Darwin's Illusion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you don’t accept the source, you must provide a credible source that refutes it not merely some subjective opinion.

I'm not interested in researching your source. Your claim was that all of the theory of evolution has been overturned. Explain in your own words how the idea of natural selection applied to genetic variation over time in living populations leading to the tree of life we find today has been overturned.

You cannot equate the alleged evolution of the living to the material change of the nonliving

I don't know what you mean by equate, but matter had to evolve into the prebiotic earth in order for abiogenesis (chemical evolution) to occur.

There is no route that gives rise to the alleged vast change or increase of new genetic info that is required for the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, i.e., macroevolution.

You've made this claim to me, but it's an ignorantium fallacy. Add the word "known" as in "no known route," and the statement is correct. The precise pathways haven't been elucidated and may never be, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't or didn't happen.

Wordplay such as “an epiphenomenon of physical reality” wouldn’t resolve the contradiction.

Wordplay? That's the position of materialism regarding the relationship of mind and matter. It's one of four logically possible relationships between A and B if A (mind) and B (matter) both exist: A derives from B (materialism), B derives from A (idealism), they both derive from C (neutral monism), and they are unrelated (Cartesian dualism).

You argue that consciousness is somehow an outcome of a physical process

No, I don't, and I don't know how to correct that error. I've already explained the way in which that is incorrect. Shall I do it again? My limit is twice.

Per your perspective, is there a mechanism that gives rise to consciousness (as the final outcome)? What is the nature of that mechanism? Is it physical or non-physical/supernatural?

None of that is answerable at this time.

Is there any other option?

I listed the four logical possibilities above.

Yet, you cannot postulate that physical processes don’t imply consciousness and at the same time claim that consciousness is somehow an outcome of some physical mechanisms.

I will correct this just once more. Please take note here. I cannot tell directly whether any other entity but myself is conscious. I don't seriously doubt that other people and the more evolved beasts are conscious, but it's only an irresistible intuition and not something I can demonstrate just by observing material bodies. It is in this sense that, "physical processes don’t imply consciousness." Also, mind MAY be "an outcome of some physical mechanism." Please assimilate that and rebut if you can. Explain how one can know that other apparently conscious agents are conscious by observing their "physical processes" and why mind cannot be an epiphenomenon of matter.

Please cut-and-paste this reply, and the next time you feel like writing that sentence, refer to this then.

Statistically significant observations of responses with high level of appropriateness are evidence of consciousness.

Yes, but not direct evidence and not conclusive. There is no solution to the other minds problem.

That perspective is deficient in the sense that it requires a preprogrammed appropriate response to every possible stimulus. IOW, it takes “conscious decision-making” out of the equation by assuming endless preprogrammed appropriate responses (similar to a robot) rather than conscious decision-making.

That's an argument for why robots aren't conscious, but one again, not conclusive. One can never say what the inner life of a robot is if any: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? - Wikipedia

You would treat robots with kindness, dignity, and respect; you assume it may be conscious, yet you doubt the consciousness of living systems!! What a confusion!

I don't see any inconsistency there. It may be conscious and maybe not. Either way, it pleases me to treat it like it's conscious, and it would pain me to treat it abusively even if it were unconscious.

Change in DNA sequence is not equal to new genes. Mutation creates slightly different versions of the same genes, called alleles. Not new genes.

New genes result from changes in DNA. I think you're heading into sorites paradox territory. We see this when we discuss the first humans, for example. Once people didn't exist and now they do. What creature was the first human being? What non-human mother delivered a human baby? The question can't be answered, because human being is an imprecise predicate. "New gene" is an imprecise predicate.

 

[shunyadragon]

As usual, you don't know what the context was and based on your understanding or rather misunderstanding of the context, you start making some irrelevant comments or accusations that are actually nonsensical regardless of what the context was. Please make some effort to understand the context before you comment.

The specific point in question was not about what scientific knowledge demonstrates today, not about physical brain, not about intelligence and not about consciousness? The point was simply about whether a specific claim about Darwin, (which was initially made by @Neuropterons) is true or false. That’s it. Nothing else.

But regardless of any claims about Darwin, if your concern is what new scientific advances demonstrates today, then latest scientific advances (Modern Genomics/ Molecular Biology) disproved the central assumptions of the “Modern Synthesis” as explained many times and supported by multiple sources.

Please understand that empty subjective assertions have no value, if you disagree with the conclusions of these sources, you must provide credible sources that refute it.

Claims about Darwin are meaningless in today's science.

The above bold is false big time. You need to explain your argument better in terms of today's knowledge.

What are your specific objections to what is called modern synthesis in terms of the present knowledge of science and not what Darwin and Pasteur believed in the 19th century? Scientific references please.

If you read the following reference carefully you will understand 'Modern Synthesis in terms of today's knowledge.

A New Evolutionary Synthesis - Developmental Biology - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What is modern synthesis of evolutionary theory?

