The illusion of evolution and how it works

[SpecialFrog]

hackenslash is correct.

Agreed.

So how does neutral evolution explain species diversity?

The same way other evolutionary models do: populations evolve by a variety of mechanisms. If a population splits into two groups that no longer interbreed these evolutionary mechanisms continue on each sub-population causing them to diverge genetically.

 

[Rhed]

hackenslash is correct.

Agreed.

It pains me to admit he was correct. I was hoping it was you.

So how does neutral evolution explain species diversity?

The same way other evolutionary models do: populations evolve by a variety of mechanisms. If a population splits into two groups that no longer interbreed these evolutionary mechanisms continue on each sub-population causing them to diverge genetically.

What's the mechanism? Random mutations without natural selection? Sorry, this is new to me.

 

[Rumraket]

Part of nearly-neutral theory is the idea that different mechanisms are more important in different circumstances. Natural selection plays a larger role in smaller populations.

Wrong way around, IIRC. Drift plays a larger part in smaller populations, NS in larger populations. As I said in my debate opening, though, there are advocates of the position that separating them is a mistake, as they are simply different facets of a single process.

Thanks. I may have gotten that backwards. Have to do some checking.

But either way, the claim that nearly-neutral theory means selection is unimportant is wrong.

According to wiki (Michael Lynch and N-NTE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearly_neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

hackenslash is correct. Natural Selection and Small populations (mostly the animal kingdom) don't work due to the drift barrier.

So how does neutral evolution explain species diversity?

Neutral evolution doesn't explain species diversity, it explains molecular evolution. That's why it's called the "nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution". It explains why we have so many mutations without dying, because most of them are neutral and fixed by drift. (Actually nearly neutral, as was later shown because strict neutrality is extremely unlikely).

 

[Rumraket]

What's the mechanism? Random mutations without natural selection?

No, the mechanisms are the same. Mutations, selection, drift, migration and so on. The mechanisms aren't different, their relative importance is. It has been recognized that drift players a much larger role at the genomic level than previously thought.
That doesn't mean natural selection no longer exists, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Rhed]

Apparently Darwinian evolution has lost and now Neutral Evolution has taken its place.

It's just evolution, not Darwinian Evolution. I'm not sure why some Creationist can't get that through their head?

What? What about the following:
1. Neutral Evolution, 2. Context-driven Actualization of Potential, 3. Self-organization, 4. Symbiogenesis, 5.neo-Darwinian (Modern Synthesis), 6.Neo-Lamarckism, 7. Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-devo), 8. Facilitated Variation, and 9.Natural Genetic Engineering

I probably left out a few...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Apparently Darwinian evolution has lost and now Neutral Evolution has taken its place.

It's just evolution, not Darwinian Evolution. I'm not sure why some Creationist can't get that through their head?

What? What about the following:
1. Neutral Evolution, 2. Context-driven Actualization of Potential, 3. Self-organization, 4. Symbiogenesis, 5.neo-Darwinian (Modern Synthesis), 6.Neo-Lamarckism, 7. Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-devo), 8. Facilitated Variation, and 9.Natural Genetic Engineering

I probably left out a few...

Before this goes any further, please read Whence Fact, Theory, and Path? A point I always try to make, but seem to fail at.

 

[tuxbox]

What? What about the following:
1. Neutral Evolution, 2. Context-driven Actualization of Potential, 3. Self-organization, 4. Symbiogenesis, 5.neo-Darwinian (Modern Synthesis), 6.Neo-Lamarckism, 7. Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-devo), 8. Facilitated Variation, and 9.Natural Genetic Engineering

I probably left out a few...

'Darwinian' evolution hasn't been seen in the primary literature for decades. Nobody gives a flying fuck what's popular.

Enough said!

 

[Rumraket]

Apparently Darwinian evolution has lost and now Neutral Evolution has taken its place.

It's just evolution, not Darwinian Evolution. I'm not sure why some Creationist can't get that through their head?

What? What about the following:
1. Neutral Evolution, 2. Context-driven Actualization of Potential, 3. Self-organization, 4. Symbiogenesis, 5.neo-Darwinian (Modern Synthesis), 6.Neo-Lamarckism, 7. Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-devo), 8. Facilitated Variation, and 9.Natural Genetic Engineering

I probably left out a few...

With the exception of the Modern Synthesis, all of those are aspects of the theory of evolution, they are not independent theories.

 

[Inferno]

Just noting, the ENCODE post was not replied to.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Just noting, the ENCODE post was not replied to.

And in other news, the sky is blue.

 

[Inferno]

Just noting, the ENCODE post was not replied to.

And in other news, the sky is blue.

The Greeks apparently called it bronze.

 

[Rhed]

The Greeks apparently called it bronze.

Bronze meaning, it was a drought...just saying.

