[__ Science __ ] Evolution and Harmless Mutations

[Michael74]

Right. Hardy-Weinberg isn't about mutation, it's about alleles already in the population.

Yes, and its intuitive. Of course alleles will be evenly distributed between AA AB BA and BB (p2 + 2pq + q2). Ceteris paribus. Any change from that distribution would indicate environmental influence.

This still leaves the question of the ratio between helpful to counter productive mutation rates. Other than the obvious it varies depending upon how fitted a creature is for its habitat. I suppose we will have to wait upon further research. There seems to be no emprical way to evaluate Hugh's 10,000 to 1 guess.

 

[Barbarian]

This still leaves the question of the ratio between helpful to counter productive mutation rates. Other than the obvious it varies depending upon how fitted a creature is for its habitat. I suppose we will have to wait upon further research. There seems to be no emprical way to evaluate Hugh's 10,000 to 1 guess.

Well, general mutation rates for various organism are known. And optmal rates can be determined by simulations. This study shows that mutation rates are subject to evolution, but again are not optimized for need:

Computational Biology
Natural Selection Fails to Optimize Mutation Rates for Long-Term Adaptation on Rugged Fitness Landscapes

• Published: September 26, 2008
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000187

Abstract
The rate of mutation is central to evolution. Mutations are required for adaptation, yet most mutations with phenotypic effects are deleterious. As a consequence, the mutation rate that maximizes adaptation will be some intermediate value. Here, we used digital organisms to investigate the ability of natural selection to adjust and optimize mutation rates. We assessed the optimal mutation rate by empirically determining what mutation rate produced the highest rate of adaptation. Then, we allowed mutation rates to evolve, and we evaluated the proximity to the optimum. Although we chose conditions favorable for mutation rate optimization, the evolved rates were invariably far below the optimum across a wide range of experimental parameter settings. We hypothesized that the reason that mutation rates evolved to be suboptimal was the ruggedness of fitness landscapes. To test this hypothesis, we created a simplified landscape without any fitness valleys and found that, in such conditions, populations evolved near-optimal mutation rates. In contrast, when fitness valleys were added to this simple landscape, the ability of evolving populations to find the optimal mutation rate was lost. We conclude that rugged fitness landscapes can prevent the evolution of mutation rates that are optimal for long-term adaptation. This finding has important implications for applied evolutionary research in both biological and computational realms.
Author Summary
Natural selection is shortsighted and therefore does not necessarily drive populations toward improved long-term performance. Some traits may evolve because they provide immediate gains, even though they are less successful in the long run than some alternatives. Here, we use digital organisms to analyze the ability of evolving populations to optimize their mutation rate, a fundamental evolutionary parameter. We show that when the mutation rate is constrained to be high, populations adapt considerably faster over the long term than when the mutation rate is allowed to evolve. By varying the fitness landscape, we show that natural selection tends to reduce the mutation rate on rugged landscapes (but not on smooth ones) so as to avoid the production of harmful mutations, even though this short-term benefit limits adaptation over the long term.

 

[Michael74]

Mutations are required for adaptation, yet most mutations with phenotypic effects are deleterious.

Most, but not a number. Digital organisms seems to be a computer simulation, rather than a study of real world creatures. Results would depend upon input parameters.

I suppose Hugh has simulations of his own, using different input parameters that produce 10,000 to 1.

Without studies of real world creatures over long periods of time, it seems to come down to best guess based upon parameters input into simulations. Different simulations would produce different numbers. I guess this accounts for some of the differences in opinions between Christian scientists on this topic.

We conclude that rugged fitness landscapes can prevent the evolution of mutation rates that are optimal for long-term adaptation.

This is interesting. Environment matters. It would have to be fine tuned for optimal results. Intelligent design of the earth, as well as intelligent design of creatures.

 

[Michael74]

The earth also has dynamic fitness landscapes, not the static ones that seemed to be used in the study. As computer power improves, I would guess that the models will improve too. Maybe opinions will converge at that point.

 

[Truth7t7]

Almost all mutations have little or no effect. You have a dozen or so that weren't in either of your parents. A few are harmful, and tend to be removed from the population. And a very few are useful, and tend to spread through the population.



It's directly observed to work that way. It was a serious problem for evolutionary theory in Darwin's time. Scientists thought at the time, that heredity was in the blood, and it seemed that a new trait would be swamped out of existence in a population like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. Only after Mendel's work was discovered, did they realize that heredity is like sorting beads, rather than like mixing paint, and the problem was solved.

In general, evolution never produces something entirely new; it always modifies something already there. Often, one structure, such as a walking leg, is reconfigured over time to a new function, such as flight, digging, or swimming. This seems to never have happened suddenly; there are always transitional forms showing a gradual change with the limb serving more than one function at least for a period of time. Would you like to discuss that further?

