Common Descent by ID?

Further to the OP Munging ID it seems that there is still a significant amount of confusion as to whether ID could be, or even is, compatible with common descent… Moreover, Mike Behe has been quoted by Paul Nelson here at TSZ as one of the very few from among the Discovery Institute (DI) who “supports” common descent, common ancestry or descent with modification…

While I doubt we would be able to get Mike Behe to post at TSZ, for the reasons I have already mentioned in the moderation issues in the past, unless his book critics decide to post here and he would be provoked to respond, let’s just watch some of the videos where elaborates on those very issues:


Intelligent Design and Common Ancestry – Michael J. Behe, PhD

Another issue related to common ancestry is the that some members of DI, including Mike Behe and Ann Gauger apparently accept the possibility of “guided evolution”… which in my view would be an oxymoron…I must stress however that I have not seen any real details about that coming from either of them, so I don’t really know what they mean by “guided evolution”…Perhaps Behe’s upcoming book will provide us with some insight on the theme…Have they come to a similar conclusion Jonathan Wells has with the embryo development (cell differentiation) where the information beyond DNA would have to be added in the process? I don’t know at this point…

I have also mentioned it in the past that ID supporters, as well as logically thinking creationists, must accept some sort of “micro-evolution” or descent with modification within “kinds”…

The example of that type of evolution, or rather devolution, is the “evolution” of dogs from wolves by the breaking genes or the decreasing gene functions…

Other possible “evolutionary changes” leading to dog evolution from wolves could be compared to the antibiotic resistance evolution that had already existed in the some genomes before the antibiotics were even developed…

406 thoughts on “Common Descent by ID?

  1. Entropy: Evolutionary theory includes the notion of purifying selection.

    According to John Harshman deleterious alleles are not selected against.

  2. phoodoo: Random mutations, and yet tons of sequences with no mutations…nonsense.

    Across the tree of life, there are no sequences with no mutations. Zero. There is no universally identical gene.

  3. Mung: According to John Harshman deleterious alleles are not selected against.

    John Harshman has never said such a thing.

  4. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,

    But Allan is saying the highly conserved sequences are not under selection!

    You might be confusing your Al(l)ans. I certainly said no such thing. Quite the opposite.

  5. timothya: You should think before playing word games.

    As evolution proceeds, organisms become less and less like each other. And of course, if you roll the tape backwards, as you go back in time, they become more and more alike.

    “Profound discontinuities” are inconsistent with that model of evolution.

  6. Rumraket: I’m pretty sue that if he really said that it was just a case of a badly formulated sentence.

    I’d hope experience, if not charity, would make your first port of call ‘phoodoo read it wrong!’ 😃

  7. Worth mentioning that the idea of junk was quite strongly resisted initially, by evolutionists. They were persuaded by sound arguments, and data.

  8. Mung: As evolution proceeds, organisms become less and less like each other. And of course, if you roll the tape backwards, as you go back in time, they become more and more alike.

    Yes. That is the prediction. If we observe that pattern then we have evidence for evolution. The stronger than pattern is, the stronger the evidence for evolution.

    “Profound discontinuities” are inconsistent with that model of evolution.

    It would seem to me that you’d eventually get “profound discontinuities” as a consequence of time. If something is diverging more and more over time, eventually it will be almost nothing alike, to such an extent that it could have become impossible to infer any degree of similarity between it. It really just depends on the amount of time, and the rate of change.

    Of course, we really need to define exactly what is meant by a discontinuity, and a “profound” one. I didn’t bring up the term but assumed what was meant was something like “no detectable similarity that could not be plausibly explained by chance”.

  9. Mung, your Harshman cite is lacking the key word “against”.
    Will you be retracting, or obfuscating further?

  10. I noticed in that thread Mungs’s comment was hidden- wth?

    You just said that deleterious alleles are selected. And then you said they are not selected.

    So if they are selected against, that is not natural selection, in spite of what the article I linked to says?

    Seriously, in just this one thread we’ve heard the following:

    Darwinian evolution does not include drift. Drift is non-Darwinian.
    Random genetic drift only applies to neutral mutations, not deleterious mutations.
    Deleterious alleles can’t be selected.

    This is not exactly a site I would trust for accurate information about evolution.

  11. DNA_Jock: Mung, your Harshman cite is lacking the key word “against”.

    So?

    It’s simple logic, if it can’t be selected, it cannot be selected against.

  12. dazz:
    I believe my prediction that Mung is just about to go full retard YEC is close to fulfillment

    I predict Mung still won’t ban you.

    And I predict Alan will do something retarded instead.

  13. Mung: So?

    It’s simple logic, if it can’t be selected, it cannot be selected against.

    Well, it seems what John must be saying then, is in NS there is only selecting for, there is never selecting against. He has made the term “selected against” an oxymoron.

