[__ Science __ ] Evolution and Harmless Mutations

[Razeontherock]

Really? All this for a crooked tail? My son's dog had a crooked tail...is this evolution in action? I think not.

More like, the slow puppy didn't quite make it out the door fast enough, and the screen door closed on his tail...

Nope. He micro evolved! Lol

 

[chessman]

Show me which of Darwin's five points involve any of them. Let's see what you've got.

I never said those five false hypotheses were all Darwin’s hypotheses. You are confusing something you think I said with what I’ve actually said, yet again. It’s neo-Darwinian evolution for good reasons.

Your claim (which wasn’t even one of my examples of a falsified evolutionary hypothesis) was:

Evolutionary theory does not hypothesize that all speciations are by natural selection.

First note I didn’t say anything about “speciations” within my first example (random mutations versus directed/adaptive mutations). But toward your Darwinian point:

“every single organic being may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers.” (Darwin)​

Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection.​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species​

And yes, I am aware Darwin recognized obvious exceptions to spectiation through “natural selection” (over and over in his book). That wasn’t what the article on the research disproved. Human directed selection (breeding) for example. Plus I explained why I used scare quotes for ‘species’. It was a difficult term to define in Darwin’s day, and it still is:

That definition of a species (organisms able to successfully breed with each other) might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. ... The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.​

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41​

But what you thought was my first example is not even what the first false evolutionary hypothesis example was about (you misunderstood the hypothesis). Here it is again (and note it’s a question about “current evolutionary theory”, not Darwin’s:

Does current evolution theroy say that mutations occur by random chance or are they now adaptive mutations?

The first false hypothesis is about the current state of the science concerning random mutations versus adaptive mutations. (Something Darwin didn’t address, obviously)

And to support the plain fact that random mutations was a fundamental part of evolutionary theory:

“Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.”​

​

Huxley, Julian. 1953. Evolution in Action. New York: Signet Science Library Book.​

That’s my first evolutionary hypothesis that has since been falsified.

 

[Barbarian]

I never said those five false hypotheses were all Darwin’s hypotheses.

Ah, strawman. Sorry. Carry on.

Your claim (which wasn’t even one of my examples of a falsified evolutionary hypothesis) was:

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory does not hypothesize that all speciations are by natural selection.

First note I didn’t say anything about “speciations” within my first example (random mutations versus directed/adaptive mutations).

No problem. Evolutionary theory also doesn't hypothesize that all evolution is by natural selection.

But toward your Darwinian point:

“every single organic being may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers.” (Darwin)​

​

​

Yep. That's true enough. The reproductive urge is understandably common in all organisms.​

And yes, I am aware Darwin recognized obvious exceptions to spectiation through “natural selection” (over and over in his book). That wasn’t what the article on the research disproved. Human directed selection (breeding) for example. Plus I explained why I used scare quotes for ‘species’. It was a difficult term to define in Darwin’s day, and it still is

Of course. If creationism were true, we'd have no problem defining species. But since speciation is a process, we end up with all sorts of half-species, quarter-species, and so on. So the boundaries, as Darwin wrote, are difficult in many cases. It's another reason scientists accept the fact of evolution.

But what you thought was my first example is not even what the first false evolutionary hypothesis example was about (you misunderstood the hypothesis). Here it is again (and note it’s a question about “current evolutionary theory”, not Darwin’s:

The first false hypothesis is about the current state of the science concerning random mutations versus adaptive mutations.

As you learned, all mutations are random. Luria and Delbruck got a Nobel for showing that adaptive mutations are random, and not in response to a need.

(Something Darwin didn’t address, obviously)

Mendel's discovery cleared up a major difficulty for Darwin's theory. Would you like to learn about that?

And to support the plain fact that random mutations was a fundamental part of evolutionary theory:

“Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.”​

​

Huxley, Julian. 1953. Evolution in Action. New York: Signet Science Library Book.​

​

​

Yes. Luria and Delbruck conclusively demonstrated this fact.​

That’s my first evolutionary hypothesis that has since been falsified.

Nope. We have conclusive evidence showing that adaptive mutations appear randomly, even when they aren't needed.
The Luria–Delbrück experiment (1943) (also called the Fluctuation Test) demonstrates that in bacteria, genetic mutations arise in the absence of selection, rather than being a response to selection. Therefore, Darwin's theory of natural selection acting on random mutations applies to bacteria as well as to more complex organisms. Max Delbrück and Salvador Luria won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in part for this work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment

 

[Barbarian]

Really? All this for a crooked tail? My son's dog had a crooked tail...is this evolution in action? I think not.

