Epigenetics: Cultural differences do affect DNA, researchers say

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 24, 2017

Epigenetics, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

methylated DNA molecule/Christoph Bock/CeMM

The study examined DNA methylation — an “annotation” of DNA that alters gene expression without changing the genomic sequence itself — in a group of diverse Latino children. Methylation is one type of “epigenetic mark” that previous research has shown can be either inherited or altered by life experience. The researchers identified several hundred differences in methylation associated with either Mexican or Puerto Rican ethnicity, but discovered that only three-quarters of the epigenetic difference between the two ethnic subgroups could be accounted for by differences in the children’s genetic ancestry. The rest of the epigenetic differences, the authors suggest, may reflect a biological stamp made by the different experiences, practices, and environmental exposures distinct to the two ethnic subgroups.

…

Researchers and clinicians have known for many years that different racial and ethnic populations get diseases at different rates, respond differently to medications, and show very different results on standard clinical tests: “For a whole range of medical tests, whether your physician is told that your lab result is normal or abnormal depends entirely on the race/ethnicity box that you tick on an intake form,” Zaitlen said.

…

The researchers turned to epigenetics to search for answers to these questions because these molecular annotations of the genetic code have a unique position between genetic ancestry and environmental influence. Unlike the rest of the genome, which is only inherited from an individual’s parents (with random mutations here and there), methylation and other epigenetic annotations can be modified based on experience. These modifications influence when and where particular genes are expressed and appear to have significant impacts on disease risk, suggesting explanations for how environmental factors such as maternal smoking during pregnancy can influence a child’s risk of later health problems. Paper. (public access) – Joshua M Galanter et al., Differential methylation between ethnic sub-groups reflects the effect of genetic ancestry and environmental exposures. eLife, 2017; 6 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20532 More.

With luck, epigenetics can thread the defile between “scientific” racism and unquantifiable claims about “environment.” From an epigenetic perspective, whether a person will be affected by a given problem may depend not so much on the genes inherited but on where their switches have been set in recent generations. And switches can be reset, after all.

See also: Epigenetics: How many methylation patterns can be attributed to ethnic ancestry?

Epigenetics becomes, increasingly, a normal study area in science

and

Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Basically epigenetics point to the DNA system as a whole functioning alike a world in it's own right, same like human imagination is a world in it's own right. This explains the functionally integrated complexity of organisms, how an organism develops to adulthood, and the autonomy of an organism (how it understands it's environment). That the DNA system can change in a rational way epigenetically, shows that information is received from the external world, and then interpreted rationally in the DNA world of the organism. It means the DNA world can model the external world, can make representations of the external world. It can also make a representation of the adult form of the organism itself, which representation guides development of the organism to adulthood. This DNA world would also be the basis for the organism understanding things like food and predators. It means for instance an organism can have a representation of another organism in it's DNA world, like a natural fear of snakes, or whatever. This is consistent with all the observations of organisms. But there is also direct evidence it is true. The mathematical ordering of the DNA system is exactly the same as the ordering of the universe. That is exactly what one would expect of a world in it's own right operation, that it would have the same ordering as the universe itself! https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-nAueZAjEzMU/U3N1B5CqkdI/AAAAAAAAAHk/rXLLwM9WD4g/w525-h420-p-rw/rewrite.pngmohammadnursyamsu_{January 30, 2017
January
01
Jan
30
30
2017
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PST}

wd400
I already gave you one: The Blind Watchmaker would be a pretty good start.
Yes, you did give that. You then pointed to the Weasel algorithm showing how evolution is non-random. Then you backed away from that calling it a "toy". Yes, it's a toy that does not show how the multiplication of random variables ends with a non-random result, so perhaps I'll have to read the whole book to find that.
For the second point all you need to google is “diversifying selection” and “balancing selection” (within population) and understand speciation (the generation lineages with distinct evolutionary trajectories).
Ok, thank you. I have a feeling it is going to be more than merely 'all I have to do' to find the answer to that particular question, but I appreciate the suggestion and I will follow up on it.Silver Asiatic_{January 30, 2017
January
01
Jan
30
30
2017
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PST}