Modern Synthesis has been one of the greatest intellectual achievements of biology. By merging the traditions of Darwin and Mendel, evolution within a species could be explained: Diversity within a population arose from the random production of mutations, and the environment acted to select the fittest phenotypes.

Not only could the Modern Synthesis explain evolution within a species remarkably well, it also explained medically relevant questions such as why certain alleles that seem deleterious (the hemoglobin gene variant that can result in sickle cell anemia, for example) might be selected for in certain populations. The population genetic approach to evolution was summed up by one of its foremost practitioners and theorists, Theodosius Dobzhansky, when he declared, “Evolution is a change in the genetic composition of populations. The study of the mechanisms of evolution falls within the province of population genetics” (Dobzhansky (1951).

The developmental approach to evolution was excluded from the Modern Synthesis (Hamburger 1980; Gottlieb 1992; Dietrich 1995; Gilbert et al. 1996). It was thought that population genetics could explain evolution, so morphology and development were seen to play little role in modern evolutionary theory (Adams 1991). In other words, macroevolution (the large morphological changes seen between species, classes, and phyla) could be explained by the mechanisms of microevolution, the “differential adaptive values of genotypes or deviations from random mating or both these factors acting together” (Torrey and Feduccia 1979).

In his review of evolution in 1953, J. B. S. Haldane expressed his thoughts about evolution with the following developmental analogy: “The current instar of the evolutionary theory may be defined by such books as those of Huxley, Simpson, Dobzhansky, Mayr, and Stebbins [the founders of the Modern Synthesis]. We are certainly not ready for a new moult, but signs of new organs are perhaps visible.” This recognition of developmental ideas “points forward to a broader synthesis in the future.” We have finally broken through the old pupal integument, and a new, broader, developmentally inclusive evolutionary synthesis is taking wing.

Note:
One change in recent years is that the production of mutations is not considered random, but occurs within the range of cause-and-effect outcomes is fractal based on Chaos Theory

 

[shunyadragon]

No, that is oversimplification. Change in DNA sequence is not equal to new genes. Mutation creates slightly different versions of the same genes, called alleles. Not new genes. New information (that is required for the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, i.e. macroevolution) is necessarily new genes not merely gene variants/alleles (of the same genes). Mutations are mostly rare duplication errors that cause genetic diseases not favorable trait.

What is Mutation? (utah.edu)

Mutation (genome.gov)

Your reference is good, but your statement above is confusing and misleading in part based on bad terminology. Yes mutations do not lead to new genes. Genes in and of themselves DO NOT cause in general genetic diseases nor are they necessarily 'not favorable traits.' Mutations may result in neutral, beneficial, unfavorable traits, or harmful results. It is actually most often the combination of mutations in the gene pool of a population over time that determines whether they are neutral, beneficial, or harmful. Yes some mutations may be harmful and the individuals simply do not survive or reproduce as a result of the mutation. Mutations are not rare.

You need to reread your source and represent it better in terms of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your reference is good, but your statement above is confusing and misleading in part based on bad terminology. Yes mutations do not lead to new genes. Genes in and of themselves DO NOT cause in general genetic diseases nor are they necessarily 'not favorable traits.' Mutations may result in neutral, beneficial, unfavorable traits, or harmful results. It is actually most often the combination of mutations in the gene pool of a population over time that determines whether they are neutral, beneficial, or harmful. Yes some mutations may be harmful and the individuals simply do not survive or reproduce as a result of the mutation. Mutations are not rare.

You need to reread your source and represent it better in terms of science.

He made the error of claiming "No new genetic information" when ever single mutation is "New information" by definition. Once he as much as admitted that mutations were new information his argument fell apart. It was just a variation on the 'Natural selection cannot introduce new traits" or "variation cannot generate complex systems". They can only consider one driving force at a time, never two or more working at the same time.

 

[LIIA]

You did not say "new genes". You said " new genetic information ". And of course like all creationists you cannot deal with natural selection and variation running at the same time. So you had to deny all new information. Once we have new information (which is the product of variation) then natural selection picks out what works best in the current environment. That is how new genes arise. Just small steps of improvement. The changes that don't work as well do not reproduce as well and are buried by the positive changes. That is probably obvious even to you, which is why you probably made the false claim of " no new information ".

All changes are nothing but gene variants/alleles (NEVER NEW GENES). Natural selection is not a creative force; it picks from options that already exist. If all options are strictly limited to alleles, then there is no way for selection to create new genes, it only picks from what is already available.

Natural selection may change “allele frequency" within a population, but allele frequency has nothing to do with new genes. Meaning, there is no possible route/mechanism towards the creation of new genes. Without new genes, macroevolution is not possible.

 

[LIIA]

I'm not interested in researching your source. Your claim was that all of the theory of evolution has been overturned. Explain in your own words how the idea of natural selection applied to genetic variation over time in living populations leading to the tree of life we find today has been overturned.

