUS! To draw any conclusion based on a poor analogy borders on stupidity, especially after I have continually explained why the two are not analogous.

So far I have found that people committed to macroevolution seem to emotionally resist considering this possibility with an open mind.

I have no emotional attachment to macroevolution. The theory could be falsified tomorrow and I would lose no sleep. However, your are putting forth an invalid analogy, and expecting me to accept the comparisons you are drawing based on this flawed analogy.

There are a lot of changes to be sure, but if evolution is any guide, the vast majority of these are of no consequence because the population will tend to move only toward those lines which are the most beneficial to survival. Thus, focusing one's attention on the vast number of potential paths causes one to forget that natural selection will remove almost all of them, because they are less beneficial than the ones that are the most beneficial. The number of the almost good enough beneficial ones can never exceed the size of the total population, and in practice will be far less because the most beneficial one will predominate.

And if environmental conditions change and the most beneficial mutations (over a span of a million years) are those that adapt to this constantly changing/new environment, then what? The end result will be be vastly different than the original organism.

On the other hand if another line of descent accidentially, via a mutation, becomes the one that is the most beneficial then Natural Selection will start work toward eliminating the line which previously was the most beneficial. There is no guarantee however that this new line will not end up being blocked as well, or would essentially "run out of gas" and not be able to continue to progress any further. The evidence that this actually happens is in the fossil record where stasis is the rule rather than the exception, and also in artificial breeding where one can go only so far in enhancing a trait before it eventually cannot be enhanced any further.

Stasis and mutation are both widely represented in the fossil record.

There is no question in my mind that this is the case, because the English language, as well as all other languages which are known, including computer languages, are structured this way. Is the language of life a unique exception?

X implies N, Y implies N, therefore Z implies N? Sorry, but that argument is seriously flawed (as even you should be able to realize).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

bob b is a liar.

:mock: bob b [Liar]

If you continue these childish spam posts you will be banned.

Please move on and get over it.

Thanks!

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

By the way, I think you might enjoy the following information and link (courtesy of your favorite source for scientific information; Talk Origins)...

1) The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

2) The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997)

3) Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The fate of BillyBob.

 

[bob b]

By the way, I think you might enjoy the following information and link (courtesy of your favorite source for scientific information; Talk Origins)...

1) The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

2) The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997)

3) Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

Justin,

Richard Dawkins first suggested the analogy with language in his famous book The Blind Watchmaker.. He even went so far as to generate a computer program to illustrate how easy it would be for random changes plus selection to transform a random string of letters into a meaningful sentence. Many young people have been convinced by these things that evolution must be true, it is inevitable.

I pointed out flaws in his computer program and suggested what would be necessary to correct the flaws. I did not attack the concept of the analogy itself, because the purpose of an analogy is not to accurately mirror the real world, but merely to suggest a new line of thinking that then can be pursued independently from the analogy. In other words the analogy has done its job: a person has been jarred out of the rut of previous thinking and is more free to continue an investigation that will consider alternate concepts and possibilities.

Dawkin's analogy was successful in convincing a generation of readers that random mutations plus natural selection was a mechanism that would inevitably permit one type of organism to change into another. The hero in the story was time. In effect, given enough time anything can happen.

The modification was done in an effort to dispel the notion that random changes plus selection will inevitably lead to major changes. Or at a minimum to encourage people to try to keep an open mind about it and investigate such a bold claim more carefully.

So I ask you: do you believe that "random changes plus natural selection" is a mechanism that in the past has transformed one major type of creature into another, so that following this to its logical conclusion, all life must have descended from a single hypothetical protocell of some sort?

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

So I ask you: do you believe that "random changes plus natural selection" is a mechanism that in the past has transformed one major type of creature into another, so that following this to its logical conclusion, all life must have descended from a single hypothetical protocell of some sort?

Yes, I believe that because that is exactly what the multitudes of evidence indicate.

The modification was done in an effort to dispel the notion that random changes plus selection will inevitably lead to major changes.

I certainly wouldn't argue that random mutation and natural selection inevitably lead to major changes, that is silly. An entire species could be wiped out before any considerable mutation occurs. Also, without environmental pressure, it is very possible that a species could remain considerably similar to the original organism (even after extended periods of time). However, CAN random mutation and natural selection lead to major changes? Most definately, this is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. Ex: Nested hierarchies, anatomic and molecular vestiges, endogenous retroviruses, etc.

 

[supersport]

Yes, I believe that because that is exactly what the multitudes of evidence indicate.



I certainly wouldn't argue that random mutation and natural selection inevitably lead to major changes, that is silly. An entire species could be wiped out before any considerable mutation occurs. Also, without environmental pressure, it is very possible that a species could remain considerably similar to the original organism (even after extended periods of time). However, CAN random mutation and natural selection lead to major changes? Most definately, this is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. Ex: Nested hierarchies, anatomic and molecular vestiges, endogenous retroviruses, etc.

considering that evolution does not even proceed by mutation, it pretty much shoots your argument in the foot.

Computational and Analytical Molecular Evolution Lab

mutations are rarely if ever the direct source of variation upon which evolutionary change is based. Instead, they replenish the supply of variability in the gene pool which is constantly being reduced by selective elimination of unfavorable variants. Because in any one generation the amount of variation contributed to a population by mutation is tiny compared to that brought about by recombination of pre-existing genetic differences, even a doubling or trebling of the mutation rate will have very little effect upon the amount of genetic variability available to the action of natural selection. Consequently, we should not expect to find any relationship between rate of mutation and rate of evolution. There is no evidence that such a relationship exists.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

considering that evolution does not even proceed by mutation, it pretty much shoots your argument in the foot.

:chuckle:

Supersport, this thread is essentially an informal debate/discussion between Bob and I. Though I often disagree with Bob's arguments, the two of us are able to carry on a rational debate/discussion. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly proven that you cannot do so. You obfuscate. dodge, or completely avoid any challenge to your assertions, and simply declare your position to be correct. For this reason, I will not engage you in debate/discussion.

 

[bob b]

.... this is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. Ex: Nested hierarchies, anatomic and molecular vestiges, endogenous retroviruses, etc.

If one could find examples where a hierarchy is not nested, would this falsify evolution?

 

[supersport]

:chuckle:

Supersport, this thread is essentially an informal debate/discussion between Bob and I. Though I often disagree with Bob's arguments, the two of us are able to carry on a rational debate/discussion. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly proven that you cannot do so. You obfuscate. dodge, or completely avoid any challenge to your assertions, and simply declare your position to be correct. For this reason, I will not engage you in debate/discussion.

fine with me...I don't care if you respond to me or not. I will, however, point out the flaws in your argument. The flaw, in this case, is that evolution doesn't happen by mutation. Here is the link...I forgot to include it before.

http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/

 

[Johnny]

If one could find examples where a hierarchy is not nested, would this falsify evolution?

Nope. More likely that the classification is wrong, especially towards the ends where arguments rage yearly over who should be classified where. A major problem might pose a challenge though.

 

[Stripe]

So we evolved from shrews according to latest propoganda. A shrew's DNA might read like a PETA job application form whereas human DNA might read like a sordid novel. Can we change one letter at a time in the application form and retain readability as we progress from PETA form to a Jungle Gym construction manual to a critique of the Stallone film 'Daylight' to what we see in humanity today?

This analogy works for me.

Mostly because it doesn't work at all.

Sod off Jukia. Loser.

 

[Johnny]

This analogy works for me.

Mostly because it doesn't work at all.

Do you think that's the best criteria to select analogies with?