Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Nature Proves Ape-To-Man Evolution Impossible

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 1:05:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.nature.com...

Summary:

The rate of beneficial mutations in viruses increases in proportion to how unfit they are. As the viruses' fitness approaches a certain point, the rate of beneficial mutations decreases toward random chance.

In other words, there is an equilibrium fitness level which viruses aim to maintain. At a certain fitness level, viruses do not get any fitter.

The article says that this matches what is seen in more complex animals as well.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 2:36:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:05:12 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

Summary:

The rate of beneficial mutations in viruses increases in proportion to how unfit they are. As the viruses' fitness approaches a certain point, the rate of beneficial mutations decreases toward random chance.

In other words, there is an equilibrium fitness level which viruses aim to maintain. At a certain fitness level, viruses do not get any fitter.

The article says that this matches what is seen in more complex animals as well.

Because everyone knows that the conditions an organism lives in never change, ever. </sarcasm>

(You might want to re-read the article with that in mind.)

Also, viruses behave a lot differently, since there is no real "gene pool" because any reproduction done by the viruses is done in a strictly individualistic manner. They don't have sex, nor do they ever trade DNA.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 2:38:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 1:05:12 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

Summary:

The rate of beneficial mutations in viruses increases in proportion to how unfit they are. As the viruses' fitness approaches a certain point, the rate of beneficial mutations decreases toward random chance.

In other words, there is an equilibrium fitness level which viruses aim to maintain. At a certain fitness level, viruses do not get any fitter.

The article says that this matches what is seen in more complex animals as well.

You really should read scientific papers with more attention: the article explicitly says that "However, even if the differences between high- and low-fitness populations are real, it may be that what is true for viruses may not hold for other organisms. Other work, including some that use direct measurements of the fitness effects of known mutations, has suggested that mutations might behave differently in viruses than they do in more complex organisms".

And would you please explain how do you get from an article that brings evidence against mutational meltdown in viruses to "Nature Proves Ape-To-Man Evolution Impossible"?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:35:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 2:38:36 AM, edomuc wrote:
And would you please explain how do you get from an article that brings evidence against mutational meltdown in viruses to "Nature Proves Ape-To-Man Evolution Impossible"?

It suggests that animals manipulate mutation rates in order to maintain a particular form, e.g. apes try to remain ape-like and humans remain human-like, etc. which means organisms are actively trying to prevent evolving into a more advanced type of organism.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:36:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 2:38:36 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/24/2014 1:05:12 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

Summary:

The rate of beneficial mutations in viruses increases in proportion to how unfit they are. As the viruses' fitness approaches a certain point, the rate of beneficial mutations decreases toward random chance.

In other words, there is an equilibrium fitness level which viruses aim to maintain. At a certain fitness level, viruses do not get any fitter.

The article says that this matches what is seen in more complex animals as well.

You really should read scientific papers with more attention: the article explicitly says that "However, even if the differences between high- and low-fitness populations are real, it may be that what is true for viruses may not hold for other organisms. Other work, including some that use direct measurements of the fitness effects of known mutations, has suggested that mutations might behave differently in viruses than they do in more complex organisms".

Lol yes, my bad. Somehow I took "As expected, the fitness of well-adapted viruses declined precipitously, similar to what has been found in many other studies. " as "other studies on other animals."
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:17:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:35:13 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/24/2014 2:38:36 AM, edomuc wrote:
And would you please explain how do you get from an article that brings evidence against mutational meltdown in viruses to "Nature Proves Ape-To-Man Evolution Impossible"?

It suggests that animals manipulate mutation rates in order to maintain a particular form, e.g. apes try to remain ape-like and humans remain human-like, etc. which means organisms are actively trying to prevent evolving into a more advanced type of organism.

Form and fitness are not synonyms: fitness is a measure of the ability to survive and reproduce, it says nothing about similarity. Constant fitness is different from not-evolving.

The paper you cited is a commentary on this results:
http://www.plosbiology.org...

The fact that, according to the authors, populations tend to reach a plateau of fitness that's dependent largely on population size is interesting, but only from an evolutionary point of view: it is part of a discussion between scientists on what happens in small populations. The consensus reached in the '90s posited that genetic drift (that is stronger in small populations) would lead to fixation of dangerous alleles, and that plus the loss of heterozigosity would lead to smaller numbers and so on until extinction. The paper argues that at least in viruses the population instead stabilizes (although at a lower fitness).