More like, the slow puppy didn't quite make it out the door fast enough, and the screen door closed on his tail...

Yep. Acquired characteristics don't get passed on. In the case of these cats, there is a mutation that produces the bent tail. Doesn't seem to do much, so it doesn't get removed by selection.

 

[chessman]

The reproductive urge is understandably common in all organisms.

Sure. It’s THE ancient universal law of life on Earth. Even the ancients understood it:

And God said, “Let the earth produce green plants that will bear seed—fruit trees bearing fruit in which there is seed —according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.​

Genesis 1:11 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Genesis 1:11&version=LEB​

The interesting scientific question is, however; how does this particular “urge” Law work (science), given a materialistic universe (random or not). Does matter have “urge”???

Imagine that, “reproductive urge” universally common within ALL life somwhere within the very framework of EVERY living organism on Earth. Including the most ancient, ‘primitive’ and ‘simple’ life (assuming it started simple of course). It’s totally understandable given an intelligent life Creator and Law Giver (even within the very first and ‘simplest’ living organism) though. What’s not quite understandable to my pea brain, is how peas have an “urge” (a desire or impulse) to do anything much less an urge to reproduce given a materialistic theory of evolutionary life. In a pea (or even archaea) , where exactly does this desire/impluse reside??? DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or just right sequences thereof??? Really, molecules have desires???

If creationism were true, we'd have no problem defining species.

I’m unaware of your logic or scientific observations that would support your premise/hypothesis above . But I’m open to being convinced it’s true should you present a logical argument for it’s validity. Maybe another thread???

I’ll just simply note in passing that it’s the evolutionists (Darwin was my first example and wiki my 2018 example) that are having a problem defining an evolutionary consistent definition for “species”. That is, that fits within a consistent evolutionary framework. To me, redbirds and blackbirds are both ...well...birds.

But since speciation is a process, we end up with all sorts of half-species, quarter-species, and so on.

No doubt, since nobody even agrees on what a species is (and is not). Heck, let’s just call them ‘half-species’ and so on.

It's another reason scientists accept the fact of evolution.

Or heck, let’s just change the definition of a scientific theory to that of a scientific “fact”.

As you learned, all mutations are random. Luria and Delbruck got a Nobel for showing that adaptive mutations are random, and not in response to a need.

If I were stuck in 1943, I’d be sucking milk and pooping diapers. Luckily, I’ve matured past what I thought was facts then but now know otherwise. I’ve adapted.

But here’s a quick few of questions for you to ponder (I already know their answers):

1. What is gene mutation???

2. When did scientists (and engineers) develop the tools necessary to sequence the genes of an organism???

3. When did Luria and Delbruck die???

4. If Luria and Delbruck had no way to know the sequence of bacteria genes, how did they know the bacteria’s mutations were random?

Luria and Delbruck conclusively demonstrated this fact.

Oh my. In your decades of studying biology, have you ever seen a scientist report that his/her experimental results has conclusively demonstrated “fact”? I’ve seen a bunch, but only seen him/her report their hypothesis conclusion(s), not “fact”. And then only conclusions based on their specific hypothesis.
BTW, the real situation is that Luria and Delbruck’s reported a mutation rate equation (what you call fact) and it’s been updated (changed) since then. Even for their very specific experiment (which wasn’t even observations of the actual genetic mutations but rather predicting and measuring the mutation rate of an isolated culture (not realworld, BTW) within a specified medium (again not real world). In 1943, they had no way to even sequence the actual DNA of bacteria to even know what the mutations were. Your wild speculation that they proved that all mutations are random mutations is erroneous (not to mention anachronistic). Their experiment was grand for its time and purpose. But it was (and still is) a far cry from demonstrating ;“Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.”

Luria and Delbruck estimated this parameter [estimation of the mutation rate] (m)from the mean of the distribution but this estimator was subsequently shown to be biased. The method of the median was introduced in 1949.[11]​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment​

We have conclusive evidence showing that adaptive mutations appear randomly,

The report I linked earlier shows otherwise. And there’s more that do as well.

 

[Barbarian]

The interesting scientific question is, however; how does this particular “urge” Law work (science), given a materialistic universe (random or not).

