Quantum evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
13

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:5, topic:4731”]
At the risk of starting another round of virulent rhetoric… I am still hoping to see this position: “evolution is primarily driven by existing variation, not new mutation” fully explicated in a concise thread (this one thread, or a new one).[/quote]
Hello George,

I thought that we were in agreement.

[quote]Part of the underlying premises for this hypothesis is the STARTING POINT right?

“Existing Variation” suggests that a genetically diverse population as a starting point, right?[/quote]
Yes, existing variation is what we directly observe. New mutant alleles are NEITHER necessary nor sufficient to produce evolution.

[quote]We have a choice of STARTING with, say the first FISHES … or the first land-based TETRAPOD… or the first MAMMAL

Do you think your stated hypothesis is true EVEN if we start with the first FISH?[/quote]
Yes, although there was never anything we could look back on and unambiguously identify as “the first fish.” You don’t seem to be grasping the concepts of gradualism and quantitative trait loci.

Probably.

Think of it this way: mutation is a faucet slowly dripping new variations into a huge, full bathtub of existing variation. Selection doesn’t care if the variation it is acting upon is new or already existing, but it’s almost certain to act upon the latter, just because there’s so much more of it. Cheetahs, for multiple reasons, have an empty bathtub, so they are in big trouble and can’t be saved by the tiny drops of new variation.

That time frame is more than enough to go through the bathtub many, many times.

You’re sounding like a creationist now.

[quote]Didn’t unintended CHANGES to the genetic code in fact drive this kind of evolution?
[/quote]No, the genetic code has been virtually always constant.

Or perhaps by “genetic code” you don’t mean the genetic code? If so, you should make a better effort to use standard terms. You’d be a lot less confused.

15

@benkirk

So let me try this again:

George’s New Question: “When it comes to getting a mammal from an ancestral fish … didn’t imperfections in the next generation’s chromosomes in fact drive this kind of evolution?”

Your prior posting included this comment:

“You don’t seem to be grasping the concepts of gradualism and quantitative trait loci.”

I think you are right. I don’t see how these ideas, as well as “existing variation”, can take us from FISH to
MAMMAL.

If the great bulk of our genome is the same boiler plate for running cellular metabolism, making neurons and bones … and so forth … obviously, I can see how this would lead to a GIANT chunk of our genome being the
same as reptiles or fish.

But set all this aside… because it’s irrelevant to my question.

If a scientist had the sufficient theoretical framework to MAKE a mammal from a thousand Fish Embryos… are you trying to suggest that MOSTLY all he would have to do is pick and choose the varying genes within these thousand fish embryos and - - VOILA he has a mammal?

Or isn’t it more close to the truth that he would MOSTLY have to do is CHANGE a number of crucial GENES to make a mammal out of fish embryos?

I look forward to your response.

16

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:15, topic:4731”]
George’s New Question: “When it comes to getting a mammal from an ancestral fish … didn’t imperfections in the next generation’s chromosomes in fact drive this kind of evolution?”[/quote]

Hello George,

Once again, you throw in another hopelessly vague term. “Imperfections” requires something else to be perfect. So PRECISELY what is the perfection against which we are judging in George’s New Question? Without rigorously defined terms, your question is useless.

To see it, you would need to learn a lot of developmental biology. Are you willing to do so? You weren’t even willing to read the abstracts of the papers I cited to glean the simple story all 4 of them told.

It is and it is, depending on how one defines “same.” I attempted to get the concept of functional sameness across to you (remember, YOU requested studies), but you threw it aside.

Why? It’s extremely relevant!

If he had the framework (and far more than a thousand individuals), possibly–at least it would be something George Brooks would look at and identify as a mammal. But why would you specify embryos? It seems to me that there’s something major you’re missing.

Why change from your previous platform of whales? Your challenge would likely be easy for hippo vs. whale–that is, assuming we know all of the QTLs and have more than a thousand individuals for DNA mining.

Change the amino acid sequences of the proteins they encode or merely change the regulation of crucial genes? Once again, vagueness precludes both discussion and understanding.

17

Hello Neal,
I think that your understanding is hopelessly scrambled. You would gain a far better understanding of evolution if you concentrated on actual biological mechanisms and resisted the temptation to name-drop.

18

@Benkirk,

No… I DID read the Abstracts… I didn’t find them particularly relevant to my question. I should know… it was MY question.

