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!
Well it seems this thread has run it’s course. Our resident IDcreationists have completely undermined their own position. My work here is done.
Mung,
No. ‘Lucky accidents’ is a bit of a dense way of putting it, so I don’t even think that. But no, I don’t buy evolution simply because I think it too complex to design, but because it makes too much sense – certainly by comparison.
Is it real butter?
Is a tu quoque fallacy the best you can do?
Thank you for educating dazz and Entropy on the nature of selection.
Mung,
That’s the admission you’re making then? You’re going for Equally Absurd?
Random with respect to fitness sounds so much better. But what, really, is the difference?
The only source of innovation in Darwinian theory is blind luck.
No, I don’t think the two are equally absurd. I thought you were comparing the two as being equally absurd.
Mung,
I don’t think much of that definition of ‘random’, to be honest. But yeah, let’s say you’re saying ‘bloke in sky went poof’. What is the difference, right?
Mung,
Me? I was mocking your mockery.
Yeah, I get that a lot.
YOU ARE SO TRANSPARENT.
I see that you are losing focus.
No, I can’t see that.
Glen Davidson
Which is likely to leave the most offspring, a poor sighted peacock with a magnificent tail or an eagle eyed peacock with a poor excuse for a tail? 🙂
It’s thought that such issues are part of the point of sexual selection. A peacock with a magnificent tail must be quite fit, or it couldn’t have evaded predators (it has good eyesight and good flight capabilities, was alert, etc.) and found the food necessary to produce his wonderful tail feathers.
He’s showing off his fitness with his tail feathers.
Glen Davidson
Everything in that simulation points to development happening exactly as scripted in a plan. Why is that? is that how lucky accidents work, in perfect symmetry, and sequence and harmony? Why does the simulation move in a perfectly orchestrated trajectory? Is that also how nature works?
This simulation is every bit as bad as Nilsson-Pelger. Its like they stole their idea. Just go from nothing, to an eye, and then say, so that’s how it happens.
Why are all these lucky accidents occurring only right there, smack in the middle of where we need an eye? Are there unlucky accidents also happening at the same time, like deep holes forming in limbs, or optic nerve fibers forming outside the ear? And the shapes, look at how perfectly they are forming, is that what happens?
This seems more like an ad for an investment firm, talking how how we can grow the future together if you invest in them. It seems nothing whatsoever to do with lucky accidents.
And if his tail feathers were ugly and shriveled, he would also be showing off his fitness with his tail feathers, because this is how fitness works. Whatever exists, that is what is fitness. Nothing is un-explainable.
If a bird tried flying and each time it took a nose dive right into the dirt, evolutionists would say, see, he is showing off his fitness, imagine being that terrible at flying and still being able to survive, now that takes good genes!
The Church of the Perennially Clueless.
Might there, just occasionally be a mutation that has an effect that increases fitness, because it brings about a phenotype that is better-adapted? And might it spread for that reason?
Rather than always spreading by happenstance, or in spite of being less fit?
The animation shows some stylised ideal of how vertebrate development proceeds. Don’t tell me you are also going to take issue with that; it was not intended to convey anything about evolution, just to correct your misconception that pupils develop after the eye ball has formed.
Yes, most of the mutations that happen in developmental genes are bad news and some are positively bizarre. I am not aware of eyesockets growing in limbs, but below is a famous gain-of-function mutation in the Antennapedia gene of fruitflies. Antennapedia is part of the family of Hox genes, which you need to learn about (as well as morphogens in general), if you want to discuss with us why everything is happening right where it is needed.
We can then discuss the likelihood of beneficial morphological mutations if you like, but you better learn some developmental biology in a hurry.
“Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”-Pierre-Paul Grassé
Corneel,
If mutations could produce new species that could survive in the wild, mutation breeding would have produce millions of variants of Drosophila during the last 100 years of experiments. .. not just one that has to be kept on life support…
Well now, that’s definitive! A neo-Lamarckian born in 1895 who died in 1985. Guess we all have to defer to him.
He did believe that evolution occurred, you know. He was fine with common descent.
I haven’t reached that part. I am still submerging them in water.
Any day now …
Anyhow, are you enjoying your farewell tour?
Meantime, J-mac’s designed organisms are firing on all cylinders, I expect. Because, you know, the standard is a demo before your very eyes. Apparently.
I did evolve a fruitfly into a bear, but it couldn’t fly, which was the whole point. So I tried to turn it into a whale and it just drowned.
J-Mac science at its best.