Those organisms that don't readily reproduce, tend to not leave offspring. Those that do, tend to leave offspring. Go figure.

Imagine that, “reproductive urge” universally common within ALL life somwhere within the very framework of EVERY living organism on Earth.

Not all. Just the ones that leave offspring behind to continue the line. In every population, there are those that don't. But of course, they usually don't leave offspring.

What’s not quite understandable to my pea brain, is how peas have an “urge” (a desire or impulse) to do anything much less an urge to reproduce given a materialistic theory of evolutionary life.

Plants tend to put resources into reproduction at the expense of everything else. Why is this? Because plants that did not, tended to leave fewer offspring, often having none at all.

In a pea (or even archaea) , where exactly does this desire/impluse reside???

In the same place that your heart's urge to contract rhythmically resides.

I’m unaware of your logic or scientific observations that would support your premise/hypothesis above .

That's how I know you don't know much about biology. It's really not all that complex in outline, although the details get pretty involved.

I’ll just simply note in passing that it’s the evolutionists (Darwin was my first example and wiki my 2018 example) that are having a problem defining an evolutionary consistent definition for “species”.

Nope. it's everyone. Darwin pointed out why. If creationism was true, species would be easy to define. But because new species evolve and because it's ordinarily a gradual process, we have lots of in-between cases. This is a very difficult problem for creationists, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

That is, that fits within a consistent evolutionary framework.

Yep. It does. But as you now realize, it's completely incompatible with creationism.

To me, redbirds and blackbirds are both ...well...birds.

Just as vertebrates and bacteria are both ...well... living things. As you learned, in the strictest sense, all living things on Earth are of one kind.

Or heck, let’s just change the definition of a scientific theory to that of a scientific “fact”.

Perhaps you don't know what a theory is. What do you think it is?

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, all mutations are random. Luria and Delbruck got a Nobel for showing that adaptive mutations are random, and not in response to a need.

If I were stuck in 1943, I’d be sucking milk and pooping diapers.

Perhaps, but adaptive mutations remain random. Would you like to learn how we know?

But here’s a quick few of questions for you to ponder (I already know their answers):

1. What is gene mutation???

Technically, it's just "mutation." And there are many different kinds. Could be a point mutation, a change in a single amino acid in a protein sequence. Or it could be a chromosome duplication, fusion or fission. Or it could be an insertion of a gene into a sequence.

2. When did scientists (and engineers) develop the tools necessary to sequence the genes of an organism???

Around 1970. Actual complete sequencing of an entire genome came later.

3. When did Luria and Delbruck die???

They died at different times. Sorry.

4. If Luria and Delbruck had no way to know the sequence of bacteria genes, how did they know the bacteria’s mutations were random?

Because they were able to show that mutations such as resistance to bacteriophages, appeared even when there were no bacteriophage in the environment. The mutations just showed up randomly, whether or not there was a need for them. Would you like to learn how they discovered this?

Oh my. In your decades of studying biology, have you ever seen a scientist report that his/her experimental results has conclusively demonstrated “fact”?

Yes. Normally, scientists are very cautious and don't use the word, but it does appear in the literature as findings.


J Cell Physiol. 2018 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/jcp.26956. [Epub ahead of print]
Cellular senescence: Molecular mechanisms and pathogenicity.
Wei W1,2, Ji S1.
Author information

Abstract
Cellular senescence is the arrest of normal cell division. Oncogenic genes and oxidative stress, which cause genomic DNA damage and generation of reactive oxygen species, lead to cellular senescence. The senescence-associated secretory phenotype is a distinct feature of senescence. Senescence is normally involved in the embryonic development. Senescent cells can communicate with immune cells to invoke an immune response. Senescence emerges during the aging process in several tissues and organs. In fact, increasing evidence shows that cellular senescence is implicated in aging-related diseases, such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity and diabetes, pulmonary hypertension, and tumorigenesis.

I’ve seen a bunch

Apparently, not very many. I got 214,812 hits for assertions of fact in scientific papers on the first try.

BTW, the real situation is that Luria and Delbruck’s reported a mutation rate equation (what you call fact) and it’s been updated (changed) since then.

Their finding wasn't about rates of mutation. It was that favorable mutations appear randomly and not in response to need.

MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE’-’
S.E. LURIAS AND M. DELBROCK
Genetics. 28 (6): 491–511
SUMMARY
The distribution of the numbers of virus resistant bacteria in series of similar cultures of a virus-sensitive strain has been analyzed theoretically on the basis of two current hypotheses concerning the origin of the resistant bacteria.

The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.

The report I linked earlier shows otherwise.

Too bad for them, then. As you now see, Luria and Delbruck got their Nobel for showing that favorable mutations appear randomly.

 

[chessman]

Yesterday Barbarian observed:

The reproductive urge is understandably common in all organisms.

Today Barbarian observes:

Not all.

Typical.

I asked how this reproductive “urge” (desire) works:

Barbarian’s answer:

Those organisms that don't readily reproduce, tend to not leave offspring. Those that do, tend to leave offspring. Go figure.

So the Law of reproduction urge is:

Urge (U) = # of offspring (O)

So an organism (let’s say a woman who had ovarian cancer and who has zero offspring) has zero desire?

And her “urge” to reproduce is locted

In the same place that your heart's urge to contract rhythmically resides.

Ah, so this common in all organisms “urge” (at least it’s common in all organisms every other day) to reproduce resides in God (my heart’s desire). Cool.

Barbarian hypothesized:
If creationism were true, we'd have no problem defining species.

I aked for reasoning to support this hypothesis:

I’m open to being convinced it’s true should you present a logical argument for it’s validity.

Barbarian’s reasoning:

It's really not all that complex in outline, although the details get pretty involved.

Okay then I’ll outline a simple definition of species:

A species: a living creature
(No problem, then I guess creationism is true)

Yes. Normally, scientists are very cautious and don't use the word,

I was speaking of normal science and it’s scientific methods, not abnormal science.

Their finding wasn't about rates of mutation.

Incorrect (again):

The two possibilities tested by the Luria–Delbrück experiment. (A) If mutations are induced by the media, roughly the same number of mutants are expected to appear on each plate. (B) If mutations arise spontaneously during cell divisions prior to plating, each plate will have a highly variable number of mutants.​

​

The number of mutants that appear in the saturated culture is a measure of both the mutation rate and when the mutants arise during the growth of the culture:​

​

[I made it big and red for you to learn this time]

​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment​

​

Your assertion again:

Their finding wasn't about rates of mutation.

It’s called the Delbruck “rate equation” precisely BECAUSE their famous experiment was about calculating rates!

The methods that are used to calculate mutation rates are based on the model for the expansion of mutant clones originally described by Luria and Delbrück and extended by Lea and Coulson.​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2041832/#!po=4.92958​

SUMMARY
The distribution of the numbers of virus resistant bacteria

This “distribution of the numbers” IS (or was before it was corrected in the 21st Century) what determines the mutation rate. The reason their method had to be corrected is because it didn’t account for other mutants besides the one the measured. It only counted mutants that were resistant to their particular specified virus (phage). Because that’s basically all they could do at the time. They had no way to genetically determine all the other mutants also being generated, thus no way to know what the distribution was in relation to the one phage resistant strain.

Because they were able to show that mutations such as resistance to bacteriophages, appeared even when there were no bacteriophage in the environment.

That doesn’t mean all the other bacteria’s mutants are randomly disturbed. When you say “mutations such as”, you are showing your color. They simply counted the numbers of one type of specific mutant (and one only) that was resistant to their specified growth media. In the real-world there are lot’s of viruses E-coli must be resistant to in order to survive as well as other stress resistant mutants. They didn’t measure those, nor did they have a way to see what was being reproduced other than what survived.

What they showed was that particular bacteria produces a mutation that are resistant to phage (whether phage was present or not) and measured it’s rate of production. And yes, it produces these phageresistant offspring at a rate that’s randomly distributed (statistically speaking). What the new research shows is that this mutation reproduction rate in the organism increase (or decreases) depending on the presence of the stressers. Much like stepping on the gas as a car needs to pass a slower car, an organism can and does increase the rate of production of what evolutionist call ‘mutations’ so that more of them potentially survive or adapt to this stressful environment. Thus, adaptive mutations.

What 21st Century experiments are showing is that E-Coli also produces many other mutants too able to survive (or adapt) to all kinds of stressful environments. But here’s the kicker, it’s the non-mutated organism that has this coding within itself that reproduces some (but not all) of its offspring with specified skills (to survive). Some of its offspring are ‘feelers’ (so to speak) testing the waters. It’s these feelers that are produced at a randomly distributed rate (after it’s kind). And the kicker is, if it needs to produce more at at higher rate, it does just that.

