Spin-Off: ID, Neo-Darwinism, Ev News and Views, Discovery, etc

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

No, he said more than that. In fact he has made the point on several occasions, that the amount of variation necessary for evolution is almost entirely met by the variation already inherent in populations, so that mutations of any kind are barely (if at all) needed. The logical implication of that is that one would need hardly any mutations at all to get from an artiodactyl to a whale, or even from a bacterium to a man,

That’s just silly.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

It would be unwise of you to invoke Preston in your defense here.[/quote]
It’s very unwise of you to frame everything as attacking and defending. If you held back from attacking, you might gain more insights.

[quote]I remember vividly when you made the claim that evolution would proceed just as fast, or almost as fast, if there were never any mutations at all, but only heritable variation.

Eddie, that is a gross misrepresentation and I hope that you did not make it deliberately.

My claim is that if God stops mutations, evolution in diploid organisms such as mammals will proceed just as fast (in that one would not be able to retrospectively determine the time at which God had stopped them using current technology) and gradually slow over time. This is simple math (Hi GJDS!) because new mutations are only a tiny fraction the pool of existing genetic variation.

Note that the latter part was not included in your representation. Again, was your omission deliberate? The vividness of your alleged recollection is probably not a good sign.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))]

This is the ORIGINAL ORIGINAL posting from @benkirk in a discussion with @Eddie on the issue of “no more mutations”:

Randomness shorn of people and books

Continuing the discussion from Should BioLogos produce science textbooks for college use?: Hello Eddie, I’m not following you. To clarify, here are some questions: If all mutation stopped tomorrow, leaving behind only the existing variation (which clearly exists and has been measured), would evolution still occur? More specifically, would both natural selection (nonrandom) and drift (random) still occur, acting only on existing variation? If one or both continued, which would be the first …

And this was answered by @beaglelady:

“He doesn’t claim that evolution would continue forever if new mutations stopped. And he certainly doesn’t claim that the transition from artiodactyl to whale would have taken place at nearly the nearly the same rate and with the same results had there been no new mutations after about 50 million years ago. (That’s about the time of Pakicetus attocki)…”

.
.

A little after this, I tried to get a specific response from @benkirk on this very question … and to this day I don’t believe I’ve ever had a specific response.

So I think it’s easy to understand why people’s understanding of Benkirk’s views started to drift as well.

In THIS particular post, the discussion started going sideways… with Benkirk fixating on how powerful the change in allele ratios was, compared to mutations:

Quantum evolution

[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 populatio…

.
.Some nice points are touched on in this discussion … but no matter what I did to find the limits of shifts in alleles (compared to mutations) . . . I just couldn’t get there. So let me state the HYPOTHESIS in a definitive way … and see what the responses (Yeah? Nay?) are:

To comment on @beaglelady 's comment:
.
.
I would propose that without any ADDITIONAL mutations, that population of artiodactyls would NEVER become a whale… because you need more than re-arranging existing artiodactyl alleles to end up with fins, reconstructed sinuses, and a blubber-oriented physiology that allows living a mile under water.

See how much different a HIPPO is from a modern WHALE:

Wouldn’t everyone pretty much agree with this general view?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

The critique of neo-Darwinism is that if the mutations are random “with respect to whether or not they benefit the organism,” building complex new structures in an incremental way is going to be extremely difficult.

Which completely ignores the highly salient fact that selection works on the reservoir of existing genetic variation and is not limited to new mutations. It also ignores the fact that structures tend to be modified, not built. That fact argues strongly against intelligent design, which is likely why you try to pretend it’s not there.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

If there’s anything “silly” it’s not in my reasoning, which follows precisely and inevitably from what benkirk wrote.

With what you falsely claimed I wrote. You omitted most of it in your “vivid” recollection. How about being precise about what I actually wrote?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

I’ve explained how I use the term “neo-Darwinian” probably 20 or 30 times here over the past few years. You’ve been here all that time.

Eddie, you’ve never listed mechanisms that are included and not included. You’ve only provided your usual name salad.

How about a list? What’s in, what’s out?

