Are Random mutations and Common Descent fundamentally intertwined processes?

@Meerkat_SK5 , I’m a little confused by your question. Are you wondering whether common descent, as a model, is dependent on random mutations, or whether random mutations only occur under common descent, or …? I’m a little confused because it seems like there are several questions going on, or logical leaps and assumptions at least, that I’m not exactly following. I’m not sure how the level of randomness of mutations has anything to do with common descent. Can you lay out exactly what you’re asking? Perhaps a set of bullet-point steps or premises would help.

5 Likes

You shouldn’t quote if you don’t understand the argument and can’t state it in your own words. Relying on mere authority won’t get you anywhere. And if you’re unable to respond to arguments against those you quote, that’s evidence you don’t understand what you quote.

8 Likes

I am saying ,along with Gert, that…

Random mutations is the process that produces common descent

They are NOT separate processes or processes that are and can happen independently from each other, like natural selection.

Random mutations is the mechanism for common descent

Common descent is depended on random mutations

Almost all DNA evidence for CD is based on random mutation

Saltations or only additive mutations and common descent are mutually exclusive processes

Didn’t your parents teach you about the birds and the bees?

Biological reproduction is what produces common descent. I can nuke bacteria and produce random mutations, but that’s not common descent. If the bacteria reproduces and has descendants, that is common descent.

If no mutations ever occurred there would still be common descent because descendants would share common ancestors.

DNA evidence for CD is based on biological reproduction. If no mutations occurred it would be dead simple to demonstrate common ancestry since all descendants sharing a common ancestor would have identical genomes.

6 Likes

Just not true. Reproduction is the process that produces common descent. Random mutations happen, and they give us the evidence of the pattern of descent. Non-random mutations would work too, if there were any.

You’re just wrong about that, and you haven’t given any reasons why you might be right. Descent would happen even in the absence of mutations, and in fact bacterial reproduction frequently occurs with no mutations at all.

Repeating a claim doesn’t constitute evidence for that claim.

Isn’t. It’s not dependent on mutations at all, and would happen in the complete absence of mutations.

No, it’s based on mutation, period. Whether that mutation is random is not relevant.

See? All you’re doing is making naked claims without presenting any justification. This is not making any progress. Other people are giving you evidence, which you just ignore. Even less progress.

7 Likes

Common descent is the result of speciation. Speciation results from the interplay of several factors (like geographical isolation) alongside mutations. You can have numerous random mutations in a population and speciation would never occur, especially if there is no way to restrict gene flow within that population. Go and learn the basics.

Mutation (as a process or outcome) is distinct from common descent (an outcome of speciation, not a process).

Speciation (which leads to common descent) cannot happen independent of mutations which accrue on the emerging lineages, but mutations pop up all the time regardless of whether speciation is happening or not. Genetic drift, natural selection, mutations are some of the forces that drive speciation events.

Common descent is dependent on speciation. Speciation is dependent on a number of factors including mutations. Stop getting it twisted.

The pattern or distribution of mutations in DNA provides evidence for common descent.

2 Likes

@Meerkat_SK5 ,

I think you are treating common descent, natural selection, and random mutations as tenets of some sort of evolutionary ideology. That isn’t the case. What we are starting with is observations. In the real world, in real biology, organisms have offspring. Offspring share common ancestors, their parents (or singular parent in the case of asexual organisms). Mutations happen. Mutations aren’t a theory, they are an observation of what happens in real biology right in front of us. Therefore, mutations are part of the model, as well as reproduction and common descent.

What we are asking is what we would expect to see at the genetic level if two species shared a common ancestor based on the observations of reproduction and mutation.

7 Likes

I am afraid all of your objections missed the mark here. Gert Korhof was specifically referring to UNIVERSAL common descent. Again, here is his argument:

"Common descent of life means that all life on Earth is physically, historically, and genetically connected. Common descent of life means that life is one unbroken chain of ancestors and descendants. Common descent of life means that every organism inherited all its genes from the previous generation (with slight modifications). And that includes irreducibly complex systems. 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. It would be unjustified to say, ‘I inherited all my chromosomes from my parents, except an irreducibly complex system on chromosome X, which has a supernatural origin.’

Now, here is the evidence he brings to support his argument:

  • “Both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.” (p.71)
  • “More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from (…) a broken hemoglobin gene.” (p.71)
  • “Although duplicated genes can be used to trace common ancestry” [yeast] (p.74)

Please note that these examples are all based on random mutation. Behe describes these broken genes as “mutational mistakes”…

…Probably all DNA evidence for CD is based on random mutation supplemented with neutral evolution, genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer (5)"

What I need from everybody except @John_Harshman is to explain why Gert’s reasoning is wrong along with his examples that he uses to support his argument.

I disagree with Korthof’s conclusion, but I wouldn’t say that he is wrong. He is making a semantic argument, and we can disagree but I’m not so sure that there is any right or wrong.

He is arguing that a supernatural intervention breaks descent. So if we go with the tradition Christian view of the virgin birth, that would imply that Mary was not the mother of Jesus and that the genealogies for Jesus are wrong. I think he would have trouble persuading people of that.

As for evidence - the main evidence of common descent is that we see how biological reproduction works. He is correct that mutated genes are markers used to build a tree. But whether the mutations are random does not enter into that. If evidence were found of a saltational mutation, that too would be used for constructing the tree and for estimating when that mutation occurred.

Whether or not Korthof can be said to be wrong doesn’t seem all that important. The more important problem is that you are trying to use this to support dubious ideas.

