Challenges to Neo-Darwinism

[Bomb#20]

You must be a philosopher

But this is psychology, not philosophy. If Gould really thought fixing that picture would help fight creationism, he was overestimating creationists' intellect.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

True. Creationists oppose the theory of evolution because it is contrary to their belief that humans and other critters are today the same as they were when god created them "in the beginning".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

True. Creationists oppose the theory of evolution because it is contrary to their belief that humans and other critters are today the same as they were when god created them "in the beginning".

That's part of it. They also are told we were created in the image of their god, that we're a little bit divine being. Apes and monkeys aren't divine beings, not even a little bit. To compare humans to apes and monkeys is insulting, no more insulting I would add than being so scientifically clueless.

 

[steve_bank]

You must be a philosopher

But this is psychology, not philosophy. If Gould really thought fixing that picture would help fight creationism, he was overestimating creationists' intellect.

Creationism vs TOE is psychology in large part. Something I think atheists miss that

The idea of a chimp or gorrilla morphing into a human is about as bizzare to a creationist as it gets.. It is not a debate over facts, it is about feeligs and perceptions.

As was already said, to te rel believer they are in the image of god, they are born and bred into it from birth.

 

[Swammerdami]

This thread has deviated from its topic! Let me try to get it back on track.

(1) Let's avoid the reflex response that any challenge to neo-Darwinism (for our purpose that's just "Darwinism") is anti-science, creationist, or supports an "intelligent design" hypothesis. In fact, apparent deviations are usually just proof of the beautiful complexity of evolution! If the "challenge" in the OP-linked article is valid then there's probably some biochemical explanation. (Mutations in one part of a genome can affect the expression of another gene, though I don't know how the rate of a specific mutation could be affected.)

(2) Clade naming is arbitrary. Humans are not usually called apes, and apes are not called monkeys; but so what? Nobody should have a problem agreeing that H. sapiens is in Family Hominidae (Great Apes), which in turn is in Superfamily Hominoidea (Apes). Do we really need to pedantically write "Superfamily Hominoidea (Apes and Hominids)" ?

I think taxonomists prefer to avoid paraphyletic and polyphyletic names or taxons but often there is no good alternative. I think even those happy to say that apes are monkeys would draw the line before saying that mammals are lobe-finned fish!

 

[bilby]

 

[steve_bank]

It needs to be a bit more nuanced as to what challenges mean.

Challenge means an attack on the basic principles of TOE and relcement with something else, for example ID.

Modification would mean an update to natural selection and mutation based on new observation not a refutaion. The mechnism of mutaion may change with better science, but it is still natural selection and mutation.

I would want to look at he background of the authors and see the entire paper. Not being an evolutionary scientist and biologist I'd have to wahde through it to draw a conclusion.

"A new study by a team of researchers from Israel and Ghana has brought the first evidence of nonrandom mutation in human genes, challenging a core assumption at the heart of evolutionary theory by showing a long-term directional mutational response to environmental pressure."

Does not really sound like any kind of fundamental challenge. Once an evolutionary path opens like wings there is a dorection with mutaions supporting flight preferred over other mutations like gills. Mutaions may not be random in the snse that gentic histry plus environment influences mutation.

Looks like one of those many media reports that sensationalizes routine science with a little drama.

 

[skepticalbip]

This thread has deviated from its topic! Let me try to get it back on track.

(1) Let's avoid the reflex response that any challenge to neo-Darwinism (for our purpose that's just "Darwinism") is anti-science, creationist, or supports an "intelligent design" hypothesis. In fact, apparent deviations are usually just proof of the beautiful complexity of evolution! If the "challenge" in the OP-linked article is valid then there's probably some biochemical explanation. (Mutations in one part of a genome can affect the expression of another gene, though I don't know how the rate of a specific mutation could be affected.)