How about refraining from using “Darwinism” as a Humpty-Dumpty word and trying to be truly precise? Because if you did, there’s nothing there?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

In fact, as I remember it…

That’s an oxymoron.

@Eddie

…God was not mentioned then, nor was the gradual slowing over time.

I’ve mentioned both many times. Your memory is very selective at best.

I notice that you’re not even trying to defend your most egregious misrepresentation–that my premise was that there were “never any mutations at all.” That’s already been shown to be false, but you can’t seem to bring yourself to admit it.[quote=“Eddie, post:88, topic:5335”]
So I stand by my claim regarding what you said and did then. Of course, you may have meant to convey something like your statement above; but I could only go on what you wrote.
[/quote]

You haven’t produced any evidence. You aren’t going on what I wrote, but what you are falsely attributing to me.

Me:
Which completely ignores the highly salient fact that selection works on the reservoir of existing genetic variation and is not limited to new mutations.[quote=“Eddie, post:88, topic:5335”]
I never said or implied that selection only works on new mutations. I am perfectly aware that according to Darwinian theory it is supposed to work on variation, whether variation already in the population for a long time or newly introduced by a mutation.
[/quote]
You’re not reading what I wrote even when you are quoting it, Eddie. I wrote that you ignore these salient facts, and you do. The fact that you are perfectly aware of it means that ignoring it is inexcusable. You are simply a Culture Warrior.[quote=“Eddie, post:88, topic:5335”]
I was objecting only to your belittling of the role of mutations – the classic neo-Darwinians and many other evolutionary theorists would disagree with you about that.
[/quote]
I’m not “belittling the role of mutations.” I’m calling out Culture Warriors like you and Behe who try to portray populations as static until a new mutation occurs, to make evolution look less probable. Now, you know that is not right and do so anyway, but does Behe?
Me:
It also ignores the fact that structures tend to be modified, not built.

@Eddie

I never denied the modification of structures.

Again, you’re not reading what I write when you’re quoting it. I wrote that you ignore this in favor of building new structures, which is what you do. It’s deceptive rhetoric to make evolution appear to be far more improbable than it really is.[quote=“Eddie, post:88, topic:5335”]
If you can find the earlier passages I have alluded to – I can’t find them now, and suspect that one of them may be stored under the old system – and if they say exactly what you said above, I will retract my claim about what you wrote.
[/quote]
No, Eddie. Your claim, your burden of proof. [quote=“Eddie, post:88, topic:5335”]
I wish more people here would bow to texts…
[/quote]
Why don’t you start by correcting your own behavior?

Me:
Eddie, you’ve never listed mechanisms that are included and not included. [in neo-Darwinism]

@Eddie

But if you need a reminder, by neo-Darwinian theory I mean the view that the primary driver of evolution is natural selection acting on variation (where a significant fraction of variation comes, over the long haul, from random mutations). Other mechanisms accepted by neo-Darwinians, such as sexual selection, were always mere ancillaries; natural selection acting on variation was the central guts of the theory.

That’s two things that are included, but you haven’t mentioned anything that isn’t included.

What are you afraid of?[quote=“Eddie, post:88, topic:5335”]
And I would point out yet again that, for all your criticism of ID folks who in your view make too much of “randomness,” you have never once uttered a peep against EC columnists here who have made a big, big deal out of randomness.
[/quote]
I think that they are doing so in reaction to those bleating about randomness. I don’t think it’s wise. You, on the other hand, give every indication that you do so to obfuscate and confuse.

Satisfied?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@gbrooks9

In THIS particular post, the discussion started going sideways… with Benkirk fixating on how powerful the change in allele ratios was, compared to mutations:

George, it went sideways because you are refusing to learn and use basic genetic terminology.

You do it right here! What is an “allele ratio”?

And “how powerful the change in allele ratios was, compared to mutations” is gibberish.

There’s no reason to engage with you if you insist on home-baking multiple undefined terms with each comment.

Here’s another one.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:84, topic:5335”]
limits of shifts in alleles (compared to mutations)
[/quote]

What the heck are “shifts in alleles” and how can I or anyone else be comparing them to mutations?