For example claws in amniotes (reptiles, birds, and mammals) are entirely different than "claws" found in other vertebrates like the Sea Robin (fish) and the clawed frog. Each of these is genetically and histologically different than claws of amniotes.

The earliest likely amniote, Casineria, had rudimentary claws. Since claws are modified keratinous structures that are histologically and genetically like scales, it's likely that this tetrapod had body scales which were modified at the digits to form crude grasping structures. Existing structure, reconfigured to a new use.

Why do some harmless mutations survive? Because there's no selective force to remove them. However, over a long period of time, such mutations tend to either become fixed (all individuals have them) or disappear. If you do the math, you'll find that for a finite population, random events will very likely result in extinction or fixation over a long period of time.

I've got some work in entomology, and ants are an interesting case. Where there are more than one species in an environment, they are either adapted to non-competitive ways of life, or one is replacing the other. The arrival of fire ants in the American South was a disaster for many native ant species, but over time, they seem to have adapted to the intruder, and some are coming back. Others may be doomed.

The issues are much more complex than you suppose that they are. The field in which this is studied, is called "population genetics." Would you like to learn about it?

My understanding is there are no transitional forms in the fossil record?

The display of transitional forms such as "Piltdown Man" "Nebraska Man" were mans intentional misleading hoaxes?

 

[chessman]

Kind", in the context of Genesis, isn't about biological entities at all. It puts flying birds and bats in the same "kind",

Leviticus 11:13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean

That’s not the context of Genesis. When mistakes are replicated without correction they result in mutations, which sometimes can have serious consequences. You need to turn up your DNA polymerase.

The Hebrews weren't using biological divisions, but functional descriptions.

Umm, it was Yahweh doing the speaking, not the Hebrews. And He covers animals (plural) who feed on the land, in the water and in the air.

Then Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the Israelites, saying, ‘These are the animals that you may eat from all the animals that are on the land: ...​

“‘These you may eat from all that are in the water: any in the water that has a fin and scales, whether in the seas or in the streams—such you may eat.​

...​

“‘And these you must detest from the birds; they must not be eaten—they are detestable: the eagle and the vulture and the short-toed eagle, and the red kite and the black kite according to its kind, every crow according to its kind, and the ostrich and the short-eared owl and the seagull and the hawk according to its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the barn owl and the desert owl and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron according to its kind and the hoopoe and the bat.​

Leviticus 11:1-2,9,13-19 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Leviticus 11:1-2,9,13-19&version=LEB

From among the animals feeding on the land, in the water and in the air, how many different kinds did God mention above?

Did God list the bat in with the last kind mentioned above (the little owl, cormorant, great owl, barn owl, desert owl, carrion vulture, stork, heron)?

Bonus question:
Why do you think cud chewing-split hoved land animals were kosher for the Hebrews to feed upon?

Double bonus:
What’s the context of Lev 11?

 

[Truth7t7]

Either way you put it, evolution theory does have many holes...like swiss cheese.

Exactly, evolution is nothing more than secular humanist that join together to say there is no God creator.

When you study supposed transitional forms of human man in "Piltdown Man",1912, "Nebraska Man" 1917 they forged these items off as real "Transitional Forms"

They made representations of the forgery and put them in museums around the world, and changed public school text books to reflect the lie.

Nothing has changed, the game has gotten a little more complex with the schemes of propaganda.

ScienceMagazine

Study reveals culprit behind Piltdown Man, one of science’s most famous hoaxes
Aug. 9, 2016

 

[Truth7t7]

The reason almost all biologists accept it today is threefold:

1. Directly observed to happen.
2. Huge number of predictions made by the theory have been validated in the years since it was proposed
3. Nothing else adequately explains the evidence.

There's still a lot to learn. In Darwin's time the big hole was "how do new traits persist?" He had no explaination for this.
Then genes were discovered, and it became clear.

And there was the question of time. It appeared that the Earth's cooling indicated at most, 10 million years or so, not enough time for evolution to work. Then radioactivity was discovered, and that explained things.

Then there was the question of how new traits appear, which was answered when the function of DNA was discovered.

There are still unresolved questions, such as the role of epigenetics, and the relative role of neutral mutations, as well as the relative effect of chance vs. strict selectionism.

Pretty much like the rest of science.

Evolution, The Big Bang, And All The Rest Is A Big Man Made Hoax.

Nothing More Than Opinion And Conjecture.

You Know The Fairy Tale Is Coming When You Hear "Millions And Millions Of Years Ago", Thats The Secular Humanist Stating "Once Upon A Time"

There Are No Transitional Forms In The Fossil Record.