I already gave you one: The Blind Watchmaker would be a pretty good start. For the second point all you need to google is "diversifying selection" and "balancing selection" (within population) and understand speciation (the generation lineages with distinct evolutionary trajectories).wd400_{January 30, 2017
January
01
Jan
30
30
2017
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PST}

wd400 I am open to (and would appreciate) a reading-suggestion that explains how the multiplication of 3 random variables (mutation, environmental conditions, and reproductive success factors) lead to a non-random result. Additionally, any theoretical papers you can suggest that explain how a maximum value given to the parameter of selection by death leads to an increase of variability in the population. ... or failing that, anything at all that touches on what we've been discussing would be greatly appreciated also.Silver Asiatic_{January 30, 2017
January
01
Jan
30
30
2017
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PST}

I can't decide is this is an elaborate troll, or you two are really so disconnected from reality that you think these posts represent a informed and substantive discussion about these topics. All I can say is that you should perhaps try and learn some evolutionary biology and the data and theory used to test ideas within that field. (It's kind of amazing some one could write so much blather about a topic without once referring to a single result from the field!)wd400_{January 29, 2017
January
01
Jan
29
29
2017
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PST}

Origenes
It may even be the case that some of the not so wooly sheep were just a few mutations away from a breakthrough evolutionary discovery.
True, because we have another factor in the evolutionary formula to consider, and that's the reproductive rate of each. How many lambs each mother sheep has is again a random factor. Yes, the woolier sheep were more ready for the winter (but what about very hot summers that come a few decades later?) ... but the less-wooly sheep may have more babies, for whatever reason. The population is mixed, woolly and less-woolly. They all survive. Some have more lambs than others. When the winter gets colder then what? The winter is so cold it kills off all the less woolly sheep? That would have to be a pretty cold winter - and an entire succession of them. If it was that cold, it would kill them all. But "no", the evolutionists say, it was just cold enough to kill the less woolly, the more woolly survived! It would be nice if the climate worked like that - on a gentle gradual scale, so that enough sheep would survive. But wait! If it got just cold enough to kill not only the less woolly, but also the more woolly -- we have evolution providing a lucky mutation that makes them even more woolly. Yes -- that's fine. The lucky mutation starts in an individual. Then, it is distributed through the population until only the more, more woolly sheep remain. But what about the cold winters? Did they just stop and wait until the beneficial mutation made the population woolly enough to survive? Because if it didn't stop, all the sheep would be dead.Silver Asiatic_{January 29, 2017
January
01
Jan
29
29
2017
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

