It is a highly general claim (made largely by Creationists) that mainstream scientists are predisposed to evolutionary thinking, therefore their conclusions regarding the theory of evolution are untrustworthy. Since the theory of evolution is so heavily supported by evidence, it makes sense to approach science with that in mind. You may think of it as prejudice, but I’m afraid that position is simply not supported. If you disagree about support for this position, please elaborate.
I know I have explained B and T cell maturation to you before, and I know others have, as well. @Chris_Falter was (once again) referring to the B and T cell maturation mechanism. This DNA rearrangement occurs in developing B and T cells, not in germ line cells, so these changes are clearly not inherited. Of course genetics has a significant impact in our overall immune systems, but the general system-wide immunity includes the adaptive immunity of T and B-cell mediated responses, and also the innate immunity composed of many other mechanisms.
Why scoff at other posters instead of actually trying to understand how scientific research is done? It is unnecessary to check each one of a trillion cells to see which can and which cannot aerobically utilize citrate. Bacterial cultures often grow to concentrations around 10^9/ml. If you grow a 1 liter culture to that concentration, you have 1 trillion cells. This is not hyperbole in the least. If you have a large number of cultures grown to high concentration and only one of them is aerobically utilizing citrate, then you have one cell that recombined out of trillions and trillions of cells - literally, not figuratively.
Discussing any of this science with you is like arguing about Santa Claus with someone else’s children.|
When small pox kills most of any population, European or Indian, you get the results of “Natural Selection” - - the survivors have an increased incidence of the genetic configurations that make them and their children more resistant to the disease. And this reduces the number of casualties in the next generation, which means there will be more energetic adults available to care for those afflicted, which means there will be even more survivors in the future.
This affect is also noted from when the Plague hit various isolated villagers. The genetic components of the survivors are found even today in these villages, where those who survived tend to remain int he village and marry those from in or around the village.
This shift in the genetics of the surviving population is, by definition, evolution.
And, of course, genetics does play a role in immunities and in the strength of the immune response - - depending on which disease it is - - so that some genetic configurations no doubt improve the immune response in general, while other genetic configurations are more specific to which disease is being resisted.
Please note that if you cannot convince @NonlinOrg that there is such thing as speciation, you will never get him to understand how phenotypes are rarely going to demonstrate dramatic changes as long as a population is still freely exchanging alleles between geographic sub-groups.
And if he throws in the same garbage about canine phenotypes, please remind him that these very different breeds are not the result of freely exchanged alleles between geographic sub-groups, but are the result of narrowly exchanged alleles within sub-groups sharing the desired phenotypes, regardless of geography.
@Chris_Falter, I don’t think you are ever going to fix @NonlinOrg’s vocabulary problem. But I’ll join you in one last attempt:
Any persisting change in genetic percentages is Evolution, whether it leads to a new species or not.
So we have all sorts of examples of Evolution - - ranging from human populations acquiring a persistent trait of sickle cell blood, or fish populations evolving into larger or smaller populations, depending on whether the laboratory techs consistently remove the largest or smallest fish over several generations.
It is very difficult to demonstrate enough Evolution to demonstrate Speciation, because it takes a long chain of changes in the genotype of one or more sub-populations to create incompatibility in reproduction.
The best way to show this in nearly real time is to refer to the various Ring Species that exist around the world. they demonstrate that an extended range of related populations, appearing in recent history, can produce a population at each end of the extended range, that have significantly reduced sexual compatibility.
Once we convince a YEC that there is, indeed, sexual incompatibility between the two terminal populations (vs. the other adjacent populations in the range), then Speciation can be proved.
What “3-step” nonsense? Here it is again: You are a generic primate say 10 mya looking into the future. What do you see? Humans? How do you get there? Conversely you are a human today and see X-men or whatever into the future. How do you get there? Now if you get an Intelligent Designer to help, you might get somewhere. And if you do that, who cares about an imaginary and irrelevant “3-step process”?
Because adaptability is what we see. We do not see the other hocus-pocus.
Look, if you believe in God you are a Creationist yourself. At least atheists are consistent in this regard, even though their religion doesn’t make sense for many other reasons.
Bs&Ts are irrelevant to this discussion. Leave them alone.
Ok. Now do you really think @T_aquaticus was referring to 1 single liter of E.coli solution?
You haven’t seen speciation because you still haven’t clicked the link I provided in post 252 in this thread. (It has zero clicks so far.) Biologists have observed speciation in many settings and documented it for those who are curious enough to examine the evidence.
I find that the remainder of your post simply repeats your previous posts or makes assertions which are not supported by evidence. Therefore I don’t see the necessity or utility of adding more words to this already very long thread. May you enjoy the riches of God’s grace at all times, Nonlin.
Living nature continually adapts to changing circumstances. We agree that evolution exists, including speciation, and including bacteria that start eating nylon or develop resistance against antibiotics.
