Challenges to Neo-Darwinism

[Swammerdami]

I just read this article, titled "Study uncovers first evidence of long-term directionality in origination of human mutation, challenging neo-Darwinism."

This is not the first such challenge I have seen; I am starting a thread in hopes that experts here can help me understand these topics better.

Here is a brief excerpt from the article:

the rate of generation of the HbS mutation, which protects against malaria, is higher in people from Africa, where malaria is endemic, than in people from Europe, where it is not.

"For over a century, the leading theory of evolution has been based on random mutations. The results show that the HbS mutation is not generated at random but instead originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance," said Prof. Livnat. Unlike other findings on mutation origination, this mutation-specific response to a specific environmental pressure cannot be explained by traditional theories.

 

[steve_bank]

First, the picture in the link makes me suspicious. It depicts humans coming from apes, a common popular misconseption. The image is a common Christian attack on TOE. When I hear direction I read intent and theI hear creationism.

I'd say it comes down to the definition of random. Mathematically random means one probabilistic event does not affect the next event.

A beneficial mutation occurs and the entity evolves. If there is randomness then any following mutation and adaptions do not depend in any way on the last mutation. I'm weak in biology and genetics, but I'd say the textbook definition of random may not apply.

A probability distribution does not have to be random. Conditional probability, given x occurs what is the the probability of y.

Markov Chains

Markov Chain - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

A Markov chain is a process that consists of a finite number of states with the Markovian property and some transition probabilities pij, where pij is the probability of the process moving from state i to state j. Andrei Markov, a Russian mathematician, was the first one to study this process. At the beginning of last century, he developed the fundamentals of the Markov chain theory. Markov chains are traditionally used for one-dimensional time series or spatial series analysis in a variety of fields from economics to stratigraphy. Markov chains were extended for multidimensional simulation recently with the proposition of a Markov chain random field theory and its attendant spatial measure—the transiogram. This article focuses on introducing basic one-dimensional Markov chain models and recent progress in Markov chain geostatistics—the multidimensional extension of Markov chains.

Our human immune system may evolve over time, but we are not likely to grow wings.

A random mutation in context of TOE. to me sounds like unplanned or not under some kind of control or intent.

A rock rolls down a long hill . It changes direction many times based on terrain. It is not a random path per se. One could interpret a 'directed path'.

 

[Hermit]

I just read this article, titled "Study uncovers first evidence of long-term directionality in origination of human mutation, challenging neo-Darwinism."

This is not the first such challenge I have seen; I am starting a thread in hopes that experts here can help me understand these topics better.

Here is a brief excerpt from the article:

the rate of generation of the HbS mutation, which protects against malaria, is higher in people from Africa, where malaria is endemic, than in people from Europe, where it is not.

"For over a century, the leading theory of evolution has been based on random mutations. The results show that the HbS mutation is not generated at random but instead originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance," said Prof. Livnat. Unlike other findings on mutation origination, this mutation-specific response to a specific environmental pressure cannot be explained by traditional theories.

The study was published by Genome Research, which ranks 2nd in the category 'Genetics and Genomics' after Nature Genetics. Although it is an advance online article, meaning it is not yet in its final form, it has been peer reviewed. It is not a product of cranks pushing some creationist barrow.

That said, the research is based on just twelve samples. In my untutored opinion N=12 will at best lead to provisional results, and the paper does state: "Further studies will be needed to examine mutation rates at the single-mutation resolution across these and other loci and organisms and to uncover the molecular mechanisms responsible."

The publication is accessible in full here.

 

[Jarhyn]

I just read this article, titled "Study uncovers first evidence of long-term directionality in origination of human mutation, challenging neo-Darwinism."

This is not the first such challenge I have seen; I am starting a thread in hopes that experts here can help me understand these topics better.

Here is a brief excerpt from the article:

the rate of generation of the HbS mutation, which protects against malaria, is higher in people from Africa, where malaria is endemic, than in people from Europe, where it is not.