Lack of interest to understand why your view is false is nothing but illogical denial. I get you’re not interested about reading sources or long posts; let me try to strip the argument to the bones.

All changes are nothing but alleles of same genes that already exist. Natural selection may only change “allele frequency" within a population but cannot create something that doesn’t exist, i.e., cannot create new genes.

Without new genes, the hypothesis of macroevolution is not possible.

I don't know what you mean by equate, but matter had to evolve into the prebiotic earth in order for abiogenesis (chemical evolution) to occur.

The concept of “evolution” is dependent on the prerequisite of “persistence”. If the prerequisite is not possible, the concept is false. No organic molecule can persist long enough to sustain the hypothesized change.

You've made this claim to me, but it's an ignorantium fallacy. Add the word "known" as in "no known route," and the statement is correct. The precise pathways haven't been elucidated and may never be, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't or didn't happen.

Then you acknowledged that you merely made a choice to believe and defend what you don’t know.

But no, I already explained to you why there is no route to macroevolution, simply because there is no mechanism that gives rise to new genes. It’s always alleles of same genes, never new genes. Nothing can create new genes.

Wordplay? That's the position of materialism regarding the relationship of mind and matter. It's one of four logically possible relationships between A and B if A (mind) and B (matter) both exist: A derives from B (materialism), B derives from A (idealism), they both derive from C (neutral monism), and they are unrelated (Cartesian dualism).

Yes, merely wordplay. If A & B are different options, then A doesn’t derive from B and vise versa. It’s a fallacious circular reasoning.

Your view has nothing to do with “Monism”. You don’t understand what “Monism” is, “Monism” postulates a first non-contingent cause not some fallacious circular reasoning as you suggest.” Monism” only leads to God.

The essence of “Monism” is that all existing things share the same origin that is distinct from them. i.e., all contingents are grounded in a single non-contingent. Such philosophy only leads to God ('The One,' of which subsequent realities were emanations.)

No, I don't, and I don't know how to correct that error. I've already explained the way in which that is incorrect. Shall I do it again? My limit is twice.

You don’t get it. Regardless of any details/sequences/relationships, the nature of the driving force that gives rise to consciousness is either natural or supernatural. You already rejected the natural/physical. do you follow? What other option is left?

None of that is answerable at this time.

Then again, you acknowledged that you merely made a choice to believe and defend what you don’t know.

I cannot tell directly whether any other entity but myself is conscious

Sure, you can’t and sure they are.

You cannot directly verify whether any system is conscious, and you can never experience or know for a fact what the specific “Qualia” of any other living system (other than yourself) is like. But the fact that you can’t, has nothing to do with the logic that makes it reasonable to conclude that they are. I already explained that logic before (#7928).

Darwin's Illusion | Page 397 | Religious Forums

I don't seriously doubt that other people and the more evolved beasts are conscious, but it's only an irresistible intuition and not something I can demonstrate just by observing material bodies. It is in this sense that, "physical processes don’t imply consciousness." Also, mind MAY be "an outcome of some physical mechanism." Please assimilate that and rebut if you can

Rebut what? You again acknowledged that you merely defend a view without any justification! You simply said that you don’t know. Why would I need to rebut something that I agree with?

Explain how one can know that other apparently conscious agents are conscious by observing their "physical processes" and

It’s not about the absolute knowledge but rather about the observations that makes it logically reasonable to draw such conclusion.

See #7928.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 397 | Religious Forums

why mind cannot be an epiphenomenon of matter.

“Epiphenomenona” is an irrelevant wordplay. Per that perspective, the byproduct (mind) is still causally dependent on the physical process, such relationship (whether direct or indirect) has no bearing on the nature of the process (physical nature) that allegedly gave rise to the outcome (mind). The concept is an attempt to make the illogical notion that (consciousness /self-awareness is physical) appears to be less unacceptable.

Hopefully the example below would clarify,

From a bird’s-eye view, if the observed phenomenon is the “correct choices” of cars towards specific destinations. From that perspective, an interdependency relationship can be observed between the phenomenon (rational choices) and physical matter (the car), hence it may be reasonable to claim that the rational choice (mind) is epiphenomenona of physical matter (the car), such conclusion yields mind as an outcome/product of matter. But the fact remains that the nature of the phenomenon has nothing to do with the physical nature of the car. The perceived interdependency between the two had led to the false conclusion. The driver’s rational choices have nothing to do with the physical nature of the car. IOW, the physical car doesn’t/cannot give rise to the rational choices.

You have such bird’s-eye view. You do see the car, but you cannot see the driver. Hence, you try to impose your own limitation as the measure that defines reality.

Yes, but not direct evidence and not conclusive. There is no solution to the other minds problem.

Sure, it’s neither direct nor absolute but rather reasonable enough/logical to draw the conclusion.

