I’ve wanted to start this discussion for several weeks, but wasn’t sure how to present Wagner’s argument. Fortunately Piotr has saved me the trouble with a post at UD.
Piotr February 24, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Gpuccio,Do you mind if I begin with a simple illustrative example? Let’s consider all five-letter alphabetic strings (AAAAA, QWERT, HGROF, etc.). By convention, a string will be “functional” if it’s a meaningful English word (BREAD, WATER, GLASS, etc.). Functionality is therefore not a formal property of the string but something dictated by the environment. There are 26^5 = 11881376 (almost 12 million) possible five-letter strings. The number of five-letter words in English (excluding proper nouns and extremely rare, dialectal or archaic words) is about 6000, so the probability that any randomly generated string is functional is about 0.0005.
Any five-letter string S can produce 5×25 = 125 “mutants” differing from S by exactly one letter. If you represent the sequence space as a five-dimensional hypercube (26x26x26x26x26), a mutation can be defined as a translation along any of the five axes.
It would appear that the odds of finding a functional mutant for a given string should be about 125×0.0005 = 1/16 on the average. In fact, however, it depends where you start. If S is functional, the existence of at least one functional mutant is almost guaranteed (close to 90%). For most English words there are more than one functional mutants. For example, from SNARE wer get {SCARE, SHARE, SPARE, STARE, SNORE, SNAKE, SNARK…}. Though some functional sequences are isolated or form small clusters in the sequence space, most of them are members of one huge, quite densely interconnected network. You can get from one to another in just a few steps (often in more than one way), which is of course what Lewis Carroll’s “word ladder” puzzle is about:
FLOUR > FLOOR > FLOOD > BLOOD > BROOD > BROAD > BREAD
You can ponder the example for a moment; I’ll return to it later.
The whole thread is worth a look.
I might add that there is a rather crude GA at http://itatsi.com that does something not entirely unlike a word ladder.
This sounds like science. What actual research is happening *right now* towards this goal?
What specific processes and mechanisms are being examined *right now*? How are they being examined?
Has any of that work already been done? What were the results?
I’ll be happy to post an OP if you can give me *one specific example* of this happening, as opposed to you just saying the words. An OP to discuss such would be apt.
Do you have a specific example I can use to create a OP with?
They’re not the same thing, no. That is correct.
Mutations are usually thought of as replication errors. Instead of a 100% faithful copy, there will be small changes here or there. Maybe a gene as been duplicated, or a few nucleotides changed and so on. That’s mutation.
Genetic recombination is a source of variation in the gene pool of a population, but it is not the same source of variation as mutations. They are sort of related, but not exactly the same. In recombination the changes are not due to replication errors, but a mixing of alleles from two gametes during fertilization. This mixing of alleles can produce new phenotypic effects not already present in the population.
Last is horizontal gene transfer, where new genetic material not already present in the population is transferred “horizontally” from another species.
Those are the three known sources of variation.
Correct. Then the theory would have to be modified to include the new source of variation, provided there was one.
Yes, by the evolutionary process.
Out of curiosity, where are the intelligent design creationists getting this idea that there is no scientific theory of evolution? It seems like a talking point they got from one of their leaders and are repeating without checking the source. How difficult is it to type “what is the theory of evolution” into Google? How about cracking an introductory textbook like Futuyma?
I said:
OMagain responds:
Then I take it you are unfamiliar with selective breeding, which has been going on for thousands of years, and directed gene insertion, editing and recombination, which has been going on for decades?
Allan Miller said:
No, the onus is on anyone making a positive claim. If you claim Darwinian processes are sufficient, the onus is on you to provide the metric that demonstrates them to be sufficient. Otherwise, it is an unsupported assertion.
Yes, the onus is also on ID advocates who claim that Darwinian processes are insufficient to demonstrate why this is so. ID advocates have been at least attempting to make this case for decades. Although their success in so doing is arguable, at least they are trying to support their assertion; where have Darwinists attempted to make the case that Darwinistic processes are sufficient?
1. Evolutionists claim Darwinian processes exist and cause evolution. This claim is supported.
2. IDists claim a spectrum of things evolution can’t do. Success only in realms such as “My momma wasn’t no monkey”, double negatives aside.
3. IDists claim design can be detected – unsupported.
4. IDists currently have no mechanistic processes to test.
This is I thinik is the state of play.
RichardHughes said:
Some “evolutionaists” might make that claim. However, Darwinian processes cannot account for biological forms in existence due to selective breeding and directed genetic manipulation, so the all-inclusive implication of your assertion is false.
Please direct me to where Darwinian processes have been supported as sufficient for all evolutionary product, and include pertinent quotes.
