Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution of an Irreducibly Complex System – Lenski’s E. Coli

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On another thread we have been discussing abiogenesis in particular, but there was also some discussion about the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. Commenter CHartsil indicated that “we actually watched an IC system evolve” in reference to Lenski’s E. coli research. At my request, he has posted a brief summary of the research and his take, which I am now elevating to a new thread on this important topic.

For those who disagree with CHartsil’s take, strong objections on substantive grounds are of course welcome, whether relating to Lenski’s research or CHartsil’s interpretation of it, but not irrelevant personal attacks. Thank you.

—–

Guest Post by CHartsil:

This is a pro-ID board so I doubt I need to explain irreducible complexity. When arguing against it, most will bring up Ken Miller or Nick Matzke. They have great points but theirs are indirect and theoretical pathways for systems considered IC. That’s why I’m fond of Lenski’s cit* E. coli.

This particular strain of E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate aerobically. While most E. coli can do this anaerobically, part of the definition of wild-type E. coli is actually the inablity to use citrate as a substrate aerobically. This may not have been a terribly fascinating addition of function if not for the frozen fossil records kept by Lenski et al.

These frozen generations allowed Lenski to determine that this trait was not acquired via a single mutation as it could only be repeated after generation 20,000. Given the distinct cladistic division amongst the populations at the border generation, it was determined that there were at least two potentiating mutations prior to the cit* event.

In this third clade a tandem duplication resulting in a novel regulatory module leading to the aerobic cit* could be repeated and verified. It has been noted since that the fitness of the population has been improving without notable upper limit, increasing based on the number of copies of the new regulatory module.

I find this to be sufficient in warranting the dismissal of the concept irreducible complexity. In Lenski’s E. coli, we observe the rise of a new function resulting from a new gene and new gene regulation. This function is comprised of now interdependent components which demonstrably did not exist in parent generations. It is by definition irreducibly complex and it was observed to evolve.

—–

Nota bene: for purposes of the above discussion, CHartsil is using the following definition of irreducible complexity: “a system comprised of interdependent parts, the removal of any of which will cause the system to cease functioning.”

Comments
I'm having a discussion with Timaeus on another thread and this issue came up.
Material processes alone (absent an intelligence or will or intent that is at least in part supernatural/non-material) can not generate IC or SC (again, speaking as a proximal cause).
Now there certainly are a lot of opinions (including those of Meyer, Dembski, Behe et. al.) as to the truth of this statement, but what specifically does the theory of Intelligent Design claim (or the suppositions its built on)? It seems to me that it is agnostic on the matter -- it allows that material causation alone may be a sufficient explanation for generating instances of IC or SC.rhampton7
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
#80 Zachriel
Constant rate of spontaneous mutations conferring a phage (or antibiotic) resistance, before and after phage (or antibiotic) challenge, has no bearing on the question whether such mutation is intelligently guided or not. If it's random, then ascribing intelligence to the process would be an extraneous property.
You are using term "random" in the sense #1 from previous post, i.e. as attribute about the knowledge of the researchers about detailed causal chain that generated those mutations. In that sense my term "spontaneous" is equivalent to random #1. But then that "random #1" doesn't have any relevance regarding the contention between the neo-Darwinian conjecture of "aimless random mutation" vs intelligently guided mutation of ID conjecture. Namely, your random #1 merely means that researchers have no idea how exactly the mutation was generated and they cannot predict which one and when it will happen. Thus, "random #1" is a fact about researchers' state of knowledge (lack of knowledge about detailed causal chain behind particular mutation), not about the nature of the mechanism proper. But it is precisely the nature of this novelty generating mechanism behind evolutionary phenomena that is at issue between the neo-Darwinism and ID. Is the mechanism intelligently guided or is it aimlessly random? To address that question, you need semantics of "random #2" from the previous post i.e. semantics pertinent to the very issue of contention above. That is not the "random #1" as unpredictable or merely spontaneous mutation. Hence, something can be "random #1" yet intelligently guided. For example, scientific discoveries or technological inventions are intelligently guided. Yet they are "random #1" in the sense that they happen spontaneously and unpredictably. A researcher of patenting rates may know that there will be 5000 +/- 300 software patents filed this year and may call those filing events "random #1" since he has no idea what exactly will be patented and when. Yet, each of those filings and the inventions being described are results of the intelligent processes. Measuring hose patent filing rates and how they change year after year still has no bearing on what is the nature of the process which generated them: where the inventions described in them result of intelligent activity (ID) or of random copying and typing errors (neo-Darwinism). Hence the concept of "random" in the sense #1 (which is what you are using) lacks resolution to distinguish the contentious issue between ID and neo-Darwinism.
