# Are Random mutations and Common Descent fundamentally intertwined processes?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [June 22, 2021, 12:42am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878 "2021-06-22T00:42:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sam](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sam/32/11437_2.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Sam)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2021, 10:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/41 "2021-06-25T22:35:24Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> BTW, just because creationist journals are considered illegitimate scientific journals does not mean every paper they publish is automatically illegitimate just like not every journal that is considered to be legit always publishes legit papers.

Good one.  
Who could doubt this in theory?  
It seems to me that many have trouble actually carrying on as if it were true.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2021, 11:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/42 "2021-06-25T23:10:21Z")

</div>

> [@Sam](#):
>
> Good one.  
> Who could doubt this in theory?

It’s strictly true that just because something is published in a creationist journal that doesn’t make it automatically wrong.

But we can’t just close our eyes and pretend not to know that creationist journals are run by creationist organizations that explicitly reject even the possibility that they are wrong, and only and exclusively publish “papers” for the purpose of supporting and “proving” creationism. This is revealed by their openly declared mission statements and statements of faith.

To pick an example, this is what the AIG statement used to say:  
_“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”_

For that reason, anything they publish is immediately extremely questionable, and rather than have to (yet again again again) go through one of their utter trash publications to correct each of it’s falsehoods, misrepresentations, misleading simplifications, quotemines, unwarranted extrapolations, and selective citations, we’re better off just asking for articles from actually reputable journals where most of this should have been caught by competent reviewers (though of course, even here we have to be somewhat vigilant, as trash is sometimes published there too). Nobody owes anyone else the time and effort it takes to read through and debunk, for the fiftieth time, the latest pile of trash compiled by a bunch of overly literalist presuppositionalists.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sam](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sam/32/11437_2.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Sam)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 2:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/43 "2021-06-26T02:05:09Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Random mutations just means that humans can’t fully predict them.

Sounds similar to this apparent quote from Hume

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/7/78d28a2bff12dc83ded852b8ac39b94bdeb3278a.jpeg "What Is Chance? (2 of 3) - Dr. R.C. Sproul") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmQWgf4gE98&t=1123)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 2:55am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/44 "2021-06-26T02:55:59Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> This goes right back to that testability problem I keep going on about. Even if a pathway for natural evolution is demonstrated, we can never rule out that the designer did it this way (it’s not falsifiable).

Well, it depends. If it was proven that random mutations can produce the same potent changes that Only additive mutations can produce, then we would not be able to differentiate between common design and common descent models. But, when it comes to whether evolution was guided versus unguided, this would still be falsifiable, as I explained before.

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> This is so deeply confused of a statement. Random mutations just means that humans can’t fully predict them.

That is not the only definition. According to Ayala, “Mutations are random or chance events because ( _i_ ) _they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication_ and because ( _ii_ ) _there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual._ However, the meaning of “random” that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is ( _iii_ ) that _mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms._ Some are beneficial, most are not, and only the beneficial ones become incorporated in the organisms through natural selection.”

[Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer | PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567#sec-7)

The third definition is the point of contention between @John_Harshman and I. As I told him before, God cannot guide an unguided process. This is one of the main reasons why the Universal common design and common descent must have different expectations in regards to function and adaptation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 4:39am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/45 "2021-06-26T04:39:38Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> The third definition is the point of contention between @John_Harshman and I.

No, it isn’t. The point of contention between us is common descent, and all three definitions of “random” are irrelevant to that.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> As I told him before, God cannot guide an unguided process.

I don’t recall you telling me. Perhaps you told me something else that you thought was that. And it still has nothing to do with common descent vs. common design.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> This is one of the main reasons why the Universal common design and common descent must have different expectations in regards to function and adaptation.

I don’t know what that means. Neither do you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 1:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/46 "2021-06-26T13:42:17Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@swamidass](#):
> >
> > This is so deeply confused of a statement. Random mutations just means that humans can’t fully predict them.
> 
> That is not the only definition. According to Ayala, “Mutations are random or chance events because ( _i_ ) _they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication_ and because ( _ii_ ) _there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual._

Do you have a comprehension problem? Ayala and Swamidass are saying the same thing.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
> >
> > This goes right back to that testability problem I keep going on about. Even if a pathway for natural evolution is demonstrated, we can never rule out that the designer did it this way (it’s not falsifiable).
> 
> Well, it depends. If it was proven that random mutations can produce the same potent changes that Only additive mutations can produce, then we would not be able to differentiate between common design and common descent models.

Additive mutations are random too!

I can’t see how additive mutations would be useful in differentiating common descent from common design, since we can find (and have found) descendants from a common ancestor sharing additive mutations (mutations whose combined effect is the sum of their individual effects).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 3:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/47 "2021-06-26T15:36:50Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Okoko](#):
>
> Additive mutations are random too!
> 
> I can’t see how additive mutations would be useful in differentiating common descent from common design, since we can find (and have found) descendants from a common ancestor sharing additive mutations (mutations whose combined effect is the sum of their individual effects).

So you disagree with Gert Korhof and agree with @John_Harshman ?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 5:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/48 "2021-06-26T17:11:57Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> So you disagree with Gert Korhof and agree with @John_Harshman ?

