Lenski should have sent a sample of the bacteria to Schlafly along with instructions to spread the contents of the container liberally on toast.
Always remember kids that freedom of speech gives the freedom to lie, misrepresent, withhold critical information, and slander people. Try to see though the BS as best you can.
Oh Andy, strains of Escherichia coli exist in the human intestinal track. If you want a sample of the raw materials used in the research, you're invited to play with your shit!
Honestly though, this is ridiculous. Saying that a paper is flawed and fraudulent when you haven't read the fucking thing is just so stupid it makes me genuinely afraid for the children that main educates. Can't we use this man as an example in a Supreme Court case to call homeschooling cruel and unusual punishment?
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
Lenski used tens of trillions of E Coli, what's the fuss all about?
The great achievement of Lenski was the demonstration that evolution is impossible without trillions of specimens, so, obviously, mammalian never evolved.
I think that Lenski's experiments can be safely used by Christians.
@IloveYOUviruses You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how 12 beakers containing roughly homogeneous bacteria relate to populations of heterogeneous organisms spread over vast areas of land evolve over time. What Lenski's experiment demonstrated is how even among populations of virtually identical organisms in a controlled environment, major evolutionary changes can occur in relatively small spaces of time.
Also, since when is Christianity as a whole at odds with evolution?
@BigMikeMcBastard Since the average de novo mutations is 175 per newborn and since 14% of mutations are slightly deleterious such that they segregate in the population thus proving the fact of DEvolution, with Lenski's results we now have experimental grounds for the rarity of beneficial mutations.
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." One in a trillion? EXCELLENT!
@IloveYOUviruses They actually expressed many, many genetic adaptations in their various populations over time. It's just that the ability to metabolize citrate was a very profound mutation and incredibly beneficial to them, whereas the other mutations were more minor, such as having larger cell bodies and being more strongly adapted for subsisting off of glucose.
If you look at the paper, the colonies all over time become better adapted to their environments, albeit at different rates.
@IloveYOUviruses Also, there is no such thing as "de-evolution". It's a nonsense word. Evolution is change in heritable characteristics in a population over time. That's it. There is no force driving them to be good or bad at this or that.
@BigMikeMcBastard If the genome is accumulating deleterious mutations each generation, then we can call it retrograde evolution or "DEvolution"... Or you can call it Javadebooba, fact is that we all have aprox. 175 de novo mutations (that none of our parents had), and since arround 14% of mutations are slightly deleterious such that they segregate in the population, human genomic fitness can only go DOWN, ergo: devolution :-)
@IloveYOUviruses Deevolution is not a scientific term and the definition you have chosen to give it is similarly nonscientific. A harmful mutation is a harmful mutation. There is no call for using science fiction terminology to describe its effect as if organisms were on some sort of sliding scale, where they can become more fit and "evolve" or become less fit and "deevolve".
Anyway, I have to say I'm not entirely surprised the word "deevolution" is in your vocab. after your earlier comments.
@BigMikeMcBastard No, the rate of slightly deleterious mutations has been stimated by Williamson et.al. (2005) and confirmed by Lynch et.al. (2006), it's arround 14%, this is no fictional jargon but factual terminology that describes the effect of mutations according to their fitness effect
Now, the human rate of mutation has been measured tru 13 generations in China and the results were arround 100-200 new mutations per human dyploid.
@IloveYOUviruses You don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. "Deevolution" isn't a thing. It's a layperson's confused word for genetic change which isn't apparently beneficial.
The fact that you don't realize that is hardly a surprise though. I wouldn't imagine a creationist would know much about actual science. It's abso-fucking-lutely hilarious that you people could take Lenski's work and see it as a victory for creationism though. The kind of mental gymnastics you people do is amazing.
@BigMikeMcBastard It's funny how you stick to the label (devolution or javadebooba) instead to the facts n_n
Why is Lenski LTEE a success? cuz he proved that it takes tens of trillions of specimens to develop some beneficial mutations, and now we have experimental grounds for the improbability of such one-in-a-billion mutations.
In the human case, that rate helps nothing to stop the accumulation of 175 mutations per generation in our genome.
Name-calling would do nothing to rescue evolution ;)
@IloveYOUviruses RE:"Name-calling would do nothing to rescue evolution ;)"
Evolution needs no rescue from the likes of you. Evolution is doing just fine despite 150 years of people such as yourself (but smarter) to discredit and disprove it. You'll continue with the humorous attempts though I'm sure.
RE:"Indeed, human evolution was always impossible ;-)"
What is your alternative explanation for the appearance of common descent? Let me guess - William Demski, Micheal Behe, and God.
"In the human case, that rate helps nothing to stop the accumulation of 175 mutations per generation in our genome." Er, well, if we were vastly more complex than E. Coli, from genetics to epigenetics, then there would be no problem in doing this. Also, I'm sure you are aware that E. Coli are asexual. If you understood evolutionary biology, you would understand the naivety of your point.
@johnnyp76 Hi, first, I'm gonna ignore your comment on E Coli being more complex than us and I'll take it as an error of yours, specially since you are aware of our reproductive system, that said, I have to tell you to be very careful on how you deal with the posibilities of sexual reproduction, cuz it seems that you have a very biased view here; sure, recombination can merge beneficial alleles, but it also increases the odds for it to dissappear, you have to see it from every perspective.
@IloveYOUviruses Me biased? Ha! We have a mechanism that has been empirically observed across species including our own. The mechanism also fits like a jigsaw with all other scientific disciplines. We have a situation where some people claim, based on certain modelling from certain scenarios, that there was not enough time for humans to evolve as they have. Rather than look more closely at the scenarios and modelling to see if they are faulty, or posit some hidden or unknown variables...
@IloveYOUviruses ... you posit a God to come in and magic an evolved homo sapiens. How does that fit in with the developmental fossil record (Ardi ect)? With known human genetic evolution now? You are calling me viased? How is your theory testable, scientific, empirically observable? How is it NOT ad hoc? What about Ockham's Razor? Don't you dare accuse me of being biased, here, dude!!! When you provide a more PLAUSIBLE explanation backed up with QUALITY evidence, then I will look into it.
@IloveYOUviruses How does your theory explain endogenous retroviruses. Because evolution does it successfully and seemlessly. No other theory adequately explains ER and the concluded common ancestry.
@johnnyp76 Would you accept if I ignore for now your claims in the unobservable evolutionary story? I rather stick to hard facts to evaluate if evolution was possible or not. As a personal note, I hate speculations stated as facts and I'm trying my best here to tolerate your appeal to unobserved evolutionary speculations.
We will deal with evo stories only if modern genetics and OBSERVATIONS allow us to conclude that genetic development is possible in the timeframe given by the current paradigm.
@IloveYOUviruses Is that entirely fair if it IS a process which takes that much time? Also, there are many facts that you take without observation. Scientists take certain cosmological facts as extrapolated theoretical physics. Do you take the bible as fact without observing it? Observations allow us to extrapolate. we have observed microevolution. There is no such thing as macroevolution. It is just 'microevolution' happening over time.
@johnnyp76 2) back to topic, I am NOT "claiming we have 50% less chance of inheriting a trait"
I claim that NEW traits have a 50% chance of dissapearing in sexual beings due to an "unfortunate" crossover, this seems evident by the very nature of the process. (u r smart dude, I can't believe we are still on this)
I deny natural evolution for two main reasons:
- the accumulation of VSD mutations
- the insane ammount of specimens required to develop a new trait
@IloveYOUviruses You dent evolution at all? Even denying Lenski's data in totality? The Italian Wall lizard? As for VSDMs, they don't give biologists too much of a headache. In fact, our society now is quite good at selecting people in with VSDMs such is our compassion (and issues of defining deletrious are prevalent here). What I find amazing here is your propensity to throw the baby out with the bath water. All the MASSES of evidence for evolution and you thrown it all out in favour of what?
@johnnyp76 LOL excuse me but I have to laugh here hahahaha
flashnews! VSDMs ARE a health risk (PNAS January 19, 2010 vol. 107 no. 3 961-968)
From the fact that VSDMs are present in every human embryo, we can extrapolate that our genome is only going down, this is undeniable dude.
You say "MASSES" of evidence, but certainly, nothing is greater than OBSERVABLE evidence, the rest could be faulty speculation and wishful thinking on untestable historical evidence.
@IloveYOUviruses VDSMs are difficult to define. If we continue to reproduce whilst carrying them, then they are arguably not VDSMs. Eg a person with a congenital disability still reproducing calls into question whether the disability was actually deleterious. Some 796–837 deleterious mutations exist per individual - about 15% of mutations. "However, many deleterious mutations persist for hundreds of generations or more before they are removed...
@johnnyp76 "The fact that you are arguing mutation rates and suchlike implicitly accepts the mechanisms of evolution!!"
tehehe this is clearly not your strength, we can talk about mutation rates because we SEE them happening, we know about deleterious mutations bcuz we can measure their effects in the lab
@johnnyp76 "Could you tell me what use genes, alleles, DNA, RNA, mutations have and what mechanism they are part of?"
Er...That's basic biology, why are you asking that? you could research on the internet, there are excellent podcast here on YT. What if I came to you with such basic questions?
@johnnyp76 I take the definition of VSDM from population genetics in which 99,9999% of mutations have a negative fitness effect, that's theoretical stimates but if you want experimental results, here they are: Science 5 November 2010: 825-827.
I quote just in case google fails:
"The obtained DFE appears to be unimodal, where most mutations (120 out of 126) are weakly deleterious and the remaining ones are potentially neutral. The DFEs for synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions are similar.."
@IloveYOUviruses 99.9% - not what I've read. Nachman and Crowell (who xtians love to quote): "This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (KONDRASHOV 1995 ; CROW 1997 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the ...
@IloveYOUviruses ...population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely." Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000. Or see Subramanian "the effects of new mutations at those amino acid positions may not necessarily be deleterious and might even result in reversion to benign phenotypes"
@johnnyp76 1) "may not necessarily be deleterious and might even result in reversion to benign phenotypes." Aside from the fact that they are refering to an improbable event (reversion), If you read carefully, the posibility of reverse mutations is only present bcuz our genome is already screwed up with several deleterious mutations... but it seems you will never pay attention to that.
To me, it's remarkable the way you want to hold that the genome doesn't deteriorate.
@johnnyp76 2) ok, ++epistatis aiding natural selection was a good call, however, if you think about it, it only has effect when mutations have accumulated tru several generations, this eliminates the most damaged gene pools, while the rest of the population keeps accumulating denovo mutations simply bcuz meiosis isn't perfect. That said, any type of selection would fail bcuz the survivors would still have HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of accumulated mutations.
@IloveYOUviruses explanatory power and scope. What explains ALL the data better? What function do all of these mechanisms have if not for evolutionary theories? How is your theory not ad hoc? If Goddidit is your theory in place of this, how is this BETTER and MORE PLAUSIBLY EVIDENCED than evolution. If your negative arguments have any purchase, why have all evolutionary geneticists not given up? If science gave up at the stage you implore, no scientific theory would EVER get off the ground.