That's an argument for why robots aren't conscious, but one again, not conclusive. One can never say what the inner life of a robot is if any: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? - Wikipedia

Not at all, it’s the logical bases for the judgment whether any system is conscious. And again, it’s never absolute/conclusive, only reasonable enough to draw the conclusion.

I don't see any inconsistency there. It may be conscious and maybe not. Either way, it pleases me to treat it like it's conscious, and it would pain me to treat it abusively even if it were unconscious.

Nothing is wrong with kindness/respect, after all, the robot is a product of significant effort to bring benefit but that is irrelevant to the argument. You again acknowledged that you don’t know, and I respect such acknowledgment.

New genes result from changes in DNA. I think you're heading into sorites paradox territory. We see this when we discuss the first humans, for example. Once people didn't exist and now they do. What creature was the first human being? What non-human mother delivered a human baby? The question can't be answered, because human being is an imprecise predicate. "New gene" is an imprecise predicate.

No, this is not my intent. I’m only stating the fact that mutations create alleles, selection changes the allele frequency within a population, that’s it. There is no process/mechanism that creates new genes.

Alleles control the traits but never give rise to a new taxonomic family, simply because the new family requires new genes that cannot be created. For example, no matter how totally different the dog variants would appear and even if the variants lose the ability of interbreeding, it’s merely due to manipulations of alleles through (artificial) selection. But all these variants remain exactly the same species. The manipulation of alleles can never give rise to a new family.

 

[LIIA]

Claims about Darwin are meaningless in today's science.

True and it was never the focus of the discussion but it’s beneficial to understand how the roots of the theory were influenced by false understanding of what life is.

The above bold is false big time.

Again, empty subjective assertions are meaningless.

You need to explain your argument better in terms of today's knowledge.

What are your specific objections to what is called modern synthesis in terms of the present knowledge of science and not what Darwin and Pasteur believed in the 19th century? Scientific references please.

What is called Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism) is the mainstream theory of evolution today. There is not any other agreed upon theory of evolution. The ToE today is the MS.

As discussed, numerous times on this thread, my argument about the Modern Synthesis is based on latest scientific finds of the 21st century. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Darwin or Pasteur believed.

The argument is simply that all the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproved. No exception.

Please note that all these sources that I provided are mainstream (pro-evolution) sources. Even so these sources challenge/reject the fundamental assumptions of the MS, but they do accept the concept of evolution.

Regardless of that acceptance, my argument is that it’s neither possible nor logical to demolish all the pillars of a theory yet claim that the theory still stands as a scientific theory. Today, there is no evolutionary theoretical framework that is consistent with latest empirical finds of science. Meaning, if you accept evolution, then you accept it as a concept or an axiom but not as a scientific theory since the MS has already failed and was not yet replaced. The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) that was proposed to address this issue and replace the MS was never agreed upon till today.

Please see the links below and attached PDFs (with highlights) for the scientific references.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis - ScienceDirect

The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis | Biosemiotics (springer.com)

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Please note that empty subjective assertions are not acceptable as an argument against these sources. If you disagree with the conclusions of these sources, please provide credible sources that refute it.

Note: One change in recent years is that the production of mutations is not considered random

We discussed that before. Mutations are not random. See # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

but occurs within the range of cause-and-effect outcomes is fractal based on Chaos Theory

We discussed that before in # 7724. Here is a quote:

“The physical world and living systems are designed and can be described via fractal geometry/ mathematics. But the descriptive fractal geometry is neither a driving force nor a mechanism; it’s merely a description that fits the observations. The question remains, what is the driving force/mechanism that forces the constituents of reality to adhere to fractal geometry/ mathematics.”

Darwin's Illusion | Page 387 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Your reference is good, but your statement above is confusing and misleading in part based on bad terminology.

Please identify the terminology that you don’t agree with and demonstrate your reasons. If you mean that I used "duplication" vs. “replication", then I definitely agree, otherwise please clarify.

Yes mutations do not lead to new genes.

Agreed, Mutation creates slightly different versions of the same genes, called alleles. Not new genes. That is actually the specific point of my argument. Mutations do not lead to new genes. Yes, mutations may make a change in DNA sequence, but again, "change in is DNA sequence" is not equal to “new genes".

in and of themselves DO NOT cause in general genetic diseases nor are they necessarily 'not favorable traits.

I said that mutations are mostly rare replication errors. It is replication errors in the sense that it changes the genetic code and yes, such errors are rare because of the DNA repair mechanisms that” proofread” its own synthesis and minimize the replication errors. The error happens when the change escapes the proofreading mechanisms, which may cause incorporation of incorrect bases during DNA replication. see the link below.

DNA repair | Enzymes, Pathways & Benefits | Britannica

Yet, I didn’t claim or mean that all mutations are harmful.