Suppose, a world without natural selection — a world with unlimited space and resources. In this world, life, driven by chance mutations, veers off in all possible directions. All viable organisms capable of reproduction will live, prosper and evolve. Clearly, such a world would lead to a maximum variety of life forms, maximum exploration and innovation. It would be a world where chance rules supreme and every viable mutation becomes reality and is explored. Surely, there are concerns if such an ideal world can exist, e.g. some organisms eating each other, but, for the sake of argument, suppose that such a world, or something close to it, can exist. With this world in mind it’s easy to see, that every other world can only be less successful at finding innovations. Any elimination of viable organisms implies shutting down promising pathways. Darwin does not agree with me at all:
Charles Darwin: Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.
I much enjoyed Silver Asiatic commentary:
That is hilariously absurd. He says, from death “… higher animals directly follows”. Again, evolutionary math. Through subtraction by death, war and famine, more variation in life appears. :) So, obviously, the more death we have, the more life. In fact, if we could maximize the quantity of death, and every living thing go extinct by the direct drivers of evolution, then there would be more variation (????).
What is Darwin talking about?
In the Origin, Darwin argued that this process, natural selection acting on random variations, could alter the features of organisms just as intelligent selection by human breeders can. Nature itself could play the role of the breeder. Consider once more our flock of sheep. Imagine that instead of a human selecting the woolliest males and ewes to breed, a series of very cold winters ensures that all but the very woolliest sheep in a population die. Now again only very woolly sheep will remain to breed. If the cold winters continue over several generations, will the result not be the same as before? Won’t the population of sheep eventually become discernibly woollier? This was Darwin’s great insight. Nature—in the form of environmental changes or other factors—could have the same effect on a population of organisms as the intentional decisions of an intelligent agent. [S.Meyer, ‘Darwin’s Doubt’]
A very cold winter shuts down the evolutionary pathway for all sheep except for the very woolliest sheep. And this shut-down is not the creation of wooly sheep; it is the elimination of the not so wooly sheep. The same result is achieved by human selecting only the woolliest males and ewes to breed. But again, this is not the creation of wooly sheep, it is the elimination of the not so wooly sheep. Without a very cold winter, or a breeder selecting, the very wooliest sheep would exist together with less wooly sheep. However, after a very cold winter, or breeder’s intervention, wooly ewes only breed with wooly males. So, selection does something: in this case, it increase the number of wooly sheep. This means that selection causes a more extensive exploration of the ‘wooly sheep evolutionary pathway’. Selection results in relatively more wooly sheep and therefore more exploration of mutations in the wooly sheep genome. That’s the only thing that can be said in favor of selection. IOWs selection intensifies the exploration of certain evolutionary pathways at the cost of abandoning the search along other pathways. Could it help? Well, sometimes selection could be right, it might just be the case that ‘the wooliest sheep pathway’ is the only fertile evolutionary pathway, so resources are well allocated. However, the opposite may just as well be true. It may even be the case that some of the not so wooly sheep were just a few mutations away from a breakthrough evolutionary discovery. As any investor will tell you, in general it’s best to diversify. Don't invest all your money in one company. Never put all your eggs in one basket.Origenes_{January 28, 2017
January
01
Jan
28
28
2017
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST}

Excellent analysis, Origenes. I have never looked at that before. It strikes me that Darwin remains the foundation of evolutionary theory today but how many evolutionists have actually looked at this text? I will guess that even the most passionate Darwinians haven't really read Darwin.
CD: … Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, … O: Variability from the external conditions of life? As in, ‘natural selection leads to variability’? How can he say this? For me, it is clear as day that Darwin is dead wrong here: natural selection absolutely decreases variability.
As you say, this is very muddled thinking. First, the term "selection" was used to indicate a reduction in variation - just as you pointed out. Death is the 'selector' and whatever survives obviously is less variable than what the population had before death. Darwin was trying to have it both ways. Selection was going to magically choose a huge variety of organisms, but that's dependent on mutations in a population - and the population becomes reduced by selection. Along with that, as I was trying to explain to wd400 - here Darwin admits that the environment is a random variable. According to him "the external conditions of life" produce variation. Funny how evolutionists forget to put that into their formulas when they claim that "evolution is non-random". As Charlie says, the environment creates variabiilty. But that's certainly a problem for selection because it has to wait around for beneficial mutations to appear. By the time those lucky mutations show up, their fitness benefit has changed because of the "external conditions of the environment".
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. What nonsense! War, famine and death are creative powers? Elimination has creative powers?
That is hilariously absurd. He says, from death "... higher animals directly follows". Again, evolutionary math. Through subtraction by death, war and famine, more variation in life appears. :-) So, obviously, the more death we have, the more life. In fact, if we could maximize the quantity of death, and every living thing go extinct by the direct drivers of evolution, then there would be more variation (????). Poor Charlie. At times he sounds like a blithering idiot. But perhaps he had Alzheimers or something. His worshipers however, I have less sympathy for them. They don't even want to look at what is blatantly obvious.Silver Asiatic_{January 28, 2017
January
01
Jan
28
28
2017
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

This muddled thinking surrounding ‘natural selection’ … was it always like this?
Charles Darwin: It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.
So all life is produced by laws.
These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; …
And these laws presuppose life. Well, that’s some very smart thinking Charly …
… Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, …
Variability from the external conditions of life? As in, ‘natural selection leads to variability’? How can he say this? For me, it is clear as day that Darwin is dead wrong here: natural selection absolutely decreases variability.
… and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, …
BTW why is it that organisms struggle to survive? Do they fear death? Do animals and plants have a concept of death?
… and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms.
Here we go again; natural selection does not entail any divergence. Natural selection equals extinction of the unfit — improved or not.
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.
What nonsense! War, famine and death are creative powers? Elimination has creative powers?
There is grandeur in this view of life …
Well, if you say so, problem is: it simply does not make any sense.Origenes_{January 27, 2017
January
01
Jan
27
27
2017
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PST}