Glen Davidson
Corneel,
Oh Corneel this is a really bad argument on your part. You are referring to mutations in development, not NEW genes. All the genes for arms and legs and eyes already exist in the fruit fly.
Wait, are you actually arguing that this is how eyes developed, they already have all the genes in places, and sometime during development they just showed up one day?
Did you really think this line of reasoning was going to hold water?
“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” (On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations:) – Lynn Margulis
“Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene’s function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.L.; vgl. Diskussion]. ”
However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.-” Christian Schwabe
J-Mac,
That doesn’t count, they um, they um, um…they don’t believe in Darwinian evolution, so they are biased!
He did? Evolution as you see it…? Common descent with miraculous insertion into the tree of life?
I like experimental evidence…When was the last time you did a mutagenesis experiment instead of speculations about fitness?
Joe,
How do positive mutations happen in overlapping genes?
I see you are lifting quote-mines from Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig’s web-site. I see from here, the quote was taken from a 1991 Science article
Seems she was defending the Gaia hypothesis.
Changed my mind…gonna beat the sh.. out of this blog ;-)…hope you don’t mind?
Did you read the whole page on Lonnig’s web? Or did you quote-mined it?
What is it about?
Don’t forget Schwabe- “However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.” Christian Schwabe 😉
Nope, my German is too rusty. How’s your German?
Nope. I am wondering why you relied on Lönnig as a source. It seems he’s unreliable.
As I said, my German is too rusty.
The Mother Church from which the Church of Allan is a heretical offshoot?
Sure. If by “better-adapted” you mean “leaves more offspring.”
I didn’t say it’s spreading was happenstance. I said it is stochastic. It’s the “random mutations” that are lucky accidents.
Do you disagree that in population genetics selection is stochastic?
Nah, I’d prefer to defer to dazz.
I think you’re cherry-picking. I think there are cases of the pupil developing before the eye ball. I mean, it makes sense to me that the hole came before what surrounds the hole.
The alternative would be that some eye developed and then some lucky mutation came along and poked a hole in it. And then there was light.
I see Christian Schwabe is a biochemist who has developed his own theory of evolution, The Genomic Potential Hypothesis, in 2001. Doesn’t seem to have caught on.
However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.
Yeah.
You were able to find a “quote mine” but you were not able to find the many English versions of the webpage?
How about this? Inescapable element of randomness in natural selection?
Sprechen sie deutsch?
http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
BTW: German is one of the languages I have never had a chance to learn…It’s never too late some say…
Another atheist has been wrong about alternatives to Darwinian nonsense…Thanks to Darwin he wasn’t a creationists!
At least he didn’t buy your religion… Good for him…
Mutation breeding has not produced one NEW SPECIES OF AN animal that can survive in the wild…. with one ICU exception; a fruit-fly kept on life-support, so that people can make it to take pictures for the new text books with the new interpretation of natural selection, and possibly new gene and evolution definition itself…
The overlapping genes, especially in eukaryots, are not that great for the evolutionary speculations, so the gene definition should be changed to fit the scheme in the Darwinian faith…
No, I meant better at catching prey, for example.
Here we go again. No, selection is the deterministic part of the process.
In the case I gave you, of particles undergoing Brownian Motion in a suspension, with gravity pulling them downwards, do you seriously think that gravity should be described as stochastic?
Really?
I asked you this before and you ducked the question.
Joe Felsenstein,
And Joe can prove it too.. by spekulations…
Alan Fox,
Lonning is unreliable-he is not a skeptic!
I haven’t ducked it, I just didn’t see the relevance. From my perspective you were the one ducking by trying to change the subject.
So you’re saying that the “fitness” of a trait never changes, that it never fluctuates, because the environment, like gravity, never changes.
Really?
Because if the “fitness” of a trait can fluctuate, then in what sense is the process deterministic?
Joe Felsenstein,
Selection is deterministic? Really? So people don’t actually choose mates?
Fitnesses can change, so they can be stochastic. But they don’t have to change. When we model a population that is undergoing a simple kind of selection, say relative fitnesses of AA, Aa, and aa of 1 : 0.8 : 0.4 in a population of 100,000 diploid individuals, there is stochastic change of gene frequencies owing to genetic drift, and maybe stochastic mutation from A to a and back again. But in that model the selection is a deterministic force. Just as gravity is in models of suspended particles.
The whole process is stochastic, but the selection part isn’t.
You seem incredibly reluctant to acknowledge that selection can be a consistent force increasing the frequencies of alleles that lead to higher fitness.