Darwin's Illusion

[leroy]

No. Only a small portion of them have to be positive. Bad ones are lost. You do not seem to understand that. They do not have to overwhelm the negative ones. The positive changes are promoted, the harmful ones are not. That is all that it takes.

I meant that most of the mutations that survive and pass to the next generation have to be positive.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

I meant that most of the mutations that survive and pass to the next generation have to be positive.....

Even that is incorrect. It can take a while for selection to work. Extreme bad mutations die out quickly, but this is not a black and white world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I meant that most of the mutations that survive and pass to the next generation have to be positive.....

This is not accurate.

The majority of mutations in fact, are neutral. It is often time the case that a "positive" phenotype change is the result of a great many underlying genetic mutations most of which have accumulated over the years as neutral ones.

The same goes for bad ones off course... bad phenotype expressions also are oftenly the result of a serieus of accumulation of neutral ones.

 

[leroy]

What you say about modifications shows you still do not understand how evolution works. Those members of a population with an advantageous trait will breed slightly more successfully, even if they are initially few in number. Over time, the proportion of the population with the trait will increase.

No disagreement, I never meant to say something different from that

The problem is that form that mechanism, it doesn’t follow that a blind worm would evolve eyes.

What one has to do

1 show which mutations or genetic variations are needed to evolve an eye (or say a primitive light sensitive system) from a blind organism (lets say that you need 1,000 mutations)

2 show that each (or most) of these 1000 mutations would have been positive and therefore selected by natural selection

What ID proponents need to do is:

1 show that there is an insuperable barrier. (show that there is a point that can´t be passed through small beneficial steps)

My point is that none is even near to support their burden. We simply don’t have enough knowledge to take a position and affirm that a given scenario is more probable than the other.

Any disagreement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No disagreement, I never meant to say something different from that

The problem is that form that mechanism, it doesn’t follow that a blind fish would evolve eyes.

What one has to do

1 show which mutations or genetic variations are needed to evolve an eye (or say a primitive light sensitive system) from a blind organism (lets say that you need 1,000 mutations)

2 show that each (or most) of these 1000 mutations would have been positive and therefore selected by natural selection

What ID proponents need to do is:

1 show that there is an insuperable barrier. (show that there is a point that can´t be passed through small beneficial steps)

My point is that none is even near to support their burden. We simply don’t have enough knowledge to take a position and affirm that a given scenario is more probable than the other.

Any disagreement?

No, one does not have to deal with your strawman arguments. Fish had eyes before they were fish. And your model of evolution is used by only you.

 

[leroy]

Even that is incorrect. It can take a while for selection to work. Extreme bad mutations die out quickly, but this is not a black and white world.

Granted, this is why I said ****MOST**** mutations that survived have to be positive,

Sure you can have some neutral or even negative mutations in the mixture……….. but you can´t have too many of them (otherwise you would be climbing mount improbable without the help of natural selection )

 

[leroy]

No, one does not have to deal with your strawman arguments. Fish had eyes before they were fish. And your model of evolution is used by only you.

Thanks for the correction, I thought that the vertebrate eye evolved in something that we would call a fish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, this is why I said ****MOST**** mutations that survived have to be positive,

Sure you can have some neutral or even negative mutations in the mixture……….. but you can´t have too many of them (otherwise you would be climbing mount improbable without the help of natural selection )

And now you are just repeating your error. You said the first generation. Who knows?.. It could take ten or more. Selection is not instantaneous.

 

[leroy]

This is not accurate.

The majority of mutations in fact, are neutral. It is often time the case that a "positive" phenotype change is the result of a great many underlying genetic mutations most of which have accumulated over the years as neutral ones.

The same goes for bad ones off course... bad phenotype expressions also are oftenly the result of a serieus of accumulation of neutral ones.

Thanks but in this context we are talking specifically about the majority of the relevant mutations that build say an eye from a blind creature.

Most of the have to be positive, so that you can use natural selection as a tool to climb mount improbable. (borrowing from Dawkins analogy)

 

[leroy]

And now you are just repeating your error. You said the first generation. Who knows?.. It could take ten or more. Selection is not instantaneous.

That doesn’t sound like my words………. But sure your statement is correct, .Selection is not instantaneous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the correction, I thought that the vertebrate eye evolved in something that we would call a fish.

No, it evolved along with the predecessors. It probably formed first in a vermiform ancestor and would have only been a collection of nerve cells.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Simply false. For example, gene duplication is a fairly common event. When the two copies change in different ways, you get new genes.

And no, the genes are NOT limited to alleles that already exist. Those that already exist are passed on in the usual way and do not arise anew.

But, when there are changes (mutations), you do have *new information* and a *new allele*. In other words, a new gene.

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.

Again, there is no prescribed limit to have much those genes can change via mutation. Also, when genes duplicate and then the copies change independently, that *is* the generation of new genes and new abilities. And it is a simple and common mechanism.

 

[leroy]

No, it evolved along with the predecessors. It probably formed first in a vermiform ancestor and would have only been a collection of nerve cells.

Ok so

You start with a worm-like ancestor

At some point you get worm-like creature with photosensitive cells , such that the worm reacts when light is detected

All I am saying is that in order to go from point 1 to point 2 you need positive variation (lets call it positive mutations) + natural selection.

*sure not all mutations have to be positive, you can have negative or neutral mutation, but most mutations are expected to be positive.

any disgareement at this point?


All I am saying is that we currently don’t know which mutations are needed to go from point a to point b, therefore we can’t test (yet) if there is a viable path or not. .......... we can´t test if there is an "irreducible complex" step

Any disagreement?