"For over a century, the leading theory of evolution has been based on random mutations. The results show that the HbS mutation is not generated at random but instead originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance," said Prof. Livnat. Unlike other findings on mutation origination, this mutation-specific response to a specific environmental pressure cannot be explained by traditional theories.

The study was published by Genome Research, which ranks 2nd in the category 'Genetics and Genomics' after Nature Genetics. Although it is an advance online article, meaning it is not yet in its final form, it has been peer reviewed. It is not a product of cranks pushing some creationist barrow.

That said, the research is based on just twelve samples. In my untutored opinion N=12 will at best lead to provisional results, and the paper does state: "Further studies will be needed to examine mutation rates at the single-mutation resolution across these and other loci and organisms and to uncover the molecular mechanisms responsible."

The publication is accessible in full here.

DNA has been mutating for BILLIONS of years.

It's kind of naive to think that some elements of it's structure are not in some way set up to evolve/mutate a little less naively.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Swammi, Excellent catch!

My first impression is that there is something in the DNA that we don't recognize that is causing the increased mutation rate in the exposed population. In other words there's already been an adaptation beyond what we are already observing but we don't see it.

 

[Bomb#20]

First, the picture in the link makes me suspicious. It depicts humans coming from apes, a common popular misconseption.

Of course humans came from apes; likewise, apes came from monkeys and monkeys came from prosimians. Denying this is a word-game, an exercise in making up new definitions for existing words and then claiming people who use the words in their original sense are misusing them.

I'd say it comes down to the definition of random. Mathematically random means one probabilistic event does not affect the next event.
...
Markov Chains
...
A random mutation in context of TOE. to me sounds like unplanned or not under some kind of control or intent.

A rock rolls down a long hill . It changes direction many times based on terrain. It is not a random path per se. One could interpret a 'directed path'.

Bingo. There's nothing particularly unlikely or particularly unDarwinian about one mutation changing the probability of another mutation.

 

[Elixir]

I just read this article, titled "Study uncovers first evidence of long-term directionality in origination of human mutation, challenging neo-Darwinism."

This is not the first such challenge I have seen; I am starting a thread in hopes that experts here can help me understand these topics better.

Here is a brief excerpt from the article:

the rate of generation of the HbS mutation, which protects against malaria, is higher in people from Africa, where malaria is endemic, than in people from Europe, where it is not.

"For over a century, the leading theory of evolution has been based on random mutations. The results show that the HbS mutation is not generated at random but instead originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance," said Prof. Livnat. Unlike other findings on mutation origination, this mutation-specific response to a specific environmental pressure cannot be explained by traditional theories.

Sounds to me like a puddle, celebrating its perfect fit in the pothole where it “was created”.
OF COURSE the mutation “originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance”.
That in no way runs counter to principles of evolutionary biology. It would be expected in fact.

 

[steve_bank]

First, the picture in the link makes me suspicious. It depicts humans coming from apes, a common popular misconseption.

Of course humans came from apes; likewise, apes came from monkeys and monkeys came from prosimians. Denying this is a word-game, an exercise in making up new definitions for existing words and then claiming people who use the words in their original sense are misusing them.

I'd say it comes down to the definition of random. Mathematically random means one probabilistic event does not affect the next event.
...
Markov Chains
...
A random mutation in context of TOE. to me sounds like unplanned or not under some kind of control or intent.

A rock rolls down a long hill . It changes direction many times based on terrain. It is not a random path per se. One could interpret a 'directed path'.

Bingo. There's nothing particularly unlikely or particularly unDarwinian about one mutation changing the probability of another mutation.

Are you joking or do you really think humans have apes as ancestors? Are you trying tp 'make a monkey out of mr?'

We share common ancestors.

 

[Bomb#20]

First, the picture in the link makes me suspicious. It depicts humans coming from apes, a common popular misconseption.

Of course humans came from apes; likewise, apes came from monkeys and monkeys came from prosimians. Denying this is a word-game, an exercise in making up new definitions for existing words and then claiming people who use the words in their original sense are misusing them.