Origenes,
How does elimination help? Let’s suppose that less-fit organisms are not being eliminated at all—no natural selection—, and life, driven by blind unhindered chance, veers off in all directions. Why does that stop the creation of new features? Quite the contrary, I would say.
Fascinating questions - yes, that could be right. There's the assumption that since elimination enables a population to all share the same trait, then that's good for evolution. But that's only an after-the-fact story to explain why species don't have all sorts of diverse features. Because if there was no elimination, a huge variety of beneficial features would appear within the same species. The fact that we don't see this means that evolution has to come up with the story that all the less fit were eliminated. This assumes that competition for resources is so intense and dramatic, that it's always a win-lose scenario. Either you get the resources or you go extinct. We see nothing like that with countless species on earth today who either compete or live harmoniously - they don't put one or the other out of existence.Silver Asiatic_{January 27, 2017
January
01
Jan
27
27
2017
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic, I agree with most of what you say, but not this:
Silver Asiatic: However, the only way beneficial mutations can spread in the population enough to actually create new features is if less-fit organisms are eliminated.
How does elimination help? Let's suppose that less-fit organisms are not being eliminated at all—no natural selection—, and life, driven by blind unhindered chance, veers off in all directions. Why does that stop the creation of new features? Quite the contrary, I would say. Or suppose that elimination happens on a much less scale, according to evolutionary theory it would result in much more variation. Less natural selection is more variation. IOWs natural selection removes features and does not create any. It hinders the creativity of evolution. An ice age only removes information, but does not create any. The organisms that survive already existed.Origenes_{January 27, 2017
January
01
Jan
27
27
2017
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PST}

Origenes
What transpires is that ‘natural elimination’ is not an asset but a problem for evolution. Perfectly viable organisms are eliminated on a whim. It’s a decrease of information, since it causes things to die.
That is a fascinating and very innovative look at it. The fact that some were 'selected' means others were lost. However, selection will only create peaks which are vulnerable to random environmental changes. It would be better for evolution if there was no selection, since selection reduces variation.
But somehow the evolutionary narrative has convinced some that elimination is helping things along. But how does it help evolution to have local peaks surrounded by deep valleys? It obviously does not help. However, producing valleys is all ‘natural elimination’ can do.
Interesting again. The evolutionary narrative has deliberately made it appear as if some benefits are actively being selected. However, the only way beneficial mutations can spread in the population enough to actually create new features is if less-fit organisms are eliminated. But that makes the species less robust, more specified, less variable and with less opportunity for evolution.
There is a reason why evolutionists want mutations to be neutral—not being eliminated. They want junk-DNA to exist, in order to have chance unhindered by ‘selection elimination’.
Yes, exactly. They need all that extra material hanging around to provide chances for co-option and lucky reuse of non-functional mutations. That's part of the evolutionary scam. The other part of the evolution-scam is the claim that evolution is non-random. It's the strange world of evolutionary math. As wd explains, fitness is a random variable, but that means it's not like a random output (???). That's a good start on evolutionary-logic. In other words, don't bother trying to take it seriously. But going farther, selection is supposedly non-random. However, the output that equals "what is selected" is the product of the multiplication of random variables. Again, magical evolutionary-mathematics here. Evolution does such things. x = random mutations. That's a random variable because mutations are random (sorry, I'm just using logic here). y = environment. Random variable because environmental conditions (actually multiple conditions, let's say 12) are random. So, we have 12y. z = survival instinct and reproduction. Non-random as long as organisms have not gone extinct. So call it the non-random constant 2. The evolutionary magical formula: x * 12y * 2 = Selection, a non random value. It's magic. Just ask Richard Dawkins. We can plug in some numbers for x and y and the result will be non-random - because Dawkins said so. Evolution is destined to select features that have the most benefit, and create a consistent, linear, non-random improvement and refinement of features (fish, mammals, eyes, wings, human consciousness) over the course of centuries - while selection pressures driven by a dozen environmental variables change randomly, radically and continually over the same course of time.Silver Asiatic_{January 27, 2017
January
01
Jan
27
27
2017
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PST}