As for your objections to the use of the word “IMPERFECTIONS”… I think you are just being a prima donna…
There is nothing wrong with that term.

If parents passed on their genetic information PERFECTLY … then the only way the population evolves is from percentage changes in variations…with NO new traits… only changes in ratios of existing traits and variants.

SO… PRAY TELL… how does a population of fish who produce PERFECT copies of their chromosomal content in the next generation … ever turn into a population of anything other than FISH? Fish who perfectly reproduce fish will never evolve into anything else… though variants in color, size and shape will continue to respond to ecological factors…

Isn’t it obvious that something has to be replicated with an error… to create really new forms over time? … really new forms that eventually create air breathing mammals?

Ben, what you don’t seem to grasp is if you can’t convince ME … if you can’t find a way to speak MY language… you are NEVER EVER going to be able to reach Evangelicals… and the special language THEY speak…

2 Likes
19

With every comment, you introduce a new term or two and move the goalposts back and forth from a single speciation event to the division between classes. I answer all of your questions and you answer none of mine.

I think you do understand and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

20

@benkirk…

[ Notice how short I have to keep my responses to keep you from running wild with the discussion? ]

So… “We’ll still get plenty of new forms if God stops all mutations tomorrow.”

Okay… so tell me how that would work?

If we have a population of special Goldfish… some colored all gold… some colored with patches of other colors. But 100% of them are without any noticeable physical defect. And what is special with these Goldfish is the process of meiosis is AMAZINGLY perfect. And the process of sexual reproduction is perfect. 50% of each parent’s genome is precisely transmitted to the next generation in a union with flaws or mistakes.

How much longer, in terms of percent, do you think it would take for this kind of fish population to produce a tetrapod in a changing environment compared to a population of fish that was NOT capable of perfect transmission of parental genetic information?

You spend WAYYYY too much time rejecting my terminology, and virtually no time explaining YOUR terminology. The end result is you convince none of your readers of anything you say … except how brilliant you must be.

21

Hello George,

Wouldn’t real-life examples of scientists RESCUING one null mutant mammal (a mouse) using the ORTHOLOGOUS gene from a very different mammal (a human) be highly relevant to this question?

22

No, I do not, @benkirk

That would be a CHANGE in genome, not just a re-shuffling of existing genetic information. In fact, such an exercise would PROVE my point… not your point.

23

The difference in time would be a function of the amount of polymorphism in the populations.

24

@benkirk,

Could there EVER be enough polymorphism in a normal healthy gold fish population that could lead to tetrapods by simply re-shuffling existing genes?

25

Probably not, but the reason I say that is because you’ve restricted it to goldfish. That’s yet another goalpost move from your earlier “ancestral fish,” no?

You don’t seem to realize that no one expects modern species to evolve horizontally into one another. You keep bringing this up as a premise. Why?

Note that I continue to answer your questions, while you continue to avoid answering mine. Why?

26

Me:
Wouldn’t real-life examples of scientists RESCUING one null mutant mammal (a mouse) using the ORTHOLOGOUS gene from a very different mammal (a human) be highly relevant to this question?

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:22, topic:4731”]
No, I do not, @benkirk

That would be a CHANGE in genome, not just a re-shuffling of existing genetic information.[/quote]

You’re missing the point. You asked specifically about constructing a genome:

So here real scientists are doing that on a much more limited level: they are replacing parts of a mouse genome with human genes. And they generally aren’t seeing any functional difference, despite sequence differences.

[quote] In fact, such an exercise would PROVE my point… not your point.
[/quote]What is your point, exactly?

And why use “would” when I’m citing what people actually did to both study human genetic diseases and to develop animal models for them?

27

@Benkirk,

Hands down, you have to be the most exhausting PRO-EVOLUTION writer anywhere here in BioLogos …

@Eddie, I obviously owe you a hug.

My point, dear Ben, is to definitively prove or disprove whether a dramatic evolutionary development (say from Fishes to Mammals… or from land-based mammals to marine-based whales) … can be accomplished by reshuffling of variants or alleles … or if such dramatic changes in phenotype are really only possible with unplanned mutations in the genetic codes (not just re-arranging EXISTING variations).

The questions you keep asking seem designed to de-rail the discussion … so I ignore them.

I am not moving the goal posts … I’m simply trying to find a set of words that you won’t argue about.