@IloveYOUviruses If you believe we have such a disastrous genetic load, why aren't we all dying. Sod evolution, what about the now? We don't know the positive effect of epistasis, synergistic spistasis or epigenetics, soft selection, hitchiking etc. What I find hilarious is that, at this one perceived problem, you jettison all of the positive evidence for evolution. You have a neagtive methodology, but wht do you put in its place? Go on, tell me. What is your more plausible theory based on..
@johnnyp76 "If you believe we have such a disastrous genetic load, why aren't we all dying."
Simple, that's because according to both theoretical predictions made by Kimura (and his field), and experimental results in man-made point mutations, the vast majority of mutations have a very small impact on fitness, allowing the host to reproduce while mutations keep scrambling the genome more and more each generation. We are a vivid example of that.
@johnnyp76 2) I didn't "jettison" anything, epistatic effects happen but can't prevent us from accumulating more mutations every generation
This is the third time you try to put words in my mouth with Godidit, I acknowledge it is a belief about past events but you don't have to blame me bcuz evolution seems impossible with all our mutational load. Your response was absurd, think about it, just bcuz the impossibility of evolution necesarily means Godidit to you, therefore human evolution is true?
@IloveYOUviruses Ok, if you don't think Goddidit, what is your more plausible mechanism / explanation for ALL the evidence. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right. Now explain ALL that positive evidence for evolution with a better, more plausible, more explanatorily viable option. I am interested to see what the competing theory is and how is it better. How does it explain: ERVs, biogeography, fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, observed hybridisation, speciation etc?
@johnnyp76 I don't know why you have reading problems, I mean, you are not a childish anti-theist nor an layman, so, why are you asking if I "admit [fast breeding] animal evolution"?
I've already said that "the evidence is insufficient to get on that boat."
@IloveYOUviruses Don't ad hom like a child. I am trying to decipher exactly what type of evolution, if any, you actually admit exists (given observational data).
@johnnyp76 2) Also, what made you think that I reject the design hypothesis? I acknowledge it as a personal belief (read carefully please) that is compatible with a wide range of methods, from Miller's and Collin's explanations, to intervention, to an special or progressive creation.
all I've done is presenting my reasons to reject a naturalistic genesis for those species that accumulate more and more mutations every generation, including us, for the rest of the genomes, I honestly don't know.
@IloveYOUviruses Er, i haven't said you reject the design hypothesis. i have said the polar opposite - that you reject ALL the evidence for evolution and posit something far less viable, less observationally evidenced, less explanatorily powerful, involving more ad hoc suppositions etc etc. In sum, it's ridiculous that you throw evolution out of the window for something much poorer as an explanation.
@johnnyp76 3) This reaction of yours makes wonder if you have mental problems that keep you from understanding that other ppl can easily handle doubts and gaps in their knowledge.
My position is very simple, the past is gone and unobservable by definition, I cannot offer you an arrogant claim saying: "this is how things happened", but truly, we can use experimental data to falsify some models, the whole dialogue has been about that!
@IloveYOUviruses Wow, another mature ad hom. And hypocritical. You are saying that you can easily handle gaps in your knowledge, and yet reject evolution based on a lack of knowledge about an aspect of it. Hilarious double standards. You see, on this methodology, you would have rejected Planck's Law at the Balfour Stewart stage, or relativity when the maths wasn't understood. You should also reject the God hypothesis because you don't know the exact reasons why all the suffering exists.
@johnnyp76 "yet reject evolution based on a lack of knowledge about an aspect of it"
Dude.. dude... It's not just an "aspect", we are talking of experimental data! If today's observations say that larger slow breeding genomes are accumulating mutations, then one is NOT justified to make evolutionary speculations about an unobserved past, the way you want to give precedence to untestable claims is just shocking, heh, and you dare to talk about hypocrisy.
@johnnyp76 "You have a selective approach to what knowledge you CAN get away with not understanding fully yet"
Excellent point, but your position is invalid, you are one of those who require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, yet, here you believe that the accumulation of denovo mutations is somehow prevented by an unknown method, heh what a claim!
What I find worst, you are willing to acknowledge beneficial mutations while you are denying the deleterious effects of most mutations.
@johnnyp76 On the other hand you criticize me for taking a more skeptic position, as I told you I won't mess with past unobserved affairs unless we deal with present ones, an for now, all we know is that mutations are mostly slightly deleterious and that they develop in every large mammal. To believe that a population FULL of mutants can be genetically purified is totally absurd, it seems to me that intelligent input was necesary for us to be here, and I'll be glad to admit it is an speculation.
@IloveYOUviruses This is DIAMOND! So, your alternate theory, which you haven't really spelled out, er, I was wondering, is it an 'observed past'? Repeatable and testable? How can this be 'dealing with present ones'? Hmmm, double standards. Can you QED prove to me that VSDMs disprove evolution? Because there don't seem to be any evolutionary geneticists who think so. Many geneticists adhere to mitigating factors. You still haven't answered the fact that you thrown the baby out with the bath water
@johnnyp76 You have clear the idea that I cannot offer you a testable and repeateble theory about the past, it seems that you finally understood that 'repreatable past' it's an oxymoron.
Now, if the onmiprescence of denovo mutations doesn't disprove evolution to you, then nothing will
You are willing to deny the deleterious nature of most mutations and you are willing to go believe that a population full of mutants can be purified.
Sorry doc, my aim was not convincing you, only know your mind.
@IloveYOUviruses It's not so much the mutation rate, but the fixation rate. "This behavior is largely due to the exponential decline in the fixation rate of a deleterious mutation with increasing K.[population carrying capacity]" (Lynch et al) Population size is seemingly very important. Fixation of beneficial mutations is much more likely even if the frequency of mutation is not (for obvious natural selection reasons).
@IloveYOUviruses It seems you are sounding very close to John Sanford's Genetic Entropy stance as set out in his book. His book has been roundly criticised by peopl ein the know. The best critique is on the Letters to Creationists blog under 'STAN 4'. Chapter by chapter refutation. "The errors in Genetic Entropy [24] are so pervasive that it might take a whole new book to fully expose them." Terrible stuff, according to the experts (and I have spoken directly to a few about it).
@johnnyp76 1) Altough I don't agree 100% with Dr Sanford, the basis of my argument can be traced to his book.
oh, btw, the STAN4 isn't even a good critique, it focuses it's case in bacterial populations ignoring Sanford's clear statements on how bacterial populations can be saved from genetic deterioration due to their smaller genomes, huge populations and hyper fertility.
@johnnyp76 2) Fixation rates it's an excellent point.
I never claimed that ALL VSDM would reach fixation, statistically, most of them would be lost due to random genetic drift, I expect it to be self evident since there are more mutations with every newborn, and inevitably some mutations will reach fixation (cuz most mutations fall in Kimura's no-selection box and are subject to genetic drift). This is the case for every generation, with more are more damages accumulating in the genome.
@johnnyp76 3) since you are aware that most new traits (frequency=1) will be lost by drift, you must also recognize that this is a problem for good mutations.
Like deleterious mutations, most beneficial muts have a "very slight" effect, and therefore are subject to the same careless random drift, this means that you'd require 10k-30k trials (in the typical ape population) for one of them to reach fixation.
@IloveYOUviruses This is the point of Lenski's work. In organisms with less frequent mutations, for twelve out of twelve populations, a significant increase in fitness was observed. Whatever was the percentage of beneficial mutations, they were numerous and effective enough to drive the evolution of each of the experimental populations to improved fitness. This is empirically evidenced. Margaglione et al, Groenemeijer et al, Galton et al, Mikkola et al etc = evidenced human beneficial mutations
@johnnyp76 "even microbial populations should be subject to mutational meltdown"
sigh... please, think again, one main point of my argument is that human embryos always have >100 more mutations than their parents; bacterias, due to their smaller genome, rarely have with new mutations and therefore they are not subject to accumulation of mutations. Honestly doc, this response was absurd.
@johnnyp76 2) If a bacterial population of billions of specimens per generation surveys every point, dual and more combinatory mutations, is it surprising to find some beneficial mutations after 50k generations?
Is it not clear that every human beings has 100+ denovo mutations while only 1 out of 1000 E Coli will be mutant?
@IloveYOUviruses "If all the problems ((a)-(h) above) with natural selection were as dire as Sanford claims, even microbial populations should be subject to mutational meltdown, though perhaps at a lower rate per generation than other life-forms. Microbial life-spans can be days, rather than decades. If the buildup of deleterious mutations were a real phenomenon, it would become apparent over thousands of generations in laboratory flasks of bacteria. Indeed, asexual populations like bacteria ...
@IloveYOUviruses ... be even more vulnerable to the buildup of deleterious mutations, since they would have less opportunity to reshuffle genes to help weed out the bad ones. If Sanford’s thesis were correct, we might expect an initial bump up in fitness as the bacteria adapted to some new conditions, followed by a reversion to a secular decline in fitness as the supposedly relentless accumulation of deleterious mutations proceeded...
@IloveYOUviruses ...In fact, the Lenski long-term E. coli experiment shows the contrary: an initially rapid increase in fitness, followed by a long plateau of stable or slightly increasing fitness for over 35,000 generations [46]. This demonstrates that Sanford is wrong." You are simply wrong on observable evidence!
@johnnyp76 3) heh, and what a spin, after you were saying that the vast amount of specimens required for the LTEE couldn't be extrapolated to humans... here you are extrapolating their fitness increase to a population diametrically different: mammalians.
Again, if I were you, I'd re-evaluate my beliefs about the past.
@johnnyp76 4) If you go on wishful mode, there are big problems for significant good mutations too, for they will be eliminated most of the time depending on their fitness increase. Remember we are talking about one nucleotide among 3 billion.
For example, IF the new trait is in a dominant allele and IF it has a fitness effect of 1%, the dreamed mutation has a 99% chance of being lost.
Meanwhile, every embryo inherits 100 mutations more.
@IloveYOUviruses Look, in nature, the mechanisms of selection remove bad mutations at the same rate as they arise (on average). The mechanisms of natural selection are: death and infertility. It is only now that we have bypassed these restrictions. Modern medicine does, arguably, mean that we are degrading the genome. But historically, that has not been the case. Nature takes over.
@IloveYOUviruses You have a selective approach to what knowledge you CAN get away with not understanding fully yet, and what you can't. Thus the notion that may be any number of hidden variables or mitigating factors wrt VSDMs which harmonise it with evolution seems beyond you (if they DO cause such a problem, as you claim). Evolutionary biologists / geneticists don't have a problem. There is loads of literature on this. perhaps a less 'design' survey of the literature would be fairer!
@johnnyp76 4) about other speculative lines of evidence, I've already told you, "ERVs" are being found to be functional, then, what about orthology? but then again, gene trees have widespread discordancy, so this line of evidence is also dubious, and comparing animals to imagine family trees is obviously not science, that's why I encourage you to consider testable and observable evidence like mutation rates or the distribution of fitness effects of mutations.