nightlight: For example, in evolution of technologies, the annual rate of say new patents for data storage and data compression algorithms . Those innovations aren't random.
They are random in the sense that they are spontaneous, and each one unpredictable i.e. random in the same sense that L-D and L-L mutations were as far as researchers could tell. Just as one can't know what, when and by whom will be invented, those researcher didn't know what or when mutation will happen. That type of "random #1" (as unpredictable, uncontrollable process) is equally consistent with intelligent guidance and aimless, undirected event. The semantics of "random #1" simply lacks the resolution to even formulate the problem.
No, we used the term random as a probability distribution.
Probability distributions are elements of the mathematical models used for describing randomness which is completely irrelevant for the contentious issue between ID and neo-Darwinism. You can have probability distribution of number of technological innovations (e.g. # of filed patents) by year or by country, etc. Yet those innovations are generated by the intelligent processes. Hence, the fact that one uses probability distributions to mathematically model "randomness" has no relation with the nature of the novelty generating mechanism -- were those innovations results of activity of intelligent processes or of aimless copying and typing errors followed by "natural selection" out of the gibberish of stuff that made sense. The rates or frequencies of the innovations can be modeled via probability distributions in either case. Therefore, your "explanation" ("as a probability distribution"), while not false, is completely vacuous regarding the question being debated.
nightlight: The constant empirical rate for some kind of patents has generally nothing to do with the question whether the innovation process that produced those kinds of patents is intelligently guided or not. If it were guided, it wouldn't form a random probability distribution.
A guided processes can and are often modeled by probability distributions and treated as random processes, which they are from the perspective of the modeler who doesn't have inside information about the guidance. As a trivial counterexample to your "theory" about relation between concepts "guided" and "random" -- consider someone who measures and researches traffic volumes and their various probability distributions over time and locales. For that researcher, these processes are random and are describable by probability distributions. Yet, the path of each car is an intelligently guided process (from the perspective of its driver). Similarly, to each driver whether some car ahead will turn this way or that way on an intersection is "random" yet that other car is simultaneously intelligently guided by the other driver.
nightlight: On the other hand, if you give the same students problems which are at the difficulty level of the materials previously taught in the class, the random guessers will still get 20% answers right, while the intelligent solvers will get much higher percentage of correct answers. Which is what we don't see.
Not true. The bacteria can and do control their mutation rates and use that capability to improve their survival odds (Cairns et all 1988). The variety of more recently uncovered mechanisms that James Shapiro named "natural genetic engineering" provide much richer repertoire of levers for finer, more intelligent guiding of the mutations. Similarly the epigenetic effects on DNA can also be categorized as intelligent, targeted and heritable modifications of the cellular biochemistry.
Cairns results show the effects of hypermutation under stress, not any sort of intelligent process.
But if a stock broker increases rate of sale of the stocks based on some general sell signal in his charts, then it is called an action of an intelligent agent. You're merely playing with the semantics of "intelligent" in order to biological processes just bunch of random, unintelligent chemical reactions.
The confusion occurs because if you assume a standard rate of mutation, you will see far more beneficial mutations than expected; however, that's only because there are more mutations overall.