Man Has Created Transitional Form Hoaxes For Centuries, And It Hasn't Stopped, The Hoax And Propaganda Is More Complex Is All.

ScienceMagazine

Study reveals culprit behind Piltdown Man, one of science’s most famous hoaxes
Aug. 9, 2016

 

[Truth7t7]

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means. It's defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.



DNA shows that all life known on Earth is of a single kind. If you mean "species", that's been observed to evolve. If you mean "phylum", that takes longer. It's like denying that giant redwoods can grow to maturity from seeds, because no one has ever seen it happen. No one takes such arguments seriously.



"Adaptation" is of two kinds. The first is when your body responds to changes in the environment and adapts. For example, if you move to a high elevation, you will produce more red blood cells to compensate. That's not evolution. On the other hand Tibetans, over several thousand years, evolved alleles to live at very high elevations. That sort of adaptation is evolution.

Life at high altitudes forced ancient Tibetans to undergo the fastest evolution ever seen in humans, according to a new study.

The most rapid genetic change showed up in the EPAS1 gene, which helps regulate the body's response to a low-oxygen environment. One version, called an allele, of the EPAS1 gene changed in frequency from showing up in 9 percent of the Han Chinese to 87 percent of Tibetans.

Such genetic changes suggest Tibetan ancestors split off from the Han Chinese population about 2,750 years ago, researchers say. But only those most evolutionarily suited for life at high altitudes survived when they moved to the Tibetan Plateau.
https://www.livescience.com/6663-tibetans-underwent-fastest-evolution-humans.html



It's true. The less you know about evolution, the more likely you are to fear or deny it.



It's much more amazing that God created living things with the ability to evolve new adaptations as needed. God is much greater and wiser than many people would like Him to be.

You use the phrases adaptation equals evolution, and use Tibetans as an example?

I strongly disagree, nothing more than "Adaptation", the use of the word evolution is unfounded.

Physical changes withing a species to adapt to surroundings and survival is nothi g more than "Adaptation"

 

[Truth7t7]

There are so many transitional forms between apes and humans that creationists can't even agree which are apes and which are humans.



God did it that way. Who are we do second-guess Him?



So were you. It's just that you're not pleased with the way it was done.



If they could, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.



Reproductive isolation.



It's commonly observed. We see changes in environment, and genetic changes over time in populations to adapt to them. That's what evolution is.



The more you understand of His creation, the more wonderful it is.

There are no transitional forms between man and ape as you claim, just mans hoaxes, with the hoax and propaganda being more complex today is all.

“The tyranny in the matter of evolution is overwhelming to a degree of which the outsider has no idea.”—Dr. Thomas Dwight, Harvard University

ScienceMagazine

Study reveals culprit behind Piltdown Man, one of science’s most famous hoaxes
Aug. 9, 2016

 

[Barbarian]

You use the phrases adaptation equals evolution,

No. There are forms of adaptation that do not involve evolution, and not all evolution is adaptation. Would you like to discuss how that works?

and use Tibetans as an example?

Yes, that's a remarkably rapid adaptation. Tibetans split off from Han Chinese a few thousand years ago, and now have evolved a number of adaptations that allow them to live at very high altitudes.

I strongly disagree,

Doesn't matter. The evolution of genes necessary to survive at that altitude and to reproduce successfully was critical to the Tibetan population. So it happened remarkably rapidly.

nothing more than "Adaptation"

In this case, evolution was adaptive. But there are forms of evolution that are not adaptive, and there are kinds of adaptation that are not caused by evolution.

the use of the word evolution is unfounded.

Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Which is exactly what happened to the Tibetans.

Physical changes withing a species to adapt to surroundings and survival is nothi g more than "Adaptation"

No, not quite. Physical changes in an individual to adapt to surroundings is adaptation, but not evolution. Changes in allele frequencis in a population that make the individuals in that population more likely to survive long enough to successfully reproduce is adaptation and evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

There are no transitional forms between man and ape as you claim

Not only are there dozens of them, they are so gradual in their transition between apes and humans that creationists are not even able to agree on which are human and which are apes. Look at the chart on creationist classifications on this page:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/zerectus_shift.html

If your guys can't even agree which of the transitionals is human and which is not, that's a very convincing argument for the transitional nature of hominin fossils. Even YE creationist Kurt Wise admits that the "hominid series" is "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Here's your chance. Take a look at these. Tell us which of them are apes and which is human, and tell us how you know.

And as your article says, we still don't know for sure who did the Piltdown hoax, but we do know one important thing;
It was an evolutionist who debunked it.

And that's what matters.

 

[Truth7t7]

No. There are forms of adaptation that do not involve evolution, and not all evolution is adaptation. Would you like to discuss how that works?