Mutations may result in neutral, beneficial, unfavorable traits, or harmful results. It is actually most often the combination of mutations in the gene pool of a population over time that determines whether they are neutral, beneficial, or harmful. Yes some mutations may be harmful and the individuals simply do not survive or reproduce as a result of the mutation. Mutations are not rare.

I meant that DNA replication errors are rare/minimized because of DNA repair mechanisms. But yes, different types of damages may prevent correct base pairing and cause mismatched base pairs to escape proofreading. Mutations would happen through the incorporation of incorrect bases during DNA replication process for various reasons such as the exposure to chemicals or radiation, etc.

But again, I didn’t mean that all mutations are harmful. The main point is that mutations do not lead to new genes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please identify the terminology that you don’t agree with and demonstrate your reasons. If you mean that I used "duplication" vs. “replication", then I definitely agree, otherwise please clarify.

Agreed, Mutation creates slightly different versions of the same genes, called alleles. Not new genes. That is actually the specific point of my argument. Mutations do not lead to new genes. Yes, mutations may make a change in DNA sequence, but again, "change in is DNA sequence" is not equal to “new genes".

I said that mutations are mostly rare replication errors. It is replication errors in the sense that it changes the genetic code and yes, such errors are rare because of the DNA repair mechanisms that” proofread” its own synthesis and minimize the replication errors. The error happens when the change escapes the proofreading mechanisms, which may cause incorporation of incorrect bases during DNA replication. see the link below.

View attachment 80727

DNA repair | Enzymes, Pathways & Benefits | Britannica

Yet, I didn’t claim or mean that all mutations are harmful.


I meant that DNA replication errors are rare/minimized because of DNA repair mechanisms. But yes, different types of damages may prevent correct base pairing and cause mismatched base pairs to escape proofreading. Mutations would happen through the incorporation of incorrect bases during DNA replication process for various reasons such as the exposure to chemicals or radiation, etc.

But again, I didn’t mean that all mutations are harmful. The main point is that mutations do not lead to new genes. Your agenda is the rejection of evolution.

To a certain extent, I was jerking your chain on your agenda issues on your phrase; mutations do not lead to new genes. Your agenda is the rejection of evolution on religious grounds not in science.

The problem with Your use of terms is your simplistic statement mutations do not lead to new genes. is a terribly misleading, generalization, , and what you call 'new genes.'. Mutations do not lead to new genes in and of themselves, they lead to NEW INFORMATION. You are neglecting other factors of evolution of changes in the environment and time. In the short term mutations increase the genetic diversity of populations. The resulting genetic drift due to genetic diversity can lead to the evolution of new species over time. This has been demonstrated by any reasonable doubt. Actually, mutations that cause disease and repair contribute to the survival of a species in the short term but are NOT directly related to the genetic mutations,' and the development of genetic diversity leads to the adaptation to changes in the environment and new environments over time that leads to evolution.

My original response got messed with by a glitch, but the following tutorial related to genetic diversity and drift involved in evolution. It is a question-answer tutorial that you need to spend some time on to get educated to dialogue properly on evolution without a religious agenda.

Understanding Genetic Drift, Bottleneck Effect, and Founder Effect - AP Biology

Free practice questions for AP Biology - Understanding Genetic Drift, Bottleneck Effect, and Founder Effect. Includes full solutions and score reporting.

www.varsitytutors.com

Effect

Example Question #1 : Understanding Genetic Drift, Bottleneck Effect, And Founder Effect​

Populations do not necessarily consist of the individuals best adapted to survive and reproduce. Theoretically, the most fit individuals in a population will survive longest and reproduce the most, however chance plays a role in who survives, reproduces, and whose offspring survive to reproduce as well.
In a population where the allele frequency shifts by random chance, the mechanism of evolution at work is __________.
Possible Answers:
mutation
genetic drift
migration
natural selection
Correct answer:
genetic drift
Explanation:
Genetic drift occurs as a result of chance events causing changes in the allele frequency of a population. It doesn't favor the most fit individuals, but occurs at random.
Mutations can contribute to genetic drift, however, genetic drift is a more specific answer and more relevant to the question at hand.
Report an Error

Example Question #2 : Understanding Genetic Drift, Bottleneck Effect, And Founder Effect​

Which of the following is NOT true of genetic drift?
Possible Answers:
It can lead to loss of alleles from a population
It results from the random transmission of alleles from parents to offspring in a population
It can lead to alleles being fixed in a population
It can increase the genetic diversity of a population
Correct answer:
It can increase the genetic diversity of a population
Explanation:
Genetic drift is the random process of alleles being passed from parents to offspring. Increasing genetic diversity in a population requires introducing a greater number of alleles, which can only occur through mutations or addition of unrelated members to the population. Genetic drift only affects how already-existing alleles are passed down.
If an allele has a high frequency at baseline, the chance of it being passed down to subsequent generations is higher than alleles of a lower frequency. Through random chance, a high-frequency allele can eventually have a frequency of 100%, becoming fixed in the population. Conversely, a low-frequency allele can eventually disappear from the population if none of the few parents who possess that allele happen to pass it onto their offspring.
Report an Error