Too bad for them

Your ‘too bad’ my very well be their Noble.

 

[Barbarian]

Today Barbarian clarifies:

Not all. Just the ones that leave offspring behind to continue the line

Typical.

Thank you.

I asked how this reproductive “urge” (desire) works:

Barbarian observes:
Those organisms that don't readily reproduce, tend to not leave offspring. Those that do, tend to leave offspring. Go figure.

So the Law of reproduction urge is:

Nonexistent. As you learned, it's merely that those organisms that do not readily reproduce, tend to leave fewer or no offspring.

So an organism (let’s say a woman who had ovarian cancer and who has zero offspring) has zero desire?

You have it backwards. Those organisms that do not readily reproduce leave fewer offspring. Humans are capable of thought, and therefore can plan reproduction. It's unlikely that other organisms do. Even those that are capable of thought, likely never connect mating with reproduction.

And her “urge” to reproduce is locted

Located? Yes. It is. At least we have a clearer picture of the way it works in vertebrates, now.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55973/

Ah, so this common in all organisms “urge” (at least it’s common in all organisms every other day)

Depends on mating seasons for most vertebrates. For those like rabbits and humans, that don't actually have seasons, it's more complex. Would you like to learn about that?

to reproduce resides in God (my heart’s desire).

He was a little more direct than that. Want to learn more about it?

Barbarian notes that Darwin discovered that:
If creationism were true, we'd have no problem defining species.

I aked for reasoning to support this hypothesis:

As you learned, if creationism were true, we'd have an easy time of it, defining species. But as Darwin pointed out, speciation is normally a gradual process, and so we have all sorts of intermediate cases. This is an insolvable problem for creationists, who have no way of explaining it.

Okay then I’ll outline a simple definition of species:
A species: a living creature

That would mean that all living things were of one species. Which would rule out creationism just as much as all of them being of one kind does. As you learned earlier, all living thing on Earth are of one kind, not one species.

Barbarian, regarding scientists considering their findings to be facts:
Apparently, not very many. I got 214,812 hits for assertions of fact in scientific papers on the first try.

I was speaking of normal science and it’s scientific methods,

As you now realize that's what scientists normally do.

Barbarian, regarding Luria/Delbruck
Their finding wasn't about rates of mutation.

Incorrect (again):

Well, let's see what they actually concluded in their paper:
MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE’-’
S.E. LURIAS AND M. DELBROCK
Genetics. 28 (6): 491–511
SUMMARY
The distribution of the numbers of virus resistant bacteria in series of similar cultures of a virus-sensitive strain has been analyzed theoretically on the basis of two current hypotheses concerning the origin of the resistant bacteria.

The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.

So there it is. You're wrong.

Someone else, trying to understand the paper:

The two possibilities tested by the Luria–Delbrück experiment. (A) If mutations are induced by the media, roughly the same number of mutants are expected to appear on each plate. (B) If mutations arise spontaneously during cell divisions prior to plating, each plate will have a highly variable number of mutants.

​

The number of mutants that appear in the saturated culture is a measure of both the mutation rate and when the mutants arise during the growth of the culture:​

​

​

See above, that's not what Luria and Delbruck found. (I made it big and red for you to learn this time)​

 

[Razeontherock]

Species being difficult or easy to define has nothing to do with creationism whatsoever.

Genesis does not say "life is all the same kind"

What a mess Barbarian's observations make of readily apparent truths

 

[chessman]

So there it is. You're wrong.

Nope.

Barbarian, regarding Luria/Delbruck
Their finding wasn't about rates of mutation.

Barbarian not understanding what “distribution of the numbers” actually means and intentionally chopping off the last sentence of there summary. The very conclusion of their experiment:

MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE’-’
S.E. LURIAS AND M. DELBROCK
Genetics. 28 (6): 491–511
SUMMARY
The distribution of the numbers of virus resistant bacteria in series of similar cultures of a virus-sensitive strain has been analyzed theoretically on the basis of two current hypotheses concerning the origin of the resistant bacteria.

The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.