  14. Mung:
    According to John Harshman deleterious alleles are not selected against.

    I doubt that anybody with John’s level of mathematical understanding would make such an absolutist claim. I’d imagine John saying something like “not always,” or “depending on how deleterious,” etc.

    Surely you’d understand that if a mutation kills an organism, before reproduction, that organism is gone (selected against), regardless of what you imagine that John said (?).

  15. phoodoo: Well, it seems what John must be saying then, is in NS there is only selecting for, there is never selecting against. He has made the term “selected against” an oxymoron.

    Did you read Rumraket’s comments on the matter?

  16. Oh, good grief. Picking over the bones of ‘he said, she said’. Yep, ID’s in great shape, don’t let anyone tell you any different.

  17. This is the best they got when they don’t have any science. Let’s bicker endlessly over the patently obvious. Zzzz.

  18. Mung: Did you read Rumraket’s comments on the matter?

    Yes, and Jock and Allan. Their interpretation seems to be there is no concept of selected against. There is only selected.

    New Evolution theory I guess.

  19. Mung: It’s simple logic, if it can’t be selected, it cannot be selected against.

    Can we select this to be the quote of the month?

    … against, I mean.

  20. Corneel,

    Actually I think there is a kernel of truth there. Natural selection doesn’t do any selecting against, if a DNA sequence exists, it was selected. Therefore there is no such thing as a deleterious mutation. Every mutation is advantageous (because they exist), some just more so perhaps.

  21. Mung: According to John Harshman deleterious alleles are not selected against.

    I assume what he was talking about is that depending on the magnitude of
    the selection coefficient and on the population size there is a threshold below which selection cant operate because genetic drift counteracts it. I think this was work done by Lynch…..but Joe F. could explain it properly

  22. I would think the word deleterious implies something that results in reduced fecundity. But perhaps there are things that affect health without affecting the number of offspring produced.

  23. phoodoo: Actually I think there is a kernel of truth there. Natural selection doesn’t do any selecting against, if a DNA sequence exists, it was selected. Therefore there is no such thing as a deleterious mutation. Every mutation is advantageous (because they exist), some just more so perhaps.

    LOL

    phoodoo is top of the line ID thinker kids.

  24. Let’s not forget that some mutations are lethal. If a cell is born with that mutation, it will quickly die. Fecundity drops to zero.

  25. RodW: I assume what he was talking about is that depending on the magnitude ofthe selection coefficient and on the population size there is a threshold below which selection cant operate because genetic drift counteracts it.I think this was work done by Lynch…..but Joe F. could explain it properly

    I believe John was simply pointing out that deleterious mutations, when fixed, are fixed by drift, not selected for (fixed by NS).

  26. phoodoo: Yes, and Jock and Allan.Their interpretation seems to be there is no concept of selected against.There is only selected.

    Nope, I don’t think I have said one word on that matter, beyond the above eye-roll. My own view – Hey! Here I am! Ask me! – is that deleterious alleles are indeed selected against, while beneficial alleles are selected for. These processes occur simultaneously – as soon as a beneficial allele arises, its other alleles become detrimental relative to it.

    When I see ‘selected’ without qualification, I don’t find myself collapsed in a quivering heap of quandary like you guys pretend to. I just think “well, if you mean ‘fixed by selection’, or ‘for was implicit’, then I guess…”

    New Evolution theory I guess

    Ah, that petulant refrain, like music to my ears. I’m impressed you continue to play that game with such enthusiasm, year on year. Shows dedication.

  27. dazz: I believe John was simply pointing out that deleterious mutations, when fixed, are fixed by drift, not selected for (fixed by NS).

    Yup. My take too. But there are points to be scored, y’know?

  28. Rumraket:
    Let’s not forget that some mutations are lethal. If a cell is born with that mutation, it will quickly die. Fecundity drops to zero.

    Everything dies. We count what is alive, that is fitness.

  29. Mung,

    It was explained to you, in the thread at PS that you cite, that John’s quote carries an implicit “for”.
    I see you have opted for obfuscation. The quality of your material has taken quite the dive lately, almost like you are phoning it in.
    You used to be quite good at this.

  30. phoodoo: Everything dies.We count what is alive, that is fitness.

    The more genetic mojo it passes on, the more mojo fitness it has.

  31. Allan Miller: Ah, that petulant refrain, like music to my ears. I’m impressed you continue to play that game with such enthusiasm, year on year. Shows dedication.

    And fitness.

  32. dazz: I believe John was simply pointing out that deleterious mutations, when fixed, are fixed by drift, not selected for (fixed by NS).

    Below absolute values of the selection coefficient of positive or negative selection of 1/(4N), genetic drift operates much more strongly than selection. Basically, drift fixes or loses an allele before it’s fitness can have much effect.

  33. Corneel: Can we select this to be the quote of the month?

    Post your selections for quote of the month in a reply to this comment.

  34. Corneel: Can we select this to be the quote of the month?

    Post your selections against quote of the month in a reply to this comment.