I explicitly said that intelligent guidance need not manifest itself as increased rate of particular beneficial mutations under all circumstances. That's what the students test example was meant to illustrate. The test needs to be calibrated for the students' level of competence before it can show difference between the intelligent efforts by some students and random guessing by others. If the problems are too hard for any student at a given level to come up with correct solutions in the time provided, the results will show no success dependence on intelligent guidance. The intelligent guidance does not imply sure success on every try, or even merely the more successful outcomes under all circumstances or all challenges.nightlight
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Rivers do evolve but they don’t evolve into reservoirs. Of course they can. They're called lakes. fifthmonarchyman: At present I’m not claiming that universally no system can change to another only that an IC system is not the result of evolution. Indeed it can’t be. Of course it can. One way is through a scaffolding, a complicated but reducible system that is then optimized. Another way is through addition and specialization.Zachriel
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Zac says, River systems can be said to evolve, but certainly not by the same process as biological organisms. I say, Rivers do evolve but they don't evolve into reservoirs. Indeed they can't. It amazes me that this is not obvious. Zac said. And yet the evidence indicates it has happened many times in the history of life. I say, You were responding to a now corrected Typo, At present I'm not claiming that universally no system can change to another only that an IC system is not the result of evolution. Indeed it can't be. unless you twist the term evolution beyond recognition peacefifthmonarchyman
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Joe: It is a duplicate of an existing gene that was placed under the control of an existing regulatory system.
Perfect summation.Box
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: The problem is the blatant equivocation of the term evolution. a new system does not evolve from a precursor system. And yet the evidence indicates it has happened many times in the history of life. fifthmonarchyman: The reservoir is not the result of a random variation in the river filtered by natural selection. Have no idea why you brought up a reservoir. But, yes. River systems can be said to evolve, but certainly not by the same process as biological organisms.Zachriel
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
CHartsil, So, basically you are claiming that an aerobic citrate permease is, by itself, an IC system - the facts that: 1) it acts as a "valve" to a larger IC system (the ability to metabolize citrate) 2) it serves no beneficial function in and of itself (bacteria full of unusable citrate would be counterproductive) 3) it is a change in the conditions under which an existing function (the ability to uptake citrate) occurs rather than a novel/unique function are not relevant. An interesting argument. Not buying it, we'll have to agree to disagree (#2 is a killer, in my mind).drc466
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
zac says, That’s right. It’s a new IC system that evolved incrementally from a precursor system. I say, head slap. where to start The problem is the blatant equivocation of the term "evolution". The new system does not evolve from the precursor system. Think about a reservoir. In a sense it is an IC system in that it requires a river and a dam to "function". However we would never say that a reservoir evolved from a precursor river. A river and a reservoir are two separate systems. The reservoir is not the result of a random variation in the river filtered by natural selection. Indeed it can't be so. Instead The reservoir resulted from the joining of two separate non related components (the river and a dam). That is the jest of the concept of IC. Now because in this case we only have two simple naturally occurring components it is not impossible for them to combine spontaneously from time to time and form a new system. But the combining is not "evolution" it is a totally different process The more integrated components in a system and the more intricate the fit the less likely the system arose by chance. But "evolution" can't enter the picture at all until after the combination takes place I can't believe the critics still don't understand what is being argued peacefifthmonarchyman
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
"My statement is that merely observing the constant spontaneous rate in some experiments doesn’t suffice in distinguishing between “random” (aimless) mutations vs intelligently guided mutation. Much more homework needs to be done before one can use such experiments in distinguishing between the two." If you're claiming they're guided or the result of design, that burden is on you.CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
"It is a duplicate of an existing gene that was placed under the control of an existing regulatory system." >This led the researchers to conclude that there had been at least two potentiating mutations involved in Cit+ evolution. The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones sequenced had in their genomes a duplication mutation of 2933 base pairs that involved the gene for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth on citrate, citT. The duplication is tandem, resulting in two copies that are head-to-tail with respect to each other. This duplication immediately conferred the Cit+ trait by creating a new regulatory module in which the normally silent citT gene is placed under the control of a promoter for an adjacent gene called rnk. >by creating a new regulatory moduleCHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
72 Piotr
#62 nightlight -- Note that merely measuring the actual rate of different "spontaneous" mutations sheds no light on the nature of the underlying "spontaneous" process that generated them (intelligently guided or undirected random). This is not very different from saying that if you flip a fair coin many times, trying to force it psychokinetically to come up heads, psychokinesis works about 50% of the time. The fact that in the remaining tosses the coin comes up tails so consistently must be attributed to some invisible intelligent force thwarting your efforts.