1 Like

What reasoning? You haven’t presented any, just Korthof claiming this and that without so much as a sentence to connect them. Note how in his scenario of supernatural intervention, the individual the macromutation happens to has parents. That by itself is common descent. What the GULO pseudogene has to do with any of that is a mystery, and I doubt that Korthof made any connection; I’m supposing it’s all you.

And then you go on to quote random sentence fragments from Behe, again with no apparent connection to any point. Good luck, everybody except @John_Harshman.

4 Likes

The first obvious problem is that those aren’t Gert’s examples. They’re not evidence he brings or examples he uses to support his argument. They’re the evidence Behe uses to support his argument for common descent. Nor are they in any way relevant to the extract from Gert that you quoted, because they’re neither about irreducibly complex systems nor about supernatural interventions. While Gert does cite those examples from Behe’s work, he does so in a different article than the one you were quoting.

So no explanation is required from “everybody except @John_Harshman”. Explanation is in fact required from nobody except @Meerkat_SK5, who needs to explain why he has posted such a hideously confused loaded question.

4 Likes

Here is a copy and pasted part of the article:

5. ARE COMMON DESCENT AND THE MECHANISM INDEPENDENT?

Behe claims that he has empirical reasons that the standard Darwinian mechanism of random mutation plus natural selection is unable to create the complete tree of life! He rejects that the majority of adaptations at the molecular level are caused by random mutation. Random Mutation and Natural Selection can only create minor adaptations. At the same time he says he fully accepts Common Descent. We have seen his proofs.

How can Behe doubt the mechanism of evolution and at the same time accept Common Descent (CD)? How does he do that? and why? It is easy to see why Behe wants the two theories to be independent. It is because he wants to be able to accept full CD and at the same time reject the ability of Random Mutation and Natural Selection to produce to full tree of life. It would be a lot easier, and, yes, elegant, if he rejected both CD and Random Mutation and Natural Selection, or accepted both.

According to standard scientific logic, if CD is true than it automatically follows that all species we see are created by Random Mutation and Natural Selection. This is how Darwinists reason and Behe criticises them for it. According to Behe, common descent and the mechanism are two different and independent theories. In support of his claim he quotes Ernst Mayr (1991) One long argument , who distinguished 5 theories in Darwin’s work ([3]

(A review of 'The edge of evolution' (Michael Behe))). It is true that CD is distinct from the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation. But are they independent? No. Maybe they were separate and independent at Darwin’s time, but not today. New scientific discoveries have revealed deep connections between previously unconnected theories. So, Mayr is simply not relevant for Behe’s argument. I will show that in the next section. Just one nice quote from an author who lumps mechanism and common descent together:

“To say that Darwinian evolution cannot explain everything in nature is not to say that evolution, random mutation, and natural selection do not occur; they have been observed (at least in cases of microevolution) many different times. Like the sequence analysts, I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent.” (page 176 Darwin’s Black Box )

Who is mixing up random mutation and common descent?

6. COMMON DESCENT EVIDENCE DEPENDS ON RANDOM MUTATION

The link between mechanism and CD is much stronger than Behe realizes. Behe, unknowingly, presents evidence for the fact that CD and mechanism are closely interwoven in the chapter “What Darwinism Can Do”. Here are Behe’s proofs for Common Descent:

  • “Both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.” (p.71)
  • “More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from (…) a broken hemoglobin gene.” (p.71)
  • “Although duplicated genes can be used to trace common ancestry” [yeast] (p.74)

Please note that these examples are all based on random mutation. Behe describes these broken genes as “mutational mistakes”. So, Behe knows that “genetics has supported common descent”.

The nature of the evidence for CD is random mutation . Whatever his claims about the limitations of Darwinism, Behe uses cases of random mutation as evidence for CD. I think the connection between CD and Random Mutation and Natural Selection could be elaborated much more. Probably all DNA evidence for CD is based on random mutation supplemented with neutral evolution, genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer (5). Immediately following the three proofs of CD, but out of the blue sky, Behe states in italic:

“Something that is nonrandom must account for the common descent of life.”

That’s an assertion. Where exactly is the scientific logic? Can you do anything more than quote somebody making an assertion?

Some of it, such as, perhaps, the mutation spectrum stuff. But the GULO pseudogene is still the same whether it’s the result of random mutation or directed mutation. Granted, it would be a silly directed mutation. All the evidence suggests random mutation. But the point is that the evidence would still be evidence even if it weren’t. Korthof is wrong. You’re wrong. And neither of you has or can support your assertion.

2 Likes

That’s not an explanation of why you posted such a hideously confused loaded question.

2 Likes

I think he has no choice but to accept CD, as the evidence is overwhelming. His claim of irreducible complexity (hence IC) are based on gaps or jumps which thinks indicate that descent is not completely common, or mutations are not completely random (guided?) in some way.

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).

Off-topic, but I think the discovery of a natural DNA sequence that encoded something meaning to humans but has no biological function (the Gettysburg Address?), could be evidence for design. Such a sequence is not a prediction of evolution. To my knowledge no one in ID is looking for such evidence.

3 Likes

Would you or Korhof agree that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? If not, then it isn’t about universal common ancestry.

They are based on two species inheriting a homologous pseudogene from a common ancestor through biological reproduction.

2 Likes

Um, you’re replying to a C&P.

All I have ever seen him offer is his opinion, not empirical facts.

Here is a simple question for you, @Meerkat_SK5. Do we observe mutations happening in the lab and in the wild?

2 Likes

This is so deeply confused of a statement. Random mutations just means that humans can’t fully predict them.

Behe agrees that most mutations are random in this sense, and he affirms common descent. And just about every creationist agrees mutations are random in this sense but denies common descent. Of course many random mutations may not be random from Gods point of view.

So clearly they are seperable concepts.

5 Likes

Oh well. I have other tasks anyways.