But, if a man is determined to argue, he can ALWAYS find something to argue about. (This is partly how your name accidentally got included in a PS directed to Jonathan; you two seem much more interested in beating down your pro-Evolutionary colleagues, rather than allow anyone to find fault with some of your conclusions.)

You have said that a population of fish COULD become a population of land-using tetrapods by re-arranging genetic information with no new mutations.

In the long run, I think it would be great to be confident with your conclusion. It would certainly advance our mutual desire that Creationists understand how easy speciation is … but how are you ever going to convince YEC’s if you refuse to work with me over the simplest of discussions over what could be pretty complex genetic science?

28

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:27, topic:4731”]
My point, dear Ben, is to definitively prove or disprove…[/quote]
My dear George,
Your setting the bar at “definitively prove or disprove” is PREPOSTEROUS, even more so given that you’ve rejected the most relevant hard evidence.

Those to cases are more than 10-fold different in time, so far more than 10-fold different in probability! Perhaps you can see why I see your moving the goalposts from one to the other is so mathematically silly.

The genetic code in fish and mammals is identical.

They are designed to focus the discussion. So I’ll ask again: why did you increase the time more than 10-fold by switching from one dramatic evolutionary development to another, if not to derail?

Changing the time scale 10-fold is a ver dramatic moving of the goalposts.

I’m not interested in beating anyone down, George. I’m interested in accuracy. The idea you advanced of stasis, then mutation, then selection, is not accurate. If you really think that mutation is the essence of evolutionary plasticity and care about conservation, you should be arguing with conservationists and insisting that they mutagenize–instead of outbreeding–endangered species.

Well, then we probably only have a few decades to wait, but we’ll still only have definitive evidence for the human-mouse pair since we budget far more funds for health-related research.

[quote]It would certainly advance our mutual desire that Creationists understand how easy speciation is … but how are you ever going to convince YEC’s if you refuse to work with me over the simplest of discussions over what could be pretty complex genetic science?
[/quote]No one’s going to convince most YECs.

How are YOU going to understand if you change the distance between the goalposts more than 10-fold and reject the most relevant evidence to your question without trying?

29

@benkirk… gee… it just seems you don’t have your heart in this.

Are you actually here to teach anything… or just to criticize people and take potshots at posts unrelentingly?

You write:

“The Genetic Code in fish and mammals is identical.”

You are obviously using these terms in a way to INTENTIONALLY tell your readers nothing. Your useless statement tells everyone that you are much more interested in scoring debating points than in solving problems or answering questions.

My opinion of your motivations has sunk to an all time low… So you don’t have to worry about me asking you any more questions. It’s obviously pointless. And I will not be responding to anything YOU write either.

Have a splendid evening.

30

The former. It’s completely unclear whether you used “genetic code” to mean a single gene or a whole genome. Which was it?

But if you can’t even be bothered to use “genetic code” to mean what it clearly means, it doesn’t seem likely that you’ll be bothered to grasp dominance/recessiveness of alleles, the absence of definitive proof in science, developmental genetics, genetic polymorphism, quantitative trait loci, and the math of basic population genetics. All of these are required to explain why existing variation, not new mutation, drives evolution in diploid, sexually reproducing organisms–a statement with which you have both agreed and disagreed!

Your use of “imperfections” and thinking of phocomelia as just a “deformity” instead of one end of a distribution of limb length (in the context of whale evolution) also create an enormous conceptual block to your understanding of evolution. Understanding these concepts requires precise language. Even you called them NUANCED, remember?

31

@Eddie,

As you can see from recent postings … Ben and I have reached an impasse.

He wants me to drop dead … and i choose not to. :smiley:

32

A great debate but I applaud your effort to get back to the question on whether the following is true or false:: “evolution is primarily driven by existing variation, not new mutation”.

Obviously you and Eddie are scientifically more knowledgeable than I on the subject so I fear to tread here.

But I would go back to the question: Would God use existing variation or use new mutation?

The bible says that God created man by breathing into dust. Of course dust can mean anything including a handful of genetic material. Further he created woman from the rib of the man to create a genetically compatible mate that could create offspring.

So the biblical evidence greatly favors if not demands mutation, and natural selection may follow but not in God’s purpose to create the advanced species of man.

So in my opinion, the debate is over - mutation wins, because scientific evidence toward mutation is aligned with biblical evidence. Slam dunk.

But if there is scientific evidence that once and for all disproves mutation as the primary cause, then let’s hear it,