Glad you brought that up since the second example I gave with student tests and a note of Cairns 1988 experiments was meant to help preempt that very objection. But it apparently didn't connect at least with one reader, so let me explain more explicitly why what I stated is very different. My statement is that merely observing the constant spontaneous rate in some experiments doesn't suffice in distinguishing between "random" (aimless) mutations vs intelligently guided mutation. Much more homework needs to be done before one can use such experiments in distinguishing between the two. Namely, consider a statement: I weighed myself before and after 4 weeks of using diet pills X, yet there is no difference in my weight. Hence, diet pills X don't work. Does the mere characterization "weighed myself" suffice to draw the conclusion that diet pills X don't work? My point is that such conclusion may, but need not follow. It depends on what exactly "weighed myself" consisted of. For example, if you "weighed yourself" on a postal scale with range of up to 5 pounds, all that such "weighing yourself" will tell you is that before and after the pills you weighed more than 5 pounds. Similarly, if you "weighed yourself" on a scale for ships with units of 100 pounds, then all that such "weighing" will tell you is that before and after the pills you weighed approximately 200 pounds +/- 50 pounds, hence no difference again. In order for 'weighing yourself' to tell you something meaningful about the effectiveness of some diet pills X, you need a scale with suitable range and suitable units. That's precisely what my example with student tests followed by reference to Cairns et al 1988 E. coli experiments was meant to clarify and guard against. For example, if you don't wish to know which of two groups of students is smarter but you still wish to make a confident seemingly empirically based claim about the two groups, you might chose a test which is too hard so nobody will solve any of the problems, or too easy so everyone will solve all the problems. That way you can claim "the latest studies show that there is no difference in intelligence" between these two groups of students, even though your tests don't show anything of the sort. Your tests are telling you more about the tests themselves (revealing their inadequacy) than about the capabilities of the two groups of students. That's exactly how neo-Darwinists (ab)use and equivocate the about ancient L-D and L-L experiments which were not tuned at all for distinguishing between neo-Darwinian "Random Mutation" hypothesis and the alternatives such as intelligently guided mutations. These experiments were meant to prove something entirely different (chiefly that bacteria also follows Mendelian inheritance rules via genes which was a matter of some contention back then since some argued that bacteria doesn't have genes for inheritance). The challenges in those experiments were too hard for the amount of time & population sizes given to the bacteria to solve it reliably via some complex new mechanism, hence their phage (or antibiotic) defense observed were the baseline defaults which worked only probabilistically. On the other hand, the Cairns at al 1988 experiments were tuned toward the more sensitive and more relevant range for the question of "random" (aimless) vs intelligently guided mutations. Namely, the amount of time for the gradual starvation was sufficient for at least some of the intelligent novelty generating mechanisms (Shapiro's NGE) to prove their value and come up with the needed fitness improving mutations with higher empirical rates than the baseline rates of those mutations. But if instead, the researchers gave the bacteria only few minutes to adapt or die, or gave them some more time but chose a challenge that requires dozens of new coordinated mutations (instead of just couple) to adapt and survive, they wouldn't have uncovered any among more intelligent novelty generating mechanisms but would have seen only the default defense mechanisms (the nature of which the experiment wasn't designed to probe) which may or may not work for the given challenge. In short, it is easy to not see what you don't wish to see i.e. it is trivial to come up with experiments that won't find some subtle effect (such as intelligent guidance of mutations) if you don't wish to find it in order to claim it doesn't exist. You just pick the wrong range of experiment sensitivity which will obliterate any difference, and you've got the desired 'move on, nothing to see here' result that neo-Darwinians sought.nightlight
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Luria–Delbrück showed the mutations were random.