Example Question #3 : Understanding Genetic Drift, Bottleneck Effect, And Founder Effect​

Which of the following is true of genetic drift?
Possible Answers:
It can decrease genetic diversity in a population
It plays a much larger role in determining the genetic makeup of populations than natural selection
It can increase genetic diversity in a population
It is necessary in order for a population to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
Correct answer:
It can decrease genetic diversity in a population
Explanation:
Genetic drift describes the random selection of alleles that are passed from one generation to the next due to independent assortment in gametogenesis. Genetic drift cannot create new alleles, so it cannot increase genetic diversity (the number of alleles in a population). It can, however, decrease genetic diversity if an allele of a low frequency is not passed down to subsequent generations due to pure chance.
There is no hard and fast rule for whether genetic drift or natural selection have had a greater effect on shaping populations. Both have greatly shaped the populations present on Earth today, but their relative importance varies between species and has also varied over time. The conditions of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium require that both natural selection and genetic drift be negligible. If genetic drift is occurring, then the population cannot be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.


Bad terminology also in your statement the mutations are rare. Again you misrepresented the source you cited. Also, mutations that cause disease and repair of genes are only marginally relevant to the genetic mutations that lead to genetic diversity and genetic drift that leads to the adaptation to environments and evolution over time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All changes are nothing but alleles of same genes that already exist. Natural selection may only change “allele frequency" within a population but cannot create something that doesn’t exist, i.e., cannot create new genes. Without new genes, the hypothesis of macroevolution is not possible.

It's you playing word games here. Gene pools evolve continuously. There is no known mechanism preventing this process from as long as there is life and genetic variation, which includes mutation and the generation of novel base sequences, some of which will manifest in the phenotype and possibly selected for or against by nature. You keep insisting this can't happen, but do not say why. You also don't define what you mean by a new gene, so on what basis are you saying that this process cannot produce new genes? How many base substitutions does it take to say that NOW it's a new gene.

That's what the sorites paradox was addressing. Your argument is along the lines of saying that since no non-human mother ever gave birth to a first human being or ever could that it was impossible for humanity to evolve from non-human ancestors. You erect an imaginary wall and say that it can't be breached. Yet prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes which became multicellular animals which became vertebrates which became mammals, primates, and then man. The evidence for that is compelling.

Let me ask you a question that I bet will challenge you. Imagine that the theory of evolution were falsified tomorrow - perhaps a man's skeleton found in a dinosaur belly under circumstances that rule out fraud. Now what? The theory has to be replaced by a new paradigm. What would it be? My suggestion and Occam's: another naturalistic explanation if one is logically possible, and I can think of one (can you), but at this time, it seems extremely unlikely that evolution will be falsified and that either another naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanation will ever be required to account for the tree of life. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, but still, if it were falsified, unlikely becomes necessarily true, but less unlikely hypotheses (naturalism) are still preferred over more unlikely hypotheses (supernaturalism).

The concept of “evolution” is dependent on the prerequisite of “persistence”. If the prerequisite is not possible, the concept is false. No organic molecule can persist long enough to sustain the hypothesized change.

Evolution doesn't depend on organic molecules persisting indefinitely. Nor does life. You might contain none of the original matter born to your mother. The hemoglobin molecules in you now aren't the ones you were born with.

Then you acknowledged that you merely made a choice to believe and defend what you don’t know.

No. I accused you of committing an ignorantium fallacy: "You've made this claim to me, but it's an ignorantium fallacy. Add the word "known" as in "no known route," and the statement is correct. The precise pathways haven't been elucidated and may never be, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't or didn't happen." Did you want to address what I wrote this time? Do you understand the distinction between "no route" and "no known route," and why the latter but not the former is correct?

You don’t understand what “Monism” is, “Monism” postulates a first non-contingent cause not some fallacious circular reasoning as you suggest.” Monism” only leads to God. The essence of “Monism” is that all existing things share the same origin that is distinct from them. i.e., all contingents are grounded in a single non-contingent. Such philosophy only leads to God ('The One,' of which subsequent realities were emanations.)

This is just your faith speaking. If there is an ultimate substance from which both mind and matter arise, there is no reason to call it a god. And there is a good argument for that being the case - the history of scientific unifications. Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism (and light), showing that they were difference faces of electromagnetism. This has been unified first with the weak and then the strong nuclear forces revealing that they are all aspects of a super-force manifesting in different ways (gravity remains to be unified to these other forces). Heisenberg unified position and momentum. Wave-particle unification occurs at the subatomic level (Young, Schrödinger). Einstein unified matter with energy and space with time. So, it's not hard to extrapolate back to a single substance manifesting as reality manifests including as mind and matter. This is neutral monism, and while gods may be possible, they aren't necessary and even if they exist, might be another manifestation of this prior super substance and not ultimate reality.

the driving force that gives rise to consciousness is either natural or supernatural. You already rejected the natural/physical. do you follow?