Would you like to learn what the conclusion of their summary says??? Rhetorical question because we both know that you knew what it said, then chopped it off to save Barbarian face:

“The mutation rate has been determined experimentally.”​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209226/pdf/491.pdf​

​

​

 

[Barbarian]

Species being difficult or easy to define has nothing to do with creationism whatsoever.

It has everything to do with creationism. If species were created separately, instead of evolving from other species, it would be easy to define them. But because they evolve from other species, and generally take a long time to do so, we have all the intermediate steps that can't be neatly classified. This is one of the problems creationists cannot solve. But it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Genesis does not say "life is all the same kind"

Let's take a look...
Genesis 1:12 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 21 And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24
24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind”; and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

Does God say "kinds" or "kind?"

What a mess Barbarian's observations make of readily apparent truths

Instead of adding your own ideas to scripture, just accept it as it is. And you won't be troubled by it.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian points out that the finding wasn't about mutation rates, but about whether or not adaptive mutations are random or not. Turns out, they are.

Nope.

Yep. Here it is again:

MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE’-’
S.E. LURIAS AND M. DELBROCK
Genetics. 28 (6): 491–511
SUMMARY
The distribution of the numbers of virus resistant bacteria in series of similar cultures of a virus-sensitive strain has been analyzed theoretically on the basis of two current hypotheses concerning the origin of the resistant bacteria.

The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.

Barbarian not understanding what “distribution of the numbers” actually means

If you had read the paper, it means the lack of relation between adaptive mutations and selective pressure. As you now know, the paper established that adaptive mutations appear randomly and not in response to need.

The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209226/pdf/491.pdf​

​

The rates merely demonstrated the finding. I know it's hard to accept that you were lied to about this study. But there it is. Their measurement of rates was merely a way of testing the hypothesis that adaptive mutations came about in response to environmental factors. As you now see, they showed that hypothesis was wrong, and that adaptive mutations occur randomly.

The Luria–Delbrück experiment (1943) (also called the Fluctuation Test) demonstrates that in bacteria, genetic mutations arise in the absence of selection, rather than being a response to selection. Therefore, Darwin's theory of natural selection acting on random mutations applies to bacteria as well as to more complex organisms. Max Delbrück and Salvador Luria won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in part for this work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment

LURIA and DELBRUCK, in a seminal paper, introduced fluctuation analysis primarily as a means to elucidate the timing of mutation in relation to the imposition of selective conditions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1205875/

At the time, two theories of genetic inheritance existed. Scientists did not know if mutations arose randomly in the absence of an environmental cue, the“mutation hypothesis”, or whether they occur as an adaptive response
to an environmental stimulus, the“acquired immunity hypothesis”.
http://rpdata.caltech.edu/courses/bi1x/2013/files_2013/handouts/Bi1X_Week4_LuriaDelbruck_2013.pdf

Then, in 1943, Salvador Luria and Max Delbrück published an article in GENETICS that marked the birth of bacterial genetics, revealing that this apparently Lamarckian inheritance was in fact a case of random mutation.
http://genestogenomes.org/luria-delbruck-jackpots-and-epiphanies/

Luria and Delbrück proposed that these results could be explained by the occurrence of a constant rate of random mutations in each generation of bacteria growing in the initial culture tubes. From these assumptions they created a probability distribution called Luria-Delbrück Distribution. The distribution predicted moments inconsistent with the data and therefore, the conclusion was that mutations in bacteria are random rather than adaptive change.
https://sites.google.com/site/biologytimeline19301949/1943--the-luria-delbrueck-experiment

 

[Michael74]

So what about the math?

 

[Razeontherock]

It has everything to do with creationism. If species were created separately, instead of evolving from other species

Scripture says nothing about species. That's just you, making a hot mess out of it.

Each type mentioned is its own "kind," it does not say everything is the same "kind."

You are not being kind to Scripture









.

 

[chessman]

You are not being kind to Scripture

Did you intend the pun?

And God said, “Let the earth produce green plants that will bear seed—fruit trees bearing fruit in which there is seed —according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.​

Genesis 1:11 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Genesis 1:11&version=LEB

Took me a minute, but that’s good.

 

[chessman]

that mutations in bacteria are random rather than adaptive change.
https://sites.google.com/site/biologytimeline19301949/1943--the-luria-delbrueck-experiment

That’s just someone’s misinterpretation of their paper’s conclusions (which BTW had three hypotheses, not one. In the photo copy of their paper (which by the way I read long before ever posting here) what does the concluding sentence (which you chopped off) say?

