The significance of random mutations in the Origins debate

Maybe just “vacuous”.

Premise One : Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of functional information.

FI is a marker for degree of function among many ways the same function might be accomplished. “Producing FI” doesn’t mean producing new genetic function unless we choose to read that meaning into the statement - which we should not, IMO. Better to demand a meaningful premise.

1 Like

You misunderstand. Nothing we’ve done is, or could be, evidence of ‘intelligent causes’ doing anything. Merely evidence of physical processes doing something. That’s the fatal problem with Midhun’s analysis.

3 Likes

Ok, got it. You’re right.

Can I at least claim to be an intelligent cause that is affecting physical processes that leave evidence? Otherwise I’d get in trouble with Descartes.

Here is proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the genetic and physical differences between humans and other primates is due to the same processes of random mutation that we see operating in primates today:

The pattern of transitions and transversions observed in modern life is observed in the differences between lineages. We observe that modern mutations are random with respect to fitness. Increasing the number of random mutations does not make them nonrandom just as buying more lottery tickets does not make the lottery nonrandom.

3 Likes

Despite what the religious naturalists in this thread seem to be implying, there’s recent evidence that mutations aren’t entirely “random”–even those mutations that contribute to fitness.
Study challenges evolutionary theory that DNA mutations are random (phys.org)
Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana - PMC (nih.gov)

Yes, and we have discussed that one previously here:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mutation-bias-reflects-natural-selection-in-arabidopsis-thaliana/

I have temporarily reopened comments in case you have anything to add to that thread.

2 Likes

Religious naturalists? Isn’t that an oxymoron (assuming you’re referring to philosophical naturalism)? If you’re referring to methodological naturalism, then you’re right, because a number of us here are religious (Christian or otherwise) and employ methodological naturalism when doing science.

3 Likes

I think you need to think about what random means.

The study showed the rate at which non-adaptive mutations occurs could fluctuate in certain locations, so that under some conditions a lower proportion mutations at some loci, were non-adaptive, than at other loci, because these locations in the genome were better protected against mutation (and hence the rate of deleterious mutations was lower because in these locations the overall the rate of mutations was lower).

Now if you think this makes the mutations non-random I just have to ask why? Why is the new rate non-random, but the previous rate was not? What is this threshold rate at which you think mutations change over from being random to being non-random? Give me a number and explain to me why THAT is your threshold. Why are mutations below that rate random, and mutations above it non-random?

I see all the resident creationists and ID-proponents here fail to deal with this point. I think in my self-serving bias that is because, upon reflection, you all understand that my question makes perfect sense and that, indeed, as long as chance is involved at all, the mutations are still random.

If there are someone among you who disagree with that, please take some time to correct me by first of all answering my above questions. Give me the numbers and tell me why.

No, it’s just meant as an insult I am sure.

Non-random mutations in this context would be a system that detects a specific environmental challenge, and in response mutates a specific base in a specific gene. For example, a system where a bacteria detects antibiotics in the environment and then mutations a specific gene to produce resistance. The only thing that even comes close to this is the CRISPR/Cas9 system in bacteria that specifically mutates a region of DNA in response to phage infection. Your examples do not come close to non-random mutations.

4 Likes

This comment is not addressed particularly to a person, but to everyone.

Is it possible to infer design and rule out strictly naturalistic explanations by merely studying the end-product? I mean, when no one can witness the origin of the system in real-time?
If yes, list out all possible methodologies you think that are helpful to infer design.

I have already replied to a similar argument.
Read again the paragraph in my initial post that starts with “An important point to keep in mind is”.
After that, please go through my replies to Rumraket including those I posted today.

Right.

I have dispute only with the purported creative power of a particular evolutionary mechanism that I detailed in the final paragraphs of my initial post.

Design can be inferred by studying the structure of the end product. Take for instance the case of a hypothetical information signal that we receive from an extraterrestrial source (See my reply to John). Even if we dont know how such a signal would have been created, we’d still infer design as the most rational explanation.

Likewise, a system such as the first cellular life which carry functional information demands the purposeful arrangement of individual units inorder to originate. How did the designer arrange those components? No one knows the answer. Although finding the detailed answer to “how designer would have created” is certainly useful in our study of biology, it isn’t an essential requirement to infer design.

Seriously dude? You expect me to read all the 1729 papers in that list?:grin:
I went through just one paper. Couldn’t access the first paper, therefore I read the second paper titled ‘What crustaceans can tell us about the evolution of insect wings and other morphologically novel structures.’ This 2021 paper acknowledges in the introductory part:

“The insect wing is considered to have evolved only once in the hexapod
lineage sometime in the Devonian period; however, the evolutionary and developmental mechanism underlying the emergence of this complex flight device remains elusive.

The above statement reflects what the 2021 Bioessays paper said (see my initial post for quotation).

Reading further, the paper proposes some mechanisms that could have contributed to the evolution of insect wings.

“…the insect wing can be considered to have evolved through the modification of preexisting structures (implying homology) by a novel evolutionary mechanism and/or co-opting new genes into the underlying preWGN…”

Though an interesting paper, the data in it isn’t adequate to address our topic of discussion.

“SHM is initiated by targeting the Activation-Induced Cytidine Deaminase (AID) to rearranged V(D)J and switch regions of Ig genes. The mutation rate of this programmed mutagenesis is ~10−3 base pairs per generation, a million-fold higher than the non-AID targeted genome of B cells.”
(https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00438)

The following study found that AID is targetted to particular immunoglobulin loci during SHM. Its access to other regions has been found to be restricted.
(The very 5′ end and the constant region of Ig genes are spared from somatic mutation because AID does not access these regions | Journal of Experimental Medicine | Rockefeller University Press)

Since your very first comment in this thread, you are arguing that my statement on SHM is false. But you’ve been reluctant in adding any further information. Whats your point really? I still don’t get it. How would I know whats in your mind if you do not explain that to me?

Thats why I asked if you had “rare mistargetting of SHM” in your mind. By the words “rare mistargetting of SHM”, I meant exactly what scientific literature mean.

:black_small_square:︎For example, a 2006 review explains:

“Somatic hypermutation (SHM) introduces mutations in the variable region of immunoglobulin genes at a rate of ∼10–3 mutations per base pair per cell division, which is 10^6 -fold higher than the spontaneous mutation rate in somatic cells. To ensure genomic integrity, SHM needs to be targeted specifically to immunoglobulin genes. The rare mistargeting of SHM can result in mutations and translocations in oncogenes, and is thought to contribute to the development of B-cell malignancies.”
(https://doi.org/10.1038/nri1896)

:black_small_square:︎Another paper (the journal of immunology, 2013) says:

“Although SHM acts primarily at Ig loci, low levels of off-target mutation can result in oncogenic DNA damage…”
(https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1300969)

If you didn’t mean this phenomenon, what else you have in mind?

I’ll explain the issue in your argument with another example of premises & conclusion.

Consider a hypothetical scenario in which we are detecting a radio signal that was originated from an unknown extraterrestrial source. On decoding the signal, we find that the signal carries meaningful information say for example, the description of certain planets, the laws of universe etc. This is the first time we’ve received a meaningful information signal from an extraterrestrial source.
Through abductive reasoning, we would infer extraterrestrial intelligence as the most rational explanation for this extraterrestrial signal.
The line of reasoning can be outlined as:

Premise one: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce meaningful information such as description of planets, laws of universe etc

Premise two: No materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce meaningful information such as description of planets, laws of universe etc

Conclusion: Extraterrestrial intelligence is the most rational explanation for the origin of this extraterrestrial signal.

Now, replace “Intelligent causes” with “only humans (or human made equipments)” in premise one.
Now it becomes:

Premise one: Only humans (or human made equipments) have demonstrated the power to produce meaningful information such as description of planets, laws of universe etc

Premise two: No materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce meaningful information such as description of planets, laws of universe etc

Conclusion: Human (or human made equipment) is the most rational explanation for the origin of this extraterrestrial signal.

You see the problem, don’t you? Thats why its appropriate to use the more broader term “intelligent cause” instead of the term “human”.

Imagine how I’d have felt when I found people criticizing my comment without even reading the comment properly. I’ve written “specified or functional” two times in that paragraph and the nature article explicitly uses the later term.

You misunderstood my arguement. I hadn’t meant so.

I never argued so. I said specifically “first cellular life”. Does “first cellular life” mean that ‘first life is cellular’?
I do not know whether any kinds of primitive self-replicating systems had existed prior to first cellular life.