@IloveYOUviruses Gene tree discordancy is not a problem - loads of literature on this (Degnan, etc). Simply put, GTD provides no issues for ERVs. Weak. ERVs prove phylogenic connection rather than discordance disproving ERVs or similar.
@johnnyp76 5) Now, just for curiosity, assuming that the high rate of mutations in every human embryo falsifies human evolution, would you still believe we came here by naturalistic evolution?
@johnnyp76 3) "Even if VSDM rates are problematic, is it warranted to throw the whole theory out in favour of Goddidit"
:D you finally get it! the answer is NO, the fact that particular genomes (from animals with low fertility and high mutation rates) couldn't have possibly evolved doesn't necesarily means that other faster breeding species couldn't have evolved, for them, the room is still open for evolutionary beliefs. Altough, the evidence is insufficient to get on that boat.
@IloveYOUviruses Your methodology is PROPERLY LAUGHABLE. Even if VSDM rates are problematic, is it warranted to throw the whole theory out in favour of Goddidit, instead of looking at whether it can be reconciled? Epigenetics is a nascent discipline, yet in your methodology, we ditch it before we know anything about it because there are too many VSDMs! Quick, abandon ship, everyone give up evolution because this man has a slight problem with one small aspect of it! And replace it with God magic!
@johnnyp76 3) After all your attempts to dismiss the obvious effects of 100+ denovo mutations per human embryo, if I were you, I'd start to re-evaluate my beliefs about the past ;)
@johnnyp76 btw, I'm only dealing with point mutations, the most frequent and better studied.
Now you want to appeal to the fact that in some cases, some point mutations may result beneficial, tehehe.. talk about wishful thinking, hey, in rare rare cases, beneficial mutations are possible, but we are not talking of a few denovo mutations, but over a hundred per human embryo, are you really gonna believe that they harm nothing?
Gonna believe they don't accumulate tru the generations?
"If we continue to reproduce whilst carrying them, then they are arguably not VDSMs"
this is astonishing, professor, with all due respect, are you pressupossing the human genome evolved? or you just ignore the meaning of "VERY SLIGHTLY"?
read Lynch's paper, we can carry VSDM without any inmediate effect, it's only the accumulative effect that will ultimately kill us.
Do some reality check, you may be in the wrong lane.
@IloveYOUviruses You miss the point on defining VSDM: "mutations that would be deleterious in one environment might be highly advantageous in another (streptomycin dependance in many bacteria). In fact, the environment greatly defines the value of how deleterious it is. I can only see the fully lethal mutations being easy to identify. Add to that the problem of definition of mutation: point mutations? insertions/deletions? of how many nucleotides? it is more complicated ... to estimate."
@johnnyp76 VSDMs are not too difficult to define, not in population genetics, they are simply the mutations with negative effect in the near neutral zone, technically there are discrepancies on where to put the range in the fitness axis, but from Kimura to contemporary genetics, we know that most mutations are VSD, that said, not all of the denovo VSDM in human embryos reach fixation, but since every embryo develops >100 denovo mutations, the fixation and accumulation of VSDMs is inevitable.
Respond to this video... ...since their effects are largely masked in the heterozygous state (Simmons and Crow 1977)." There are lots of implications for VSDMs: "But for slightly deleterious alleles, the story is very different. The longer such an allele exists in a population, competing with its normal counterparts, the less likely it is to survive." Of course, the fact that you are arguing mutation rates and suchlike implicitly accepts the mechanisms of evolution!!
@johnnyp76 Isn't it worse to ignore the observations made in genetics and the LTEE?
We've measured the effects of point mutations, most of them: slightly deleterious, they don't affect too much the fitness but once they accumulate, they slowly kill us
We've measured mutation rates in several mammalians, they are beyond the dozens
We've seen the insane amount of speciments required to develop one single EColi strain, and it leaves human evolution as absurd.
@IloveYOUviruses ... An ad hoc non-mechanistic explanation that does nothing to explain all that MASSES of evidence. Why not see if your 2 issues are resolvable? How do you know they won't be resolvable? If every scientist gave up at the first hurdle, no science would get done. That seems to be your approach. Why? Would it be a presuppositional bias for sdisbelieving evolution? I am amazed you would so easily give it all up for something less explanatorily viable!!!!
@johnnyp76 Keeping it simple, How on earth can you believe that humans naturally developed all their specific traits (from an hypothetical chimp's MRCA) within 300k generations, effective pop size of 10k and fertility rates of 4-8?
Lenski invested trillions of specimens, 30k generations, and he only achieved a new strain (other adaptions maybe but only one new trait).
From every perspective, neo-darwinism cannot explain our spectacular genetic gallery.
@johnnyp76 3) I'm well aware that by the 15k generation, the populations had explored all possible point mutations and several dual mutations, am also aware of the fitness increase by some of those mutations, I don't deal with that bcuz that still leaves an open door for speculations, rather, I inmediatly address the result that could be argued as containing new information in order to extrapolate it for larger mammalians, with a certain degree of variation (for the reasons you have mentioned)
@johnnyp76 4) I find it dissapointing that you are retreating from the observations to an appeal to unobservable inheritance, if I were you I'd start to question myself why the large populations Lenski used contradict an evolutionary model for hominids with vastly lower population size, lower fertility rates, genetic crossover that may obliterate new good alleles, and a lot of traits to develop in relatively just a few generation.
Given Lenski's experiment, human evolution is truly impossible.
@IloveYOUviruses "The most important thing about sexual reproduction is its ability to switch around successful genes. If it is beneficial to an organism's survival to be both tall and have blue eyes, a short, blue-eyed parent and a tall, browneyed parent can get together and stand a good chance of producing off-spring with both characteristics. If they reproduced asexually, a short, blue-eyed parent would have to wait around for a height-inducing genetic mutation to change height and eye color.
@johnnyp76 2) I expect u to have some background knowledge about the process, but if you want further explanations, feel are free to ask.
About your comment on mutation rates, we don't infer that from evolutionary models anymore, we now have experimental data on that and it turns out to be from dozens to hundreds in mammalians, we have also measured their effects and are as Kimura predicted: very slightly deleterious, fact is, slightly bad mutations do accumulate in higher genomes.
@IloveYOUviruses And because mutations, which are basically genetic mistakes, tend to cause bad effects, the mutation rate in most organisms is exceedingly slow. While it would take only a generation for sexually-reproducing parents to beget tall offspring with blue eyes, it might take an asexually-reproducing parent hundreds or thousands of generations!"
@johnnyp76 3) back to your objection to my comment:
"In the human case, that rate [Lenski's experimental beneficial to deleterious ratio] helps nothing to stop the accumulation of 175 mutations per generation in our genome." -me
Hey buddy, were you really trying to dismiss the insane ammount of bacterias required to obtain one dubious example of new information by saying that sexual reproduction will help a hundred thousand monkeys to evolve?
@IloveYOUviruses My point is evolution from natural selection through sexual reproduction is at a faster rate then from asexual reproduction (per generation). Therefore, you are building up a poor straw man argument for mutation rates by comparing human, sexually reproductive, to E. Coli, asexually reproductive. Humans undergo 64-175 mutations in each zygote.
@johnnyp76 I appreciate you made your point explicit, but I think you are going way too fast in calling my contention as an "straw man", shouldn't you explore my repply to your comment? I think you should, specially since we are only starting the conversation.
Well, you touched a very important issue here, namely, the difference in reproductive systems, I think the issue is a dead end for both cuz sex has both pros and cons for spreading those one-in-a-trillion beneficial mutations
@johnnyp76 2) And again, have you considered the scenario in which that rare beneficial mutation dissapears in a crossover? while a good new trait has 100% possibilities to be inherited in an asexual organism, sexual rep. have a 50/50 probability of obliterating a beneficial gametic mutation.
Now, it's amazing how you are eager to see how one improbable beneficial mutation would reach fixation, yet, are not willing to see the fixation of deleterious mutations present in every single human embryo
@IloveYOUviruses " while a good new trait has 100% possibilities to be inherited in an asexual organism, sexual rep. have a 50/50 probability of obliterating a beneficial gametic mutation." Hugely more genes, two genotypes feeding into the blueprint. eg 50% of 1000 is higher than 100% of 5. "Organisms that reproduce sexually yield a smaller number of offspring, but the large amount of variation in their genes makes them less susceptible to disease."
Lenski experiment invested triliions of specimens within >30k generations, to develop one dubious new trait (that may involve new genetic information), do you really think you can ignore this experimental data for an species with an effective pop size of 10k, generation time of 20 years and fertility rate between 1 and 4?
Sorry for flooding the conversation but your attempts to dismiss the problems for mammalian evolution are just shocking.
@IloveYOUviruses What? Lenski concentrated on one particular trait which was born of some particular mutations, because it was a paradigm shift. However, "the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations."!!! Get your facts right. There were millions of mutations. Each population had 10-20 fixed beneficial mutations (with a load more neutral and deleterious ones...
@johnnyp76 3) there's another fundamental problem with your particular scenario (tall and blue-eyed crossover), it requires two beneficial traits developed in very close generations (otherwise you'd cross a new allele with an already fixed allele, totally pointless) but after seing Lenski investing 20 years and trillions of E Coli within 30k generations just to get ONE good new trait, your scenario is -with all due respect- a laughable fantasy.
@IloveYOUviruses Citrate trait was not the only evolved trait. You also don't get the stats. E. Coli have only 4400 genes. Humans some 30,000. Which means the combinatorial maths for phenotype is staggeringly more complex. Put that together with epigenetic complexity and the vastly superior process of sexual reproduction for change through mutation, and we have a very different picture for humans. You ARE building a straw man because you are infer stats from EColi and transfer them onto humans.
@johnnyp76 Oh so that's your reason to call it an straw man, well I think it fails, here is why, you can't criticize me for using experimental, observable data when you have zero data concerning the development of new traits in mammalians, so, again we see another case where your bias blinds you, be honest and you'll see that you are relying on wishful thinking, hoping that sexual reproduction will aid an species with far lower fertility rates and effective population size
@IloveYOUviruses Of course it is. That's a text book straw man. You have clearly taken experimental statistical data from E. Coli and then applied to it humans. Humans have a far more complex genotype, reproduce entirely differently and so on. Of course it's a straw man. If you think all the evolutionary biologists and geneticists are too foolish to see this, and that you (a random bloke on YT) are utterly right, then you are mischaracterising these scientists.
@johnnyp76 2) And here's why I think your reasoning is wishful thinking: you are again relying on a miraculous crossover and hitchhiking, the former failed for the fundamental problem I previously pointed out (the occurance of new traits in close generations and the same bloodline is ridiculous) and the latter suffers not only the same problem but also has an infinitesimal probability of happening in higher genomes.
@IloveYOUviruses We have mapped out the evolution of cephalopods as determined by the disciplines of paleontology, comparative embryology, and molecular phylogenetics. etc. To suggest that we do not adhere to these same processes is simply special pleading for homo sapiens. The BBC's Horizon program 'Are we still evolving?' (we are) was a good watch, showing how the Nepalese have evolved thicker and twistier capillaries in order to make use of a larger percentage of oxygen that they inhale.
