Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What? Paper on human mutation admits to “fundamentally challenging” neo-Darwinism?


On human mutation?:

Earlier this year we covered a paper in Nature which found that mutations in the Arabidopsis genome were not occurring randomly. As that paper noted, “The random occurrence of mutations with respect to their consequences is an axiom upon which much of biology and evolutionary theory rests.” Yet the findings of the paper overturned these basic principles of modern evolutionary biology. Now another paper, this one published in Genome Research by biologists from Israel and Ghana, reports similar findings about the non-random nature of mutations.

Mutation in Response to Need

A news release from the University of Haifa pulls no punches about the implications: “Groundbreaking study uncovers first evidence of long-term directionality in the origination of human mutation, fundamentally challenging Neo-Darwinism.” …

These researchers have done innovative research to investigate rates of “de novo mutations — mutations that arise ‘out of the blue’ in offspring without being inherited from either parent.” Their findings are extremely important: mutations aren’t random and may occur in patterns that are designed to benefit an organism. How did this arise? Epigenetics may be the direct mechanism, but how did those epigenetic mechanisms arise? Their origin has obvious design implications. But if your only alternative to neo-Darwinism is Lamarckism or some hazy materialistic model of evolution, then you are going to miss the viable possibility of intelligent design.

Casey Luskin, “Paper Provides More Evidence that Mutations Aren’t Random” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 15, 2022)

The paper is open access.

But Darwinism about human beings is the bread and butter of pop science media! If that’s under threat now, what will become of, for example, evolutionary psychology?

So if mutations are non-random, Darwinists now have to explain by what presumably evolved process such mutations are being directed. The beauty and power of non-falsifiable Darwinism is that their answer would be something like, "This process musta evolved from a purely random mutation, which resulted in mutations being more responsive to environmental pressures as would be expected (after the fact). Thus once again, Darwinism can explain anything, but successfully predicts nothing in advance. Anything to add, Chuckdarwin? -Q Querius
Still waiting for the Darwinists to pounce on this providing enlightenment on how this discovery doesn't actually challenge Neo-Darwinism after all. -Q Querius
Surely, the Darwinists have an explanation of how the observed non-random mutations in the Arabidopsis genome "musta" evolved . . . Or maybe their "science is settled" might be stuck in the nineteenth century. -Q Querius
Ok, yes that's a whole lot of possibilities, but if everything in an organism is changing all at the same time, how can natural selection select for or against any of them reliably? Another wild possibility is that all the evolutionary change is actually being driven by bacteria modifying their exoskeleton--namely us. But let's see how ChuckDarwin and the rest of the gang interpret this discovery . . . -Q Querius
Querius Personally, I think that the apparently overlapping epigenetic codes external to DNA hold the key.
Comparing fake princess(Genome) with Cinderella (Glycome) if we have 3 aa we have 6 possible compinations if we have 3 glycans how many combinations do we have? 1000. A hexasaccharide with 6 different hexoses could have more than 1 trillion possible combination... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20744/ Sandy
Fascinating! Seems like the cold, dead fingers of Charles Darwin around the throat of science are finally beginning to loosen! I wonder whether any of the aforementioned Evangelists of Evolution have read Perry Marshall's Evolution 2.0? If they're interested in learning something new, they can read about it here: https://evo2.org/ Applying their asservation to Marshall's challenge, I'm sure they can easily claim the US $10,000,000 prize money. The gist is that Marshall asserts that there are five or six demonstrated mechanisms for genetic change, and that "random" mutation is the least effective of them. Personally, I think that the apparently overlapping epigenetic codes external to DNA hold the key. -Q Querius
I want to see Sev come in with a non-sequitur criticizing grammar or someone's manners. Where might the great black knights of Monty Python be? zweston
Quick! Someone call Chuck D., so he can post here that this has been known for a long time already. 8-) EDTA
Darwinists wrong again ... Over and over and over again.... i will repeat myself, but i really don’t understand what makes Darwinists so trustworthy .... these people are always wrong .... martin_r
Darwinism is part of genetics. So one would expect it to play a role in the changes of DNA. DNA just has nothing to do with Evolution. The whole idea of random is nonsense but yet we treat it as if it is real and important. One would expect to find variation in certain places and not others. It probably happens in places which are not detrimental to the individual living entity. It might be telling that this particular change is not harmful because it makes no difference on the entities success in the ecology or it could tell us that the part of genome where the change takes place has no function. jerry

Leave a Reply