Living nature continually adapts to changing circumstances by the mechanism of recombination of alleles and selection and by gene regulation. Not by the accumulation of irreparable, inheritable, code expanding, advantageous mutations of the DNA. See the article "The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective " in the peer reviewed Open Evolution Journal (Vol.5, p1-4) at: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf . Please accept the scientific facts.
Irreparable mutations are the cause of cancer and hereditary diseases, which cause severe selective disadvantage. They cannot be the motor for improvement, expansion and innovation of the DNA, according Darwin: selective disadvantage will erase these irreparable mutations within a few generations.
As an empirical scientist, I have no testable theory of how the DNA and the DNA mutation repair systems have arisen on earth. My answer is: “I don’t know, yet”. This answer is normal and respectable in any branch of science, and should also be respected in the field of biology. This answer is the driver for scientific research and the progress of science. Sticking to a theory that is evidently in contradiction with common sense and Darwin’s basic rule, harms the integrity of science and its progress. Compare sticking to the theory: apples fall upward; this theory is contradicted by empirical facts and by Newton; sticking to it harms the integrity of science and its progress.
The theory “God, or a Pink Elephant has created the DNA, and the DNA mutation repair systems” is not falsifiable because it is not testable, as one cannot drag God or a Pink Elephant into a laboratory, and do some tests. Therefore this theory is unscientific. It is a belief. However, it is a rational belief, because every complex structure in our physical reality is the product of a craftsman, an engineer, or an artist; and decays by natural processes.
The domains of empirical science and religion should not be confused with one another, as Stephen Jay Gould argued. They must stay separated. When I discuss the mechanisms for adaptation of living nature to changing circumstances, here on the forum scientific evidence, I discuss them as an empirical scientist, bounded by the playing rules of empirical science. My personal beliefs and world view are of none importance in that discussion.
Current evolutionary theory has created a Wonderland, where a dysfunctioning mutation repair system and the resulting irreparable mutations of the DNA are no severe selective disadvantage but the motor for innovation and improvement of the DNA. According to the basic rule of Darwin, this theory must be rejected.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Video Script: Scene at the Service Desk of a Garage
CUSTOMER: “Hi! Did you fix my car yet?”
MECHANIC: "Well, eh… ". [smiles] “I actually gave your car a new treatment!”
CUSTOMER: “What do you mean?”
MECHANIC: “I did not repair the broken oil cooler pipe in the engine of your car, but I added a few other mutations to the engine by pulling some wires and hoses and scattering some sand in it. This will improve its functioning, after some time”.
CUSTOMER: “You are kidding me!”
MECHANIC: “Not at all. I hang around a lot at the scientific evidence forum of Biologos. And there, almost everyone agrees that this is the way to improve things. All evidence points in the same direction. There is remarkable coherence!”
CUSTOMER: [gets red in the face]
MECHANIC: " There is scientific consensus that this is the way things can be improved". [smiles confidently] “I have spent more than one hour to give your engine a thorough treatment. Wait and see. After some time your engine will start to run better and better”.
You seem to have the misconception that evolution MUST work by one mechanism or another. While it is true that genetic recombination (which is considered mutation, by the way) and evolving gene regulation (which also occurs by mutation) are important sources of adaptation, this does not preclude the contribution of more standard forms of mutation. Sorry, quoting your own paper in a discontinued journal really doesn’t add to the credibility of your argument. Again, although mutations frequently have a negative impact, some do take evolution in positive directions. Check out this link for an article listing examples.
When your personal beliefs force you to ignore credible science in favor of erroneous and unsupported claims, then they really are important.
Thank you very much, I like to agree! There are all sorts of Young Earth Creationists (the term I should have used previously) that would shudder to think my views would qualify as “Creationist”. If you label me as “inconsistent” because I use both faith and scientific reasoning to formulate my opinions, then I can accept that. I believe it is reasonable to accept limits to naturalistic materialism and consider that complete truth goes beyond our ability to observe and detect. To be honest, I think it would be fair to state that I take science much more seriously than you do.
Since adaptive immunity doesn’t fit your narrative, it is no longer relevant? Let’s travel back in time about 100 posts…[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:185, topic:35830”]
Would you say you have a built in mechanism or “evolve” when developing immunity to a certain pathogen? Not everything that appears “new” is indeed new.
[/quote]
The B and T cell issue was raised in response to your own question. [quote=“NonlinOrg, post:289, topic:35830”]
Ok. Now do you really think @T_aquaticus was referring to 1 single liter of E.coli solution?
[/quote]
I don’t, but that wasn’t my point. My point was a suggestion that if you don’t understand someone’s scientific claim, it would be a good idea to investigate it rather than immediately scoff at it - especially if that someone happens to be a professional.
William, you aren’t accomplishing anything when you twist the facts so boldly.