(2) Clade naming is arbitrary. Humans are not usually called apes, and apes are not called monkeys; but so what? Nobody should have a problem agreeing that H. sapiens is in Family Hominidae (Great Apes), which in turn is in Superfamily Hominoidea (Apes). Do we really need to pedantically write "Superfamily Hominoidea (Apes and Hominids)" ?

I think taxonomists prefer to avoid paraphyletic and polyphyletic names or taxons but often there is no good alternative. I think even those happy to say that apes are monkeys would draw the line before saying that mammals are lobe-finned fish!

No problem with that. The problem I have is with those who believe humans are "special" biological forms... those who take offense at humans being identified as apes but will identify a gorilla or a chimp as an ape. If they are offended at humans being identified as apes then they should be equally offended at chimps being identified as apes.

Gorillas are gorillas, chimps are chimps, humans are humans... but they all are apes.

 

[steve_bank]

This thread has deviated from its topic! Let me try to get it back on track.

(1) Let's avoid the reflex response that any challenge to neo-Darwinism (for our purpose that's just "Darwinism") is anti-science, creationist, or supports an "intelligent design" hypothesis. In fact, apparent deviations are usually just proof of the beautiful complexity of evolution! If the "challenge" in the OP-linked article is valid then there's probably some biochemical explanation. (Mutations in one part of a genome can affect the expression of another gene, though I don't know how the rate of a specific mutation could be affected.)

(2) Clade naming is arbitrary. Humans are not usually called apes, and apes are not called monkeys; but so what? Nobody should have a problem agreeing that H. sapiens is in Family Hominidae (Great Apes), which in turn is in Superfamily Hominoidea (Apes). Do we really need to pedantically write "Superfamily Hominoidea (Apes and Hominids)" ?

I think taxonomists prefer to avoid paraphyletic and polyphyletic names or taxons but often there is no good alternative. I think even those happy to say that apes are monkeys would draw the line before saying that mammals are lobe-finned fish!

No problem with that. The problem I have is with those who believe humans are "special" biological forms... those who take offense at humans being identified as apes but will identify a gorilla or a chimp as an ape. If they are offended at humans being identified as apes then they should be equally offended at chimps being identified as apes.

Gorillas are gorillas, chimps are chimps, humans are humans... but they all are apes.

And that is the long running creationism vs evolution debate on religion forum. Right now ID vs evolution.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think I chose a bad thread title. My intent was NOT to "challenge" the standard model of genetics, but rather to discuss some of the complexities: some deviations from the simple model.

In that regard, consider RNA editing ( RNA_editing#C-to-U_editing). I'd never heard of this, but it shows how ridiculously complicated genetics (and evolution) are. I've pointed the Wikipedia link at a subsection which shows that RNA editing causes one gene to express itself differently in human liver compared with human intestine.

 

[bilby]

I think I chose a bad thread title. My intent was NOT to "challenge" the standard model of genetics, but rather to discuss some of the complexities: some deviations from the simple model.

In that regard, consider RNA editing ( RNA_editing#C-to-U_editing). I'd never heard of this, but it shows how ridiculously complicated genetics (and evolution) are. I've pointed the Wikipedia link at a subsection which shows that RNA editing causes one gene to express itself differently in human liver compared with human intestine.

There's no description you can make in Biology, no matter how complex, that cannot be rendered more factually accurate by appending "...although in reality, it's far more complicated than that."

 

[steve_bank]

Post Modern Neo Darwinism.

 

[fromderinside]

pfffsssssssssss. much later ssssssssssss still later ssssssssssssss Wha?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Children under 5 accounted for an estimated 80% of all malaria deaths in the Region.

I've got to imagine any genetic change that greatly reduces child death rates would be relatively quick to splash into the gene pool.

 

[Swammerdami]

Some Infidels may have overlooked the key point of the research.

Obviously natural selection (in regions where malaria is endemic) will favor propagation of any HbS mutation which arises by chance. But the researchers measured the rate of NEW HbS mutations, i.e. individuals who had HbS even though NEITHER parent had it. That NOVEL mutation, arises randomly in Darwin's model, but was more likely to occur in Africa than in non-malarial regions.