No, IDists claim a spectrum of things that Darwinistic processes cannot, even in principle, account for, and at least attempt to formally make their case. For example, something Darwinistic processes cannot account for is the existence of the pekingese or basset hound.
Not much I need to add to someone who implies design cannot be detected. One wonders how you make it through the day unable to differentiate between the artificial and the natural.
Of course we do; we’ve been testing selective breeding for thousands of years, and directed genetic manipulation for decades.
Selective breeding is evolution. Darwin devoted the pirst part of “Origin” to an extensive discussion of selective breeding. But you’ve read the book, so you know that selective breeding was one of the key ideas contributing to the idea of natural selection.
The new technologies mimic natural processes. Bacteria have been exchanging DNA for billions of years.
So what you have is breeders mimicking natural selection, and technicians mimicking bacterial conjugation and retroviral insertion. Humans tend to observe natural processes — say fire — and learn to control them.
Learn to read, Mindpowers. The actual words, not what you wish I had wrote. Perhaps the two are teh same under your world view.
Me: “Evolutionists claim Darwinian processes exist and cause evolution.”
Mindpowers: “Please direct me to where Darwinian processes have been supported as sufficient for all evolutionary product, and include pertinent quotes.”
Can the gentle reader spot the difference?
But the rest of your posts is delightful – scurry back to UD and tell them, Evolution “can’t account for selective breeding” and “selective breeding” is the answer to the ID mechanism quandary. Propose where these breeding programs were and what they must have looked like. I suspect it must have been a global enterprise given it was going on for billions of years, In every climate and environment and 99% of everything they bred they discontinued! 😉
No. I’m takiing back “design” as a word for general use but I have no use for “intelligent”.
The process of evolution is the same whether human selection is part of the mix or not. I’m happy to call the evolutionary process of reiterated genome mixing with some sprinkling of new variation and phenotype selection by the name “environmental design” or “biological design” if you like. “Intelligence” is a nebulous concept that doesn’t add anything to understanding an evolutionary process.
Real life intervened and I see many comments have accumulated since I last posted so I’ll take some time to read through and catch up.
Indeed!
Sexual selection by mate choice is a process that seems to be able to produce runaway evolution until the attractive benefit is outweighed by the detriment to getting a living. I suspect the evolution peacock tail length has stabilized at the trade of point between reproductive success and making it through the day.
Exactly! As far as the gene is concerned natural, sexual and artificial selection is the same process.
I guess if you keep selecting from a diminishing gene pool, you diminish the available variation and the rate at which mutations etc supply new variation cannot keep pace.
I’m telling you that there is no difference in the process at the genetic level. Artificial selection is natural selection with humans an additional factor in the niche environment.
He did!!!
“84
William J MurrayMarch 9, 2015 at 9:19 am
James Grover:
Two of the proposed mechanisms/processes of ID, in regards to biological evolution, are:
Selective breeding/artificial environment control
Directed variation (directed manipulation of genes or other biological system infrastructure)”
Oh Murray get that research program going!
If you mean “arificial selection by humans; plant and animal breeding” when you say; “purposeful genetic manipulation”, then there is no distinction to draw.
No but I’ll agree with: selective breeding can at least accomplish stable biological variations (stable within framework of humans deliberately keeping the populations in existence) that would take natural evolutionary processes much longer to accomplish.
Selective breeding (and sexual selection) can result in more rapid change than natural selection.
You have to think (and is is where Murray falls down) through the entailments of artificial selection. Care-givers, habitats, food production and distribution systems.
No here’s the rub. If he *really believes* this, he’ll be picking up his shovel and looking for these things. But he doesn’t, because he’s WJM who doesn’t have to actually believe anything he says, only that they have to make him feel nice.
Petrushka said:
Don’t tell me – I agree with you. Tell OMagain. He claims that Darwinian evolutionary processes are the only ones we know of. Selective breeding is certainly not a Darwinian evolutionary process.
None of that changes the fact that selective breeding and directed genetic manipulation are not Darwinian evolutionary processes; they are ID evolutionary processes. Unless, of course, you wish to assert that even if all of evolution is controlled and directed by an intelligence towards a goal, it is still Darwinian in nature?
Alan Fox said:
The question, Alan, is whether what goes on at the genetic level is the “essential” difference between selective breeding and natural selection. It’s not called “genetic selection” or even just “breeding” or just “selection” because the modifier is used to establish the “essential” difference between the two: one is non-intelligent – by chance & natural law, the other is intelligent and directed towards a goal in spite of natural tendencies otherwise.
That is the “essential” difference between the two.
Dog breeders select pheotypic traits, not genes. In the wild, nature is unforgiving and deleterious variations will disappear from the gene pool. Selection, whether by nature or breeders, can only select from existing alleles. The rate at which genes mutate governs the arrival of new genes to sample by selection.
