Yes, but it has nothing to do with mutation rates.
And I’m not picking a fight with George, I’m trying to help him understand the reality of evolution. George is helping to promote the phony “RM+NS” framing pushed by evolution denialists. Associating mutation with Darwin is particularly dishonest IMO, as Darwin knew nothing about mutation. He simply noted the existence of heritable variation, an undeniable and now measurable fact. Its undeniability is why the denialists shift the focus to mutation and ignore existing polymorphism.
Evolution denialists are politically effective communicators, and they know that randomness sets their targets’ hair on fire.
I would consider it a great kindness if you could describe which part of @benkirk 's complaint make sense to you … and put it in your words.
I find that I don’t understand Ben’s furious objections about some things… and repeated attempts from me to get it described in different words rarely effects the desired communication.
What do you see here in this minor dispute between two Evolutionists?
I believe that benkirk is trying to point out that there is plenty of variation in existing populations. Therefore, no new mutations are needed for selection to happen.
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:61, topic:35086”]
Ben, are you being reasonable?[/quote]
Yes, I am. I am trying to make an important point about evolution. It acts far more on existing variation than on new variation.
Do you agree or disagree with that simple statement?
Yes, and you are missing the context. The whole point of BioLogos is to make evolution less threatening to Christians. Understanding that evolution acts far more on existing variation (which anyone can see) than on “random mutations” (randomness is very spooky) is important.
Again, the ratio of the volumes of a drop of water to that of a large, full bathtub is LITERALLY the same as the ratio of new mutations to existing polymorphisms.
It’s irrelevant to my point, and I think that you know that.
But you aren’t claiming either. You are claiming that new mutations are the deciding factor, but you can’t name a single documented case. You can’t just increase the flow from the faucet.
Now, do cheetahs have the same mutation rates as humans? Do they have less or more polymorphism than humans?
Yes, many people do, George. We would mutagenize them the same way that we do mice: ethylnitrosourea to increase point mutations or X-rays to increase chromosomal breaks, translocations, etc.
Why on earth would you think that we don’t know how to do that, George?
George, X-Men movies are not a good way to learn about mutations. In fact, most horrible deformities are NOT caused by mutations. Also, we don’t expect any horrible deformities from mutagenizing mice nor cheetahs. There’s that whole thing about diploidy, dominance, and recessiveness that you ignore. If we go too far with the mutagenesis, we simply don’t get live progeny. The new alleles are qualitatively different from the existing ones.
I am pointing out that you repeatedly deny the huge contributions of existing alleles relative to new ones.
You made two egregious errors by acting like we don’t know how to mutagenize mammals, as well as what we expect from the mutagenesis.
I have to think he’s chasing something else additionally.
I’ve already agreed to the general principle that there is plenty of variation in most existing populations.
But in the very beginning, one there was Only one-celled life? Was there enough variation to make a whale? Or any mammal? Or any reptile? I doubt it. The last few times I have offered this scenario for his comments, he has completely ignored it. I think we both know why.
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:67, topic:35086”]
I’ve already agreed to the general principle that there is plenty of variation in most existing populations.[/quote]
But you’re not accepting the massive ratio: A MILLION TO ONE.
[quote]But in the very beginning, one there was Only one-celled life? Was there enough variation to make a whale? Or any mammal? Or any reptile? I doubt it. The last few times I have offered this scenario for his comments, he has completely ignored it. I think we both know why.
[/quote]I think you don’t understand this allele thing at all, George. If you did, you wouldn’t be moving the goalposts to “one-celled life,” from the common ancestor of whales and hippos, because early life almost certainly would be haploid. The million-to-one ratio doesn’t apply to haploids, just to diploid mammals including cheetahs, whales, and humans. Do you understand why?
Do you see how nonsensical it is that in response to my pointing out that x is a million-fold lower than y, you try to portray me as claiming that x doesn’t even exist?
If x doesn’t exist, how can it be a million-fold lower then anything?
There’s that whole thing about diploidy, dominance, and recessiveness (the latter two properties of alleles) that you ignore. It’s really, really important in understanding evolution.
Gee, Ben, are you doing a really bad impression of my angry Uncle Ned?
You’ve been avoiding my question and hammering at me for several days now. So let’s hammer out a few points:
In the post that started this non-discussion between me and you, I intentionally chose not to invoke anything to do with Alleles. This is my right as an adult Evolutionist. I didn’t do it because I hate alleles. I didn’t do it because I disagree with you about the importance of Alleles. I did it because I just wanted to talk about mutations… that’s all I was doing. I was limiting my discussion about Mutations because we had a participant posting rubbish about Mutations.
