Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Responding to Moran – Is “Unguided” Part of Modern Evolutionary Theory?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I am always aghast that in the 21st century people still make the claim that mutations are unguided. This is a hold-over idea from before the discovery of DNA, simply because some mutations were found to occur independently of selection.

However, modern evidence has showed that mutations are actually in large part due to mechanisms geared for adaptive purposes, just like the rest of biology. And, just like hearts have heart attacks, mutation systems can break down, too, and lead to disease. Just like bacteria, we discovered mutations first by noting the ones that were causing disease, but with every closer look we see that these are the exception rather than the rule.

To point to a simple example (and one that is even often used as definitive evidence of the efficacy of random mutations!) let’s look at the somatic hypermutation process in the immune system. When a new bacteria invades the body and causes an infection, the body must generate a new gene. So what does it do? It takes a close-fitting antibody gene and mutates it. Now, first of all, you should notice that the mutations only happen in the correct gene – the antibody gene. That’s 1,200 base pairs out of 3,000,000,000. But that’s not all – it also focuses mutations on the part of the gene that attaches to the antigen, not the part that signals the cell (because otherwise it wouldn’t signal the cell correctly). So, that’s roughly 600 base pairs out of 3,000,000,000. The mutation system is highly selective of the sites that it mutates, skipping over the cell signaling systems and focusing on the part that is specific to the antigen.

So, therefore, in this scenario (which is one of the best-studied), teleology (goal-directedness) accounts for 99.99998% of the specificity of the mutation, and randomness / unguidedness / happenstance accounts for 0.00002% of it. Yet somehow the myth persists that we have good evidence that mutations are random.

For more information on this issue, you might be interested in a UD series I did on the modern synthesis and the video below:

—–

P.S. I originally tried to post this comment on Moran’s blog itself, but was having technical difficulties. So, if it winds up in his moderation queue three or four times under different accounts, I’m sorry, I was just trying to get it posted.

Comments
No, I’m saying that mutations are targeted. Did you read the above? The mutational mechanisms *focus* the mutations on the correct 600 base pairs out of 3,000,000,000.
Are we saying the same thing? The mutation rate in increased in that region.
“that when an organism “needs” a A mutating to a G, it makes this mutation happen” That’s *exactly* what happens.
Oh, perhaps not. I'm saying that the mutation rate is increased, so there's a higher chance that the A will mutate, but it could mutate into a T, C or C. Bu you seem to be saying that it will mutate into a G, not a T or C.A Gene
August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
mahuna - I'm a bit unclear as to the point you are making. Can you elaborate a little further?johnnyb
August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
It is reasonable to propose a Theory that observed changes in living things do not START with a predefined goal. For example: all bears really do NOT want to become whales, but their internal workings are making small changes every day that are gradually turning them into whales, which is why there are so many whales and so very few bears in the 21st century... This Theory can of course be flawed. But proposing the Theory, researching facts to support it, and debating the implications of the facts are all normal parts of the game. As is admitting that the Theory does not fit the facts. The minor observation that an individual specimen reacts to disease or changes in its environment to survive is not what is generally meant by "guided development". The Theory that there is an External source guiding the overall development of Life in all its variety would explain why individual specimens do not seem to have blueprints embedded in them for changing themselves into something radically different (mice into bats, etc.).mahuna
August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
A Gene- What, besides our ignorance, demonstrates that all genetic changes are unguided, random, happenstance events?Joe
August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
"If it does so, is it [the bacterial infection process] imbued with a teleological purpose? If so, what is it and where can we find it?" Certainly - at the very least for the bacteria. We might at some point find an *ultimate* purpose (which we'll discuss below), but for the moment, I'm just concentrating on the teleology for the organism itself. I think that's pretty clear - the teleology (purpose) for the host immune evasion process in bacteria is to infect the host. But, to what I think your question was - I also think that the reason we have trouble seeing an ultimate purpose in this is because we are using loaded terms based on outdated ideas of the role of bacteria in the body. "Evasion" and "infection" imply that the bacteria are necessarily doing something bad. However, many human diseases are the result of bacteria having *difficulty* re-infecting the host. Lactose intolerance and even celiac disease have both been linked with the lack of certain strains of bacteria. Celiac is pretty terrible, and I imagine most celiacs would *love* to be "infected" by bifidobacterium if it relieved their issues.johnnyb
August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
"You’re saying that mutation rates vary." No, I'm saying that mutations are targeted. Did you read the above? The mutational mechanisms *focus* the mutations on the correct 600 base pairs out of 3,000,000,000. "that when an organism “needs” a A mutating to a G, it makes this mutation happen" That's *exactly* what happens. As I said, in this particular case, 99.99998% of the targeting is based on the organism's need, and 0.00002% of the targeting is haphazard. If one is unable to look at the 99.99998% of the data, and only chooses to look at the 0.00002% of the data that confirms their thesis, I call that willful blindness. "the immune system isn’t a good choice for discussing mutation, as it’s only somatic." There are two reasons this is a good choice. First, this is precisely the mutation system that evolutionists use to demonstrate the efficacy of "random mutations". Therefore, it is a great example in that regard. Second, there is some evidence that even though they are somatic, these changes can get back into the gametes. Blanden and Steele have suggested that somatic mutations can be reverse transcribed back into the germ line. The evidence for this is pretty small at the moment, but not negligible. There are other systems which are similar, but for which it is not as easy to see the targeting, such as the SOS system of bacteria, as well as systems which only respond to a much smaller range of issues, such as E. Coli's responses to the presence of beta glucoside sugars. Thus, it is not a unique situation, but the somatic hypermutation process is uniquely easy to explain to a lay audience.johnnyb
August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
A Gene posted: "You’re saying that mutation rates vary. Well, yes. We know that. But you’ve shown no evidence that the actual mutations are guided, e.g. that when an organism “needs” a A mutating to a G, it makes this mutation happen." JohnnyB is easily ghasted. It would be very surprising if an organism that is a host to a range of pathogens did not develop an autonomous means of dealing with them within is single generation (organisms without this kind of immunological response are unlikely to survive). But where is the teleology? Is JohnnyB arguing that the human immunological system "knows" in advance what biochemical side-step the next infective bacterium is going to present? If that is what he means, then he needs to explain the two-way street. To effectively infect a human cell, the bacterium needs to develop the means of side-stepping the host's existing immunological defences. If it does so, is it imbued with a teleological purpose? If so, what is it and where can we find it?timothya
August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
You're saying that mutation rates vary. Well, yes. We know that. But you've shown no evidence that the actual mutations are guided, e.g. that when an organism "needs" a A mutating to a G, it makes this mutation happen. BTW, the immune system isn't a good choice for discussing mutation, as it's only somatic. Better to chose an example where the DNA gets passed on to the next generation. There are some nice examples, but I'll let you do the work and find them.A Gene
August 13, 2012
August
08
Aug
13
13
2012
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
johnnyb, mutations at cause of disease, they are guided? sergiosergiomendes
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative September 9, 2005
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
Joe
August 12, 2012
August
08
Aug
12
12
2012
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply