Did Swamidass Punt on Innovation?

[T_aquaticus]

@BenKissling

Whenever I have debated with evolutionists, virtually all of them will answer any assertion that evolution is “random” by saying natural selection is not random. They will strenuously object and say I am mischaracterizing evolution by calling it “random”. By removing natural selection from the equation, you have made believing the evolutionary story harder, not easier, because now it is totally random. Instead of the Darwinian story which Behe critiques that only requires random mutation to successfully find selectable steps, CNE as you call it is random the whole way through. That is a step back, not a step forward, in understanding evolution. The fact that neutral evolution does away with selection at low selection coefficients makes evolutionary steps harder to achieve, not easier. And yet you act as though this is a great leap forward in understanding and somehow an answer to Behe’s questions, which is why I find this whole thing rather amusing.

An analogy that helps me visualize these concepts is the game of Jenga.

If you have ever played this game before you will have learned that the importance of specific blocks can change over time. At the beginning of the game there are many blocks that can be removed without tipping the tower over. However, if you go back to those same loose blocks later in the game you will find that they fit tightly and can’t be removed. The same for some of the tight blocks at the beginning of the game that become loose and removable later. This is very much how genetics can work.

If you look at a protein or functional DNA sequence at any point in history there are bases that can change without damaging the function of that sequence. However, if you move to a different point in history this may not be the case. Bases you could change at one point without any ramifications, that is neutral mutations, may be vital for function at a different point in history. This is called epistasis, a term you should look up and understand to get a better grip on how part of constructive neutral evolution works.

Is natural selection an important part of the modern theory of evolution? Absolutely!!! However, evolution is a complex process and to understand it you also have to incorporate a lot of other mechanisms, with historical contingency, epistasis, and neutral mutations being three of them.