The ENCODE will be replied to. Patience. The N-NTE is new to me

 

[Deleted member 619]

The Greeks apparently called it bronze.

Bronze meaning, it was a drought...just saying.

No, bronze meaning they didn't have a word for blue... just saying.

 

[Rhed]

I suggest you read this: http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2014/05/what-did-encode-consortium-say-in-2012.html.

The 80% figure is wrong (and possibly not even what the ENCODE researchers claimed).

Where ole where do I find a retraction from ENCODE about the 80%??? All I find is different interpretations of the term function . And evolutionary scientists are not happy (mega-rants and tirades actually) with the results so must disagree with the scientific results.

Can any evolutionists guess what the next rescuing device will be if our genome is actually 80% functional? :lol:

 

[Rhed]

I'd rather you read my blog post on the subject. I'm happy to say it was cited by Ryan T. Gregory, a researcher on the topic of the c-value paradox, as a "good resource" on the topic.
Of course Larry Moran's post is better, but I think mine has a broader approach.

I read your post Inferno, and all I read is that evolutionists don't like the ENCODE's research because it disagrees with evolution. I could not find any retractions from ENCODE. What I found is the interpretations of what function means (and you agree):

"3) Much of the ENCODE hype rests on the definition of the term “function”."


And you obviously don't like ENCODE's scientific papers either:

"A further update comes from a 2013 paper in “Genome Biology and Evolution”. The paper is discussed over at Pharyngula and it basically rips into ENCODE’s papers. There’s a lot of technical stuff I needn’t cover, so I’ll limit myself to mentioning one thing: Other researchers have found only 10% true functionality, that’s 70% less than the folk over at ENCODE."

The term you used "rips" into ENCODE" means to me "tearing apart".; in other words, don't like their papers. You and evolutionists don't like the factual results because it makes evolution nothing more than a fairytale.

 

[Rhed]

What's the mechanism? Random mutations without natural selection?

No, the mechanisms are the same. Mutations, selection, drift, migration and so on. The mechanisms aren't different, their relative importance is. It has been recognized that drift players a much larger role at the genomic level than previously thought.
That doesn't mean natural selection no longer exists, they are not mutually exclusive.

Natural Selection (NS) conserves traits; not create. The NS mechanism is after the fact; not before the fact.

Genetic Drift loses genetic diversity, and smaller the population, faster the genetic lose.

Mutations don't work in evolution's favor:

To test this theory, add mutations to a genome and see how it responds, a phenomenon called Epistasis:

Epistasis is a phenomenon that consists of the effect of one gene being dependent on the presence of one or more 'modifier genes' (genetic background). Similarly, epistatic mutations have different effects in combination than individually.

A mutation can be either "beneficial” or “deleterious". An epistasis can either be synergistic (positive) or antagonistic (negative).

Positive epistasis between beneficial mutations generates greater improvements in function than expected.

Positive epistasis between deleterious mutations protects against the negative effects to cause a less severe fitness drop.

Negative epistasis between beneficial mutations cause smaller than expected fitness improvements.

Negative epistasis between deleterious mutations cause greater-than-additive fitness drops.

To test neo-Darwinian evolution scientists have worked with RNA viruses:

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/43/15376.abstract


So in order for neo-Darwinian evolution to work, you need positive epistasis and beneficial mutations. That did not happen.

So how does evolution work again?

 

[red]

I read your post Inferno, and all I read is that evolutionists don't like the ENCODE's research because it disagrees with evolution. I could not find any retractions from ENCODE. What I found is the interpretations of what function means (and you agree):

"3) Much of the ENCODE hype rests on the definition of the term “function”."

You did not read the same post I did, despite going to the same - and only - source!
OR
You have the comprehension skills of barf.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I read your post Inferno, and all I read is that evolutionists don't like the ENCODE's research because it disagrees with evolution. I could not find any retractions from ENCODE. What I found is the interpretations of what function means (and you agree):

"3) Much of the ENCODE hype rests on the definition of the term “function”."

You did not read the same post I did, despite going to the same - and only - source!
OR
You have the comprehension skills of barf.

Intelligent design creationists are not known for their reading comprehension. I believe their poor reading comprehension comes from spending years in the Quote Mines.

 

[Rhed]

I read your post Inferno, and all I read is that evolutionists don't like the ENCODE's research because it disagrees with evolution. I could not find any retractions from ENCODE. What I found is the interpretations of what function means (and you agree):

"3) Much of the ENCODE hype rests on the definition of the term “function”."

You did not read the same post I did, despite going to the same - and only - source!
OR
You have the comprehension skills of barf.

Citation please.

 

[Rhed]

Intelligent design creationists are not known for their reading comprehension. I believe their poor reading comprehension comes from spending years in the Quote Mines.

Copy and paste a snippet from an ENCODE research paper that retracts the 80%.