Are you joking or do you really think humans have apes as ancestors? Are you trying tp 'make a monkey out of mr?'

We share common ancestors.

We "share common ancestors" with oak trees. We are descended from apes. Our lineage split off from gibbons some 15 million years ago; from orangutans about 12 million years ago. That means there was some animal living 14 million years ago that had already diverged from gibbons but that both we and orangutans are descended from. What possible intelligible reason could you have to claim that this animal wasn't an ape? Of course it was an ape. And we're descended from it.

 

[steve_bank]

First, the picture in the link makes me suspicious. It depicts humans coming from apes, a common popular misconseption.

Of course humans came from apes; likewise, apes came from monkeys and monkeys came from prosimians. Denying this is a word-game, an exercise in making up new definitions for existing words and then claiming people who use the words in their original sense are misusing them.

Are you joking or do you really think humans have apes as ancestors? Are you trying tp 'make a monkey out of mr?'

We share common ancestors.

We "share common ancestors" with oak trees. We are descended from apes. Our lineage split off from gibbons some 15 million years ago; from orangutans about 12 million years ago. That means there was some animal living 14 million years ago that had already diverged from gibbons but that both we and orangutans are descended from. What possible intelligible reason could you have to claim that this animal wasn't an ape? Of course it was an ape. And we're descended from it.

Right. We did not evolve from apes as depicted in the OP image. Chimps are like distant cousins with a lot of common genes. When I wnent to see Stephen Gould he put that image up and commented it was his pet peeve. It misrepresents evolution.

Of course, we all share a common slimy algae in the early oceans.

 

[skepticalbip]

And it is a bit weird to say we descended from apes since we are apes, just a different species of ape than the other species of apes that share our common ancestor. It is like saying that fire ants are descended from ants as though fire ants are no longer ants.

 

[Bomb#20]

Right. We did not evolve from apes as depicted in the OP image. Chimps are like distant cousins with a lot of common genes. When I wnent to see Stephen Gould he put that image up and commented it was his pet peeve. It misrepresents evolution.

Of course, we all share a common slimy algae in the early oceans.

Chimps are distant cousins, but they're more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. So it's likely the unknown common ancestor of us and chimps looked something vaguely like chimps and gorillas. I don't think anyone knows yet whether it was a knucklewalker. But what's known for sure is we're descended from quadrupeds and we didn't have a quadruped ancestor that suddenly gave birth to a mutant fully erect biped. Evolution doesn't work that way. Standing up straight happened gradually, same as everything else. So the OP image is roughly what happened, some incorrect details notwithstanding. (For instance, there should probably be a long-armed tree swinger in the sequence.)

But I don't think our precise ancestry is what Gould's pet peeve was about. He just didn't like people drawing a single sequence leading to a single destination. He wanted people to draw evolution as a bush with a lot of leaves. It's not all about us.

 

[Hermit]

First, the picture in the link makes me suspicious. It depicts humans coming from apes, a common popular misconseption.

Of course humans came from apes; likewise, apes came from monkeys and monkeys came from prosimians. Denying this is a word-game, an exercise in making up new definitions for existing words and then claiming people who use the words in their original sense are misusing them.

Are you joking or do you really think humans have apes as ancestors? Are you trying tp 'make a monkey out of mr?'

We share common ancestors.

We "share common ancestors" with oak trees. We are descended from apes. Our lineage split off from gibbons some 15 million years ago; from orangutans about 12 million years ago. That means there was some animal living 14 million years ago that had already diverged from gibbons but that both we and orangutans are descended from. What possible intelligible reason could you have to claim that this animal wasn't an ape? Of course it was an ape. And we're descended from it.

Maybe steve_bank does not realise that 'Hominoidea' stands for 'apes'. We are not descendants of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans or gibbons, but like them we are members of the superfamily called 'apes'. Or maybe he is confusing 'apes' with 'monkeys'.

 

[Bomb#20]

And it is a bit weird to say we descended from apes since we are apes, just a different species of ape than the other species of apes that share our common ancestor. It is like saying that fire ants are descended from ants as though fire ants are no longer ants.