If you disagree with anything Please start your reply with “I disagree with this statement (quote my words) because xxxxxxx

 

[leroy]

Simply false. For example, gene duplication is a fairly common event. When the two copies change in different ways, you get new genes.

And no, the genes are NOT limited to alleles that already exist. Those that already exist are passed on in the usual way and do not arise anew.

But, when there are changes (mutations), you do have *new information* and a *new allele*. In other words, a new gene.

Again, there is no prescribed limit to have much those genes can change via mutation. Also, when genes duplicate and then the copies change independently, that *is* the generation of new genes and new abilities. And it is a simple and common mechanism.

If many “genes” have to change at the same time via independent mechanism in order to get a selectable benefit…………. This would be a limit or a barried that can´t be overcome by “mutation+selection”

 

[ppp]

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.

What do you think a "new gene" is? Physically.

 

[Polymath257]

If many “genes” have to change at the same time via independent mechanism in order to get a selectable benefit…………. This would be a limit or a barried that can´t be overcome by “mutation+selection”

But they don't ALL have to change at the same time. Why would you think that would be required?

 

[wellwisher]

No, we are not on the same page. Let me explain.

First, in #7489 I said, “it’s a very rare condition/disorder”, a disorder is not necessarily related to mutation. @ shunyadragon also told you the same about Leucism in his post #7525.

Second, in our realm, we always deal with “approximation”. Nothing is absolute.

A rule can be established by being sufficiently substantiated but it’s never an absolute rule or without exceptions.

For example, some defective products (the exception) are not evidence that the manufacturer has no quality control process in effect but if the majority of the products are defective, then it’s reasonable to assume a rule of random production without being quality controlled.

This is exactly what we see in nature. The DNA replication/synthesis is always strictly controlled by the cell’s DNA repair mechanisms, which proofread the DNA replication to maintain the integrity of its genetic code. I.e., control is the rule. The exception to this rule would be a random mutation that escapes the proofreading mechanisms, which would in most cases cause genetic diseases.

DNA repair | Enzymes, Pathways & Benefits | Britannica

Per the article below by James A. Shapiro, genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply random accidents/damage to the DNA.

If a beneficial change (adaptation) emerges, it's always the result of cell-mediated processes (the rule). To the contrary, if random change/mutation escapes the cell-mediated/controlled DNA repair, the result in most cases is a harmful genetic disease (the exception).

How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome - PubMed (nih.gov)

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

A rule must be sufficiently substantiated to be accepted as a rule; there will be always exceptions to the rule. But the exceptions can never constitute a rule.

The proof reading enzymes works by looking for improper base pairing. Improper base pairs will create a potential at the level of hydrogen bonding. These will stand out, compared to the lower energy proper base pairs. The DNA lowers its double helix potential by proofreading enzymes.

The way nature can trick the proofreader enzymes, is to lower the potential of the improper base pair, so it is below the radar. This can be done with water occupying the hydrogen bonding sites, that are not being fully used, due to the improper base pairs. There is a double helix of water within the DNA double helix, that connects to this.

If you look at Adenine it has three hydrogen bonding hydrogen, but it only uses two, when it proper base pairs to Thymine. The extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen of Adenine goes to water. This water is part of the double helix of water intimately connected to the DNA double helix. That water, interacts with water further out, and can cloak the improper base pairs, if they add up to a net gain cell wide; global water potential.

The entire surface of a DNA double helix is coated in layers of water molecules. This sheath of water attaches to the genetic material through hydrogen bonds, made by sharing hydrogen atoms between molecules. Through hydrogen bonds, water can influence how DNA takes shape and interacts with other molecules.

Water is the most abundant molecule in life. The protein grid which is all things outside the nucleus, build up a capacitance and energy grid at the level of the hydrogen bonding of the water; surface tension to cooperative hydrogen bonds. When roof reader enzymes are working, the nuclear membrane is gone, and the global water grid, which reflects all the proteins used by the mother cell; time averaged, interacts with the water signals on the DNA. There is room to change if the change equates to the needs of the protein grid's water.

Adenine, which are common to starter codons for coding genes, has the most endothermic heat of formation of the four bases of DNA and RNA. This means it is the most reduced and has the highest potential in water. It has built in energy assistance from water; surface tension. Selection at the nanoscale by water.

 

[leroy]

But they don't ALL have to change at the same time. Why would you think that would be required?

How can you possibly know that? nobody understand genetics to such level to make those assertions.

Answer these questns

¿which mutations do we need to evolve say a blind worm, to a worm with eyes? )what genes would have to mutate)

¿how do you know that each of this mutations is positive?

You obviously can´t answer, nobody can, so it is impossible to know (in this moment) if these insuperable barriers exist

 

[Polymath257]

How can you possibly know that? nobody understand genetics to such level to make those assertions.

Answer these questns

¿which mutations do we need to evolve say a blind worm, to a worm with eyes? )what genes would have to mutate)

¿how do you know that each of this mutations is positive?

You obviously can´t answer, nobody can, so it is impossible to know (in this moment) if these insuperable barriers exist

And that level of detail isn't required to know that evolution has occurred and that mutation and natural section is (one predominant) explanation of those changes.

Hmmm....can you give an example of an eyeless worm that isn't a parasite (and thereby *lost* vision as opposed to the process of gaining it)?

Maybe this is of interest. A worm that is eyeless and can still detect color.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg5201

 

[viole]

I disagree, I believe there is enough evidence that the earth is not flat.
I wonder why the curvature of the earth is still discussed after centuries where it has been established.

Ciao

- viole