What defines a ‘fitness landscape’? Fitness equals ‘not being eliminated’. Local peaks in the landscape mean ‘low elimination’, valleys mean ‘high elimination’. IOWs at the peaks organisms are produced by chance and next ‘not eliminated’, and in the valleys organisms are produced by chance and eliminated. ‘Natural ~~selection~~ elimination’ only explains why some organisms go out of existence (valleys), but does not explain why organisms come into existence. ‘Cumulative selection’ is a repetitive absence of elimination (valleys) wrt chance mutations. It is chance operating unhindered by elimination in a series of steps. IOWs the absence of ‘natural ~~selection~~ elimination’ is a good thing for innovative evolution. What transpires is that ‘natural elimination’ is not an asset but a problem for evolution. Perfectly viable organisms are eliminated on a whim. It's a decrease of information, since it causes things to die. But somehow the evolutionary narrative has convinced some that elimination is helping things along. But how does it help evolution to have local peaks surrounded by deep valleys? It obviously does not help. However, producing valleys is all ‘natural elimination’ can do. There is a reason why evolutionists want mutations to be neutral—not being eliminated. They want junk-DNA to exist, in order to have chance unhindered by ‘~~selection~~ elimination’.Origenes_{January 27, 2017
January
01
Jan
27
27
2017
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PST}

wd400 @42, In line with your theory, your link doesn't do the job. I guess you meant to link to this non-argument by R.Hoppe, who implicitly assumes the existence of a common ancestor of the enzymes who can perform magic. Douglas Axe:
... biologist Ann Gauger and I chose to work with two strikingly similar yet functionally distinct natural enzymes, which we’ll call enzyme A and enzyme B (Figure 6.3). Our aim was to determine whether it would be possible for enzyme A to evolve the function of enzyme B within a time frame of billions of years. If natural selection really coaxed sponges into becoming orcas in less time, inventing many new proteins along the way, we figured it should have ample power for this small transformation. But after carefully testing the mutations most likely to cause this functional change, we concluded it probably isn’t feasible by Darwinian evolution.2 Additional work supports this conclusion. Mariclair Reeves—like Ann Gauger, a biologist at Biologic Institute—painstakingly tested millions upon millions of random mutations, searching for any evolutionary possibility that we may have overlooked in our first study. She found none. [Douglas Axe, 'Undeniable', ch.6]
Origenes_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST}

All Dawkins' weasel had to do in order to mirror reality somewhat more, is to randomize the target phrase every few generations instead of using a fixed line from Shakespeare. Then, using the step by step approach (which still wrongly latches to the target, but we could give him that), see how long it takes to match the target. I'd bet it would never happen. As soon as the program latched to one version of the target, the environment would change the target (randomizing the target) so the program would be stuck with the wrong characters it latched to. That's similar to the problem of where evolution gets stuck on peaks of function and the only way to move is to lose fitness and come down from the peaks. By latching to a target phrase which eventually has less fitness (because the target changed) would lead to extinction eventually since selection acts too slowly to change organisms to meet the demands of a randomizing environment.Silver Asiatic_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PST}

wd
Fitness landscapes are random as in random variable, not random as in tornado in a junkyard.
Fitness landscapes are modeled by random variables because because environmental factors are random. The environment is random as when tornadoes strike. Random mutations change the fitness environment, creating and removing niches, competition, food sources and parallel functional attributes that may contribute to survival or be a threat to it. To say that selection is non-random is false since the fitness benefit of whatever may be selected through inheritance, is entirely dependent on what conditions the randomness of the environment provides. A mutation that has a fitness benefit in one environment, may cause extinction of the species in another environment - for the very same species. The power of selection is entirely random since in the case of extinctions, selection has no power at all, even though certain mutations were beneficial at one time in some circumstances. Junkyards have some functional pieces scattered around. A tornado may bring some of those together to create some primitive functional unit of some kind (a chair and table as a dining room set). Random mutations, preserved and inherited due to reasons that are either benefits or threats, depending on the randomness of the environment, is very much like a tornado in a junkyard in that case.Silver Asiatic_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PST}