They did not show the mutations were accidents, errors and mistakes- that is the question.Joe
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
It is a duplicate of an existing gene that was placed under the control of an existing regulatory system. You evos have absolutely no clue.Joe
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
CHartsil: It’s an entirely new system, gene, regulator and all. That's right. It's a new IC system that evolved incrementally from a precursor system.Zachriel
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
nightlight: Constant rate of spontaneous mutations conferring a phage (or antibiotic) resistance, before and after phage (or antibiotic) challenge, has no bearing on the question whether such mutation is intelligently guided or not. If it's random, then ascribing intelligence to the process would be an extraneous property. nightlight: For example, in evolution of technologies, the annual rate of say new patents for data storage and data compression algorithms ... Those innovations aren't random. nightlight: Neither L-D nor L & L nor any later experiments shed any light on this point of contention, whether the nature of novelty generating mechanism is of type (a) or of type (b). Luria–Delbrück showed the mutations were random. We now know the mechanisms by which mutations occur. nightlight: In your response, you are basically conflating the terms: 1) “spontaneous” or “random” in the sense of uncontrolled, unpredictable by the researchers (hence uncorrelated with the fitness attributes researchers chose to measure later), with 2) “aimless”, “purposeless” in the sense of not being intelligently guided. No, we used the term random as a probability distribution. nightlight: Neither L-D nor L & L nor any later experiments shed any light on this point of contention, whether the nature of novelty generating mechanism is of type (a) or of type (b). Sources of mutation include deamination, slipped strand mispairing, error prone replication by-pass, etc. nightlight: The constant empirical rate for some kind of patents has generally nothing to do with the question whether the innovation process that produced those kinds of patents is intelligently guided or not. If it were guided, it wouldn't form a random probability distribution. nightlight: On the other hand, if you give the same students problems which are at the difficulty level of the materials previously taught in the class, the random guessers will still get 20% answers right, while the intelligent solvers will get much higher percentage of correct answers. Which is what we don't see. nightlight: For example, in the famous (and controversial) Cairns et al 1988 E. coli experiments on evolution of lactose metabolism, they found that the exposure to lactose did yield the higher rate of favorable mutations compared to the rate of such mutations in the absence of the challenge. Cairns results show the effects of hypermutation under stress, not any sort of intelligent process. The confusion occurs because if you assume a standard rate of mutation, you will see far more beneficial mutations than expected; however, that's only because there are more mutations overall.Zachriel
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
It's a new, duplicate gene and a new regulator in the spots that exactly allowed for cit* To the spyhoppers "Kid is still going on about this over at UD, but for some reason hasn't been able to comprehend that the consecutive "STEPWISE" mutations form a very reducible "Pathway" and not even an "Apparatus" of any kind, let alone an IC one." So then which of the two potentiating mutations, one duplication and new regulator can be removed while the cit* can still be conferred? Be specific.CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
CHartsil- It is not a new gene. It is not a new regulator. It is an existing system being used in a different environment.Joe
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Top Kek at UD last week. Moving right along.Paleysghost
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Strawman. It's not a switch going back and forth from aerobic to anaerobic. It's an entirely new system, gene, regulator and all.CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