Animals do not control mutation rates (and in the paper the rates of overall mutation stayed the same for all viruses), the fact that mutagenesis leads to reduction of fitness in high-fitness populations and vice versa is very intuitive: high-fitness viruses are already optimized for replication, and random changes in the genome will most probably disrupt some process, conversely low-fitness ones have more "space to improve" through random changes.
Note that even in the population with the highest rate of positive to non positive mutations the rate was 16-17%, high but far from the majority.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:29:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:17:49 PM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/24/2014 6:35:13 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/24/2014 2:38:36 AM, edomuc wrote:
And would you please explain how do you get from an article that brings evidence against mutational meltdown in viruses to "Nature Proves Ape-To-Man Evolution Impossible"?

It suggests that animals manipulate mutation rates in order to maintain a particular form, e.g. apes try to remain ape-like and humans remain human-like, etc. which means organisms are actively trying to prevent evolving into a more advanced type of organism.

Form and fitness are not synonyms: fitness is a measure of the ability to survive and reproduce, it says nothing about similarity. Constant fitness is different from not-evolving.

The paper you cited is a commentary on this results:
http://www.plosbiology.org...

The fact that, according to the authors, populations tend to reach a plateau of fitness that's dependent largely on population size is interesting, but only from an evolutionary point of view: it is part of a discussion between scientists on what happens in small populations. The consensus reached in the '90s posited that genetic drift (that is stronger in small populations) would lead to fixation of dangerous alleles, and that plus the loss of heterozigosity would lead to smaller numbers and so on until extinction. The paper argues that at least in viruses the population instead stabilizes (although at a lower fitness).

Animals do not control mutation rates

Actually there are plenty of examples of organisms manipulating mutation rates. Bacteria induce higher mutation rates under stress and in certain cases are even able to direct mutations to a specific operon where a mutation would bring the most benefit in relation to the current environment.

(and in the paper the rates of overall mutation stayed the same for all viruses), the fact that mutagenesis leads to reduction of fitness in high-fitness populations and vice versa is very intuitive: high-fitness viruses are already optimized for replication, and random changes in the genome will most probably disrupt some process, conversely low-fitness ones have more "space to improve" through random changes.
Note that even in the population with the highest rate of positive to non positive mutations the rate was 16-17%, high but far from the majority.

I'm skeptical of how they distinguish beneficial mutations from detrimental mutations, or neutral mutations. I'm similarly skeptical of how they measure fitness levels. It seems like it must be only relative to the fittest member of the population.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:41:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I expressed myself poorly, I intended that there is no teleological control, and while what you say of bacteria is true, it remains to be seen if it holds true for eukaryotes (and still, what is known is that there are mechanisms that increase mutation rates under stress, thus speeding up the process of evolution. That would be at odds with your assertion that animals manipulate it to stay the same).

What strikes you as odd of their characterization of mutations? It's the standard one: positives are those that increase fitness and so on.
And yes, the fitness measured is relative to another strain (the common ancestor), not absolute, but that's to be expected: absolute measures aren't very precise, while a comparison with an untreated strain tells you all you need and in greater detail.

But if you don't agree with the authors, why did you cite them to say that evolution is impossible (regardless of the irony of using experimental evolution to "disprove" evolution)?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 9:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 8:41:00 PM, edomuc wrote:
I expressed myself poorly, I intended that there is no teleological control,

How far can you maintain this belief, though? E. coli direct mutations to areas where a mutation is most helpful (in certain cases). Directed mutation is a real thing. I don't see how you can separate "directed" from "teleological."

Would you say directed mutation is not teleological? Is breathing not for the purpose of getting oxygen? Is that not teleological? Since humans supposedly evolved, and now purposely manipulate evolution (fighting genetic disease, aborting less fit people, etc.) doesn't give evolution a teleological aspect? If not, what is an example of something that is teleological? Does it even exist?

and while what you say of bacteria is true, it remains to be seen if it holds true for eukaryotes (and still, what is known is that there are mechanisms that increase mutation rates under stress, thus speeding up the process of evolution. That would be at odds with your assertion that animals manipulate it to stay the same).

What strikes you as odd of their characterization of mutations?

The fact the mutation rate seems to not be random, but manipulated by the viruses in their own favor.

It's the standard one: positives are those that increase fitness and so on.
And yes, the fitness measured is relative to another strain (the common ancestor), not absolute, but that's to be expected: absolute measures aren't very precise, while a comparison with an untreated strain tells you all you need and in greater detail.

But if you don't agree with the authors, why did you cite them to say that evolution is impossible

Mostly to make a sensationalist thread.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...