The enzyme crocoduck paper? Yeah, I'm aware of it.wd400_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PST}

I suppose you are aware of Axe's paper 'The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions'?Origenes_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PST}

There is lots of work on empirical fitness landscapes that Axe could talk about instead of speculating here. Why do you think he didn't?wd400_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PST}

Douglas Axe on Dawkin's weasel and 'cumulative selection'.
Dawkins designed his program to carry out two simple steps repeatedly. The first step was to produce lots of copies of the parent sequence, starting with the random one, with occasional random typos in them. In the second step, each copy was compared to the target sentence “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL”, and the copy with the most correct letters, however few, was selected as the parent for making a new batch of copies, and so on. After about forty rounds of this, an exact match was found. Dawkins knew this wasn’t blind evolution, of course. His intended point was simply that cumulative selection, where improvements are allowed to build a little bit at a time, can accomplish what would never be accomplished if the whole finished thing had to appear at once. In his words, “If . . . there was a way in which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might have been the consequences.” Granted. But then strange and wonderful assumptions often imply strange and wonderful consequences, don’t they? Once again, what’s envisioned here is an extensive network of natural stepping stones that happen to line up in ways that make selection take extraordinarily insightful paths. We’ve already exposed this ploy. Accidental stepping stones leading to these fantastically improbable destinations would themselves be fantastically improbable. … we instantly see that the following line of gibberish (presented by Dawkins as the first selected sequence) wouldn’t meet that need:
WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P.
Equally unintelligible sequences meet other needs, of course—long passwords or encrypted messages. What we can’t imagine, though, is an honest-to-goodness series of these unrelated needs just happening to line up in such a way that they connect Dawkins’s original random sequence to “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL”. That definitely won’t happen by accident, which is why Dawkins had to line up the stepping stones himself. Somehow, though, he thinks the implausibly complex network of stepping stones that would be needed for life to evolve did line up by accident. And somehow he thinks his thoroughly unremarkable demonstration should convince us of that thoroughly unbelievable claim. We know better. Natural stepping stones may lead to strange and wonderful destinations in our imaginations, but the real world is different. Nothing becomes useful or wonderful until functional coherence is present in good measure, and whatever helpful things the natural world may supply in good measure, functional coherence isn’t among them. [Douglas Axe, 'Undeniable', ch. 11]
Origenes_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PST}

wd400: This is almost as dumb as SA’s argument.
I quite like SA's argument. What's wrong with it?
wd400: Extant organisms start where they are because of the results of thousands of generation of non-random survival of genetic variants (i.e. selection) …
Not being eliminated is not ‘selection’. The force you are talking about is elimination, that is, what is being discussed here is a purely destructive force — not a creative force. The absence of destruction is not equal to ‘selection’.
wd400: … and have a very small amount of random variation added.
Added to what? Added to ‘not being eliminated’? So, add a little amount of random variation to a whole lot of ‘not being eliminated’ and the path from bacterium to man can be explained? I'm sorry but evolutionary theory is a hoax.
wd400: Even the “weasel” example from Dawkins books should demonstrate the importance of cumulative selection.
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASELOrigenes_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PST}

Yes, weasel is a toy example that demonstrates one aspect of the evolution that Origenes is failing to grasp. Not a perfect simulation of evolution. Fitness landscapes are random as in random variable, not random as in tornado in a junkyard.wd400_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PST}

wd400
Even the “weasel” example from Dawkins books should demonstrate the importance of cumulative selection.
The weasel program aims at a fixed, "fitness target". But environmental variables in real life are random. Selection is banking mutations that are beneficial for a moment, but the target is changing due to the randomness of new mutations, new competition, changing food resources, changing climate. If it takes 10,000 years for a trait to become fixed in a population, it no longer has the same fitness benefit it did when it first appeared because of the randomization of many other factors during the same period of time. So, it's random mutations, multiplied by random environmental variables. Fitness is the output of a random process. Selection is therefore the same kind of output.Silver Asiatic_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PST}