@IloveYOUviruses Harpending and his team identified more than 10,000 selection events (i.e., stretches of DNA bearing the marks of natural selection) that seem to have taken place in the past 80,000 years of human history. Interestingly, the researchers found that most of these selection events traced to the recent past, with the largest numbers having arisen in the last 10,000 years.
@johnnyp76 Judging by these results, human evolution seems to have sped up: small numbers of beneficial mutations spread through human populations for most of our history, but since the end of the last ice age, we've experienced a renaissance of evolutionary innovation in which many new advantageous mutations arose and began to spread.
@johnnyp76 3) the fact that you are unable to criticize yourself before writing, makes me think you are blinded by your bias, here are some of the things you were unable to see:
how asexual reproduction garantees the inheritance of good new traits
EColi higher fertility rates grants it for sure
Dude, do you honestly think the trillions of trials E Coli had to develop the Cit+ strand can be ignored in the mammalian case by simply invoquing sexual reproduction? please answer this.
@IloveYOUviruses Er, you are claiming we have 50% less chance of inheriting a trait. We have 30,000 genes as opposed to 4,400 genes. Some 7 times more. The chance of the phenotype being affected by a genetic mutation is far higher, since genes are co-opted for more traits. Then take into account epigentics and other mechanisms, and we have a far higher propensity per generation to mutate. I thought you might have understood this. It is you who must be more critical. Dude.
@IloveYOUviruses See John Hawks et al in the PNAS : "Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species." Comparing the amount of genetic differentiation between humans and our closest relatives, chimpanzees, suggests that the pace of change has accelerated to 10 to 100 times the average long-term rate. And that's stuff we can map accurately. Going further back, there are probably similar such influences.
@IloveYOUviruses Furthermore, there are other mechanism for evolution which need to be taken into account (gene flow, gene hitchhiking etc). We have also found several areas where epigenetic inheritance systems have been discovered at the organismic level.
Conservapedia I love it. I do not have to think to make straw-men to bash anymore, i can just quote them. You see they making thinking pointless for everyone...oh wait...ack...ah...hmmm...yea. damn conservapedia
By yours and your clique's standards there is no way to demonstrate anything ever, so what is your point?
If u think that empirical science which requires that something has to be observed, repeated, & falsify able is a ridicules point, then like I said more power to u, but it is not an opinion I share. I think empirical evidence is very important. I can only speak for myself. I dont belong to a clique. I thought we were speaking of science not politics. Last question was to foolish to answer.
I know this sounds harsh but unless lenskis experiment can be repeated, which could have easily been done with a double blind controlled sister experiment, it cannot be regarded a empirical. If something cant be repeated it cannot pass as empirical falsify able science.
@benthemiester Your misunderstanding lies in the fact that it "can be repeated" doesn't mean it has to be repeated. How many times you'll need it to be repeated? I bet a dozen or a hundred won't satisfy you anyway. It can be repeated, you are free to repeat it, it's all that is asked of Lenski as a scientist.
@heloizyjhenifer What do u mean by lies? Repeatability is a standard of empirical science, in contrast with historical science were things in nature cannot be repeated.
"can be repeated doesn't mean it has to be repeated".
This mindset quoted above requires faith, and again, I am speaking of empirical science. Its not enough to say its repeatable, it has to be demonstrated, and this could easily have been done with a double blind study in two different facilities by two different agents.
@benthemiester Is it up to the original researcher to do that? He has to fund the other guys or what? He doesn't just say it is repeatable, it is provably repeatable, if it wasn't it wouldn't be accepted as applied science, and it was, obviously.
Let's see, tell me how it is not repeatable? And tell me what the researcher did wrong. Tell me what he has to do now.
@heloizyjhenifer "Let's see, tell me how it is not repeatable? And tell me what the researcher did wrong. Tell me what he has to do now"
If you look at my thread I already answered the second question whether in past or present tense. As for first question, I never said it wasn't repeatable. My point is that it has not been repeated yet. When it has been, then that will answer your own question. Until this happens it is not. Its not that hard to understand.
@benthemiester Well, considering his results aren't even much surprising and the fact that many similar results have been observed, I wouldn't lose my sleep over it. Nobody serious doubts the fact that beneficial mutations occur, it's just inevitable.
@heloizyjhenifer "Nobody serious doubts the fact that beneficial mutations occur, it's just inevitable"
In an 1859 mindset this may have been an entertaining proposition, but it was a proposition based on ignorance. We know much more now about genetics, recombination & epigenetic factors. We now know there is no free lunch in nature and that even a rare mutation which could be called beneficial & which gives a creature a functional advantage, comes with a cost. John Sanford Genetic Entropy.
@benthemiester You can ignore organisms altogether. Almost all proteins have a common ancestor. Trying to deny this leads to a ridiculous position. Understanding this leads to a simple and elegant truth.
You have the right to believe what you wish or to even call others who dont share your faith ridicules, but u have know way of knowing that all proteins share a common ancestor. Even hardcore evolutionist Massimo Pigliucci doesn't even make the claim that there is empirical evidence for this. Belief without empirical evidence is faith. We dont even know how the first protein formed. Homochirality is still a great mystery even today.
@benthemiester If you could think as swiftly as you can post replies...
There is no such thing as a hardcore evolutionist... There are superstitious people and non-supersticious ones, that's all there is, it's the one division in this world.
By yours and your clique's standards there is no way to demonstrate anything ever, so what is your point?
Now, what you're gonna do when they repeat enough experiments and somehow demonstrate it to you, go on a killing spree at the mall? I want to know.
@heloizyjhenifer "Well, considering his results aren't even much surprising and the fact that many similar results have been observed, I wouldn't lose my sleep over it"
I urge you to read the study. In their own words, they were very surprised.
I dont see how you could fail to read the paper then demand 'underlying data' wihtout realising underlying data in this case would be actual samples and things. Did he expect Lenski to send bacterium sample through the mail? And Andy would need to carry out the experiment himself to actually observe the findings("underlying data") for himself. I have only a high school level science education, didnt read the paper and yet all this is obvious to me. Yet this guy is meant to be teacher and scholar
Am I the only one who can't get onto Conservapedia at the moment? Bugs me that i can't get my daily fix of feeling intellectually superior to whoever wrote it...
Schlafly and his anti-science ilk are hilarious, in a pathetic way. They'll deride science, its methods, and its practitioners. But they're perfectly happy to take advantage of its benefits - computers, internet, vaccines developed using the "fake & wrong" evolutionary theory - because it suits them.
I went to Consevapedia. They provide absolutely NO evidence to back up their claims. All of the links in their articles lead to other articles...of Conservapedia!
I saw an article on Conservapedia that claims that homosexuals experience more disease and mental illness than any other group. If you're going to make a claim like that, fine, but provide some statistics to back it up. If you can't, shut the fuck up!
@MichaelVoz atheism pages is one of the best... they actually say "Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of evidence, atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology." I loled big,,, it seems that they want to bring the Dark Ages again...
Imagine, instead of studying scientific books on your biology class u were studying the bible...
"Now the origin of the universe... well it was created like 10000 years ago and animals popped out of thin air"
I find Conservapedia offensive and insulting to all intelligence and rationality. I would be much MORE offended by it if I were conservative. I'd be fucking pissed at them for misrepresenting my side and making me look like a retard.
Conservapedia: All the stupid, twice the trolling, thrice the drama, and none of the obnoxious porn popups of Encyclopedia dramatica. Its what Port-80 wants to be, but with more space-jesus!
The only important difference between Andy Schlafly and the rest of the far-right wingnuts of the American Taliban is that Schlafly is too stupid to make the lunacy sound credible to the ignorant the way Palin, Beck and Coulter can.
It isn't enough that they believe something so obviously wrong but the way they go about it....They don't care about the truth and finding knowledge. They only care about brainwashing and tricking people to their way of thinking. Picking and chosing what facts suit them whilst ignoring others.
Debaters must hang.
Creationist ones should then be drawn and quartered.
@cleanhomer There are a few etymologies floating around on the Internet. As far as I can remember, one has to do with a typo in a game and it just caught on. I'm not sure of the veracity of this explanation myself, but one thing is certain: the "P" is definitely close to the "O" on QWERTY keyboards.
I just read the transcript of their e-mails. The conservative goon didn't even read the paper, yet he wants to refute the findings. What a piece of shit, breaking his own commandments.
I really can't blame conservatives for stuff like this. If I were a conservative, I'd want to change history and reality as well. Actual history and reality makes conservatives look backwards, intolerant and proud of it.
@kromed01: "The best part about this is that Andy honestly believes that he won this."
Parable time!
Andy excitedly rushes into a bowling alley, way late for his league bowling night. "Sorry I'm late, guys, but you won't beLIEVE what just happened! I just scored 300 POINTS in ONE GAME!!"
His buddies were initially annoyed at his being late, but on hearing this, they're excited for their pal. "REALLY!? WHERE!?"
Andy: "At the Putt-Putt® miniature golf down the street!!"
Lenski should give Schlafly everything, just for the entertainment value. Schlafly trying to make sense of Lenski's work would be like a group of chimps trying to figure out how to drive a car, except funnier.
Andy Schlafly disliked this video!
thordurinn 2 months ago
A bit more on Sanford's nonsense:
newtonsbinomiumDOTblogspotDOTcom/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-iDOThtml
newtonsbinomiumDOTblogspotDOTcom/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-iiDOThtml
Spillerix 2 months ago
For those, that question evolution because there is supposedly not enought time for evolution to occur:
There’s plenty of time for evolution
by Herbert S. Wilf and Warren J. Ewens
arxivDOTorg/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1010/1010.5178v1DOTpdf
Spillerix 2 months ago
Embarrassing fact: Engineers are conservatives. They are conservatives waiting for an opportunity to attack science.
joe9320 3 months ago
@joe9320 That is not true.. At most you can say. Many entineers are conservatives.. Be careful with generalizations
balhoto 3 months ago
Lenski should have sent a sample of the bacteria to Schlafly along with instructions to spread the contents of the container liberally on toast.
Always remember kids that freedom of speech gives the freedom to lie, misrepresent, withhold critical information, and slander people. Try to see though the BS as best you can.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
Now, I'm going to go to Conservapedia and see if there's an article about this there. If there is, I'm sure it's going to be something to see.
TheCeejReturns 5 months ago
@TheCeejReturns
Well, I was wrong. It was pretty damn boring. Not something I'd expect from a blatant factual error.
TheCeejReturns 5 months ago
Oh Andy, strains of Escherichia coli exist in the human intestinal track. If you want a sample of the raw materials used in the research, you're invited to play with your shit!
Honestly though, this is ridiculous. Saying that a paper is flawed and fraudulent when you haven't read the fucking thing is just so stupid it makes me genuinely afraid for the children that main educates. Can't we use this man as an example in a Supreme Court case to call homeschooling cruel and unusual punishment?