Larry Moran has a series of posts up at Sandwalk starting here and there are many scholarly articles on the subject.
What you write makes no sense. What is the essential difference? Try to be clear.
Absolutely!
Alan Fox said:
The essential difference between natural selection and artificial selection is that one is natural and the other is artificial. Saying that what occurs at the genetic level is the same is entirely irrelevant, as irrelevant as saying that what occurs at the molecular level is the same if a stone is eroded by naturally occurring rain or by a sculptor using a high-powered, focused stream of water. The essential difference is not what occurs at the microscopic level, but rather what kind of cause is directing the waterflow and what each can plausibly produce.
Tell us about the research program, William!
(Edited)
Since Darwin began his book with a discussion of selective breeding, I don’t think you can say it is not Darwinian.
Humans make diamonds. We do so by copying nature.
So what’s the point, that human selection can cause changes in organisms, and there’s every reason to think that environmental pressures can act similarly?
Yes, I can agree with that.
Glen Davidson
Changes in populations.
Good Grief! I’m almost speechless and anyone who knows me will tell you that’s a rare thing. 🙂
The essential ingredient, once you have your population of reproducing organisms is variation. Variation means lots of alleles for selection to work on. The rate at which new mutations and other instances of variation arrive in the gene pool is unaffected by whether the environment is in the wild or in a selective breeding program. (Unless breeders have started using mutagens such as sources of radioactivity).
Neither the breeder nor the wild environment are able to foresee the results of mutations. Selective breeding, like natural selection is a “suck it and see” process. And, as we see with intensive dog breeding, the results can be unexpected and undesirable.
I stand in amazement at the bit about sculpting but I don’t think there is any need for me to add anything.
Here’s gpuccio’s latest from UD:
That would be an interesting theory, just as soon as he posts some entailments.
Mindpowers has a post up now was well:
Hoping for another train wreck like ‘non-natural science’, the last time he gleefully scampered across with a half-baked idea.
In the context I thought it was reasonably clear that the only sorts of Darwinian evolutionary processes we were aware of were Darwinian evolutionary processes as opposed to Hidden Intelligently Designed processes that seem like Darwinian processes.
You know, the ones that seem Darwinian but actually are not – the ones you propose exist. And I was merely saying we’re not aware of any of those, are we now?
So, you know, there’s no need to direct anyone to tell me anything thank you very much. Mote in eye etc.
Well, what’s the answer to that question then?
If you don’t know on what basis are you making any judgments at all?
Flailing seems to be the verb that fits this..
Glen Davidson
He wont be here for a while. Last time he got excited an posted he hung out over there until it became clear in was a non-starter. He’s looking for affirmation, not insight.
Is Murray announcing the discovery of “humans” from their effects?
Wow, it seems to work.
Now for that unobserved, inscrutable, mysterious Designer that designed life for unknown reasons and by unknown means…
Glen Davidson
MindPowers give us ‘the details”:
“94
William J Murray March 9, 2015 at 10:54 am
velikovskys said:
How is this manipulation accomplished?
By whatever means are available to whomever is doing the manipulation.”
Its like arguing with 5 year olds.
Alan Fox asks me what the essential difference is between natural selection and selective breeding (which is obvious to any sane individual), and then goes on to tell me what the essential similarity is between random mutation and directed genetic manipulation – that variation occurs.
/sigh
Ask yourself whether antibiotic resistance is the result of natural selection or selective breeding.
William, when are you going to look at the entailments of what you’ve suggested. You appear to be hiding from them.
Its “Front loading” all over again – if true, trivially easy to prove.
William J. Murray,
Incremental change can generate an apparently IC system in the absence of barriers. So if you find an ‘IC’ system, you need to rule out the possibility that it did so. The onus is on you. You are making the positive claim that it is IC, which requires more than merely noting that the parts presently interdepend. And you need to say why your explanation is a better fit to the data.
See the work of Fisher, Haldane, Dobzhansky, Muller et al. These issues were thrashed out early last century in the general case, and indeed refinements were demanded, which is why Drift, LGT and mutational biases are now part of the theory. Pure NS and vertical inheritance were deemed insufficient to account for the data. But they put the work in. They didn’t demand that the keepers of the prior MS prove sufficiency, they demonstrated insufficiency.
Are you calling me insane? *bristles*
Well, if it is so obvious, then tell me.
Well, maybe you need to tell me what you mean by “genetic manipulation”. Perhaps you want to go down the path of genetic engineering. Be my guest.
William J. Murray,
Unless 2 things are completely different in every respect, or precisely the same in every respect, they will fall into that middle ground where they are similar in some respects and differ in others. One is not compelled to talk only of one or the other.
