News

WD400: selection favors malfunctioning proteins, so what?

Spread the love

WD400:
Selection can sometimes favour mutations that break existing proteins. OK, so what?

Comment, If not Rupe

So what? 😯

1. if selection can select in favor of breaking of proteins, so why then do we presume selection favors creation of proteins?

2. selection can select against breaking of proteins, but that would be no proof selection was involved in the creation of the protein (see: Selection falsely called a mechanism when it should be called an outcome. A proteins necessity for survival does not mean selection was the mechanism of protein creation.

3. selection is mostly irrelevant to creation of new proteins (since most molecular evolution is free of selection) (see: Most evolution is free of selection, therefore Darwinism is false).

So what? Darwinism is wrong, so what? Students get taught Darwinian falsehoods, so what? Dawkins made a living spreading falsehoods, so what? Darwin plagiarized the idea of natural selection from the creationist Blyth, and then Darwin’s plagiarized version was wrong, so what? Mortgages are paid by Darwinian falsehoods at taxpayer expense, so what?

9 Replies to “WD400: selection favors malfunctioning proteins, so what?

  1. 1

    Sal, I think if you avoid using agency terminology like “selection selects” the answers to your questions become clear:

    1. if selection can select in favor of breaking of proteins, so why then do we presume selection favors creation of proteins?

    Translate: If the loss of ability to make a protein can promote reproductive success, why can’t the gain of the ability to make a protein?

    Answer: both can – it depends on whether reproductive success is promoted by the protein, or by lack of of it.

    2. selection can select against breaking of proteins, but that would be no proof selection was involved in the creation of the protein (see: Selection falsely called a mechanism when it should be called an outcome. A proteins necessity for survival does not mean selection was the mechanism of protein creation.

    Selection is simply the name we give to the process by which traits that tend to promote reproductive success become more prevalent. That process doesn’t create the new traits – it is simply the process by which reproductively advantageous traits become more prevalent, and reproductively less advantageous traits, less so.

    3. selection is mostly irrelevant to creation of new proteins (since most molecular evolution is free of selection) (see: Most evolution is free of selection, therefore Darwinism is false).

    Selection is not the name we give to the part of the process that results in new sequences – it’s the part of the process that results in new sequences becoming prevalent or not. The fact new sequences can become prevalent anyway, even if not reproductively advantageous is the reason that functions that require prior non-advantageous parts can actually evolve.

    So what? Darwinism is wrong, so what? Students get taught Darwinian falsehoods, so what?

    Certainly, you understanding of Darwinism is wrong, and I guess that may well be because people are taught falsehoods about Darwinism, which is a shame, because it is a superb theory that has been enormously fruitful over the last century and a half.

    Dawkins made a living spreading falsehoods, so what? Darwin plagiarized the idea of natural selection from the creationist Blyth, and then Darwin’s plagiarized version was wrong, so what? Mortgages are paid by Darwinian falsehoods at taxpayer expense, so what?

    Well-poisoning will get you nowhere, Sal 🙂

    If it’s right, it’s right. And it clearly works superbly – or the real thing does. The thing that doesn’t obviously, are garbled versions in which it is accused of not accounting for OoL, or in which natural selection is accused of not accounting for mutations.

    Or drift is seen as a problem, rather than as a key factor in explaining just how well it does work.

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    Dr Liddle

    Then show us how it works if natural selection does not actually select what does?’

    Darwin’s theory is based on intelligent selection done by minds and people, he then said, hey if breeders can do that then so can nature! What a load of crock. Does the finches as an example adapt to their environment? Sure they do it makes complete sense that adaptation is a preloaded mechanism that takes care of a variety of possible events.

    If you don’t have the information before the adaptation it’s tickets for you. Ever used a mail program to do autocad? It won’t happen. In biology its all about information and how it is used to instruct proteins to do their job. You are of course welcome to believe that Darwinian evolution can do it, I’m however too much of a skeptic to give random, mindless and naturalistic processes the benefit of doubt, you should too.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    “So what?”

    The eternal hymn of a purposeless existence.

  4. 4

    Andre

    Then show us how it works if natural selection does not actually select what does?’

    It happens “naturally” – which was why Darwin called it that. There is no external selector, as with a breeder; what happens instead is that the environment itself – “nature” – does the selecting, and what that means is dead simple: traits that tend to enable an organisms to reproduce successfully in that environment (good camouflage; seed dispersal methods; big teeth; thick fur) will become more prevalent than those that don’t. It’s a filter, essentially.

    Darwin’s theory is based on intelligent selection done by minds and people, he then said, hey if breeders can do that then so can nature! What a load of crock.