If, instead, when the rubbish about mutations was being posted, I started harping about Alleles, wouldn’t the general audience think I had a few screws loose? After all, Alleles are wonderful … but sometimes a man just wants to talk about Mutations. Period. End of story. Drop the mike.
So… then you come along and do one of those cinematic martial arts attacks masterfully executed by one of my favorite actresses, Scarlett Johansson (featured in the photo in her role as Black Widow in Iron Man 2) !!!
And even though I’m in the middle of a conversation specifically speaking about Mutations, you get all worked up about how in Error I am because I don’t mention Alleles! Really? The only way to speak correctly about Mutations is be sure to mention Alleles every single time? I find that a trifle bizarre. But maybe you are just joking around?
Finally, since you are so full of zeal and vigor, I figure you would answer just one of my questions… Are there enough Alleles in one celled life for God or anyone to shift the alleles around and have a whale? That’s a really simple question, right? And your answer? After twice ignoring the question altogether, you finally confess your innermost compassionate sensitivities, and say:
“I think you don’t understand this allele thing at all, George. If you did, you wouldn’t be moving the goalposts to “one-celled life,” from the common ancestor of whales and hippos, because early life almost certainly would be haploid. The million-to-one ratio doesn’t apply to haploids, just to diploid mammals including cheetahs, whales, and humans. Do you understand why?”
I had hoped that someone would intercede in this discussion so that we could tactfully disengage … but it looks like nobody wants to tackle the angry guy.
In your long-winded, offensive and somewhat off-point tirade (above), the careful observer will find your answer to my question!
I think you will agree that your answer was indeed “no”. But to find that answer, I had to take the “n” from your word “uNderstanding”, and the “o” from your word “One-”… and put it together for you. Because you were a little bit preoccupied spraying my face with a bit of spittle…
The reason I asked you this simple question was to see if you could ever admit that Alleles are not the answer for everything. To my surprise, you couldn’t admit this. And yet we All know this to be true.
Now why would I go through all this effort to respond to yet another helicopter-blade-chop-job by you, with a nice picture of Scarlett Johansson and kind words to you about your wit and intelligence (don’t look too hard… you just read the kind words)… ? Because I care about you and your feelings. I pretty much knew you would enjoy the photos of Scarlette, especially the one (below) where she meets Lucy on the African plain … in her splendid movie called, (drum roll) LUCY.
So why don’t you pick your battles where your battles are useful… and stop caving in my head about alleles in the middle of my discussion about mutation? I didn’t mention alleles in the original post because it wasn’t the point of the discussion. And the more you bloodied me, the more I thought you really needed to get cheered up or something.
I hope this post was just the thing to do it.
Very sincerely, your friend and loyal supporter, George Brooks
P.S. How can I be moving the conversational goal posts when I’m in a small basketball court talking about mutations … and dodging your swinging 2x4 all at the same time? Sometimes… you just gotta have mutations… We all know it. You, Ben, just have to learn to graciously admit it and move on.
Gosh. I had to go back for a detailed re-read to get to the bottom of these last few comments. Yes, I think it is fairly obvious that day to day evolution relies on gene shuffling to provide an endless supply of unique individuals (at least in sexually reproducing organisms), any of whom may be better adapted to its particular environment than its forbears, and better able to pass on most of its particular arrangement to its progeny. But surely nobody thinks that the organisms we think of as the Last Universal Common Ancestor contained all the genetic material necessary to provide the squillions of unique individual organisms, from escheria to elephants, that have ever subsequently existed, just by gene shuffling. That variety is provided by mutations, which individual genomes fail to “correct”. I don’t think a debate about the relative volume or importance of the two mechanisms is very helpful. A ship may be made of huge sheets of metal held together by rivets, but an argument about whether the volume of the sheets makes them more important the rivets is unlikely to be edifying.
My postings on this thread have not invoked or nor require a working knowledge of diploidy and haploidy. These are Ben’s “big concerns” … but mostly to avoid answering a simple question.
If you would identify an erroneous statement by me, mine anywhere in this thread, I would take the suggestion more seriously. Right now, all I see is Ben having another fit.
But in the very beginning, one there was Only one-celled life? Was there enough variation to make a whale?
A single-celled critter would be haploid and therefore not have the variation that a diploid does. (You are an example of a diploid, since you have a mom and a dad.)
But was there sufficient genetic means and opportunity for a single-celled Last Universal Common Ancestor to produce diploid descendants without mutation?
