# Bartlett's Theory of Neutral Theory

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [May 8, 2018, 3:41am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176 "2018-05-08T03:41:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 9\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2018, 2:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/21 "2018-05-09T14:30:14Z")

</div>

> [@johnnyb](#):
>
> I think you are wildly misreading my posts.

Okay. I’m sorry. I’d genuinely love to understand what you are saying.

> [@johnnyb](#):
>
> It _is_ evidence of Intelligent Design. I don’t see why whether someone views it as evidence of X or Y should be considered a conspiracy, though. Isn’t that just plain disagreement?

Well you may be among less than 10 people in the world calling this evidence of ID, and I cannot understand the logic of your position. When you write about it, it seems like you do not know what neutral theory is.

So you can chalk this up to disagreement, but the reason it might be met with suspicion is the history of the ID movement on such matters, and the impenetrability of your point. Though I do want to understand. Go for. Try and explain.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![johnnyb](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/johnnyb/32/218_2.png) [@johnnyb](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/johnnyb)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2018, 2:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/22 "2018-05-09T14:31:25Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> None of this contradicts neutral theory. And now neutral theory is Darwinism? That is a switch…
> 
> ![](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/johnnyb/40/218_1.png) johnnyb:

I didn’t say that it _is_ Darwinism, I said that it is an echo of it. The reason for this is that, when pressed, neutral theorists usually _do_ resort to Darwinian mechanisms when the plausibility of _developing_ the systems of neutral theory are shown to be inadequate for making themselves. I.e., when you point out that the reason neutral theory works is because of the predisposition of the cell to not mutate sensitive areas, the response is usually Darwinian (selection, man!).

That’s what differentiates Theory A and Theory B. Theory A is about observables, and leaves the causes of those observations to be explained by something else. For most biologists, they choose Darwinism as their something else. Theory B tries to say that all of evolution is like this, and that even the directionalization of mutation is created by random wanderings in mutation space.

I think Theory A is a better theory, but that ID is a better “background theory” for why Theory A works than Darwinism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/23 "2018-05-09T14:32:04Z")

</div>

> [@johnnyb](#):
>
> It _is_ evidence of Intelligent Design.

@johnnyb

Could we be splitting hairs here? The fact that I exist is evidence of Intelligent Design. What @swamidass means is that it is not “special” evidence of Intelligent Design. It’s just your ordinary “isn’t the Universe grand? It must be the product of God!” type of statement.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2018, 2:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/25 "2018-05-09T14:34:11Z")

</div>

> [@johnnyb](#):
>
> I didn’t say that it _is_ Darwinism, I said that it is an echo of it. The reason for this is that, when pressed, neutral theorists usually _do_ resort to Darwinian mechanisms when the plausibility of _developing_ the systems of neutral theory are shown to be inadequate for making themselves. I.e., when you point out that the reason neutral theory works is because of the predisposition of the cell to not mutate sensitive areas, the response is usually Darwinian (selection, man!).

@johnnyb

If any time someone discussions Natural Selection, you insist it is Darwinian, you are not going to get very far.

BioLogos and @swamidass speak of Natural Selection all the time … but the group and the man are clearly not discussing Natural Selection in a purely Darwinian context.

I think you will find you have fewer arguments with Theistic Evolutionists if you drop the use of the term Darwinian. We find it fairly simplistic and intentionally insulting.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2018, 2:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/26 "2018-05-09T14:37:07Z")

</div>

> [@johnnyb](#):
>
> I think Theory A is a better theory, but that ID is a better “background theory” for why Theory A works than Darwinism.

@johnnyb

You know, we would use the term I.D. too - - if I.D. didn’t include the political component. Otherwise, there is not much difference … just in whether Science can find evidence of God or not.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2018, 3:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/27 "2018-05-09T15:14:41Z")

</div>

> [@johnnyb](#):
>
> This is why education needs to change. Your viewpoint summarizes the best knowledge of the 1980s. A lot has happened since then. A great review is Caporale’s [The Implicit Genome](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-implicit-genome-9780195172713). Mutations _are_ targeted in their _incidence_ , not just their selection. This has been shown repeatedly, but fails to be noted in the textbooks because textbook theory is dominated by a giant echo of Darwin. It isn’t actually based on evidence. Evidence shows that organisms have a lot of control over their evolutionary destinations.

I got my BS in Chemistry in the mid-1980s (strong emphasis on Phys Chem and Biochem), Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Mol Bio in the '90s and continue in biochemistry/enzymology today. I’ve followed the primary literature on mutational mechanisms since sophomore year in college. Understand that no part of the genome is immune from mutation. All biochemical replication, recombination and repair systems have inherent physical limits to fidelity. That’s simply a consequence of basic physics and chemistry and was recognized by chemists and enzymologists in both theoretical and experimental work in the '60s or '70s. Surveys and experiments covering mutation rates have been going on for decades. The basal rates of point mutations for many organisms (not viruses) typically run in the ballpark of 10E-9 to 10E-10 per base per replication. That mutation rates may increase above basal depending on the region of the genome and other activity was known before I started grad school. That some classes of mutations (e.g. transitions vs. tranversions & etc.) occur at different rates was also well established decades ago.

As @swamidass also wondered, I’m not sure what that has to do with neutral theory. Changes in mutation rates means that more variation will tend to arise in areas with increased rates of mutation. That includes positive, neutral and negative mutations. And, mutations will still hit all parts of the genome… Again, there is no part of the genome where all neutral mutations are specifically directed by the biochemical mechanisms of the cell.

I know you’re interested in the broad set of ideas related to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. But just be aware that much of the hypotheses are sketchy at best. Most scientists familiar with the subjects consider the hype very overinflated. IMO, it will likely regress to a meaningless buzzword in the future, connoting something very different than as it was originally conceived (see also: the term ‘epigenetics’). I’d suggest that if one outside of the scientific areas took the criticisms of current evolutionary research from the articles of a number of the more vocal EES proponents or popular press, one would come away with a very skewed and flawed misunderstanding of work in the field. I’m not going to rehash the subject here as others have done it before and better than I’d have time for. Arlin Stoltzfus (not of the EES groups), is probably a more reliable source for criticism of areas misunderstood related to mutations and evolutionary biology. Dan Graur is another professor who has written blogs & articles on the web that relate to mutation and evolution. Larry Moran’s ‘Sandwalk’ blog has a series of articles about “EES”. If you’d like links, I can post them, but Google should work faster.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2018, 3:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/28 "2018-05-09T15:20:04Z")

</div>

@johnnyb hit his first day posting limit, but will hopefully be back sometimes soon. I’m sure this has been a frustrating exchange for him.

Let’s give him either a chance to explain himself at length or the freedom to move on to a different topic when he comes back.

In all honesty, some of my comment came off more snarky than I intended. We should give him a more gentle introduction to the forum.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2018, 4:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/29 "2018-05-09T16:44:24Z")

</div>

Also, recognizing that I’m straying a bit from the original topic (e.g. Neutral theory A & B), with my latest posts, let’s table that line and get back on topic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2018, 9:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176/32 "2018-10-15T09:26:58Z")

</div>



[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bartletts-theory-of-neutral-theory/176.md?page=1)