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?
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.
The difference in time would be a function of the amount of polymorphism in the populations.
Could there EVER be enough polymorphism in a normal healthy gold fish population that could lead to tetrapods by simply re-shuffling existing genes?
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?
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?
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?
[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?
@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.
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?
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. 
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,
I am inclined to be of the same opinion… .and was hoping to make some progress with Ben on the subject matter … but he seems determined to destroy what he loves…
[quote=“heiresnt, post:32, topic:4731, full:true”]
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”.[/quote]
Hello Neal,
Whose effort? I keep trying to get back to it.
You shouldn’t fear it.
[quote]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,[/quote]
I don’t see how any of what you wrote either favours or demands mutation. Couldn’t God have simply built in variation?
[quote]… 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. [/quote]
I don’t see a real debate nor how you got there, Neal. You also seem to be missing the relationship between the two.
Think of the bathtub metaphor. Mutations are occasional drops of water from the faucet, the water in the bathtub is existing variation, and neither selection nor drift can “see” any difference between them when acting upon them.
Recombination is an extremely important source of variation, yet is not included in the bathtub metaphor. That’s OK for our purposes.
[quote]But if there is scientific evidence that once and for all disproves mutation as the primary cause, then let’s hear it,
[/quote]Lots. What happens to individuals and populations that have drained their metaphorical bathtub of heritable variation by inbreeding?
Ben,
Thanks for the replies to my note.
Regarding why God couldn’t have used gradual variation, perhaps so with animals but with man the biblical record is very specific about it being event related rather than gradual evelution.
Thanks for the bathtub metaphor, but I guess I am suggesting that it is perhaps not relevant. I might suggest it is like a chemical reaction where the drip from the faucet transforms the water in the bathtub into a new substance or better said a new species.
Finally on inbreeding destroys heritable variation, and this is true for characteristics within a species. But the definition of a species is that when they breed they create viable offspring meaning that they too can breed and so on. Once that bathtub is transformed into the new species, it can’t breed with the metaphorical water species any more, and now it is it’s own kind.
The question, what came first the chicken or the egg? It was of course the chicken through mutation. And ironically it seems that the female version had to be subject to similar simultaneous genetic mutation - God’s reference to Adam’s rib.
This all points to design.
But to refute this, I am asking you, can you give me an example of a species where scientific evidence proves that a new viable species was created by inbreeding or natural selection. (Horse and donkey to mule is not viable.)
Sorry for embarrassing typo in Evolution!
Let’s not bother yet. I’m asking you, why you dropped the discussion of new mutations vs. existing variation after demanding that I point you to evidence.
BTW, we try to disprove things in science. We never consider anything to be proven, so any demand including “scientific evidence proves” is unlikely to lead to a productive scientific discussion. Better for you to ask yourself, “How can I disprove my hypothesis?” Because if you’re really doing science, that’s your job.
Ben,
All good points you are making.
I agree that in-breeding leads to less genetic diversity, such as Amish and Aborigines versus native Africans. Lesser diversity creates inherited traits that make them appear more distinctive. To get to an animal comparison, who have lions and tigers situation which my son who has a PHD in Biochemistry from UVA, likes to call an example of how evolution works. You mention that lets stick to the simpler concept of population not species, but lions and tigers can inter-breed and create viable off-spring and so are the SAME species. Another point he makes is if 1000 humans were put on a space ship and had to survive in zero gravity, when they returned 10,000 years later they would be a different species. I asked him the question: How do you know that they would not be able to breed with humans on the earth and create viable off-spring? If so this is just a physical change, and not a new species.
My point here is that we are discussing is how new species are created: Is it by evolution driven by normal mutation and natural selection, OR by dramatic quantum like mutation caused by design?
In the real world we observe extinction from mutation and natural selection, but we don’t observe the creation of new species. We only see this creation in the fossil record but without the DNA evidence that can show how dramatically these mutations occurred.
So your point on hypothesis is sound - disprove not prove. Let’s disprove the first hypothesis: In the Cambrian period we saw massive creation of species at a phenomenal rate and we don’t see that today, thus suggesting that the slow processes of mutation and natural selection was not and is not occurring. Finally, you have the biblical evidence on creation of man and woman in genesis that suggests a sudden change by design that also refutes the slower process…
In summary, the 2nd hypothesis is that sudden and dramatic mutation and the creation of both a male and female of the same species occurs through an act of design, and natural selection and genetic diversity that follows only makes changes in the physical appearance of species which may lead to extinction but not to creation of new species.
I give you the opportunity to disprove this hypothesis.
The origin of the advanced taxon is not due to the slow accumulation of mutations, but rather by the evolution.
You forgot the other part of my point–that YOU are responsible for trying to disprove YOUR hypothesis!
I disagree. You’re making a quantitative claim–let’s see the numbers.
[quote]Finally, you have the biblical evidence on creation of man and woman in genesis that suggests a sudden change by design that also refutes the slower process…In summary, the 2nd hypothesis is that sudden and dramatic mutation and the creation of both a male and female of the same species occurs through an act of design, and natural selection and genetic diversity that follows only makes changes in the physical appearance of species which may lead to extinction but not to creation of new species. I give you the opportunity to disprove this hypothesis.
[/quote]Again, it’s your job to try to disprove your hypothesis. I suggest that you examine the DNA evidence, because none of it supports your hypothesis.