FrostbittenWolf 6 months ago
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
Lenski used tens of trillions of E Coli, what's the fuss all about?
The great achievement of Lenski was the demonstration that evolution is impossible without trillions of specimens, so, obviously, mammalian never evolved.
I think that Lenski's experiments can be safely used by Christians.
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how 12 beakers containing roughly homogeneous bacteria relate to populations of heterogeneous organisms spread over vast areas of land evolve over time. What Lenski's experiment demonstrated is how even among populations of virtually identical organisms in a controlled environment, major evolutionary changes can occur in relatively small spaces of time.
Also, since when is Christianity as a whole at odds with evolution?
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Since the average de novo mutations is 175 per newborn and since 14% of mutations are slightly deleterious such that they segregate in the population thus proving the fact of DEvolution, with Lenski's results we now have experimental grounds for the rarity of beneficial mutations.
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." One in a trillion? EXCELLENT!
/watch?v=Cbn-Qkb7oxU
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses They actually expressed many, many genetic adaptations in their various populations over time. It's just that the ability to metabolize citrate was a very profound mutation and incredibly beneficial to them, whereas the other mutations were more minor, such as having larger cell bodies and being more strongly adapted for subsisting off of glucose.
If you look at the paper, the colonies all over time become better adapted to their environments, albeit at different rates.
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Also, there is no such thing as "de-evolution". It's a nonsense word. Evolution is change in heritable characteristics in a population over time. That's it. There is no force driving them to be good or bad at this or that.
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard If the genome is accumulating deleterious mutations each generation, then we can call it retrograde evolution or "DEvolution"... Or you can call it Javadebooba, fact is that we all have aprox. 175 de novo mutations (that none of our parents had), and since arround 14% of mutations are slightly deleterious such that they segregate in the population, human genomic fitness can only go DOWN, ergo: devolution :-)
PS: Ad hoc junk DNA doesn't solve the problem
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Deevolution is not a scientific term and the definition you have chosen to give it is similarly nonscientific. A harmful mutation is a harmful mutation. There is no call for using science fiction terminology to describe its effect as if organisms were on some sort of sliding scale, where they can become more fit and "evolve" or become less fit and "deevolve".
Anyway, I have to say I'm not entirely surprised the word "deevolution" is in your vocab. after your earlier comments.
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard No, the rate of slightly deleterious mutations has been stimated by Williamson et.al. (2005) and confirmed by Lynch et.al. (2006), it's arround 14%, this is no fictional jargon but factual terminology that describes the effect of mutations according to their fitness effect
Now, the human rate of mutation has been measured tru 13 generations in China and the results were arround 100-200 new mutations per human dyploid.
Indeed, human evolution was always impossible ;-)
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses You don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. "Deevolution" isn't a thing. It's a layperson's confused word for genetic change which isn't apparently beneficial.
The fact that you don't realize that is hardly a surprise though. I wouldn't imagine a creationist would know much about actual science. It's abso-fucking-lutely hilarious that you people could take Lenski's work and see it as a victory for creationism though. The kind of mental gymnastics you people do is amazing.
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard It's funny how you stick to the label (devolution or javadebooba) instead to the facts n_n
Why is Lenski LTEE a success? cuz he proved that it takes tens of trillions of specimens to develop some beneficial mutations, and now we have experimental grounds for the improbability of such one-in-a-billion mutations.
In the human case, that rate helps nothing to stop the accumulation of 175 mutations per generation in our genome.
Name-calling would do nothing to rescue evolution ;)
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses RE:"Name-calling would do nothing to rescue evolution ;)"
Evolution needs no rescue from the likes of you. Evolution is doing just fine despite 150 years of people such as yourself (but smarter) to discredit and disprove it. You'll continue with the humorous attempts though I'm sure.
RE:"Indeed, human evolution was always impossible ;-)"
What is your alternative explanation for the appearance of common descent? Let me guess - William Demski, Micheal Behe, and God.
Ansonidak 4 months ago 2
@IloveYOUviruses
"In the human case, that rate helps nothing to stop the accumulation of 175 mutations per generation in our genome." Er, well, if we were vastly more complex than E. Coli, from genetics to epigenetics, then there would be no problem in doing this. Also, I'm sure you are aware that E. Coli are asexual. If you understood evolutionary biology, you would understand the naivety of your point.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 Hi, first, I'm gonna ignore your comment on E Coli being more complex than us and I'll take it as an error of yours, specially since you are aware of our reproductive system, that said, I have to tell you to be very careful on how you deal with the posibilities of sexual reproduction, cuz it seems that you have a very biased view here; sure, recombination can merge beneficial alleles, but it also increases the odds for it to dissappear, you have to see it from every perspective.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Er, I said if humans are more complex than E.Coli, then... We are more complex, so...
No error.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Me biased? Ha! We have a mechanism that has been empirically observed across species including our own. The mechanism also fits like a jigsaw with all other scientific disciplines. We have a situation where some people claim, based on certain modelling from certain scenarios, that there was not enough time for humans to evolve as they have. Rather than look more closely at the scenarios and modelling to see if they are faulty, or posit some hidden or unknown variables...
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses ... you posit a God to come in and magic an evolved homo sapiens. How does that fit in with the developmental fossil record (Ardi ect)? With known human genetic evolution now? You are calling me viased? How is your theory testable, scientific, empirically observable? How is it NOT ad hoc? What about Ockham's Razor? Don't you dare accuse me of being biased, here, dude!!! When you provide a more PLAUSIBLE explanation backed up with QUALITY evidence, then I will look into it.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses How does your theory explain endogenous retroviruses. Because evolution does it successfully and seemlessly. No other theory adequately explains ER and the concluded common ancestry.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 Would you accept if I ignore for now your claims in the unobservable evolutionary story? I rather stick to hard facts to evaluate if evolution was possible or not. As a personal note, I hate speculations stated as facts and I'm trying my best here to tolerate your appeal to unobserved evolutionary speculations.
We will deal with evo stories only if modern genetics and OBSERVATIONS allow us to conclude that genetic development is possible in the timeframe given by the current paradigm.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Is that entirely fair if it IS a process which takes that much time? Also, there are many facts that you take without observation. Scientists take certain cosmological facts as extrapolated theoretical physics. Do you take the bible as fact without observing it? Observations allow us to extrapolate. we have observed microevolution. There is no such thing as macroevolution. It is just 'microevolution' happening over time.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) back to topic, I am NOT "claiming we have 50% less chance of inheriting a trait"
I claim that NEW traits have a 50% chance of dissapearing in sexual beings due to an "unfortunate" crossover, this seems evident by the very nature of the process. (u r smart dude, I can't believe we are still on this)
I deny natural evolution for two main reasons:
- the accumulation of VSD mutations
- the insane ammount of specimens required to develop a new trait
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses You dent evolution at all? Even denying Lenski's data in totality? The Italian Wall lizard? As for VSDMs, they don't give biologists too much of a headache. In fact, our society now is quite good at selecting people in with VSDMs such is our compassion (and issues of defining deletrious are prevalent here). What I find amazing here is your propensity to throw the baby out with the bath water. All the MASSES of evidence for evolution and you thrown it all out in favour of what?
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 LOL excuse me but I have to laugh here hahahaha
flashnews! VSDMs ARE a health risk (PNAS January 19, 2010 vol. 107 no. 3 961-968)
From the fact that VSDMs are present in every human embryo, we can extrapolate that our genome is only going down, this is undeniable dude.
You say "MASSES" of evidence, but certainly, nothing is greater than OBSERVABLE evidence, the rest could be faulty speculation and wishful thinking on untestable historical evidence.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses VDSMs are difficult to define. If we continue to reproduce whilst carrying them, then they are arguably not VDSMs. Eg a person with a congenital disability still reproducing calls into question whether the disability was actually deleterious. Some 796–837 deleterious mutations exist per individual - about 15% of mutations. "However, many deleterious mutations persist for hundreds of generations or more before they are removed...
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 "The fact that you are arguing mutation rates and suchlike implicitly accepts the mechanisms of evolution!!"
tehehe this is clearly not your strength, we can talk about mutation rates because we SEE them happening, we know about deleterious mutations bcuz we can measure their effects in the lab
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Eh? Could you tell me what use genes, alleles, DNA, RNA, mutations have and what mechanism they are part of?
johnnyp76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnyp76 "Could you tell me what use genes, alleles, DNA, RNA, mutations have and what mechanism they are part of?"
Er...That's basic biology, why are you asking that? you could research on the internet, there are excellent podcast here on YT. What if I came to you with such basic questions?
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 I take the definition of VSDM from population genetics in which 99,9999% of mutations have a negative fitness effect, that's theoretical stimates but if you want experimental results, here they are: Science 5 November 2010: 825-827.
I quote just in case google fails:
"The obtained DFE appears to be unimodal, where most mutations (120 out of 126) are weakly deleterious and the remaining ones are potentially neutral. The DFEs for synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions are similar.."
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses 99.9% - not what I've read. Nachman and Crowell (who xtians love to quote): "This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (KONDRASHOV 1995 ; CROW 1997 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the ...
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses ...population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely." Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000. Or see Subramanian "the effects of new mutations at those amino acid positions may not necessarily be deleterious and might even result in reversion to benign phenotypes"
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 1) "may not necessarily be deleterious and might even result in reversion to benign phenotypes." Aside from the fact that they are refering to an improbable event (reversion), If you read carefully, the posibility of reverse mutations is only present bcuz our genome is already screwed up with several deleterious mutations... but it seems you will never pay attention to that.
To me, it's remarkable the way you want to hold that the genome doesn't deteriorate.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) ok, ++epistatis aiding natural selection was a good call, however, if you think about it, it only has effect when mutations have accumulated tru several generations, this eliminates the most damaged gene pools, while the rest of the population keeps accumulating denovo mutations simply bcuz meiosis isn't perfect. That said, any type of selection would fail bcuz the survivors would still have HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of accumulated mutations.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses explanatory power and scope. What explains ALL the data better? What function do all of these mechanisms have if not for evolutionary theories? How is your theory not ad hoc? If Goddidit is your theory in place of this, how is this BETTER and MORE PLAUSIBLY EVIDENCED than evolution. If your negative arguments have any purchase, why have all evolutionary geneticists not given up? If science gave up at the stage you implore, no scientific theory would EVER get off the ground.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses If you believe we have such a disastrous genetic load, why aren't we all dying. Sod evolution, what about the now? We don't know the positive effect of epistasis, synergistic spistasis or epigenetics, soft selection, hitchiking etc. What I find hilarious is that, at this one perceived problem, you jettison all of the positive evidence for evolution. You have a neagtive methodology, but wht do you put in its place? Go on, tell me. What is your more plausible theory based on..
johnnyp76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnyp76 "If you believe we have such a disastrous genetic load, why aren't we all dying."