Yes, that's a remarkably rapid adaptation. Tibetans split off from Han Chinese a few thousand years ago, and now have evolved a number of adaptations that allow them to live at very high altitudes.



Doesn't matter. The evolution of genes necessary to survive at that altitude and to reproduce successfully was critical to the Tibetan population. So it happened remarkably rapidly.



In this case, evolution was adaptive. But there are forms of evolution that are not adaptive, and there are kinds of adaptation that are not caused by evolution.



Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Which is exactly what happened to the Tibetans.



No, not quite. Physical changes in an individual to adapt to surroundings is adaptation, but not evolution. Changes in allele frequencis in a population that make the individuals in that population more likely to survive long enough to successfully reproduce is adaptation and evolution.

Its your opinion and that of others that the word "Evolution" should apply, nothing more than human "Adaptation"

For people that have personal bias to believe evolution is true, of course they want to apply this word, as often as they can

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution, The Big Bang, And All The Rest Is A Big Man Made Hoax.
Nothing More Than Opinion And Conjecture.

Evidence. That's what matters in science. BTW, did you know that atheists like Fred Hoyle initially attacked the big bang because it suggested that the universe had a beginning?

You Know The Fairy Tale Is Coming When You Hear "Millions And Millions Of Years Ago", Thats The Secular Humanist Stating "Once Upon A Time"

You've been misled about that. Even many creationists today admit that the evidence shows the world is very old.

There Are No Transitional Forms In The Fossil Record.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, knows better. He lists over a dozen series of transitionals each with a few to many individual species.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

 

[Barbarian]

Its your opinion and that of others that the word "Evolution" should apply,

No, that's wrong. Remember what evoution is. "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." And as you now see, that's what happened in the Tibetans. They evolved a series of new alleles to survive at very high altitudes.

Remember, adaptation can happen in an individual. That is not evolution. And it can happen to a population by a change in alleles. That is evolution.

Remember that, and you'll always know the difference.

 

[Truth7t7]

Not only are there dozens of them, they are so gradual in their transition between apes and humans that creationists are not even able to agree on which are human and which are apes. Look at the chart on creationist classifications on this page:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/zerectus_shift.html

If your guys can't even agree which of the transitionals is human and which is not, that's a very convincing argument for the transitional nature of hominin fossils. Even YE creationist Kurt Wise admits that the "hominid series" is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Here's your chance. Take a look at these. Tell us which of them are apes and which is human, and tell us how you know.

And as your article says, we still don't know for sure who did the Piltdown hoax, but we do know one important thing;
It was an evolutionist who debunked it.

And that's what matters.

You claim there are transitional forms, then you display the shell game in skulls "Big Smiles"!

The hoax in propaganda continues!

 

[Truth7t7]

No, that's wrong. Remember what evoution is. "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." And as you now see, that's what happened in the Tibetans. They evolved a series of new alleles to survive at very high altitudes.

Remember, adaptation can happen in an individual. That is not evolution. And it can happen to a population by a change in alleles. That is evolution.

Remember that, and you'll always know the difference.

Man does not evolve he adapts.

Are you "Gay" I Am, Because God Changes Peoples Lives To Make Them "Happy"

As you see I have not been caught in the "Evolution" of words, and the hoax in propagated shell games.

 

[Barbarian]

That’s not the context of Genesis.

As you just learned, the ancient Hebrews classified bats as birds and whales as fish. They classified by function, rather than by biology. This is why you can't try to use Biblical classifications as biological entities.

When mistakes are replicated without correction

The Bible isn't wrong; they just used a different classification. God was speaking to the Hebrews, and used that system, because it made sense to them.

they result in mutations, which sometimes can have serious consequences.

Like immunity to HIV, stronger bones, or resistance to hardening of the arteries, to name a few relatively recent ones. Would you like to learn about them?

Umm, it was Yahweh doing the speaking, not the Hebrews.

Yes, and so He used classifications that they would understand. You should realize that in the context of the culture, it wasn't necessarily "wrong" to classify bats as birds. God wasn't wrong, He was just speaking so the Israelites could understand Him.

Did God list the bat in with the last kind mentioned above (the little owl, cormorant, great owl, barn owl, desert owl, carrion vulture, stork, heron)?

Yep. For the reason you just realized.

(bunny trail deleted)

 

[Barbarian]

You claim there are transitional forms,

Yep, and the fact that creationists can't even agree among themselves as to which of them are apes and which are humans, pretty much locks it down.

then you display the shell game in skulls

I don't blame you for not trying to separate the transitionals into two groups. No one else can do it, either. As you learned, honest creationists admit the fact: others are merely inventing stories to try to cover it up.

The hoax in propaganda continues!

Yep.

 

[chessman]

Yep

Nope.