Study in Nature shoots down three basic claims of evolutionary theory

Faith & Science Conversation
271

[quote=“Dredge, post:269, topic:35830”]
You would agree that common ancestry is evolution[/quote]

Not at all. We could easily have evolution from distinct kinds, as many creationists propose. That’s evolution without common descent.

[quote]and that Lenski’s E coli demonstrate evolution.
[/quote]They are an example of evolution, possible even when the E. coli have been evolutionarily crippled by genetic defects in multiple recombination mechanisms, which was done for utility and safety in the 1970s.

272

“New traits” is not only way to vague, but also clearly far removed from the promised “origin of species” that is supposed to link all organisms. Your claim - your burden. Why don’t you show how “evolutionary mechanism” would have turned an ape into a human? But start with apes and no humans and make it plausible. Or if you prefer, why not show how the “evolutionary mechanism” will turn humans into X-men (or whatever).

“I don’t know” is the perfect answer when you in fact don’t know. From what we’ve seen, ID makes the most sense. Look around - everything we can identify is designed by intelligent beings. Beliefs are personal as long as they do not contravene the Observable. Here’s more on religion: http://nonlin.org/religion/

Your conclusion is wrong.

You did indeed censor me and I stopped the discussion. You’re not the first or last to censor the inconvenient.

What about sickle cell protecting against malaria? What about immunity passed from mother to child? What about epigenetic inheritance? What about smallpox killing large percentage of the native Americans but not most European immigrants that were not being vaccinated as of the 18th century?

Mutations do happen all the time and people have known that forever, so where is the novelty? Why would something known for ever be all of a sudden proof of Darwin’s new and fantastic story?

273

Are you kidding?!? Have you not heard of the Reproducibility Project - http://nonlin.org/hard-science-is-soft-science/ ?

Unlike Religion, Philosophy, or even the “soft” Sciences, “hard” Sciences are supposed to be falsifiable and therefore fact. But it turns out that’s not the case. Even one of the most solid of all theories, Newtonian Mechanics, has been proven false at the atomic level. Still, the set of theories has not been discarded because it works just fine at the macro size. The classical example of a falsifiable theory: “all swans are white”, can be modified after falsification to “all swans are white, except Cygnus atratus”, and the modified theory remains useful. For most people, a theory that ‘withstands falsification’ is as good as ‘confirmed’. We see Newtonian Mechanics at work every day ever since the pyramids or before, and we think “this is solid fact that will never change”. Not many people know or care that it breaks down at the atomic level.

Science is done by people that carry their own Beliefs – some clearly displayed, and some hidden. Assumptions, range of hypotheses under consideration, and results interpretation are all subjective. Furthermore, humans often suffer from group think. Verification is always limited due to constraints such as the immediate space-time, accuracy, repeatability, and so on. Proper disclosure would require the presenter to list all assumptions as well as all competing hypotheses along with confidence levels for each one of them and for the group of yet unknown hypotheses. For completeness, the Set of Beliefs of the presenter might also inform the audience as to what set of hypotheses were excluded from research.

Science is never settled – if it were, all discussions would stop, together with all scientific progress.

1 Like
274

I do appreciate this quote from Brian Cox in his Wonders of the Universe series (emphasis mine)…

Standing on the shoulders of giants, we peer into the darkness with eyes opened not in fear but in wonder. The fervent hope of every scientist is that they glimpse something that not only requires a new scientific theory, but that requires the old theory be replaced. Our great library is constantly being rewritten; there are no sacred tomes; there are no untouchable truths; there is no certainty; there is simply the best description we have of the Universe, based purely on our observations of its wonder.

Also good call on Newtonian Mechanics… specifically I recall hearing that Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation breaks down at sub 67 microns (not sure on the source of this and I can’t find it exactly).

275

Nope, I’m not kidding. You are comparing apples to oranges. Actually, a better metaphor would be apples to Volkswagons. My response was regarding the the limitations of acceptable conclusions, not reproducibility.

But since you brought it up, your article (and the project) are mostly related to psychology with vague, unsupported claims about cancer research. Is reproducibility ever an issue in Biology? Unfortunately, yes, but such errors (intentional and unintentional) are often dealt with by retraction.

276

You clearly don’t accept evolution - I get it. But saying “that isn’t evolution” every time you are shown evidence inspired me to ask for your definition. I guess I will just have to give up since I can’t show you an X-man.

I would encourage you to investigate Jesus Christ - the Intelligence behind creation (in whatever form it took!)

277

Yet you were able to make a substantive comment to which I replied.

I do appreciate these examples, as what I intended to say is that an immune response within a human individual is not transmitted to the next generation by Mendelian genetics.

But you misunderstand many of the examples you provide:

This is not an immune response.

This is one of the key reasons my wife breast-fed all our children. However, those antibodies were only effective during infancy. Our children’s immune systems eventually had to build up their immune response to pathogens, just as all children’s immune systems must. And IIRC, our daughters are unable to pass on to the next generation the antibodies they got from my wife.