    It’s not a load of crock at all. In fact it’s hard to see why it wouldn’t happen. If the environment becomes darker, why wouldn’t moths with darker coloration be more likely to leave offspring, carrying that darker trait?

    Does the finches as an example adapt to their environment? Sure they do it makes complete sense that adaptation is a preloaded mechanism that takes care of a variety of possible events.

    Well, it is almost certainly true that the genetic variety was “pre-loaded” into the finch population, but the point about near neutral mutation is that there is a constant drip-feed of near neutral mutations into all populations, all the time, and provided they are not too small, it will tend to exceed the drop-out rate, and provided a “pre-loaded” gene bank from which “nature” can make a fresh “selection” should she change – which is exactly what happens in the Galapagos, in El Nino years.

    If you don’t have the information before the adaptation it’s tickets for you.

    Well, if we are talking about populations, indeed. Which is why small populations are so vulnerable to habitat loss. Genetic diversity is what makes populations robust – able to adapt to changing habitat. And that’s what near-neutral mutations provide.

    Ever used a mail program to do autocad? It won’t happen. In biology its all about information and how it is used to instruct proteins to do their job.

    Well, you’ve just jumped from populations and natural selection to mutations and proteins, which are a property of individuals. And, as you point out, it’s not just all about proteins, but about sequences that modulate the expression of those proteins, especially during development, thus governing the elongation of a wing, the deepening of a beak, the mottling on a moth, the fluffiness of a seed pod.

    You are of course welcome to believe that Darwinian evolution can do it, I’m however too much of a skeptic to give random, mindless and naturalistic processes the benefit of doubt, you should too.

    I don’t think Darwinian evolution is “random”. I think it’s highly systematic. I just don’t think it was designed by a mind.

  5. 5
    wd400 says:

    3. selection is mostly irrelevant to creation of new proteins (since most molecular evolution is free of selection)?

    Let’s rephrase this.

    1. Most molecular variants are selectively neutral
    2. ???
    3. Selection is mostly irrelevant to the creation of new proteins.

    You continually fail to actually make an argument, and instead seem to hope that by leaving a few unconnected premises around someone will join them up in the way you’d like.

  6. 6
    goodusername says:

    1. if selection can select in favor of breaking of proteins, so why then do we presume selection favors creation of proteins?

    Who is “we”? Whoever “we” are, I don’t know why they presume that – you tell me.

    Even Darwin knew that organisms can simplify and lose functional parts over time. (For example, the barnacles.)

    selection is mostly irrelevant to creation of new proteins (since most molecular evolution is free of selection)

    Most DNA does not show show selection pressure and therefore selection is neutral – but among the DNA that does show strong selection pressure is most of the DNA that codes for and regulates proteins.

    So what? Darwinism is wrong, so what? Students get taught Darwinian falsehoods, so what? Dawkins made a living spreading falsehoods, so what?

    Darwin never taught this idea, and I doubt Dawkins ever did.

    Darwin plagiarized the idea of natural selection from the creationist Blyth, and then Darwin’s plagiarized version was wrong, so what?

    Interesting that Blyth apparently never noticed the plagiarism, nor any contemporaries.

  7. 7
    Andre says:

    Not sure if I should laugh or cry…..

  8. 8
    lifepsy says:

    Elizabeth

    [Natural Selection] is the part of the process that results in new sequences becoming prevalent or not….
    If it’s right, it’s right. And it clearly works superbly – or the real thing does..

    You say NS works “superbly well”.. I assume you didn’t just mean in theory, or in the imagination.

    What are the best *observed* examples of new functional genetic sequences (sequences not found anywhere in the wildtype) becoming fixated in a population via natural selection processes?

    Well, it is almost certainly true that the genetic variety was “pre-loaded” into the finch population, but the point about near neutral mutation is that there is a constant drip-feed of near neutral mutations into all populations, all the time, and provided they are not too small, it will tend to exceed the drop-out rate, and provided a “pre-loaded” gene bank from which “nature” can make a fresh “selection” should she change – which is exactly what happens in the Galapagos, in El Nino years.

    *does his best Liddle impression*
    The phrase: “drip-feed” suggests intelligent administration. In science, we try and avoid anthropomorphizing mutations. Please try and avoid such confusing language in the future.

    But seriously, what are you really suggesting here with the finches? It sounds like you’re saying a cache of neutral mutations in Finch populations, coincidentally happen to increase their fitness during cyclic weather patterns. Maybe you could clarify.

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    Elizabeth Liddle:

    Sal, I think if you avoid using agency terminology like “selection selects” the answers to your questions become clear:

    Oh sure. Let’s replace “selects” with “promotes.”

    That’s much better.

Leave a Reply