“At the beginning of the ninteenth century, it was almost universally believed that all living things on earth were immutable divine creations” Kimura 1983 page 1 paragraph 1
When molecular biologists, like Motoo Kimura (1979), began to examine the DNA evidence, they found that far more mutations occur in non-protein coding regions or are synonymous mutations in coding regions (which do not change the protein structure or function) and are, therefore, not involved in selection as they do not impact an organism’s fitness.[4] These findings began to show that the positive or negative selection in Darwinian evolution was too simplistic to describe every evolutionary process.[4] Through various experiments Kimura was able to determine that proteins in mammalian lineages were polymorphisms of each other, having only one or two point mutations that did not affect the actions of the protein in any way, whereas in Darwinian evolution a slow pattern of selection in genetic lineages with increasing fitness through generations is expected.[5] The molecular evidence showed that DNA changes more often than what was originally expected and no real pattern was found. Polymorphisms in proteins that have no effect to the function are neutral or nearly neutral and do not get selected for or against at all.[3] This theory would mean that each change in DNA that is passed on to the next generation does not result in a morphological change that can be acted upon by natural selection.[6]
In a study done by Price and Graur in 2015, the pair tried to find evidence on whether genes in primates and rodents were either undergoing Darwinian selection or were neutrally evolving under Kimura’s model.
Their findings showed that in rodents, the pseudogenes were evolving as one would expect under neutral conditions whereas in primates purifying selection was having an effect on as many as 20% of the pseudogenes tested.[10] By these estimates in primates, 20-40% of their genes could be under selective constraint in the neutral model.[10]
[quote=“adamjedgar, post:1, topic:56554”]
This theory would mean that each change in DNA that is passed on to the next generation does not result in a morphological change that can be acted upon by natural selection.
[/quote]
That overstates the case made prior. A correct statement would be that “not every change in DNA . . . results in a morphological change”, since some changes in DNA do have that result.
That said, what’s the point here? I don’t see anything Kimura appears to be saying as all that significant WRT evolution.
I’m also not 100% certain what this is supposed to be proving for you. Since I know you accept young earth creationism, and the journal mentions that between parent and offspring mutations don’t result in morphological changes you’re trying to arguments then evolution can’t be true because it’s saying morphological changes don’t occur from mutations…. But that’s just not what’s being said. It’s saying the same thing almost all of us know already. The genetic mutations between a parent and their offspring does not usually result in morphological differences. That’s true, but only because it takes many many many generations for natural selection to have favored a trait so much that the species looks physically different from its previous ancestors, hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. Normally many many millions of years are required for changes to result in a new genus.
Right now in north America, and throughout the world we have snakes. Snakes are all actually lizards. We can see how long this morphological change has been taking place. Snakes give birth to snakes. Lizards give birth to lizards. If we go back far enough we will find snakes with legs. Snakes that probably looked like what many skinks look like. We also see convergent evolution between snakes and legless lizards. Snakes even still have bone and organs that hints at their earlier tetrapod forms with legs. But you don’t see these giant differences between parents and offsprings but between descendants and much older ancestors from millions and millions of years ago.
So most likely, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading and reaching incorrect conclusions. Or either this person is wrong. I’m not reading all of it but from what I read, it seems to me it’s just a misinterpretation of the data being presented.
I wanst planing on a YEC angle…however i will respond to your statrment…“it takes many many many generations”…
I find that statement inadequite. The main reaon why is because of the following illustration…which for those here who dont understand mechanical things…well the illustration might initially not make sense. The point is, the same.mechanisms and energies apply, it doesnt matter the application because science applies ro all things not just those which we choose it to apply to. The theory of evolution is also bound by the same notion, whether it be a lump of metal or a living being…the two are inseparable for the scientist. Anyway, my illustration…
My almost brand new $140,000 AUD Dodge RAM 1500 Larame Sport was up on a hoist yesterday and i took the opportunity to give it a look over underneath.
In doing so i found a bolt had come lose and fallen off the exhaust…this wasnt many many many generations. The bolt vibrated lose in real time…there is no missing link between the principle of a tight bolt and a missing bolt. The problem with the many many many generations statement for me is the observable chain of evidence. Whether you agree or not, a loose bolt usually causes a loose exhaust…its doesnt cause an interior light bulb to stop working! So the point would be that if i retraced my steps, i would find the bolt that fell out of this exact exhaust system…not a blown lighbulb.
I a agree with the notion of evolution, its obvious that the world is chsnging…if the world is changing than evolution is very obviously verified. My.belief is that either God designed our entire existence and the universe this way or he added this capability into it after the fall…The reality is, i can see the loose exhaust, caused by a missing bolt, and theoretically could find the missing bolt.
Ok, back to the O.P…
so Kimuras point is that the vast majority of changes are invisible to natural selection that darwins theory is wrong in this regard.
The darwinian model appears to claim both sides of the bell curve are mirrored. Kimura says hisn proof is that this part of the theory is incorrect. The positive side of the curve is miniscule…so much so one would have to argue statistically thst there is absolutely no correlation there. i find that hugely problematic in our reality because correlation is a vital part of our existence in everything we do…whether it be in decision making (cause and effect) , tides or the weather.
So what are the defenses and deficiencies you guys see in Kimuras model there because for me correlation is a hugely problematic wall to climb over i think
For organisms like humans, that is the case. For bacteria, say, a larger fraction of mutations are deleterious.
No. There was nothing in Darwin’s original understanding or in the neo-Darwinian synthesis that claimed that beneficial and detrimental mutations occurred equally often.
I don’t know what you mean here. Correlation between what and what? In reality, plenty of beneficial mutations occur, even if they’re much rarer than deleterious or neutral ones. That’s all that’s required for natural selection to generate adaptive evolution (at least as long as there isn’t a truly overwhelming number of deleterious mutations – and there isn’t).
Your analogy doesn’t apply to biology because your vehicle doesn’t have parents or offspring.
That would only be true if Darwin said that the majority of mutations in DNA were visible to natural selection. Since Darwin said no such thing, there’s no reason to claim his theory is wrong. If you could, perhaps you could cite examples of Darwin discussing mutations in DNA.
In fact, Darwin mentioned neutral variations in his work.
“Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions.”–Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”