Let’s just look at your one sentence that I quote above:
A. “Irreparable mutations are the cause of cancer and hereditary diseases, which cause severe selective disadvantage.”
[But not all irreparable mutations cause these things. You serve no purpose by attempting to make all irreparable mutations only the cause of bad things.
“They cannot be the motor for improvement, expansion and innovation of the DNA, according Darwin:”
B. How could Darwin have said all these things when he didn’t know anything about mutations, reparable or irreparable?
C. Further, who cares what you think Darwin thought prior to the discovery of DNA? Aren’t you being overly obtuse on this matter? Nobody here defends mutations with Darwin’s views when they have the facts of micro-biology and genetics at hand!
Finally…
“… selective disadvantage will erase these irreparable mutations within a few generations.”
D. Demonstrably incorrect, William. Sickle cell blood has persisted for generations… because it is advantageous to the population (though perhaps not for the individual) when the population is subjected to malaria.
Perhaps you would have more fun disagreeing with YEC theories on a YEC forum… you can show your heart is in the right place by saying how wrong the evolutionists are, and then proceed to showing how wrong the YECs are too!
I am very glad you provided this little analogy for illustration, because what it is illustrating is that the things I have seen many people tell you repeatedly are still not making sense to you. Perhaps if we fix your analogy it will help.
Point 1: Some mutations are harmful. Most mutations are neutral. A few mutations are increase success.
In most cases, the car’s running will not be improved by the process you describe. It is remotely possible it could be but if it was my car I would not bet on it.
Point 2: Heritability over generations is how the ratio of success-increasing mutations increases in the population from very few to widespread, even building on the previous generation’s success.
In order to see anything useful, we would need to be working with a whole fleet of cars, so let’s shift the setting to a car designer/manufacturer.
Let’s also, for the sake of simplicity, narrow our focus down to one little part of a car: the spoiler. What is the ideal shape for airflow when a car is going fast?
It turns out this is very difficult to mathematically generate, and in a lot of ways it’s easier just to build a bunch of test versions and put them in a wind tunnel. As you go, you can refine your ideas of what makes a good spoiler shape by removing the ones that clearly aren’t as good from the pool and doing smaller variations from the better performers. These variations aren’t random but they could be; even totally random options, put through a process like this, will eventually give you a better spoiler shape than if somebody sat down for a year with a fluid dynamics textbook and tried to design one in their head.
There is probably a subset of guys that somehow think a spoiler on their car would enhance reproductive potential, but perhaps that is is a different subject…
Great analogy however, and actually makes sense as a model. If a particular design is successful, you would start seeing increased numbers of modified spoilers in the car population. ( works better in a racing model where you have competition and selection than in the common population where spoilers are just decorative)
Lenski demonstrated that the mutation only happened once in one generation, and this is after 20,000+ generations comprised of billions of bacteria per generation. You do the math.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:284, topic:35830”]
Your reply denotes complete lack of understanding of the problem posed. Try again.
[/quote]
Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps? The overwhelming scientific consensus is that those physical differences are due to DNA sequence differences between the two genomes, and those differences include indels and substitutions. How do you explain it?[quote=“WilliamDJ, post:291, topic:35830”]
Irreparable mutations are the cause of cancer and hereditary diseases, which cause severe selective disadvantage. They cannot be the motor for improvement, expansion and innovation of the DNA, according Darwin: selective disadvantage will erase these irreparable mutations within a few generations.
[/quote]
Where is the evidence for these assertions?
Also, every person is born with about 50-75 mutations. How is it that we don’t all immediately die from these mutations?
Evolution is adaptability.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:289, topic:35830”]
Ok. Now do you really think @T_aquaticus was referring to 1 single liter of E.coli solution?
[/quote]
I am referring to the Lenski experiment. You can read over the protocol here:
They grow 10 ml of culture each day, and take 0.1 ml of the previous days culture to start the next days culture, which is a 1% inoculum. The usual concentration of E. coli in culture is about 1E9 (1 x. 10^9), so 10 ml will have 1E10 which is 10 billion bacteria. So each day they produce 10 billion bacteria per 10 ml culture, and they had 12 parallel cultures. This means that each day they were producing 120E10 or 120 billion bacteria. They repeated this process for years, starting a new culture each day. It only takes 10 days until you hit 1E12, which is 1 trillion.
So what do you think happened in this experiment. From what I have read of your posts so far you are saying that citrate metabolism appeared immediate in all bacteria because they all had the ability to adapt to the presence of citrate. Is this the case?
You misunderstand a lot. There’s no way to innovate with the hocus-pocus of “evolution”. Regardless of the starting and ending point. Try it for yourself. Abiogenesis attempts have failed miserably and so have all “evolution” computer simulations. Because there is no “hocus-pocus” “emerging” creativity whatsoever.
Are you referring to simulations of biological evolution, or evolutionary algorithms used for industrial/business purposes? As a software development professional, I happen to know something about this subject.