CHartsil, Let's try an analogy to Lenski's experiment, and see if you agree: Imagine a car engine that can run on injections of oxygen and nitrogen. There is a LED tied to the injection valve that switches between the two - it runs on oxygen during the day and nitrogen at night. This is an IC system - the engine and all its parts running together. The valve itself is not - by itself a valve switching between oxy and nitro is of no value. Now, imagine a "mutation" duplicates the valve, just without the LED control - it is a simple opening direct to nitrogen only. It is not, however, open in to the engine, just out to the oxy/nitro. This does not damage the IC engine at all, nor is it relevant to the overall operation. Nor is this new "stuck valve" IC in and of itself - it is not a system of multiple parts, it is a duplication of a single part. Now, a second "mutation" occurs. This mutation causes the original valve to be destroyed, and the new nitro-only valve to connect in to the engine. You now have a "new" IC engine, one that only runs on nitro. It is a "nitro*" engine. To your point - the entire engine is still IC, as you can't just destroy any one part and have it still run - including the new valve. And it took multiple "mutations" to create the new nitro* engine, of which the new valve is one part. Questions: 1) Do you agree that this is a fair analogy to the cit* mutation? Why or why not? 2) Has any "new" information been created? Does a defective copy of an original count as new information? 3) Is the valve IC? By analogy, is the mutation in Lenski's e. coli by itself IC? Or does it need the (existing) IC system already in place (the ability to process citrate)? 4) In your opinion, does a mutation to an existing IC system count as a "new" IC system? Using the Behe standard - if I modify an existing mousetrap to use a slightly-defective trigger rather than the original trigger, creating a "new" mousetrap that is IC, does that count as the random evolution of an IC system? I think you can tell what I think, and why I think Lenski's experiment doesn't come even close to qualifying as demonstrating the random evolution of an IC system. And I am sure you don't agree. But hopefully you can see my point, if you are intellectually honest with yourself. [Edited for grammar]drc466
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Amusing buttmad spyhoppers are amusing and buttmad. All those scientific illiterates (Tiny Tim et al.) on 'that other' ID page implying that they've done anything but stumble and bumble at Lenski's E. coli while simultaneously having me blocked, not allowing me to correcting themCHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
"The FACT that nobody else on the entire planet has ever claimed this to be an example of an IC system (including Lenski) should be a tell tale sign of this rambling nonsense. Hartsil lies on facebook about having a degree in Cell Biology (while using a fake name) and misunderstands even basic biochemistry." Genetic fallacy. You have yet to attempt to show which part of the two potentiating mutations, the duplicate gene and the new regulator can be removed while retaining cit* function.CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
#62 nightlight,
Note that merely measuring the actual rate of different “spontaneous” mutations sheds no light on the nature of the underlying “spontaneous” process that generated them (intelligently guidied or undirected random).
This is not very different from saying that if you flip a fair coin many times, trying to force it psychokinetically to come up heads, psychokinesis works about 50% of the time. The fact that in the remaining tosses the coin comes up tails so consistently must be attributed to some invisible intelligent force thwarting your efforts.Piotr
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
#65 Zachriel
nightlight: Nothing in that or any other experiment demonstrates that mutations were "random" or "aimless". That is incorrect. The experiment shows a constant rate of random mutations, roughly r/m - ln(m) = 1.24, where m is the mutation rate, and r is the number of mutants. ... The Lederberg Experiment elegantly shows that mutation is random with respect to fitness. See Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants, Journal of Bacteriology 1952.