"We are apes" is just another way to say "Cladistic naming conventions are in fashion this year." It's perfectly normal to use biological names to refer to a group of animals that some other group is descended from instead of to the union of a group and all its descendant groups; it's just that there's a currently influential subculture of biologists urging everyone else to stop using language that way. These people presumably also want us to say "Mammals are fish" instead of "Mammals are descended from fish." Well, okay, we can do that if we want, but how do we benefit from this? The people who use "ape" to refer to chimps and gibbons and their common ancestor with us, but who exclude humans from the category, aren't wrong. They're just speaking in an older dialect. Where in the tree of life we choose to draw borders and change names is arbitrary.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And it is a bit weird to say we descended from apes since we are apes, just a different species of ape than the other species of apes that share our common ancestor. It is like saying that fire ants are descended from ants as though fire ants are no longer ants.

That happens because people don't think they are apes or even animals but something separate and divine and special, something separate from nature. So the language happens because of cultural bias. Much of it is unintentional and much of it is intentional.

If I were a fire ant maybe I'd think I was descended from ants.

 

[steve_bank]

I believe specialization is when a subgroup evolves and can no longer mate with the original group. All humans are the same species. All humans can interbreed.

I'd have to look up the tree to see where the split is thought to have occurred.


Lucy

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are more like feces throwing screeching combative chimps.

The common misconception is that evolution says us humans today cam from apes today. It is that image that turns people against evolution. Especially creationists.

 

[steve_bank]

Humanoid was first used to describe indigenous people thought inferior in the 19th century.

Humanoid meant human form but not human. Arguing terms from the net and pop culture is pointless,

What matters objectively is genetics followed by the fossil records.

Like I said, if somebody calls you a slime ball take it as an imsult to your ancestors.

 

[Bomb#20]

Lucy

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are more like feces throwing screeching combative chimps.

The common misconception is that evolution says us humans today cam from apes today. It is that image that turns people against evolution. Especially creationists.

To correct that misconception is to say "We came from apes, yes, but the apes we came from aren't the same as today's apes, because while we were changing, the other apes were changing too." And that's perfectly right. But the trouble is, the people who are against evolution don't give a damn whether the other apes changed too. They don't give a damn about the other apes. So no, the image of evolution saying us humans today came from apes today is not what turns people against evolution.

 

[steve_bank]

Lucy

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are more like feces throwing screeching combative chimps.

The common misconception is that evolution says us humans today cam from apes today. It is that image that turns people against evolution. Especially creationists.

To correct that misconception is to say "We came from apes, yes, but the apes we came from aren't the same as today's apes, because while we were changing, the other apes were changing too." And that's perfectly right. But the trouble is, the people who are against evolution don't give a damn whether the other apes changed too. They don't give a damn about the other apes. So no, the image of evolution saying us humans today came from apes today is not what turns people against evolution.

You must be a philosopher

 

[steve_bank]

It seems like a challenge to neo-Darwiniam can only be an attack on the idea of natural selection and and genetic inheritance, as opposed to a modification.

Neo-Darwinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Neo-Darwinism is generally used to describe any integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. It mostly refers to evolutionary theory from either 1895 (for the combinations of Darwin's and August Weismann's theories of evolution) or 1942 ("modern synthesis"), but it can mean any new Darwinian- and Mendelian-based theory, such as the current evolutionary theory. The term "Neo-Darwinism" marks the combination of natural selection and genetics, as has been variously modified since it was first proposed.

Current meaning​

Biologists, however, have not limited their application of the term neo-Darwinism to the historical synthesis. For example, Ernst Mayr wrote in 1984 that:

The term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory [of the early 20th century] is sometimes considered wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory.[10][11][7][12]
Publications such as Encyclopædia Britannica use neo-Darwinism to refer to current-consensus evolutionary theory, not the version prevalent during the early 20th century.[13] Similarly, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould have used neo-Darwinism in their writings and lectures to denote the forms of evolutionary biology that were contemporary when they were writing.[14][15]