And in the quote you posted, reposted here, what is the “distribution” of that’s been “studied experimentally”? Hint, it’s Table 4.

The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209226/pdf/491.pdf

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It has everything to do with creationism. If species were created separately, instead of evolving from other species it would be easy to define them. But because they evolve from other species, and generally take a long time to do so, we have all the intermediate steps that can't be neatly classified. This is one of the problems creationists cannot solve. But it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Scripture says nothing about species.

That's quite true. "Kind", in the context of Genesis, isn't about biological entities at all. It puts flying birds and bats in the same "kind", and cattle and ostriches in the same "kind", and whales, sharks, and squid in the same kind. And of course, scripture says nothing about protons, either. There are many, many things that are true, that are not in scripture.

That's just you,

Nope. It's a huge body of evidence, going back a long, long time. The point remains; species are sometimes difficult to define because new species evolve from old ones. If not, it would be easy to define them. This is a huge and continuing problem for creationists, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Each type mentioned is its own "kind,"

So your argument is that all land animals are one kind,all flying birds and bats are another kind, all sea creatures are a kind, and all plants are of one kind? You could classify them that way, but of course it would have nothing at all to do with any biological classification.

it does not say everything is the same "kind."

It merely classifies all of those as being of one kind.

You are not being kind to Scripture

I'm just showing you what it says, without any addition to it. If you think about it, that's probably the best way.

 

[Barbarian]

That’s just someone’s misinterpretation of their paper’s conclusions (which BTW had three hypotheses, not one.

It's everyone's take on their work. As you learned, they were testing the hypothesis that mutations appear as they are needed. And they conclusively showed that hypothesis to be false. This is why they had a single conclusion in their summary, showing that favorable mutations appear randomly.

[quote[In the photo copy of their paper (which by the way I read long before ever posting here) what does the concluding sentence (which you chopped off) say?[/quote]

It says that the data (the distribution) invalidates the one hypothesis they were testing.

The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.

And in the quote you posted, reposted here, what is the “distribution” of that’s been “studied experimentally”?

It's the data that invalidated the hypothesis that favorable mutations aren't random. It was for showing that they are random, that Luria and Delbruck received their Nobel, as you just learned.

You've confused the data with the conclusions.

 

[Barbarian]

So what about the math?

Speciations have been directly observed. Reality whips anyone's rationalizations. BTW, there's a reason Ross is tossing out claims without showing his math.

But he did throw out some numbers. Let's look at those...

He says favorable mutations are outnumbered by unfavorable ones by one in ten thousand. That's his first error. Neutral mutations vastly outnumber favorable and unfavorable ones. But let's suppose a population of perhaps a million individuals exists. Since each organism like humans, normally has a dozen or so mutations that their parents did not, we have a total of perhaps 24 million mutations per generation. Most of those don't amount to anything in terms of survival, but some of them do. Suppose one in 1,000 is significant. That leaves us with 12,000 significant mutations per generation.

Or, using his estimate, about 2 useful mutations in a generation. The lucky owners are much more likely to leave more descendants. The unlucky 20,000, don't leave very many offspring; depending on how bad the mutations are, they might leave none at all. Fortunately, as Darwin pointed out, there are always more born than the environment can handle, so that's not a problem for the population. But the next generation will have more useful mutations, and the existing useful mutations from previous generations will continue to increase because of natural selection.

Let's say that the organism matures in 10 years (which is a lot longer than most). That means that in 100,000 years, we will see 200,000 useful mutations in the population. Since humans (for example) have about 40,000 genes, that exceeds the amount of genetic variation found between say, humans and chimpanzees.

So speciation is mathematically certain, just on Ross's arguments. This is why he didn't actually show you any math; he already knows what the math says.

 

[chessman]

I asked you:

what is the “distribution” of that’s been “studied experimentally”? Hint, it’s Table 4.

Your incorrect answer:

It's the data that invalidated the hypothesis

The correct answer is (and I quote the source):

​

“TABLE 4​

Values of mutation rate from different experiments.”​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209226/pdf/491.pdf​

I asked you:

what does the concluding sentence (which you chopped off) say?

Your incorrect answer:

It says that the data (the distribution) invalidates the one hypothesis they were testing.

The correct answer is:

“The mutation rate has been determined experimentally.”​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209226/pdf/491.pdf​

​

​