You will need to cite some research showing epigenetic inheritance of immunity in order to have a point worth discussing.

You are badly misinformed about smallpox immunity. When an individual has been exposed to the virus, his/her immune system generates antibodies and s/he is thereafter immune. These are not passed to subsequent generations by Mendelian genetics. And that’s the entire story in a nutshell.

Since details help, though, I will go on. When contagious trappers, traders, or missionaries (who had already developed immunity) came in contact with Native American tribes, the Native Americans were devastated while the already immune European individuals did not suffer. Several such outbreaks were truly tragic.

However, Europeans were not protected by inherited immune factors. Sadly, history provides many examples of European immigrants who died from smallpox. The 1633 epidemic that killed millions of natives also struck down 35 settlers of the Massachusetts Colony. In Boston, a 1702 outbreak killed 300, a 1721 outbreak felled 844, and a 1763 epidemic robbed another 170 of life. During the Revolutionary War, British soldiers who had gained immunity in their early years actually used biological warfare by attempting to spread smallpox amongst the rebellious colonists. As Washington’s recruits were being decimated by an epidemic in 1777, his decision to inoculate his army might be why we sing “God Bless America” rather than “God Save the Queen” today. Washington and Lincoln both survived smallpox, Benjamin Franklin’s young son and Jonathon Edwards did not. An epidemic struck Indiana in 1902, killing hundreds. I could provide many more such examples.

The notion that European immigrants had some sort of genetically inherited immunity is spectacularly wrong.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

4 Likes
279

You have yet to provide evidence for this assertion.

1 Like
280

Genetic recombination is a DNA mutation because it is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a genome.

If you are claiming that all substitution and indel mutations are disadvantageous or neutral, then you are going to have to back that up with some science. From what I have read, it is expected that many of the substitution and indel mutations that differentiate the human and chimp genomes are advantageous to either chimps or humans.[quote=“WilliamDJ, post:254, topic:35830”]
Of course, any one may believe that a mechanism that produces severe selective disadvantage can function as an ‘innovation motor’ for the DNA. But such a belief is an irrational belief.
[/quote]

For that to be true, you would first have to prove that it produces a severe selective disadvantage.

3 Likes
281

The mechanism found in the B-cells occurs in every single B-cell. However, only one E. coli bacterium among trillions and trillions of E. coli bacteria had this recombination event occur. Therefore, they are not the same. The mutation that occurred in the E. coli is not a built in adaptability mechanism because there is nothing driving it like there is in B-cells.

2 Likes
282

29+ falsifiable hypotheses supporting the theory of evolution:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:273, topic:35830”]
Proper disclosure would require the presenter to list all assumptions as well as all competing hypotheses along with confidence levels for each one of them and for the group of yet unknown hypotheses. For completeness, the Set of Beliefs of the presenter might also inform the audience as to what set of hypotheses were excluded from research.
[/quote]

What I have noticed time and again is that you will claim that observable facts are not facts at all, but are assumptions.

1 Like
283

Compare the genomes of apes to that of humans. Using phylogenetic methods you can reconstruct the ancestral genome for the common ancestor of chimps and humans. From there, it is simply a matter of listing the mutations in the human genome that have arisen since that common ancestor. That’s how it was done.

2 Likes
284

We can all understand and forgive the casual error. But much larger forces are at work here (read prejudice).

I didn’t have to look too much for this: “Scientists say they have found evidence that suggests genetics play a role in immune response, affecting our ability to fight off disease. This is according to a study published in the journal Cell.” - Immune response determined by our genes, study shows

When smallpox or the plague kills most of the population, the survivors have some sort of genetic resistance (even if not 100% immunity) - no different than the AB-resistant bacteria. This is adaptability, not “evolution”.

Did you truly examine “trillions and trillions” of E.coli?!? Very funny.

Your reply denotes complete lack of understanding of the problem posed. Try again.

285

He provided a 3-step process for analyzing the question–a process that has actually been used quite successfully. You may as well tell the Wright brothers that they have a complete lack of understanding of machine-powered flight–when they return from Kitty Hawk.

What every biologist calls evolution, you call adaptability. Your idiosyncratic choice of terminology does not change the reality of observed speciation and genomic evidence that point so strongly toward evolution and common descent.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

2 Likes
286

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.

1 Like
287

@NonlinOrg,

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.

@Chris_Falter, @cwhenderson

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.

George
@GBrooks9

288

@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:

  1. Any persisting change in genetic percentages is Evolution, whether it leads to a new species or not.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

289

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?

290

Hi Nonlin -

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.

2 Likes
291
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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”.

(illustration1 can be found at: “What is the evidence for evolution?” post #40, March 10, at What is the Evidence for Evolution? - #41 by WilliamDJ