This result, if valid, may be the "opposite side of the coin" posited in this research.

 

[steve_bank]

Can the same mutation occur more than once? Why not.

If the claimis that of an offspring having a mutation the parentts do not, then genetics is invalidated unless once considers multiple independent mutations of the same type.

 

[Swammerdami]

Can the same mutation occur more than once? Why not.

If the claimis that of an offspring having a mutation the parentts do not, then genetics is invalidated unless once considers multiple independent mutations of the same type.

Of course the same mutation can occur multiple times. Perhaps the best known recently-evolved human trait is lactose tolerance, which was selected for when Neolithic man began raising cows and caprids for milk and cheese. That trait evolved independently at least three times. (These include at least two unrelated genetic changes either of which provides lactose tolerance.)

The HgS mutation helps protect against malaria but is a mixed blessing: it can lead to sickle-cell anemia which is a major killer worldwide. Depending on trade-offs, reversion of that mutation to an HgA state might be selected for. Indeed, if it were possible to make that particular gene have a high mutation rate, THAT would be advantageous: a population could steer between the two forms of haemoglobin as conditions warrant!

And somehow, that particular genetic locus does indeed seem to have a high mutation rate!

Does this answer your vague question about genetics being invalidated?

 

[Swammerdami]

In the neo-Darwinian model, DNA replicates itself (using mutations and crossovers to form new variants in new organisms); DNA is then transcribed into RNA, which is then translated into proteins.

One of the important "inventions" before LUCA was DNA. DNA has a mutation rate thousands of times lower than RNA so was needed to preserve excellent genes when they came into being. To be useful, BOTH transcription (DNA-->RNA) and reverse-transcription (the RNA-->DNA path that preserves the good RNA in the first place) were needed. Note that direct DNA-->DNA replication wasn't even necessary at first.

Eventually direct DNA replication was "invented" and reverse transcription was no longer needed.

Reverse transcription is still used by certain viruses (e.g. HIV) but I thought it was obsolete in living organisms. Did I read that, or just assume it? Either way, it appears I was WRONG.

A very recent paper from Lund University in Sweden speaks of reverse transcription of introduced mRNA in human liver! (Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss any political implications of the paper. Here I'm just trying to understand the reverse transcription.)

One Wikipedia article  Long interspersed nuclear element leads to others like  Retrotransposon. But I am left confused. I hope someone will dispose of my misconceptions.

Advanced medicine can introduce new DNA into cells, but  Vectors in gene therapy do not seem to include mRNA or retrotransposons.

What is the evolutionary "purpose" of these retrotransposons? It seems they constitute a very large portion of the human genome.

The Wiki articles give me the impression that it is only particular RNA sequences that can form retrotransposons. Why then was the mRNA studied at Lund University reverse-transcripted? Was that mRNA designed incompetently? Or is Lund University "pulling our legs"?

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

I'm still trying to understand how "mutations doing better when the environment favors them" is a challenge to the theory that "mutations do better or worse depending on environmental pressure"

 

[Peez]

The article is a bit breathless, and includes a number of statements that are false (or at least misleading):

“Ever since Darwin we have known that life arose by evolution.”

“For the past century scientists have assumed that mutations occur by accident to the genome and that natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, favors beneficial accidents.”

“While widely held in the scientific community, this view has always left open fundamental questions, such as the problem of complexity. Can the sequential accumulation of small random changes, each beneficial on its own, lead within the timespan available to the evolution of such astonishingly complex and impressive adaptations as we see around us in nature, such as eyes, brains or wings, where complementary parts interweave into a complex whole?”

“"There are at least two possible reasons why such a question had not been asked before," explains Prof. Livnat. "First, it had been assumed that mutation is random.”

“The results suggest that complex information that is accumulated in the genome through the generations impacts mutation, and therefore mutation-specific origination rates can respond in the long-term to specific environmental pressures,"”

I have not had a chance to read the paper yet <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35031571/>