Simple, that's because according to both theoretical predictions made by Kimura (and his field), and experimental results in man-made point mutations, the vast majority of mutations have a very small impact on fitness, allowing the host to reproduce while mutations keep scrambling the genome more and more each generation. We are a vivid example of that.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) I didn't "jettison" anything, epistatic effects happen but can't prevent us from accumulating more mutations every generation
This is the third time you try to put words in my mouth with Godidit, I acknowledge it is a belief about past events but you don't have to blame me bcuz evolution seems impossible with all our mutational load. Your response was absurd, think about it, just bcuz the impossibility of evolution necesarily means Godidit to you, therefore human evolution is true?
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Ok, if you don't think Goddidit, what is your more plausible mechanism / explanation for ALL the evidence. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right. Now explain ALL that positive evidence for evolution with a better, more plausible, more explanatorily viable option. I am interested to see what the competing theory is and how is it better. How does it explain: ERVs, biogeography, fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, observed hybridisation, speciation etc?
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 I don't know why you have reading problems, I mean, you are not a childish anti-theist nor an layman, so, why are you asking if I "admit [fast breeding] animal evolution"?
I've already said that "the evidence is insufficient to get on that boat."
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Don't ad hom like a child. I am trying to decipher exactly what type of evolution, if any, you actually admit exists (given observational data).
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) Also, what made you think that I reject the design hypothesis? I acknowledge it as a personal belief (read carefully please) that is compatible with a wide range of methods, from Miller's and Collin's explanations, to intervention, to an special or progressive creation.
all I've done is presenting my reasons to reject a naturalistic genesis for those species that accumulate more and more mutations every generation, including us, for the rest of the genomes, I honestly don't know.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Er, i haven't said you reject the design hypothesis. i have said the polar opposite - that you reject ALL the evidence for evolution and posit something far less viable, less observationally evidenced, less explanatorily powerful, involving more ad hoc suppositions etc etc. In sum, it's ridiculous that you throw evolution out of the window for something much poorer as an explanation.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) This reaction of yours makes wonder if you have mental problems that keep you from understanding that other ppl can easily handle doubts and gaps in their knowledge.
My position is very simple, the past is gone and unobservable by definition, I cannot offer you an arrogant claim saying: "this is how things happened", but truly, we can use experimental data to falsify some models, the whole dialogue has been about that!
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Wow, another mature ad hom. And hypocritical. You are saying that you can easily handle gaps in your knowledge, and yet reject evolution based on a lack of knowledge about an aspect of it. Hilarious double standards. You see, on this methodology, you would have rejected Planck's Law at the Balfour Stewart stage, or relativity when the maths wasn't understood. You should also reject the God hypothesis because you don't know the exact reasons why all the suffering exists.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 "yet reject evolution based on a lack of knowledge about an aspect of it"
Dude.. dude... It's not just an "aspect", we are talking of experimental data! If today's observations say that larger slow breeding genomes are accumulating mutations, then one is NOT justified to make evolutionary speculations about an unobserved past, the way you want to give precedence to untestable claims is just shocking, heh, and you dare to talk about hypocrisy.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 "You have a selective approach to what knowledge you CAN get away with not understanding fully yet"
Excellent point, but your position is invalid, you are one of those who require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, yet, here you believe that the accumulation of denovo mutations is somehow prevented by an unknown method, heh what a claim!
What I find worst, you are willing to acknowledge beneficial mutations while you are denying the deleterious effects of most mutations.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 On the other hand you criticize me for taking a more skeptic position, as I told you I won't mess with past unobserved affairs unless we deal with present ones, an for now, all we know is that mutations are mostly slightly deleterious and that they develop in every large mammal. To believe that a population FULL of mutants can be genetically purified is totally absurd, it seems to me that intelligent input was necesary for us to be here, and I'll be glad to admit it is an speculation.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses This is DIAMOND! So, your alternate theory, which you haven't really spelled out, er, I was wondering, is it an 'observed past'? Repeatable and testable? How can this be 'dealing with present ones'? Hmmm, double standards. Can you QED prove to me that VSDMs disprove evolution? Because there don't seem to be any evolutionary geneticists who think so. Many geneticists adhere to mitigating factors. You still haven't answered the fact that you thrown the baby out with the bath water
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 You have clear the idea that I cannot offer you a testable and repeateble theory about the past, it seems that you finally understood that 'repreatable past' it's an oxymoron.
Now, if the onmiprescence of denovo mutations doesn't disprove evolution to you, then nothing will
You are willing to deny the deleterious nature of most mutations and you are willing to go believe that a population full of mutants can be purified.
Sorry doc, my aim was not convincing you, only know your mind.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 *erratum here*
*You are free to deny the deleterious nature of most mutations and you are free to believe that a population full of mutants can be purified.
Sorry doc, my aim was not convincing you, only know your mind.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses It's not so much the mutation rate, but the fixation rate. "This behavior is largely due to the exponential decline in the fixation rate of a deleterious mutation with increasing K.[population carrying capacity]" (Lynch et al) Population size is seemingly very important. Fixation of beneficial mutations is much more likely even if the frequency of mutation is not (for obvious natural selection reasons).
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses It seems you are sounding very close to John Sanford's Genetic Entropy stance as set out in his book. His book has been roundly criticised by peopl ein the know. The best critique is on the Letters to Creationists blog under 'STAN 4'. Chapter by chapter refutation. "The errors in Genetic Entropy [24] are so pervasive that it might take a whole new book to fully expose them." Terrible stuff, according to the experts (and I have spoken directly to a few about it).
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 1) Altough I don't agree 100% with Dr Sanford, the basis of my argument can be traced to his book.
oh, btw, the STAN4 isn't even a good critique, it focuses it's case in bacterial populations ignoring Sanford's clear statements on how bacterial populations can be saved from genetic deterioration due to their smaller genomes, huge populations and hyper fertility.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) Fixation rates it's an excellent point.
I never claimed that ALL VSDM would reach fixation, statistically, most of them would be lost due to random genetic drift, I expect it to be self evident since there are more mutations with every newborn, and inevitably some mutations will reach fixation (cuz most mutations fall in Kimura's no-selection box and are subject to genetic drift). This is the case for every generation, with more are more damages accumulating in the genome.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) since you are aware that most new traits (frequency=1) will be lost by drift, you must also recognize that this is a problem for good mutations.
Like deleterious mutations, most beneficial muts have a "very slight" effect, and therefore are subject to the same careless random drift, this means that you'd require 10k-30k trials (in the typical ape population) for one of them to reach fixation.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses This is the point of Lenski's work. In organisms with less frequent mutations, for twelve out of twelve populations, a significant increase in fitness was observed. Whatever was the percentage of beneficial mutations, they were numerous and effective enough to drive the evolution of each of the experimental populations to improved fitness. This is empirically evidenced. Margaglione et al, Groenemeijer et al, Galton et al, Mikkola et al etc = evidenced human beneficial mutations
johnnyp76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnyp76 "even microbial populations should be subject to mutational meltdown"
sigh... please, think again, one main point of my argument is that human embryos always have >100 more mutations than their parents; bacterias, due to their smaller genome, rarely have with new mutations and therefore they are not subject to accumulation of mutations. Honestly doc, this response was absurd.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) If a bacterial population of billions of specimens per generation surveys every point, dual and more combinatory mutations, is it surprising to find some beneficial mutations after 50k generations?
Is it not clear that every human beings has 100+ denovo mutations while only 1 out of 1000 E Coli will be mutant?
You can't see the difference do you?
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses "If all the problems ((a)-(h) above) with natural selection were as dire as Sanford claims, even microbial populations should be subject to mutational meltdown, though perhaps at a lower rate per generation than other life-forms. Microbial life-spans can be days, rather than decades. If the buildup of deleterious mutations were a real phenomenon, it would become apparent over thousands of generations in laboratory flasks of bacteria. Indeed, asexual populations like bacteria ...
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses ... be even more vulnerable to the buildup of deleterious mutations, since they would have less opportunity to reshuffle genes to help weed out the bad ones. If Sanford’s thesis were correct, we might expect an initial bump up in fitness as the bacteria adapted to some new conditions, followed by a reversion to a secular decline in fitness as the supposedly relentless accumulation of deleterious mutations proceeded...
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses ...In fact, the Lenski long-term E. coli experiment shows the contrary: an initially rapid increase in fitness, followed by a long plateau of stable or slightly increasing fitness for over 35,000 generations [46]. This demonstrates that Sanford is wrong." You are simply wrong on observable evidence!
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) heh, and what a spin, after you were saying that the vast amount of specimens required for the LTEE couldn't be extrapolated to humans... here you are extrapolating their fitness increase to a population diametrically different: mammalians.
Again, if I were you, I'd re-evaluate my beliefs about the past.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 4) If you go on wishful mode, there are big problems for significant good mutations too, for they will be eliminated most of the time depending on their fitness increase. Remember we are talking about one nucleotide among 3 billion.
For example, IF the new trait is in a dominant allele and IF it has a fitness effect of 1%, the dreamed mutation has a 99% chance of being lost.
Meanwhile, every embryo inherits 100 mutations more.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses I've re-read the STAN 4 piece and it completely whitewashes your argument. Utterly.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Look, in nature, the mechanisms of selection remove bad mutations at the same rate as they arise (on average). The mechanisms of natural selection are: death and infertility. It is only now that we have bypassed these restrictions. Modern medicine does, arguably, mean that we are degrading the genome. But historically, that has not been the case. Nature takes over.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses You have a selective approach to what knowledge you CAN get away with not understanding fully yet, and what you can't. Thus the notion that may be any number of hidden variables or mitigating factors wrt VSDMs which harmonise it with evolution seems beyond you (if they DO cause such a problem, as you claim). Evolutionary biologists / geneticists don't have a problem. There is loads of literature on this. perhaps a less 'design' survey of the literature would be fairer!
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 4) about other speculative lines of evidence, I've already told you, "ERVs" are being found to be functional, then, what about orthology? but then again, gene trees have widespread discordancy, so this line of evidence is also dubious, and comparing animals to imagine family trees is obviously not science, that's why I encourage you to consider testable and observable evidence like mutation rates or the distribution of fitness effects of mutations.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Gene tree discordancy is not a problem - loads of literature on this (Degnan, etc). Simply put, GTD provides no issues for ERVs. Weak. ERVs prove phylogenic connection rather than discordance disproving ERVs or similar.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
Comment removed
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnyp76 5) Now, just for curiosity, assuming that the high rate of mutations in every human embryo falsifies human evolution, would you still believe we came here by naturalistic evolution?
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) "Even if VSDM rates are problematic, is it warranted to throw the whole theory out in favour of Goddidit"
:D you finally get it! the answer is NO, the fact that particular genomes (from animals with low fertility and high mutation rates) couldn't have possibly evolved doesn't necesarily means that other faster breeding species couldn't have evolved, for them, the room is still open for evolutionary beliefs. Altough, the evidence is insufficient to get on that boat.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses So you admit to animal evolution but special plead against human evolution?
