most of the mutations

But not all of them. It’s interesting that even the most hardened creationists who have exposure to some science still cannot quite bring themselves to rule out the possibility of a beneficial mutation. Here’s Sal:

Much (not all) the heterozygosity and alleles were created and thus differences were strategically positioned to not cause functional compromise and most of the mutations thereafter are rare variants and slightly damaging.

So if most are slightly damaging then a few are beneficial. And if a few are beneficial then even fewer will be highly beneficial.

It’s not just Sal, but many IDCreationists seem to allow the possibility that a mutation may occur that is beneficial. Indirectly, of course, usually similarly phrased to the above. I don’t even think most of them know they are doing it.

So, Sal et al. What is it that is stopping the tiny number of beneficial mutations that you unwittingly admit happens spreading in a population? As presumably what you give with one hand you take away with the other. There must be some other mechanism preventing that, otherwise you are basically agreeing with the evilutionists. That is the topic of this thread.

Go team!

486 thoughts on “most of the mutations

  1. Mung,

    It’s one of the doctrines of the Church of Allan. As a religious doctrine it doesn’t have to make sense.

    Like the God thing? Lols!

  2. Allan Miller:
    Mung: It’s one of the doctrines of the Church of Allan. As a religious doctrine it doesn’t have to make sense.

    Like the God thing? Lols!

    I love these tacit concessions we get around here. 🙂

  3. Allan Miller:
    (Edit) Sorry, I started to type something but I’m losing the will to live …

    If you check out and get past the Pearly Gates, look around for Hans Spemann. Tell him that the discussants here have already forgot his famous work in developmental biology on “induction”. He will be saddened that we no longer recall how a lens happens to form in the right place.

  4. No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09352?page=6

    No? That is shame…such a good bluff by Darwin’s faithful…

    Well, let the experts provide us with all those experiments that created new species that didn’t need canes and incubators…

    Out of 10 billions species that are evolving and transitioning into other species, one has gottta be able to mutate them into another species…if the Darwinian belief is true that is…

    Don’t overwhelm us with too much evidence!!!! Few proven examples will do….

    BTW: Apparently, Darwin’s faithful have their own mags and evidence that proves that mutations are the driving force of evolution… They just don’t want to reveal them, so that they wouldn’t cause mass suicides by the religious… lol

  5. J-Mac: No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09352?page=6

    No? That is shame…such a good bluff by Darwin’s faithful…

    Are you dyslexic?

    “Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1,2,3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ∼20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes.

    Right there, in the very beginning of the abstract.

    NO EVOLUTION SILLY EVILILLUSIONISTS!

  6. Rumraket: Are you dyslexic?

    “Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1,2,3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ∼20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes.

    Right there, in the very beginning of the abstract.

    NO EVOLUTION SILLY EVILILLUSIONISTS!

    Results of Drosophilia mutagenesis experiments:
    Same fly, defective fly or dead fly…
    Some evolution 20% improvement in laying eggs…I guess for Rumcrocked is the same as poof into a new species…

    Next step must me an elophant lol
    If not, show me the money 😉

    Lovely chatting with you…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdghRwWfaOQ

  7. Yeah, funny how experiments in evolution end up with organisms that are limited by the processes of evolution. Like, the fruitflies are still in the same clade, and restrained by their genetic inheritance.

    No miraculous transitions. Yup, design/creation fails for the 14 billionth time.

    Glen Davidson

  8. Forgot about eyeless fruit fly…
    Finally! It is going to be a piece of cake to swat those annoying flies..
    Thanks evolution!

  9. J-Mac: Results of Drosophilia mutagenesis experiments:
    Same fly, defective fly or dead fly…
    Some evolution 20% improvement in laying eggs…I guess for Rumcrocked is the same as poof into a new species…

    Next step must me an elophant lol
    If not, show me the money

    Lovely chatting with you…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdghRwWfaOQ

    Ahh so because the flies don’t magically transform into an elephant, no evolution took place.

  10. Rumraket: Ahh so because the flies don’t magically transform into an elephant, no evolution took place.

    Funny thing about excessive exposure to radiation, whenever I on vacations spending too much time in the sun I get extra hor.. I bet this means that I’m evolving just like Rum-rocketed flies

  11. Rumraket: Ahh so because the flies don’t magically transform into an elephant, no evolution took place.

    Because the flies can magically transform into an elephant evolution did take place?

  12. Allan Miller: That would be eminent Nobel-prize-winning embryologist Hans Spemann!

    This one?

    This “Wolffian lens regeneration” intrigued Spemann throughout most of his life, and it still retains some of the air of mystery that originally surrounded it. At that time (1892) Wolff interpreted it as strong evidence against Darwin’s “selection theory” and as proof of “organic purposiveness.”