None of that has anything to do with Gert Korthof.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 5:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/49 "2021-06-26T17:12:09Z")

</div>

I encourage everybody to watch this video because it also suggests that random mutations precludes common descent or is a fundamental part of the process:

[What is Natural Selection? - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SCjhI86grU)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 5:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/50 "2021-06-26T17:42:40Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I encourage everybody to watch this video because it also suggests that random mutations precludes common descent or is a fundamental part of the process

Either you don’t know what “precludes” means or you have misunderstood the video.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 8:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/51 "2021-06-26T20:12:10Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I encourage everybody to watch this video because it also suggests that random mutations precludes common descent or is a fundamental part of the process:
> 
> [What is Natural Selection? - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SCjhI86grU)

We know you cite articles you haven’t read. Do you cite videos you haven’t watched?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 8:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/52 "2021-06-26T20:29:06Z")

</div>

I am converting this to a Side Conversation category, which means posts will not have to go through the approval queue, but also means that [@moderators](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/groups/moderators) will not necessarily have as much “eyes on”. If you see something that violates the [community guidelines](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/an-update-about-peaceful-discourse/6745), please flag it rather than respond to it. That will get moderators attention and they will then have a look.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 9:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/53 "2021-06-26T21:49:21Z")

</div>

Here is a study that explains why Gert is right when he suggested that “every supernatural intervention is a violation of common descent, because it means that a new irreducibly complex system in the first individual showing it was not inherited from its parents”:

:

“Top-down causation is an important mechanism for adaptive evolution through natural selection, where the higher-level “goal” is survival [[32](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/5/3/424/htm#B32-information-05-00424),[34](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/5/3/424/htm#B34-information-05-00424)]. The role of top-down causation in adaptive selection _is particularly evident for cases of convergent evolution._ A striking example is provided by the evolution of echolocation in dolphins and bats, where over 200 genes have independently changed in the same ways to confer both species with the ability to use sonar [[35](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/5/3/424/htm#B35-information-05-00424)]. A common high-level selection pressure (e.g., for the ability to navigate) lead independently to the same specific mutations in the DNA of both species. **Convergent evolution thus provides a clear example of top-down causation via adaptive selection, where causal influences run from macroscopic environmental context to microscopic biochemical structure.** ”

[Information | Free Full-Text | Top-Down Causation and the Rise of Information in the Emergence of Life | HTML (mdpi.com)](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/5/3/424/htm)

The fossil record apparently concurs according to an Ernest Mayre quote but I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong:

“What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. … The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories"

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 10:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/54 "2021-06-26T22:36:57Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Here is a study …

Except that the study does not seem to mention supernatural intervention, so I think you are reading too much into it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 10:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/55 "2021-06-26T22:40:45Z")

</div>

Neither of those quotes has anything to do with the point you’re trying to make.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2021, 2:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/56 "2021-06-27T14:55:58Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> Except that the study does not seem to mention supernatural intervention, so I think you are reading too much into it.

What meant by supernatural intervention is irreducible complexity, which would be Top-down causation if I am not mistaken.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2021, 3:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/57 "2021-06-27T15:53:59Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> The fossil record apparently concurs according to an Ernest Mayre quote but I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong:
> 
> “What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. … The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories"

I suspect you actually got this from [this Luskin article](https://www.discovery.org/a/7271/), and not from anything written by Ernst Mayr.

The reasons I suspect this are:

- the ellipsis is in the same place
- you’ve used Luskin as a secondary source before
- you didn’t give a source
- you don’t seem to know Mayr was talking about the views of others
- you badly misspelt Mayr’s name  
and of course
- you have been caught lying about your sources on many previous occasions. So frequently, in fact, that it is now the expectation. This is unlikely to be an exception.

You clearly haven’t learnt anything from when you previously [cribbed from Luskin](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-comprehensive-theory-of-intelligent-design/13625/38), and you _still_ don’t seem to care whether your ‘quotes’ are even correct, let alone representative of the views of the person you are quoting. You couldn’t even be bothered to Google your own ‘quote’ to find a proper reference or the full text.

The only thing you will convince anyone of is that you are lazy, gullible and deceptive. You aren’t even producing anything intelligible, let alone interesting. Stop wasting your (and our) time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2021, 4:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/58 "2021-06-27T16:12:50Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@nwrickert](#):
> >
> > Except that the study does not seem to mention supernatural intervention, so I think you are reading too much into it.
> 
> What meant by supernatural intervention is irreducible complexity, which would be Top-down causation if I am not mistaken.

An irreducibly complex system evolved in Lenski’s lab. I guess that means Lenski is God. Interesting.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/59 "2021-06-27T16:16:11Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> What meant by supernatural intervention is irreducible complexity, which would be Top-down causation if I am not mistaken.

Evolutionary biologists have already explained how irreducible complexity can arise naturally. So, yes, it is a mistake for you to read “supernatural intervention” into that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2021, 4:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878/60 "2021-06-27T16:43:50Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> What meant by supernatural intervention is irreducible complexity, which would be Top-down causation if I am not mistaken.

Mistaken goes without saying. Irreducible complexity is not another term for supernatural intervention. Irreducible complexity can evolve naturally in a number of ways that you should familiarize yourself with if you want to continue talking about it.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-random-mutations-and-common-descent-fundamentally-intertwined-processes/13878.md?page=4)