Given that natural selection is a process of elimination, existent organisms are the ones that got away. Instead of being created by ‘natural elimination’, exactly the opposite is true: they are “untouched” by ‘natural elimination’. Existent organisms are those organisms on which natural selection has precisely no bearing whatsoever. They are the undiluted products of chance.
This is almost as dumb as SA's argument. Extant organisms start where they are because of the results of thousands of generation of non-random survival of genetic variants (i.e. selection) and have a very small amount of random variation added. Even the "weasel" example from Dawkins books should demonstrate the importance of cumulative selection.wd400_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PST}

wd400, 'Selection' — read: elimination — has no part in the coming into existence of any innovation from bacterium to man. Some darwinists, and perhaps Dawkins is one of them, hold that the going out of existence of X, explains the existence of Y. However elimination (a.k.a. “natural selection”) explains only why some things are not, not why some things are. Given that natural selection is a process of elimination, existent organisms are the ones that got away. Instead of being created by ‘natural elimination’, exactly the opposite is true: they are “untouched” by ‘natural elimination’. Existent organisms are those organisms on which natural selection has precisely no bearing whatsoever. They are the undiluted products of chance.Origenes_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PST}

I guess maybe read The Blind Watchmaker? For all of Dawkins' recent ridiculousness, that book gives a pretty clear explanation of what you are missing (in short: that selection is non-random and cumulative, allowing lineages to "bank" adaptations from previous generations and build on them in subsequent ones. As a result the journey through the space all possible organisms is very different than a random walk). It's also interesting that your quote is from De Vries at the turn of the 20th century. That was a mainstream position at the time (the so called "eclipse of Darwinsism") and you can find people that went on to become important Darwinists (Morgan etc) saying the same thing at the time. Why do you think that view was replaced? (To save you a search: it was the (re-)discovery of "particulate" inheritance and the development of mathematical treatment of natural selection that could work on these genes by Fisher, Wright, Haldane et al).wd400_{January 26, 2017
January
01
Jan
26
26
2017
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PST}

wd400: Is that at serious argument? This is “tornado in a junkyard” (one of the worst arguments going) taken to describe development instead of evolution?
You don't seem to know the reference of Hoyle's excellent "tornado in a junkyard" comparison. It was about abiogenesis not evolution.
wiki: He [Sir Fred Hoyle] would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".
However, being a good sport, I would like to argue that Hoyle's comparison is equally apt in the case of 'evolution'. As I have argued before, natural selection only explains elimination, so, evolutionary theory is driven by blind luck alone. Pure chance is at the source of every innovation — from bacterium to man, like a tornado in a junkyard.Origenes_{January 25, 2017
January
01
Jan
25
25
2017
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PST}

wd400 @ 27 That argument has a number of distinctions. 1. It's totally unique and I've never seen anyone use that before - so it's perhaps a first in world history or the history of science for that matter. 2. It's a very good argument which has never yet been refuted. 3. You think it's possibly the least coherent argument against evolution you have ever heard - which is, at least, a distinction.Silver Asiatic_{January 25, 2017
January
01
Jan
25
25
2017
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST}

wd400 Nothing in the paper indicates when or how that new function arose in the species, through which mutation and for what fitness benefit at the time. Of course, you can come up with any number of speculative, ad hoc stories. If I had correctly anticipated that I wouldn't have bothered to ask for your response. But I appreciate it anyway. You took the time and offered detailed reply, so I consider that a valuable contribution even though it does leave alternative scenarios open for speculation also. I'll just repeat the theme of my first comment in this thread. Very often we read of the discovery of new functions or adaptations, but we only rarely see studies on how such things evolved.Silver Asiatic_{January 25, 2017
January
01
Jan
25
25
2017
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PST}

So, no argument, no biology, just incredulity and copy-pasting? Guess we are done. I hope you research the cancer example a little though.wd400_{January 25, 2017
January
01
Jan
25
25
2017
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply