Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Everything is Coming Up “Non-Random”!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On January 12, 2022, Phys.Org had a PR on an article documenting “non-random” mutations found in wild tobacco plants, published by a team from UC Davis. Now, three weeks later (Feb 1, 2022), we have another paper, working with human populations in Africa, and which, according to a team from the University of Haifa, “surprisingly” turns up “non-random” mutations.

From the PR on the first paper:

The scientists found that the way DNA was wrapped around different types of proteins was a good predictor of whether a gene would mutate or not. “It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said.

The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

And from the PR for the second paper:

“For over a century, the leading theory of evolution has been based on random mutations. The results show that the HbS mutation is not generated at random but instead originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance,” said Prof. Livnat. Unlike other findings on mutation origination, this mutation-specific response to a specific environmental pressure cannot be explained by traditional theories. . . . . . . .
“Mutations may be generated nonrandomly in evolution after all, but not in the way previously conceived. We must study the internal information and how it affects mutation, as it opens the door to evolution being a far bigger process than previously conceived,” Livnat concluded.

What do you know!! There’s “information” in the genome. Lots of it!! What a surprise!!!

Comments
Querius @ 13:
Yep, Darwinism can explain absolutely anything, but successfully predicts absolutely nothing.
Compared to:
The scientists found that the way DNA was wrapped around different types of proteins was a good predictor of whether a gene would mutate or not. “It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said. (emphasis added)
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.chuckdarwin
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
LCD
The problem is they reach a point where even fairy tale explanations can’t make sense and are contradictory.
Darwinists reached the point so many times... does not seem to be a problem for Darwinists ... Darwinists dont have any problems ...martin_r
February 3, 2022
February
02
Feb
3
03
2022
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
Yep, Darwinism can explain absolutely anything, but successfully predicts absolutely nothing. Hardly a week goes by with some headlines saying that evolutionists are stumped by some new find. The only thing they're positive about is their dogmatism and unequivocal support of a failed 19th century speculation regardless of falsifying discoveries, "living fossils" that evaded evolution, 100+ vestigial organs, so-called "junk" DNA, the "tree of life," out-of-place fossils, spontaneous generation (undoubtedly through the 1835 magic of "protoplasm"), and Darwin's blatant racism in his book, The Descent of Man (1871):
Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization” (178). Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201).
Charming, isn't it? Nonlin.Org @1,
Shannon mislabeled his theory. He was actually studying data transmission. Irrespective of any information or gibberish carried.
Exactly. Data transmission and limits of compression. -QQuerius
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
they can explain ANYTHING away …
They think that "explanations" are science. :lol: The problem is they reach a point where even fairy tale explanations can't make sense and are contradictory. After all every man is entitled to his religion.Lieutenant Commander Data
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.
Like i said in my other post... Dont matter what Darwinists discover, they can explain ANYTHING away ...martin_r
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin
Note that both of these conclusions are placed in the context of evolution, not intelligent design.
Color me surprised The author of the study is a Darwinist... so what do you expect from a Darwinist? Or would you expect something like that: Ohhh...we were wrong for decades... now we found out that mutations are directed and non random.... our 150 years old theory is falling apart .... intelligent design advocates were right.... Chuck, something like that ? Seriously, how old are you ?martin_r
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Good old Jerry, ever the clever....chuckdarwin
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
This subtlety seems to escape Chuckarwin
Since the commenter hasn’t a clue about evolution, subtlety is way beyond him.jerry
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival... [I]t opens the door to evolution being a far bigger process than previously conceived,” Livnat concluded.
Note that both of these conclusions are placed in the context of evolution, not intelligent design. No repudiation of Darwin. No repudiation of evolution. No repudiation of natural selection, but rather a finding regarding mutations that the researchers put in the larger context of evolution. There is an amazing subtlety playing out between mutational variation and natural selection which we find in these studies, selects for genetic integrity, or as the first study explicitly states, the organism evolves to protect its genome. This subtlety seems to escape the author of this post in his or her giddiness to proclaim that "there's information in the genome. Lots of it!!" Since when is it news that genes contain information--biologists have always know that there is information in the gene.chuckdarwin
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Could you be a little more specific in what you consider to be evolution?
I have been very clear on this for the last 16 years. No one has disputed anything I said over that time. Read the following which in one form or another has been repeated about hundred times. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952 Evolution is tier 2 and tier 3. Genetics is tier 4. I have recently referred to the debate with a capital "E" as in the Evolution Debate as opposed to a small "e" for the word evolution that so many love to use. Also how is the modern synthesis different from genetics other than one is unproven while the other is good science? Until the ID community starts making these distinctions, they will continue to spin wheels. A good start would be crediting Darwin with a great breakthrough but it only has relevance to genetics. That would be a major embarrassment if Darwin's ideas was only appropriate for genetics. They would have a hard time denying it. Important but not the debate they want. The Darwinists live on confusion.jerry
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Jerry: I think you need to clarify your views on just what evolution is. The discovery of Mendelian genetics historically was a body-blow to Darwinism that was only resolved with the Modern Synthesis. It sounds like you want to unravel that. Could you be a little more specific in what you consider to be evolution?PaV
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
"Surprising twist" is another way of saying "epicycle".polistra
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
As Perry Marshall put it :"Not the mutations are random, environmental stimuli are random".Lieutenant Commander Data
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Two things: 1) Is the concept of “random” a meaningful one. Or does it just mean that we do not understand the forces operating because they are so complicated. 2) the article again is about genetics but try’s to say that genetics is Evolution when it cannot possibly be about Evolution. Let’s get away from the nonsense that DNA is the mechanism for the Evolution debate. Also Darwin’s ideas were always about genetics and should be relegated to such. (Before anyone says that Darwin knew nothing about genetics, that is nonsense because genetics is essentially the science of heritability and that’s what at the core of Darwin’s ideas. Mendel provided some concrete examples of heritability variations.) UD continues to conflate genetics with Evolution.jerry
February 2, 2022
February
02
Feb
2
02
2022
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
No. There isn't. There's data, not information. Shannon mislabeled his theory. He was actually studying data transmission. Irrespective of any information or gibberish carried. Regardless. Whether mutations are random or not the theory of "evolution" fails for many reasons. Including the fact that it is being opposed by genetics.Nonlin.org
February 1, 2022
February
02
Feb
1
01
2022
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply