Mutation (split from The Selfish Gene Theory)

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Arthur Smith said:

I keep making the excuse that I'm new here. Haven't read that thread. A link to  the relevant comment(s) would be greatly appreciated if not too much trouble.

Sorry, I think my comment might have been a bit cryptic. I just meant to say that viral evolution or the development of mobile genetic elements in general are what has been discussed under the catchy umbrella of "Selfish genes" i.e. genetic elements that propagate without conferring selective benefits to their host (or being detrimental to them). Which is a bit of a different line than thinking of virus as reduced organisms (I think that line of thought was mostly fueled by the discovery of "giant" viruses).

[Arthur Smith]

41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, I think my comment might have been a bit cryptic. I just meant to say that viral evolution or the development of mobile genetic elements in general are what has been discussed under the catchy umbrella of "Selfish genes" i.e. genetic elements that propagate without conferring selective benefits to their host (or being detrimental to them). Which is a bit of a different line than thinking of virus as reduced organisms (I think that line of thought was mostly fueled by the discovery of "giant" viruses).

No problem. I realised after my wading I'd read more into your comment than you intended. On the other hand, your suggesting an HGT involvement in virus evolution is intriguing.

[Evomumbojumbo]

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

Proteins. @Arthur Smith has explained this in more detail. Also that when we say a code we do not imply there is an intention in it, merely that it is a biochemical template, in the form of sequences of a small number of base pairs, from which proteins are constructed.  

But to continue my point, now that we agree nature can create new code by variation and natural selection, and that this new code affects the structure and function of the resulting organism, as the virus case shows, you have accepted that this mechanism of evolution has real explanatory and predictive power, i.e. it is a sound scientific theory. Not mumbo jumbo. And clearly "garbage in garbage out"is inapplicable, or it would not work the way that we can see it does. 

What, then, is your objection to applying it to other cases?  

 

 

You are stretching the virus model too far. They are uniquely unstable in terms of genetic replication. It’s not clear that what the mutations produce is beneficial in a non vaccine world. They are made up of if RNA not DNA, no new structures are made, the mutations never move the virus any further up the ‘tree of life’

i am still waiting to see a mechanism that can take a single cell eukaryote and build stuff in the DNA code to get to us, this isn’t it

[Genady]

22 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

... a mechanism that can take a single cell eukaryote and build stuff in the DNA code to get to us ...

The mechanism is accumulation of substitutions, additions, and deletions which occur during consecutive replications.  

[Evomumbojumbo]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

The mechanism is accumulation of substitutions, additions, and deletions which occur during consecutive replications.  

Theory only

[zapatos]

On 1/20/2022 at 7:57 PM, Evomumbojumbo said:

are we allowed to start talking Big Bang on this thread? I’d be happy to discuss the universal framework of physics, quantum, parallel universes and Laurence Krauss’s definition of nothing if you like but not sure we can

Yes, it is acceptable to answer my question. Here, I'll list it again:

On 1/19/2022 at 9:02 PM, zapatos said:

What do you mean when you say "at the beginning". At the beginning of the Big Bang? At the beginning of the formation of the solar system? Just trying to understand your position here.

 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Theory only

You’ve just won two medals! One for being a dumbass, and a second for when you lose the first one. 

[Arete]

53 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

It’s not clear that what the mutations produce is beneficial in a non vaccine world.

Most empirical examples of adaptive evolution in viruses do not involve vaccines.

59 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

They are made up of if RNA not DNA, no new structures are made

As stated previously, viruses are not solely RNA based. There are DNA viruses, and some (e.g. lysogenic bacteriophages) switch between RNA and DNA. 

1 hour ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

the mutations never move the virus any further up the ‘tree of life’

As previously stated, viruses do not necessarily share a common ancestor with prokaryotes/eukaryotes/archaea. There is no prediction under evolutionary theory that a virus could or would evolve into another kingdom of life. 

1 hour ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

i am still waiting to see a mechanism that can take a single cell eukaryote and build stuff in the DNA code

Given we're discussing virus evolution, I imagine not. 

[Arthur Smith]

5 hours ago, Arete said:

...viruses do not necessarily share a common ancestor with prokaryotes/eukaryotes/archaea.

Is that a throwaway remark or are you suggesting virus origins are separate from all other terrestrial life?

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origins-of-viruses-14398218/#:~:text=Viruses may have arisen from,the evolution of%2C cellular life.

For background.

 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Theory only

Theory, scientific theory that is, is our best estimation at any one particular time, according to available data. That's science.

[Evomumbojumbo]

Then without proof I am entitled to deny it. The issue is that it’s presented as fact when it isn’t 

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes, it is acceptable to answer my question. Here, I'll list it again:

 

There was no Big Bang 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

You’ve just won two medals! One for being a dumbass, and a second for when you lose the first one. 

When quantum physics is understood and mainstream and when we can access the other 10 dimensions of the universe and when we realise there is life outside of our materialistic experience and when you are faced with a choice of which side your on you will wish you had listened to those who claimed the supernatural exists and that this life is a shadow of a larger existence. Enjoy the ride.

[Genady]

36 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

... when you are faced with a choice of which side your on you will wish you had listened to those who claimed the supernatural exists ...

Or else?

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

You are stretching the virus model too far. They are uniquely unstable in terms of genetic replication. It’s not clear that what the mutations produce is beneficial in a non vaccine world. They are made up of if RNA not DNA, no new structures are made, the mutations never move the virus any further up the ‘tree of life’

i am still waiting to see a mechanism that can take a single cell eukaryote and build stuff in the DNA code to get to us, this isn’t it

But look at what we've now established.

1) Nature can create new genetic "code" that benefits the organism. So we can forget "garbage in garbage out".

2) The mechanism works by natural selection of variations. This is exactly what Darwin came up with 150 years ago, before the science of genetic sequencing even existed. So we have an independent confirmation that his theory does  work, for real, in nature.

As to viruses being a special case for some reason, well, no, not really. I only chose SARS-CoV-2 as a topical example that you could not avoid knowing about. There are DNA viruses too, including smallpox, herpes and papilloma viruses. Secondly and more importantly, we also see evolution at work in the same way in bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and in the way cancer cells develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs.

So we know this mechanism operates in viruses, prokaryotes (bacteria) and eukaryotes (cancer cells).  That is important, since it follows that we can expect it to operate in all organisms - throughout the living world.

It only remains to argue (if you insist) about what this mechanism is capable of, i.e. the degree of change it can bring about over time.   

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by exchemist

[Evomumbojumbo]

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

Or else?

Or else you will have wasted your earthly life denying that you are really an eternal soul inside a physical shell but by then you will not have the wisdom to save yourself.

16 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But look at what we've now established.

1) Nature can create new genetic "code" that benefits the organism. So we can forget "garbage in garbage out".

2) The mechanism works by natural selection of variations. This is exactly what Darwin came up with 150 years ago, before the science of genetic sequencing even existed. So we have an independent confirmation that his theory does  work, for real, in nature.

As to viruses being a special case for some reason, well, no, not really. I only chose SARS-CoV-2 as a topical example that you could not avoid knowing about. There are DNA viruses too, including smallpox, herpes and papilloma viruses. Secondly and more importantly, we also see evolution at work in the same way in bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and in the way cancer cells develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs.

So we know this mechanism operates in viruses, prokaryotes (bacteria) and eukaryotes (cancer cells).  That is important, since it follows that we can expect it to operate in all organisms - throughout the living world.

It only remains to argue (if you insist) about what this mechanism is capable of, i.e. the degree of change it can bring about over time.   

 

It’s easy to test the degree of change. Get a billion short life span organisms and condense the mutations in a lab and run this for many years to get something new. 
it’s been done and  is still being done in an attempt to prove your position. But all we ever get is more bacteria and more fruit flies.

[exchemist]

22 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Or else you will have wasted your earthly life denying that you are really an eternal soul inside a physical shell but by then you will not have the wisdom to save yourself.

It’s easy to test the degree of change. Get a billion short life span organisms and condense the mutations in a lab and run this for many years to get something new. 
it’s been done and  is still being done in an attempt to prove your position. But all we ever get is more bacteria and more fruit flies.

So what is your argument now? When you arrived, you were maintaining the whole notion of natural, beneficial genetic change was nonsense, because nature could not "code": garbage in garbage out, etc. But now we have established that argument is hogwash. Nature does do this, in viruses, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. 

I must presume your argument has now changed to be one of not seeing how major changes in organisms can be brought about by this process. 

Regarding how easy it is to "test" the degree of change it can bring about, what makes you think this is "easy"? It requires many generations. That is easy to do with bacteria, since new generations occur every few minutes. With a more complex organism a new generation may only occur every few months, or years even. So any "test" will have to be over very long periods of time. Have you worked out how long, for any given organism?

What tests are you referring to? Can you provide links?

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by exchemist

[Genady]

21 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Or else you will have wasted your earthly life denying that you are really an eternal soul inside a physical shell but by then you will not have the wisdom to save yourself.

To save of what? from what?

Edited January 22, 2022 by Genady

[Evomumbojumbo]

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

So what is your argument now? When you arrived, you were maintaining the whole notion of natural, beneficial genetic change was nonsense, because nature could not "code": garbage in garbage out, etc. But now we have established that argument is hogwash. Nature does do this, in viruses, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. 

I must presume your argument has now changed to be one of not seeing how major changes in organisms can be brought about by this process. 

Regarding how easy it is to "test" the degree of change it can bring about, what makes you think this is "easy"? It requires many generations. That is easy to do with bacteria, since new generations occur every few minutes. With a more complex organism a new generation may only occur every few months, or years even. So any "test" will have to be over very long periods of time, won't it?   

What right have you to criticise your fellow secular scientists? Don’t you think that step one of any experiment like this would be an analysis of generations vs number of specimens vs virtual timeline it represents?

go read some case studies, there are thousands 

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

To save of what? from what?

Ok I’m going to tell you this because I am duty bound to offer you salvation. I am in no way preaching at you and I never will mention this again but you asked. Be careful not to offer a knee jerk response, best to say nothing in case you offend a greater being you later regret offending, and you will. Read John 3 16.

[Genady]

19 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

... best to say nothing in case you offend a greater being you later regret offending ...

Or else?

[Evomumbojumbo]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

Or else?

You’re not my problem now

[Genady]

Just now, Evomumbojumbo said:

You’re not my problem now

It doesn't answer my question, nor it offers a proof or an evidence.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

There was no Big Bang 

I’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Then without proof I am entitled to deny it. The issue is that it’s presented as fact when it isn’t 

!

Moderator Note

You misunderstand the lay of the land. This is a science discussion site. Mainstream science is taken as the default, as there are years and years of testing and evidence already available. Claims contrary to such science are what require “proof”

 

1 hour ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Ok I’m going to tell you this because I am duty bound to offer you salvation. I am in no way preaching at you and I never will mention this again but you asked. Be careful not to offer a knee jerk response, best to say nothing in case you offend a greater being you later regret offending, and you will. Read John 3 16.

!

Moderator Note

This had better be the last time you offer up religion in a science thread. And you are wrong about this not being preaching.

 

[Evomumbojumbo]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You misunderstand the lay of the land. This is a science discussion site. Mainstream science is taken as the default, as there are years and years of testing and evidence already available. Claims contrary to such science are what require “proof”

 

!

Moderator Note

This had better be the last time you offer up religion in a science thread. And you are wrong about this not being preaching.

 

Religion is science you just don’t know it. Anyway I hope all the big boys on this site feel suitably protected by the paternal moderators. Bye bye

[Arete]

7 hours ago, Arthur Smith said:

Is that a throwaway remark or are you suggesting virus origins are separate from all other terrestrial life?

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origins-of-viruses-14398218/#:~:text=Viruses may have arisen from,the evolution of%2C cellular life.

For background.

There's a few non-mutually exclusive hypotheses regarding the evolutionary origins of viruses. The "virus-first" hypothesis posits that virus evolution occurred on parallel with cellular life. If that were the case then yes, virus origins, or at least some virus origins may well be separate from cellular life. Also note, many viruses are not terrestrial. 

2 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

it’s been done and  is still being done in an attempt to prove your position. But all we ever get is more bacteria and more fruit flies.

If all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, how come a French woman has never given birth to a Singaporean? If you're related to your cousins, how come one of them has never given birth to your child? 

Common ancestry doesn't infer that organisms will spontaneously change into fundamentally different organisms. In fact if a bacterium woke up one day and discovered it had divided into a bacteria and an elephant, it would completely contradict contemporary evolutionary theory. 

55 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Anyway I hope all the big boys on this site feel suitably protected by the paternal moderators. Bye bye

I often wonder what would happen if fundamentalists ever gained the self awareness to realize how counterproductive and hypocritical being petulant and condescending on the internet is. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Arete

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

There was no Big Bang 

Are you being purposely obtuse? I didn't ask if there was a Big Bang. I asked "What do you mean when you say "at the beginning"?"

45 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said:

Bye bye

Praise the Lord! 😇