No, you don't follow me. When do you think I did that? I have rejected neither possibility, but I have ordered them according to the principle of parsimony.

You cannot directly verify whether any system is conscious, and you can never experience or know for a fact what the specific “Qualia” of any other living system (other than yourself) is like. But the fact that you can’t, has nothing to do with the logic that makes it reasonable to conclude that they are.

Agreed. Did you think this contradicted my position? That is my position. The other mind problem is intractable, and it is reasonable to assume that other evolved vertebrates are also conscious but cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed.

You simply said that you don’t know. Why would I need to rebut something that I agree with?

I said more than I don't know. I wrote, "mind MAY be "an outcome of some physical mechanism." Please assimilate that and rebut if you can" Do you really agree with that? If so, you are acknowledging that it is logically possible that mind is an epiphenomenon of physical reality (materialism, physicalism, naturalism), and I thought you had ruled that possibility out the way you ruled macroevolution out.

if the observed phenomenon is the “correct choices” of cars towards specific destinations. From that perspective, an interdependency relationship can be observed between the phenomenon (rational choices) and physical matter (the car), hence it may be reasonable to claim that the rational choice (mind) is epiphenomenona of physical matter (the car), such conclusion yields mind as an outcome/product of matter. But the fact remains that the nature of the phenomenon has nothing to do with the physical nature of the car. The perceived interdependency between the two had led to the false conclusion. The driver’s rational choices have nothing to do with the physical nature of the car. IOW, the physical car doesn’t/cannot give rise to the rational choices. You have such bird’s-eye view. You do see the car, but you cannot see the driver. Hence, you try to impose your own limitation as the measure that defines reality.

This is a nice analogy, but I think it supports the idea that just because we see the cars appearing to run by conscious drivers, if we can't see into the car, we don't know if it contains a living driver.

it’s neither direct nor absolute but rather reasonable enough/logical to draw the conclusion.

Agreed. Once again, are you thinking that this is a refutation of my position? I don't. This IS my position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All changes are nothing but gene variants/alleles (NEVER NEW GENES). Natural selection is not a creative force; it picks from options that already exist. If all options are strictly limited to alleles, then there is no way for selection to create new genes, it only picks from what is already available.

Natural selection may change “allele frequency" within a population, but allele frequency has nothing to do with new genes. Meaning, there is no possible route/mechanism towards the creation of new genes. Without new genes, macroevolution is not possible.

So what? That is evolution. You do not seem to realize that gene variants are different genes. Also you do not seem to know how genetics works. Genes can very often be repurposed. Once used elsewhere they can follow a different evolutionary path than before. Your arguments are self refuting. When you admit that there are "variants' you are admitting that there are new genes.

And you made the exact same error that I pointed out earlier. Variation is the "creative force". Variation makes all sorts of changes. Both good and bad. Natural selection is the mechanism where the beneficial changes are kept and the bad ones are lost. Why did you use a strawman arguemtn.

Why can't you look at both natural selection and variation working together You are a little bit right, but yet totally wrong. Yes, Natural /Selection, by itself, cannot generate new genes. Random Variation, but itself, only leads to chaos. But they never work by themselves. They are always working together.

 

[leroy]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

I´ll say that the Darwinian model is simply incomplete, but not totally wrong.

We need more than just “random mutations” and natural selection…… my best bet is that relevant mutations are for the most part non random. Perhaps Lamarck was not completely wrong after all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I´ll say that the Darwinian model is simply incomplete, but not totally wrong.

We need more than just “random mutations” and natural selection…… my best bet is that relevant mutations are for the most part non random. Perhaps Lamarck was not completely wrong after all.

And you offer this bit of "scientific assessment" without bothering to provide even a single observation that leads you to such a conclusion.

QED.

 

[leroy]

ILet me ask you a question that I bet will challenge you. Imagine that the theory of evolution were falsified tomorrow - perhaps a man's skeleton found in a dinosaur belly under circumstances that rule out fraud. Now what? The theory has to be replaced by a new paradigm. What would it be? My suggestion and Occam's: another naturalistic explanation if one is logically possible, and I can think of one (can you), but at this time, it seems extremely unlikely that evolution will be falsified and that either another naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanation will ever be required to account for the tree of life. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, but still, if it were falsified, unlikely becomes necessarily true, but less unlikely hypotheses (naturalism) are still preferred over more unlikely hypotheses (supernaturalism).

That would simply mean that some dinosaurs survived, and coexisted with humans……….

evolution wouldn’t be falsified.

The truth of evolution (common ancestry) is based on a cumulative bunch of independent evidences for various fields of science and even philosophy. There is not an “individual thing” that could falsify evolution,

Finding human head inside a dinosaur, would be a small nail in the coffin………. You would need hundreds of “nails” for evolution to be “probably wrong”

With evolution I mean common ancestry , (modern organisms share ancestors with each other) if you define evolution differently then y comment doesn’t apply.