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Your methodology is PROPERLY LAUGHABLE. Even if VSDM rates are problematic, is it warranted to throw the whole theory out in favour of Goddidit, instead of looking at whether it can be reconciled? Epigenetics is a nascent discipline, yet in your methodology, we ditch it before we know anything about it because there are too many VSDMs! Quick, abandon ship, everyone give up evolution because this man has a slight problem with one small aspect of it! And replace it with God magic!
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) After all your attempts to dismiss the obvious effects of 100+ denovo mutations per human embryo, if I were you, I'd start to re-evaluate my beliefs about the past ;)
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 btw, I'm only dealing with point mutations, the most frequent and better studied.
Now you want to appeal to the fact that in some cases, some point mutations may result beneficial, tehehe.. talk about wishful thinking, hey, in rare rare cases, beneficial mutations are possible, but we are not talking of a few denovo mutations, but over a hundred per human embryo, are you really gonna believe that they harm nothing?
Gonna believe they don't accumulate tru the generations?
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 you also said:
"If we continue to reproduce whilst carrying them, then they are arguably not VDSMs"
this is astonishing, professor, with all due respect, are you pressupossing the human genome evolved? or you just ignore the meaning of "VERY SLIGHTLY"?
read Lynch's paper, we can carry VSDM without any inmediate effect, it's only the accumulative effect that will ultimately kill us.
Do some reality check, you may be in the wrong lane.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses You miss the point on defining VSDM: "mutations that would be deleterious in one environment might be highly advantageous in another (streptomycin dependance in many bacteria). In fact, the environment greatly defines the value of how deleterious it is. I can only see the fully lethal mutations being easy to identify. Add to that the problem of definition of mutation: point mutations? insertions/deletions? of how many nucleotides? it is more complicated ... to estimate."
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 VSDMs are not too difficult to define, not in population genetics, they are simply the mutations with negative effect in the near neutral zone, technically there are discrepancies on where to put the range in the fitness axis, but from Kimura to contemporary genetics, we know that most mutations are VSD, that said, not all of the denovo VSDM in human embryos reach fixation, but since every embryo develops >100 denovo mutations, the fixation and accumulation of VSDMs is inevitable.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
Respond to this video... ...since their effects are largely masked in the heterozygous state (Simmons and Crow 1977)." There are lots of implications for VSDMs: "But for slightly deleterious alleles, the story is very different. The longer such an allele exists in a population, competing with its normal counterparts, the less likely it is to survive." Of course, the fact that you are arguing mutation rates and suchlike implicitly accepts the mechanisms of evolution!!
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 Isn't it worse to ignore the observations made in genetics and the LTEE?
We've measured the effects of point mutations, most of them: slightly deleterious, they don't affect too much the fitness but once they accumulate, they slowly kill us
We've measured mutation rates in several mammalians, they are beyond the dozens
We've seen the insane amount of speciments required to develop one single EColi strain, and it leaves human evolution as absurd.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses ... An ad hoc non-mechanistic explanation that does nothing to explain all that MASSES of evidence. Why not see if your 2 issues are resolvable? How do you know they won't be resolvable? If every scientist gave up at the first hurdle, no science would get done. That seems to be your approach. Why? Would it be a presuppositional bias for sdisbelieving evolution? I am amazed you would so easily give it all up for something less explanatorily viable!!!!
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 Keeping it simple, How on earth can you believe that humans naturally developed all their specific traits (from an hypothetical chimp's MRCA) within 300k generations, effective pop size of 10k and fertility rates of 4-8?
Lenski invested trillions of specimens, 30k generations, and he only achieved a new strain (other adaptions maybe but only one new trait).
From every perspective, neo-darwinism cannot explain our spectacular genetic gallery.
It's about observations dude, observations.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) I'm well aware that by the 15k generation, the populations had explored all possible point mutations and several dual mutations, am also aware of the fitness increase by some of those mutations, I don't deal with that bcuz that still leaves an open door for speculations, rather, I inmediatly address the result that could be argued as containing new information in order to extrapolate it for larger mammalians, with a certain degree of variation (for the reasons you have mentioned)
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 4) I find it dissapointing that you are retreating from the observations to an appeal to unobservable inheritance, if I were you I'd start to question myself why the large populations Lenski used contradict an evolutionary model for hominids with vastly lower population size, lower fertility rates, genetic crossover that may obliterate new good alleles, and a lot of traits to develop in relatively just a few generation.
Given Lenski's experiment, human evolution is truly impossible.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses "The most important thing about sexual reproduction is its ability to switch around successful genes. If it is beneficial to an organism's survival to be both tall and have blue eyes, a short, blue-eyed parent and a tall, browneyed parent can get together and stand a good chance of producing off-spring with both characteristics. If they reproduced asexually, a short, blue-eyed parent would have to wait around for a height-inducing genetic mutation to change height and eye color.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) I expect u to have some background knowledge about the process, but if you want further explanations, feel are free to ask.
About your comment on mutation rates, we don't infer that from evolutionary models anymore, we now have experimental data on that and it turns out to be from dozens to hundreds in mammalians, we have also measured their effects and are as Kimura predicted: very slightly deleterious, fact is, slightly bad mutations do accumulate in higher genomes.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses And because mutations, which are basically genetic mistakes, tend to cause bad effects, the mutation rate in most organisms is exceedingly slow. While it would take only a generation for sexually-reproducing parents to beget tall offspring with blue eyes, it might take an asexually-reproducing parent hundreds or thousands of generations!"
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) back to your objection to my comment:
"In the human case, that rate [Lenski's experimental beneficial to deleterious ratio] helps nothing to stop the accumulation of 175 mutations per generation in our genome." -me
Hey buddy, were you really trying to dismiss the insane ammount of bacterias required to obtain one dubious example of new information by saying that sexual reproduction will help a hundred thousand monkeys to evolve?
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses My point is evolution from natural selection through sexual reproduction is at a faster rate then from asexual reproduction (per generation). Therefore, you are building up a poor straw man argument for mutation rates by comparing human, sexually reproductive, to E. Coli, asexually reproductive. Humans undergo 64-175 mutations in each zygote.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 I appreciate you made your point explicit, but I think you are going way too fast in calling my contention as an "straw man", shouldn't you explore my repply to your comment? I think you should, specially since we are only starting the conversation.
Well, you touched a very important issue here, namely, the difference in reproductive systems, I think the issue is a dead end for both cuz sex has both pros and cons for spreading those one-in-a-trillion beneficial mutations
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) And again, have you considered the scenario in which that rare beneficial mutation dissapears in a crossover? while a good new trait has 100% possibilities to be inherited in an asexual organism, sexual rep. have a 50/50 probability of obliterating a beneficial gametic mutation.
Now, it's amazing how you are eager to see how one improbable beneficial mutation would reach fixation, yet, are not willing to see the fixation of deleterious mutations present in every single human embryo
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses " while a good new trait has 100% possibilities to be inherited in an asexual organism, sexual rep. have a 50/50 probability of obliterating a beneficial gametic mutation." Hugely more genes, two genotypes feeding into the blueprint. eg 50% of 1000 is higher than 100% of 5. "Organisms that reproduce sexually yield a smaller number of offspring, but the large amount of variation in their genes makes them less susceptible to disease."
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 4) In other words:
Lenski experiment invested triliions of specimens within >30k generations, to develop one dubious new trait (that may involve new genetic information), do you really think you can ignore this experimental data for an species with an effective pop size of 10k, generation time of 20 years and fertility rate between 1 and 4?
Sorry for flooding the conversation but your attempts to dismiss the problems for mammalian evolution are just shocking.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses What? Lenski concentrated on one particular trait which was born of some particular mutations, because it was a paradigm shift. However, "the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations."!!! Get your facts right. There were millions of mutations. Each population had 10-20 fixed beneficial mutations (with a load more neutral and deleterious ones...
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) there's another fundamental problem with your particular scenario (tall and blue-eyed crossover), it requires two beneficial traits developed in very close generations (otherwise you'd cross a new allele with an already fixed allele, totally pointless) but after seing Lenski investing 20 years and trillions of E Coli within 30k generations just to get ONE good new trait, your scenario is -with all due respect- a laughable fantasy.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Citrate trait was not the only evolved trait. You also don't get the stats. E. Coli have only 4400 genes. Humans some 30,000. Which means the combinatorial maths for phenotype is staggeringly more complex. Put that together with epigenetic complexity and the vastly superior process of sexual reproduction for change through mutation, and we have a very different picture for humans. You ARE building a straw man because you are infer stats from EColi and transfer them onto humans.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 Oh so that's your reason to call it an straw man, well I think it fails, here is why, you can't criticize me for using experimental, observable data when you have zero data concerning the development of new traits in mammalians, so, again we see another case where your bias blinds you, be honest and you'll see that you are relying on wishful thinking, hoping that sexual reproduction will aid an species with far lower fertility rates and effective population size
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Of course it is. That's a text book straw man. You have clearly taken experimental statistical data from E. Coli and then applied to it humans. Humans have a far more complex genotype, reproduce entirely differently and so on. Of course it's a straw man. If you think all the evolutionary biologists and geneticists are too foolish to see this, and that you (a random bloke on YT) are utterly right, then you are mischaracterising these scientists.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 2) And here's why I think your reasoning is wishful thinking: you are again relying on a miraculous crossover and hitchhiking, the former failed for the fundamental problem I previously pointed out (the occurance of new traits in close generations and the same bloodline is ridiculous) and the latter suffers not only the same problem but also has an infinitesimal probability of happening in higher genomes.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses We have mapped out the evolution of cephalopods as determined by the disciplines of paleontology, comparative embryology, and molecular phylogenetics. etc. To suggest that we do not adhere to these same processes is simply special pleading for homo sapiens. The BBC's Horizon program 'Are we still evolving?' (we are) was a good watch, showing how the Nepalese have evolved thicker and twistier capillaries in order to make use of a larger percentage of oxygen that they inhale.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Harpending and his team identified more than 10,000 selection events (i.e., stretches of DNA bearing the marks of natural selection) that seem to have taken place in the past 80,000 years of human history. Interestingly, the researchers found that most of these selection events traced to the recent past, with the largest numbers having arisen in the last 10,000 years.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 Judging by these results, human evolution seems to have sped up: small numbers of beneficial mutations spread through human populations for most of our history, but since the end of the last ice age, we've experienced a renaissance of evolutionary innovation in which many new advantageous mutations arose and began to spread.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@johnnyp76 3) the fact that you are unable to criticize yourself before writing, makes me think you are blinded by your bias, here are some of the things you were unable to see:
how asexual reproduction garantees the inheritance of good new traits
EColi higher fertility rates grants it for sure
Dude, do you honestly think the trillions of trials E Coli had to develop the Cit+ strand can be ignored in the mammalian case by simply invoquing sexual reproduction? please answer this.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Er, you are claiming we have 50% less chance of inheriting a trait. We have 30,000 genes as opposed to 4,400 genes. Some 7 times more. The chance of the phenotype being affected by a genetic mutation is far higher, since genes are co-opted for more traits. Then take into account epigentics and other mechanisms, and we have a far higher propensity per generation to mutate. I thought you might have understood this. It is you who must be more critical. Dude.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Are you denying evolution, or denying it as a mechanism for explaining homo sapiens?