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/science-and-technology/cell-biology-biographies/hans-spemann

  13. Mung: Because the flies can magically transform into an elephant evolution did take place?

    That’s what J-mac thinks we believe, apparently. I’m glad to see you also think he’s dumb.

  14. Mung: This one?

    Yes. While he didn’t know anything about DNA, and therefore nothing of the concept of an environmentally sensitive genetic regulatory program, was still able to reason that it is the surrounding context that inform differentiating and developing tissues.

  15. J-Mac: Funny thing about excessive exposure to radiation, whenever I on vacations spending too much time in the sun I get extra hor.. I bet this means that I’m evolving just like Rum-rocketed flies

    That must be it. You’ve figured it out. Radiation makes you horny, so you must be evolving. Right. I think, in all seriousness, that you’re just too dumb for me. Does that make me an arrogant asshole? I don’t even care. Back to ignore with you.

  16. J-Mac: Funny thing about excessive exposure to radiation, whenever I on vacations spending too much time in the sun I get extra hor.. I bet this means that I’m evolving just like Rum-rocketed flies

    Maybe it is the Speedo not the sun

  17. Joe Felsenstein: I very much doubt that you would call bullshit on those misleading statements by creationist debaters.

    Well, I call BS on things that other Christians write when I think they don’ know wht they are talking about, I don’t see why it would be any different for creationist debaters. I certainly call BS on young earth creationism.

    So I disagree with your assessment. I think it’s bullshit. 🙂

  18. Mung: Fitness is probabilistic. Do you agree or disagree?

    Fitness is an expectation of a random variable. Expectations are not probabilistic.

    It would be like saying that the heads probability of a coin “is probabilistic”.

  19. Joe Felsenstein: Fitness is an expectation of a random variable. Expectations are not probabilistic.

    Does this mean that you reject the propensity interpretation of fitness?

    Probabailistic models incorporate random variables and probability distributions into the model of an event or phenomenon. While a deterministic model gives a single possible outcome for an event, a probabilistic model gives a probability distribution as a solution.

    http://www.statisticshowto.com/probabilistic/

    If you see a lowercase x or y, that’s the kind of variable you’re used to in algebra. It refers to an unknown quantity or quantities. If you see an uppercase X or Y, that’s a random variable and it usually refers to the probability of getting a certain outcome.

    http://www.statisticshowto.com/random-variable/

    In probability and statistics, a random variable, random quantity, aleatory variable, or stochastic variable is a variable whose possible values are numerical outcomes of a random phenomenon.

    A random variable has a probability distribution, which specifies the probability that its value falls in any given interval.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable

  20. Mung: Aha! So fitness is random. I knew it!

    In the same sense that your chance of winning when betting on red at roulette is “random”. Most sensible people would say it is one number, 18/38, which does not vary. But if you want to say that this chance “is random”, be my guest.

    Two addenda:

    1. If I knew what they meant by the “propensity” I might agree with them. Or not.

    2. Really, pasting in all those definitions of “random variable” was not needed. It may be new to you but I’ve had probability and statistics courses, have taught such courses, and am even Adjunct Professor of Statistics at my university. These activities do involve using that concept.

  21. Mung,

    It’s like watching someone join the dots in crayon. Spemann was intrigued by something written in 1892 (pre rediscovery of Mendel, history fans) by someone who doubted NS, therefore … what?

    You loves you a quote, Mung. Your overall approach to construction of arguments is like a kidnapper’s ransom note made out of newspaper clippings.

  22. J-Mac: Finally! It is going to be a piece of cake to swat those annoying flies..
    Thanks evolution!

    I suspect the fly on the right is the product of design, not evolution. Did you notice anything wrong with it?

    Of course you did, you wouldn’t be posting pictures without understanding what is going on in them, would you?

  23. Corneel: If you tear out the part for beta-proteobacteria, maybe you can get it for half price.

    Ah, old memories. Reminds me of my pre-Christian youth. I’d damage some article I wanted and then ask if I could purchase it for less. If I wasn’t out-right stealing it.

    Maybe I could just promise not to read that part.

  24. Mung: Fitness is probabilistic. Do you agree or disagree?

    According to Douglas Futuyma fitness has “components,” one of which is “the probability of a genotype’s survival from birth to reproduction. (p. 368)

    So Futuyma and Millstein both say that fitness is probabilistic.

    One has to wonder why they don’t give up their false beliefs.

  25. Mung: According to Douglas Futuyma fitness has “components,” one of which is “the probability of a genotype’s survival from birth to reproduction. (p. 368)

    So Futuyma and Millstein both say that fitness is probabilistic.

    Correspondingly, the outcome of spinning a roulette wheel can be modeled as probabilistic, and the chance of winning when betting on Red is 16/38.

    Therefore, can we say that the number 16/38 is “probabilistic”?

Leave a Reply