  35. dazz: I believe John was simply pointing out that deleterious mutations, when fixed, are fixed by drift, not selected for (fixed by NS).

    IOW, they are not selected against. Which is what I said.

  36. As a general rule of thumb, when Mung makes a claim about what somebody said, one should assume Mung is wrong. As, of course, is true here. If he cites this comment, he will probably read it incorrectly too.

    Anyway, what I was saying is that deleterious alleles, by definition, can’t be favored by selection, which is to say they can’t have positive selection coefficients. Thus fixation of deleterious alleles, which can happen, results from drift, not selection. And this happens when the selection coefficient is small in relation to population size. This should be no surprise to anyone who’s ever read a book or taken a class on evolutionary biology.

    Relating it to the context in which it happened, Behe wasn’t talking about deleterious alleles being fixed at all. He was talking about advantageous loss-of-function mutations, or thought he was. Some people apparently mistook loss of function for loss of fitness. Then Mung tried to score a cheap point in some silly game he’s playing.

  37. Joe Felsenstein: Below absolute values of the selection coefficient of positive or negative selection …

    Positive selection would be selection for and negative selection would be selection against, and both fit under the title “natural selection.”

    It’s amazing to me that natural selection can fix an allele in the population by selecting for it, but it cannot remove an allele from the population by selecting against it. Can it just not see them to select them and remove them?

  38. John Harshman: Anyway, what I was saying is that deleterious alleles, by definition, can’t be favored by selection, which is to say they can’t have positive selection coefficients. Thus fixation of deleterious alleles, which can happen, results from drift, not selection.

    If only you had actually said that.

  39. Joe Felsenstein: Below absolute values of the selection coefficient of positive or negative selection of , genetic drift operates much more strongly than selection.Basically, drift fixes or loses an allele before it’s fitness can have much effect.

    Thanks Joe, but didn’t you get the memo? there are no mathematical models in evolution according to creationists 😀

  40. Mung: If only you had actually said that.

    It is what he said, I got it after all, how could you possibly miss it? Oh, you’re just trolling again. Nevermind

  41. Mung: If only you had actually said that.

    It is in fact necessary to be able to read for comprehension, which requires that one also be able to remember context from one sentence to the next. You should stop digging.

  42. dazz: Thanks Joe, but didn’t you get the memo? there are no mathematical models in evolution according to creationists

    😉

    Evolution News and Science Today, and also Denyse O’Leary at UD, are always saying that evolutionary biologists are unwilling to be hard-nosed and quantitative, unlike their friends the ID advocates.

    In 1981 I published a Bibliography of Theoretical Population Genetics (you can download its contents at my web page). It was very complete, and had 7,982 theory papers listed. And that was 38 years ago. I guess UD and EN&ST missed those papers.

  43. Mung: It’s amazing to me that natural selection can fix an allele in the population by selecting for it, but it cannot remove an allele from the population by selecting against it. Can it just not see them to select them and remove them?

    Where did that come from? If a new mutation is ultimately going to be lost or be fixed, then the probability of fixation plus the probability of loss will be sum to 1.

  44. Mung: Can it just not see them to select them and remove them?

    Logically the question is why does the Intelligent Designer act in that way, no? I mean, that’s what you think happens right?

    I wonder what would happen if ID enthusiasts spent 1% of the time they spent poking at their “Darwinism” strawman developing Intelligent Design instead?

  45. Joe Felsenstein:

    Evolution News and Science Today, and also Denyse O’Leary at UD,are always saying that evolutionary biologists are unwilling to be hard-nosed and quantitative, unlike their friends the ID advocates.

    In 1981 I published a Bibliography of Theoretical Population Genetics (you can download its contents at my web page).It was very complete, and had 7,982 theory papers listed.And that was 38 years ago.I guess UD and EN&ST missed those papers.

    ROTFLMAO, what a bunch of clowns

  46. phoodoo: Everything dies. We count what is alive, that is fitness.

    No, fitness relates to the ability to have offspring. If you are born with a mutation that kills you within a few hours, then the fact that you lived for a few hours is irrelevant, your reproductive success is zero. How can you have been here so long and still not grasped the simplest concepts?

  47. J-Mac:
    “Junk’ DNA reveals vital role
    Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable.


    If you thought we had explored all the important parts of our genome, think again. Scientists are puzzling over a collection of mystery DNA segments that seem to be essential to the survival of virtually all vertebrates. But their function is completely unknown.


    The segments, dubbed ‘ultraconserved elements’, lie in the large parts of the genome that do not code for any protein. Their presence adds to growing evidence that the importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA, could be much more fundamental than anyone suspected.

    Scientists: We conclude that ~90% of the human genome is junk because only 10% shows evidence of sequence conservation.

    J-Mac: That’s not true!!!! Look at that highly conserved DNA, it has function!!!

    Scientists: **facepalm**

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.