 

[leroy]

And you offer this bit of "scientific assessment" without bothering to provide even a single observation that leads you to such a conclusion.

QED.

We know that nonrandom mutations occur, this is an uncontroversial nearly certain fact that has been observed.

I (without being a scientists) simply suggest that perhaps these mutations play an important role. I don’t claim to be sure, I don’t claim to have robust scientific evidence, as I said this is just my bet

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We know that nonrandom mutations occur, this is an uncontroversial nearly certain fact that has been observed.

I (without being a scientists) simply suggest that perhaps these mutations play an important role. I don’t claim to be sure, I don’t claim to have robust scientific evidence, as I said this is just my bet

I know no such thing. There is evidence of a non-random pattern in mutations between gene and non-gene regions of DNA, and that suggests that there is a defensive mechanism in place to prevent potentially disastrous mutations. But that certainly doesn't obviate random mutations, which are very well documented.

In any case, the only real question is this: "does a mutation (random or non-random) increase or decrease the likelihood of producing offspring with that mutation." And if the answer is that it does, then that mutation will rapidly spread in the community.

 

[leroy]

So what? That is evolution. You do not seem to realize that gene variants are different genes. Also you do not seem to know how genetics works. Genes can very often be repurposed. Once used elsewhere they can follow a different evolutionary path than before. Your arguments are self refuting. When you admit that there are "variants' you are admitting that there are new genes.

And you made the exact same error that I pointed out earlier. Variation is the "creative force". Variation makes all sorts of changes. Both good and bad. Natural selection is the mechanism where the beneficial changes are kept and the bad ones are lost. Why did you use a strawman arguemtn.

Why can't you look at both natural selection and variation working together You are a little bit right, but yet totally wrong. Yes, Natural /Selection, by itself, cannot generate new genes. Random Variation, but itself, only leads to chaos. But they never work by themselves. They are always working together.

You do not seem to realize that gene variants are different genes.

That is a disingenuous semantic game, what @LIIA is talking about is that mutations (I am assuming that he/she means random mutations) can’t change an existing gene in to something completely different that codes for a different protein and a different function.

For example if you have blind creature, the process of mutations + natural selection would not produce all the genes and genetic material necessary to evolve a functioning eye.

I am not claiming that LIILA is correct, but you are not addressing the point, you are just finding holes in the semantic structure of the post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I´ll say that the Darwinian model is simply incomplete, but not totally wrong.

We need more than just “random mutations” and natural selection…… my best bet is that relevant mutations are for the most part non random. Perhaps Lamarck was not completely wrong after all.

The Darwinian model did not even have mutations. Darwin did not know of genes. The theory has been continually modified as we learn more and more over the years. The term "Darwinian evolution" is incredibly out of date. Darwin was merely the first to come up with a working theory. He knew that he did not answer all of the questions and scientists know that they are merely getting closer and closer to what actually happened. Science is a learning process. But to date it still looks as if the mutations are random. You are likely forgetting about natural selection. It is not random. When one takes random events and put them through a non-random filter the results are not random.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We know that nonrandom mutations occur, this is an uncontroversial nearly certain fact that has been observed.

I (without being a scientists) simply suggest that perhaps these mutations play an important role. I don’t claim to be sure, I don’t claim to have robust scientific evidence, as I said this is just my bet

You may be misinterpreting a modern work. I do not know of such a case. Some parts of the genome may be more apt to undergo mutation, but in no way does that mean that the changes are not random.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a disingenuous semantic game, what @LIIA is talking about is that mutations (I am assuming that he/she means random mutations) can’t change an existing gene in to something completely different that codes for a different protein and a different function.

You have the disingenuous game backwards. No one is claiming that there are sudden changes to the genome. He knows that if there are small changes that they can add up so he had to falsely claim that there was "no new information" . I showed that there was. Then he tried to claim that "there are no new genes". I showed that there were. Now he is stating that there is a magic limit to changes, but he knows that he cannot support that.

Meanwhile you are using your typical strawman arguments since I never claimed that the changes were sudden. The changes in a gene need not be large (though in some genes a very small change can make a large difference, so I and of course you are wrong about that) but most gene changes are slow.

For example if you have blind creature, the process of mutations + natural selection would not produce all the genes and genetic material necessary to evolve a functioning eye.

Why not? Citation needed. I can find article after article that state how eyes evolved. From very small changes to an accumulation of those small changes. Eye evolution is not a puzzle at all today.

I am not claiming that LIILA is correct, but you are not addressing the point, you are just finding holes in the semantic structure of the post.

No, I addressed his claims. I also addressed your false claims.

Remember, if you own up to not understanding others will help you. When you deny what is well understood you just get corrected.