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses See John Hawks et al in the PNAS : "Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species." Comparing the amount of genetic differentiation between humans and our closest relatives, chimpanzees, suggests that the pace of change has accelerated to 10 to 100 times the average long-term rate. And that's stuff we can map accurately. Going further back, there are probably similar such influences.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Furthermore, there are other mechanism for evolution which need to be taken into account (gene flow, gene hitchhiking etc). We have also found several areas where epigenetic inheritance systems have been discovered at the organismic level.
johnnyp76 2 months ago
Comment removed
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
Conservapedia I love it. I do not have to think to make straw-men to bash anymore, i can just quote them. You see they making thinking pointless for everyone...oh wait...ack...ah...hmmm...yea. damn conservapedia
masluxx 7 months ago
You just edited an angry face on him! Liberal deceit!
patu8010 7 months ago
If I we're Lenski I'll give him a spinach salad laden with E. Coli masquerating as an invitation
pyrophobia133 8 months ago
By yours and your clique's standards there is no way to demonstrate anything ever, so what is your point?
If u think that empirical science which requires that something has to be observed, repeated, & falsify able is a ridicules point, then like I said more power to u, but it is not an opinion I share. I think empirical evidence is very important. I can only speak for myself. I dont belong to a clique. I thought we were speaking of science not politics. Last question was to foolish to answer.
benthemiester 9 months ago
You misspelt the word "owned".
SinnFein4ever 10 months ago
@SinnFein4ever Hi. welcome to the internet.
rounder421 9 months ago
I know this sounds harsh but unless lenskis experiment can be repeated, which could have easily been done with a double blind controlled sister experiment, it cannot be regarded a empirical. If something cant be repeated it cannot pass as empirical falsify able science.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Your misunderstanding lies in the fact that it "can be repeated" doesn't mean it has to be repeated. How many times you'll need it to be repeated? I bet a dozen or a hundred won't satisfy you anyway. It can be repeated, you are free to repeat it, it's all that is asked of Lenski as a scientist.
heloizyjhenifer 9 months ago
@heloizyjhenifer What do u mean by lies? Repeatability is a standard of empirical science, in contrast with historical science were things in nature cannot be repeated.
"can be repeated doesn't mean it has to be repeated".
This mindset quoted above requires faith, and again, I am speaking of empirical science. Its not enough to say its repeatable, it has to be demonstrated, and this could easily have been done with a double blind study in two different facilities by two different agents.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Is it up to the original researcher to do that? He has to fund the other guys or what? He doesn't just say it is repeatable, it is provably repeatable, if it wasn't it wouldn't be accepted as applied science, and it was, obviously.
Let's see, tell me how it is not repeatable? And tell me what the researcher did wrong. Tell me what he has to do now.
Verily, you have a problem you created yourself.
heloizyjhenifer 9 months ago
@heloizyjhenifer "Let's see, tell me how it is not repeatable? And tell me what the researcher did wrong. Tell me what he has to do now"
If you look at my thread I already answered the second question whether in past or present tense. As for first question, I never said it wasn't repeatable. My point is that it has not been repeated yet. When it has been, then that will answer your own question. Until this happens it is not. Its not that hard to understand.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Well, considering his results aren't even much surprising and the fact that many similar results have been observed, I wouldn't lose my sleep over it. Nobody serious doubts the fact that beneficial mutations occur, it's just inevitable.
heloizyjhenifer 9 months ago
@heloizyjhenifer "Nobody serious doubts the fact that beneficial mutations occur, it's just inevitable"
In an 1859 mindset this may have been an entertaining proposition, but it was a proposition based on ignorance. We know much more now about genetics, recombination & epigenetic factors. We now know there is no free lunch in nature and that even a rare mutation which could be called beneficial & which gives a creature a functional advantage, comes with a cost. John Sanford Genetic Entropy.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester You can ignore organisms altogether. Almost all proteins have a common ancestor. Trying to deny this leads to a ridiculous position. Understanding this leads to a simple and elegant truth.
heloizyjhenifer 9 months ago
@heloizyjhenifer "Almost all proteins have a common ancestor"
You have the right to believe what you wish or to even call others who dont share your faith ridicules, but u have know way of knowing that all proteins share a common ancestor. Even hardcore evolutionist Massimo Pigliucci doesn't even make the claim that there is empirical evidence for this. Belief without empirical evidence is faith. We dont even know how the first protein formed. Homochirality is still a great mystery even today.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester If you could think as swiftly as you can post replies...
There is no such thing as a hardcore evolutionist... There are superstitious people and non-supersticious ones, that's all there is, it's the one division in this world.
By yours and your clique's standards there is no way to demonstrate anything ever, so what is your point?
Now, what you're gonna do when they repeat enough experiments and somehow demonstrate it to you, go on a killing spree at the mall? I want to know.
heloizyjhenifer 9 months ago
@heloizyjhenifer we do have similar proteins that organisms in the kingdom plantae have >.< some are actually the same.. Sozzzz err....
YugoRokPhi 8 months ago
@YugoRokPhi What point are you addressing if it's one of mine?
heloizyjhenifer 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloizyjhenifer "Well, considering his results aren't even much surprising and the fact that many similar results have been observed, I wouldn't lose my sleep over it"
I urge you to read the study. In their own words, they were very surprised.
benthemiester 9 months ago
I dont see how you could fail to read the paper then demand 'underlying data' wihtout realising underlying data in this case would be actual samples and things. Did he expect Lenski to send bacterium sample through the mail? And Andy would need to carry out the experiment himself to actually observe the findings("underlying data") for himself. I have only a high school level science education, didnt read the paper and yet all this is obvious to me. Yet this guy is meant to be teacher and scholar
1982mockingbird1982 11 months ago
Am I the only one who can't get onto Conservapedia at the moment? Bugs me that i can't get my daily fix of feeling intellectually superior to whoever wrote it...
MeBeMat 1 year ago 2
Schlafly and his anti-science ilk are hilarious, in a pathetic way. They'll deride science, its methods, and its practitioners. But they're perfectly happy to take advantage of its benefits - computers, internet, vaccines developed using the "fake & wrong" evolutionary theory - because it suits them.
DrownedInExile 1 year ago
Lenski's responses to Assfly's petulant whitterings are made of 100% pure win!
Darkmind1970 1 year ago
I went to Consevapedia. They provide absolutely NO evidence to back up their claims. All of the links in their articles lead to other articles...of Conservapedia!
I saw an article on Conservapedia that claims that homosexuals experience more disease and mental illness than any other group. If you're going to make a claim like that, fine, but provide some statistics to back it up. If you can't, shut the fuck up!
MichaelVoz 1 year ago
@MichaelVoz atheism pages is one of the best... they actually say "Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of evidence, atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology." I loled big,,, it seems that they want to bring the Dark Ages again...
Imagine, instead of studying scientific books on your biology class u were studying the bible...
"Now the origin of the universe... well it was created like 10000 years ago and animals popped out of thin air"
championofgods 1 year ago 2
Conservatism, you scary !
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 year ago
Andy decided to go tell Daddy that Mr. Lenski was a bad, bad Scientist. He got bitch-slapped for being so fucking dumb.
Jayakiran1 1 year ago
I went onto Conservapedia... and I felt like killing myself.
Vahtacen 1 year ago 3
Awesome username, Futurama is the shit.
CENSOREDFORSEX 1 year ago
Damn you reality and your liberal bias!
HomoCyborgZombie 1 year ago
Conservapedia is just a site full of bullshit and ad hominim attacks.
SuperFeimer 1 year ago
I find Conservapedia offensive and insulting to all intelligence and rationality. I would be much MORE offended by it if I were conservative. I'd be fucking pissed at them for misrepresenting my side and making me look like a retard.
Megaritz 1 year ago
But I mean it, this man is an idiot without all the satire
melloncollieromance 1 year ago
Conservapedia: All the stupid, twice the trolling, thrice the drama, and none of the obnoxious porn popups of Encyclopedia dramatica. Its what Port-80 wants to be, but with more space-jesus!
MrShayneOneill 1 year ago
I seriously only found out today that Conservapedia wasn't a big joke website like uncyclopedia or encyclopedia drammatica.
supertrinko 1 year ago 8
The only important difference between Andy Schlafly and the rest of the far-right wingnuts of the American Taliban is that Schlafly is too stupid to make the lunacy sound credible to the ignorant the way Palin, Beck and Coulter can.
michael1618034 1 year ago
I just hate these people so much.
It isn't enough that they believe something so obviously wrong but the way they go about it....They don't care about the truth and finding knowledge. They only care about brainwashing and tricking people to their way of thinking. Picking and chosing what facts suit them whilst ignoring others.
Debaters must hang.
Creationist ones should then be drawn and quartered.
kakaze 1 year ago
What's next, "Crazipedia"?
Highlyskeptical 1 year ago
Conservapedia makes me lose faith in humanity.
AcanLord 1 year ago
Quick little question from an old man: why DO the kids today say "PWNED"?
cleanhomer 1 year ago
@cleanhomer There are a few etymologies floating around on the Internet. As far as I can remember, one has to do with a typo in a game and it just caught on. I'm not sure of the veracity of this explanation myself, but one thing is certain: the "P" is definitely close to the "O" on QWERTY keyboards.
roadkill5555556 1 year ago
I just read the transcript of their e-mails. The conservative goon didn't even read the paper, yet he wants to refute the findings. What a piece of shit, breaking his own commandments.
VesusSheist 1 year ago
There should be an authorianpedia.
palkiabros 1 year ago
I really can't blame conservatives for stuff like this. If I were a conservative, I'd want to change history and reality as well. Actual history and reality makes conservatives look backwards, intolerant and proud of it.
dougmanjones 1 year ago
cp vandalism pwns but vandalizing rationalwiki and wikipedia is funner though because the responsers
CheerleaderVandal 1 year ago
Great video
ManPunch900 1 year ago
The best part about this is that Andy honestly believes that he won this.
Poor deluded fool.
kromed01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kromed01: "The best part about this is that Andy honestly believes that he won this."
Parable time!
Andy excitedly rushes into a bowling alley, way late for his league bowling night. "Sorry I'm late, guys, but you won't beLIEVE what just happened! I just scored 300 POINTS in ONE GAME!!"
His buddies were initially annoyed at his being late, but on hearing this, they're excited for their pal. "REALLY!? WHERE!?"
Andy: "At the Putt-Putt® miniature golf down the street!!"
COMALiteJ 1 year ago
Lenski should give Schlafly everything, just for the entertainment value. Schlafly trying to make sense of Lenski's work would be like a group of chimps trying to figure out how to drive a car, except funnier.
JimmyFaust 1 year ago 3
Ever notice that the guys in the right tend to look better than the ones who are wrong? Doesn't mean anything...ju