It reminds me of Louis CK’s daughter’s joke:
Patrick,
joey g has been pushing the ‘there’s no theory of evolution’ crap, and since IDiots are always on the lookout for a STUPID assertion, some of them are copying and reasserting joey’s STUPID assertion. It must be frustrating for IDiots to never have anything new and REAL to use in their worn out proselytizing of ID-creationism.
Alan Fox,
There is a forest in the middle of all those trees if you would just look Alan.
You can talk about damage and repair to the damage of a system all you want, it does nothing to help explain the existence of the system. You have a wolf. You get damage to that wolf’s dna. It may cause shorter hip bones or it may cause a deformed mouth, or a loss of fur, or baggy skin, or gigantism. There is your variation.
What kind of variation do you want to see, that we have seen already, that is going to make the wolf obsolete by comparison? The system works. every time you break the system, you make it worse not better. We have all the examples of breaking a dog that you are going to get. Some breaks they can live with, baggy skin, or fluffy white fur, and some will just kill them-a cleft palate or missing bones. Where is the magic variation that will make them better? We still haven’t found it in all the years of looking at dog breeds?
Where is the magic variation that will make grass better, or bacteria? Hasn’t Lenski looked long enough, when are those darn bacteria going to break out of their confines of prison bacteria and start to soar into greatness? When is the bacteria going to start it journey into manhood, like it supposedly did all those years ago? Has it given up?
William J. Murray,
WJM said: “For example, something Darwinistic processes cannot account for is the existence of the pekingese or basset hound.”
Evolutionary processes/events DO account for the existence of the Pekingese and Basset Hound, and you cannot produce any evidence to show that humans or any other so-called ‘intelligent designer’ designed-created the mutations or anything else within the ancestors of Pekingese Dogs and Basset Hounds that resulted in the existence of Pekingese Dogs and Basset Hounds.
Even if it gets this comment kicked to Guano, I just have to say that you really don’t have a clue about selective breeding, natural selection, mutations, evolution, or anything else that matters, and your assertions are some of the stupidest and most dishonest assertions of the stupid and dishonest assertions that IDiot-creationists spew.
“Not much I need to add to someone who implies design cannot be detected. One wonders how you make it through the day unable to differentiate between the artificial and the natural.”
For the Gazillionth time, no one is denying that humans manipulate or ‘design’ some things. Some of those things are labeled, by humans, as ‘artificial’. You IDiot-creationists are the ones who are unable (and thoroughly unwilling) to “differentiate between the artificial and the natural”, and you are the ones who want the entire universe* to be labeled as “artificial” (i.e. labeled as artificially and ‘intelligently’ designed-created-guided by your chosen, imaginary, so-called ‘God’). *Except for the ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ stuff of course.
“Of course we do; we’ve been testing selective breeding for thousands of years, and directed genetic manipulation for decades.”
Which has NOTHING to do with the FACT that you IDiot-creationists haven’t shown ANY positive evidence to support your assertions that the universe or anything in it was/is designed-created-guided by your chosen, imaginary sky daddy. As you IDCs well know but are way too dishonest to admit, the IDC agenda is NOT about whether humans ‘designed’ dogs (or anything else) or not, so STOP using STUPID, DISHONEST, IRRELEVANT arguments in your attempts to ruin science and shove your imaginary sky daddy down everyone’s throat whether they like it or not.
I must say I’ve learned a lot from this post. Things I suspected, but was too generous to believe.
When will I see bacteria become man – sophisticated ID argument.
At the risk of keeping this stupid line of “reasoning” going even more, I wonder if we’re supposed to understand the fungus that leafcutter ants use to turn leaves into food as another “proof” of “design.” I mean, it appears not to exist beyond the ants’ use of it, and it seems to be “selected” (likely ant selection figured into it a good deal) to be productive for the ants, likely also the case for the bacteria that they use to kill parasitic fungi in their “gardens.”
Obviously my point is not that the ants did the same thing that humans did in selective breeding, but that evolution happens. With ants, not really by intelligence as we normally understand “intelligence,” but humans use their intelligence to do what happened by other means with ants and their “crops.”
Of course the greater point in all of this is that we have real humans and real ants that cause real effects, the deviation of other organisms away from the wild free-living types. With humans, there is massive evidence of tool use and of civilization, just as you’d expect of real “designers” (if we’re calling fairly unsophisticated–and often barely teleological if at all–selection “design”), designers that themselves apparently evolved without intelligent interventions. There’s a rich empirical tangle surrounding human design, and neither evidence of design nor of designers in ID.
Gee, it’s sort of like something supernatural–but no, perish the thought, could be aliens who did nothing but genetically engineer life without waste or changes in their landscapes. Except that no one really believes the latter.
Glen Davidson
If the fungus had been designed by a competent designer, it would have been a human.
Must have been a student designer, and a poor one.
Everything that is optimally adapted is human.