You’re really not getting the most basic concepts here. I’ve tried and failed to get them across. But what I can say is that you REFUSE to use basic terminology correctly.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:84, topic:5335”]
See how much different a HIPPO is from a modern WHALE:
[/quote]
See how SIMILAR mammalian forelimbs are when you peel away the skin:
http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/hillpark/Departments/Science/Watts/SBI3U/Assigned_Work/Evolution/Homologous_and_Analogous_Vestigial_and_Competition.pdf

@gbrooks9

Wouldn’t everyone pretty much agree with this general view?

Everyone who doesn’t look into developmental genetics and refuses to engage on dominance/recessiveness probably would. Well, let’s just have everyone vote and not do any science, I guess!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))]

@benkirk

I’m doing the best I can to keep up…

All you have to do is stop complaining in riddles …and state the complete discussion.
I can only guess that you plan on abandoning yet another thread without explaining what you really mean or how the topic should really be discussed.

MY ORIGINAL CONCLUSION SO FAR REMAINS UNCHANGED:
I am left where I was to begin with, months ago - - that if a population of land mammals were to suddenly stop experiencing any genetic mutations … a population of whales would very likely never appear.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@gbrooks9

I’m doing the best I can to keep up…

Sorry, but I don’t see that you’re doing anything of the sort when you coin new, undefined terms like “allele ratio” and “shifts in alleles,” then refuse to define them when asked.

If I presume [quote=“gbrooks9, post:84, topic:5335”]
re-arranging existing artiodactyl alleles
[/quote]

means recombination, yes, it’s a huge source of genetic variation that is ignored by denialists like Eddie. It’s also rendered less powerful by inbreeding (see my question to you below) and impotent by complete inbreeding.

@gbrooks9

All you have to do is stop complaining in riddles …and state the complete discussion.

They aren’t riddles, George. Go look up the following for yourself:

1. What is the ratio of new polymorphisms from new mutations to existing polymorphisms in any mammalian species you choose?

2. Why are cheetahs endangered and likely to become extinct even with massive help from us? Do they have a lower mutation rate, or is it something else?

Do the best that you can, George. Stop lobbing spitballs.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

This is a most illuminating thread. Thank you @benkirk.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

I never said that your premise was that there were “never any mutations at all.”

Incredible.

@Eddie

I remember vividly when you made the claim that evolution would proceed just as fast, or almost as fast, if there were never any mutations at all, but only heritable variation.

I added the bolding and italics. You wrote the words.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@gbrooks9

If we took the terrestrial predecessor of the Whale lineage, and immuunized it in some way so that its chromosomes would forever replicate itself perfectly … no errors, no mutations - - -

Would there still be recombination, George?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

Thanks Jonathan.

To summarize for others, denialists systematically portray natural selection as simply dependent on new mutations and systematically ignore the far larger reservoir of existing heritable variation (aka polymorphism). Then they obsessively use the term “Darwinism,” when in fact Darwin knew nothing of mutation and only cited the reservoir of existing heritable variation.

Examples: Eddie in this (and almost every other) thread, Michael Behe’s most recent book.

This is done to deceive (not excluding self-deception), to make evolution appear to be improbable. This is why I point out that if God stopped all new mutations tomorrow, evolution would chug right along, taking a very long time to slow down.

Another summary: mutation is neither necessary nor sufficient for present-tense evolution to occur.

What’s bizarre to me is that most of us, even laypeople like George, seem to have no problem with this in the context of inbreeding leading to extinction.

Maybe they don’t understand that inbreeding does this by reducing the size of the reservoir of existing genetic variation? Or that they have no idea about dominance and recessiveness of alleles? That’s what I’m trying to understand with George, who instead of answering straightforward questions seems to prefer repeated distortions of what I write and coining new genetic terms without bothering to define them.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))]

@benkirk

1. What is the ratio of new polymorphisms from new mutations to existing polymorphisms in any mammalian species you choose?

This is the question I’m most interested in having answered. Why are you asking me? How would I know?

If you know, please tell us. I’ll choose a fun one: Hippos!

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

Eddie, Ben has demonstrated very clearly that you repeatedly misrepresented him. It’s that simple.