Constant rate of spontaneous mutations conferring a phage (or antibiotic) resistance, before and after phage (or antibiotic) challenge, has no bearing on the question whether such mutation is intelligently guided or not. For example, in evolution of technologies, the annual rate of say new patents for data storage and data compression algorithms (these are some of innovations in the technological evolution) may remain the same before and after YouTube popularity rose, even though the need for larger storage or better compression increased (since consumers are storing larger and more files than before). But that constancy of innovation rate, whether they are genetic mutations or technological inventions, doesn't shed any light on the nature of the novelty generating mechanism i.e. whether ==> a) those novelties were the result of aimless, random errors in production of hard disks or due to algorithm source code copying and typing errors which turned out upon testing by shear luck to improve the storage capacity (analogue of RM+NS), or ==> b) the novelties were result of creative, intelligent processes in the brains of the engineers who came up with the techniques for improved storage capacity (better packed disks or better compression of videos). But the question (a) vs (b) type of mechanism is precisely the point of contention between the neo-Darwinist hypothesis of type (a), and Intelligent Design hypothesis of type (b), about the nature of the evolutionary novelty generating mechanism. In your response, you are basically conflating the terms: 1) "spontaneous" or "random" in the sense of uncontrolled, unpredictable by the researchers (hence uncorrelated with the fitness attributes researchers chose to measure later), with 2) "aimless", "purposeless" in the sense of not being intelligently guided. The #1 is attribute of the obserer of the system while #2 is attribute of the system itself. What those and other similar experiments which have observed the constant empirical rate of particular spontaneous mutations (that happen to confer improved fitness upon subsequent challenge) demonstrate is the presence of "spontaneous" mutations in the sense #1, while their alleged support for the neo-Darwinist conjecture (a) is "deduced" via equivocation of such observation with the meaning #2 (the unintelligent, aimless mutations). Neither L-D nor L & L nor any later experiments shed any light on this point of contention, whether the nature of novelty generating mechanism is of type (a) or of type (b). The phenomenon of constant empirical innovation rate for some mutations which happened to confer better fitness under subsequent challenge is no different regarding (a) vs (b) question than the phenomenon of constant empirical rate of some kind of technological patents that just happen to confer greater profitability under subsequent market demands. In the latter case (evolution in technologies or sciences) we know that the innovations generating mechanism is an intelligent, anticipatory and creative process in the brains of the innovators. The constant empirical rate for some kind of patents has generally nothing to do with the question whether the innovation process that produced those kinds of patents is intelligently guided or not. But the neo-Darwinist dogma insists that the novelty generating mechanism in the evolution of biological systems is the sole exception to the uniform pattern observed in all other cases of evolutionary processes in which we understand the novelty generating mechanism (which is always the result of intelligent processes). Hence, the neo-Darwinist conjecture of "random" mutation in the sense #2, is not only unsupported by any direct empirical evidence, but it is also contrary to all other observations of evolutionary phenomena in all other domains in which the novelty generation mechanism is well understood. Another counterexample illustrating why such experiments may but need not be able to distinguish between novelty generating mechanisms (a) and (b) could be students doing some multiple choice tests. Say, you give elementary school students a college level math test with five answer choices per question. The lazier students may just do their usual thing, randomly circle one of the five choices and move on. The "random" guessers will thus get 20% of correct answers. In contrast, the more diligent or more intelligent students may struggle, try to figure it out, but the problems are just too hard to solve using their clumsy, naive technique in the short amount of time given, so despite their best efforts and intelligence, they too may get only 20% correct answers. On the other hand, if you give the same students problems which are at the difficulty level of the materials previously taught in the class, the random guessers will still get 20% answers right, while the intelligent solvers will get much higher percentage of correct answers. Note that the same 'problem difficulty effect' in this student tests example is observed also in the discussed type of E. coli experiments that compare the empirical rates of favorable mutations before and after some challenge. For example, in the famous (and controversial) Cairns et al 1988 E. coli experiments on evolution of lactose metabolism, they found that the exposure to lactose did yield the higher rate of favorable mutations compared to the rate of such mutations in the absence of the challenge. Hence, these experiments were analogous to the above students doing the math test that is at their level, while the earlier L-D or L-L experiments are analogous to the elementary school students struggling with college level math tests, where the random guessing and the intelligent attempts yielded the same test performance.
nightlight: Exactly the same kind of statistical analysis can be done on evolution of languages or technologies, even though we recognize that intelligent processes were guiding those changes. Evolution of language accents is not due to any overall design.
That's a straw-man argument. Intelligent Design hypothesis doesn't require "overall design" either i.e. the deistic front-loading by an omniscient and omnipotent being. That type of ID, which is a theological thesis rather than a scientific hypothesis, is usually promoted by the major mainstream religions. But the scientific ID can be based on "intelligence" working incrementally and continuously from within the systems (i.e. performing anticipatory computations of the next state of the system) such as James Shapiro's "Natural Genetic Engineering" or SFI's "Complex Adaptive Systems" (adaptable networks) or Stephen Wolfram's NKS automata & networks etc. The scientific, "inside-out" variant of ID is perfectly analogous to the role of intelligent agents in the evolution of languages, sciences, technologies, religions,... In all such cases, the individual intelligent agents don't provide an upfront "overall design" for the whole language or science or technology, but merely intelligently and incrementally contribute to the "overall design" small bits and pieces, and no single contribution needs to amount to an "overall design." The essential difference between the two kinds of ID, deistic vs "inside-out" ID, is that the latter requires much less front loading i.e. it needs to postulate much less as the basis for its system of knowldge. In the inside-out ID only the simple elemental computing building blocks are postulated as front loaded, then these, rather than some omniscient being, compute the rest as they go, rather than upfront, all at once. Note that there is also a third variant of ID, the Seattle ID (aka Discovery Institute's ID). In that variant the "intelligent agency" makes allegedly its mind to somehow jump in and out of the "material universe" every now and then, at its whim, to help out the "natural laws" by injecting large amounts of "specified complexity" into some systems or twiddling some molecules it decided to favor into "irreducibly complex designs" while leaving other less favored molecules to follow "natural laws." Seattle ID is basically an absurd, incoherent "god of gaps" position based on fundamental misunderstandings of both, natural science and theology. It is in fact a mirror image of its nemesis, the neo-Darwinian "randomness of gaps" perspective. These two anti-scientific relics should have been boxed in a museum long ago.nightlight
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Andre, This one? It shows the rate of mutation is non-random (which is true) not that mutations are not random with respect their fitness. The mainstream evolutionary biology understanding of mutations is that organisms can't induce the specific mutations they need for a given environment. Simlpy upping the mutation doesn't conflict with that position. (In fact, there are many non-random patterns to mutation that can be explained by evolutionary biology by are hard to understand otherwise -- why should mutation rate correlate to effective population size for instance?)wd400
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
WD400 I cited a paper that shows that mutations are not random with good evidence. What do you do? You ignore it.... why? Does it challenge your religious beliefs?Andre
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Being "random with respect to fitness" means nothing in a debate about whether or not all mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes.Joe
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Nightlight, "Every detail" was an answer to your question, not a request for clarification. The two scenarios differ in every detail, so don't make for a good analogy. I sincerely think you've lost the plot. The scenario you describe is so bizarre (cells predicting the next step of the experiment they are in, then trying (with very low success) to induce a mutation to deal with that next step) that I have trouble believing anyone could sincerely hold it. It certainly demonstrates that you are so dedicated to your belief that mutation is not random with respect to fitness that no evidence will sway you (which you more ore less admit your strange passage about quantum mechanics -- why should we need a quantum explanation of the distribution of discrerte outcomes for mutation but not for dice rolls?). So I'll leave you to your beliefs.wd400
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
They were clones of an initial population, and genetic analysis shows the mutations were not there in the original population.
Even baraminology accepts the changes that occurred.
The Lederberg Experiment elegantly shows that mutation is random with respect to fitness.
Gibberish. The experiment did not show the mutations were genetic accidents, errors or mistakes.Joe
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
humbled: The Lenski experiment does nothing other than to show one particular preexisting strain became dominant when an artificial set of environmental conditions were forced on them. They were clones of an initial population, and genetic analysis shows the mutations were not there in the original population. nightlight: Nothing in that or any other experiment demonstrates that mutations were “random” or “aimless”. That is incorrect. The experiment shows a constant rate of random mutations, roughly r/m - ln(m) = 1.24, where m is the mutation rate, and r is the number of mutants. nightlight: Exactly the same kind of statistical analysis can be done on evolution of languages or technologies, even though we recognize that intelligent processes were guiding those changes. Evolution of language accents is not due to any overall design. nightlight: Similarly, the cellular biochemical networks are constantly computing (thinking) their next optimal action using anticipatory algorithms encoded and accumulated by themselves and their ancestors for billions of years of computations and problem solving. The Lederberg Experiment elegantly shows that mutation is random with respect to fitness. See Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants, Journal of Bacteriology 1952.Zachriel
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply