Can Mutation Invent?

[Nils]

Let me be very explicit...
I do not expect a high rate of mutations in either the lab or in nature
I do not expect a high rate of beneficial mutations in either the lab or in nature
Therefore ==> I think it is "wrong" to expect a high level of beneficial mutations in either the lab or in nature.

This way of reasoning seems a bit circular, you “think it is wrong to expect a high level ..." because you “do not expect high rate...”. Is there a differece between "rate" and "level"? Besides, from where did you get the information of mutation levels in nature?

I interpret your statement as you think that Lenski showed that there isn’t a high rate of E Coli beneficial mutations in the experiment.

I think you must have misunderstood me somewhere...

I have never claimed that there was a high level or rate of beneficial mutations in Lenski's experiments.
What the data shows is that an overwhelming majority of the beneficial mutations that did occur in Lenski's experiments degraded existing genetic information.

And the behavior of beneficial mutations in Lenski's experiments is consistent with the observable behavior of beneficial mutations in the real world.

And since the overwhelming majority of beneficial mutations that do occur in nature and in the lab degrade genetic information
I think it is even more "wrong" to expect a high rate of beneficial mutations to add genetic information.

That seems reasonably as long as you talk about Lemski’s E Coli populations. It may be true in many cases in nature but from what I read about evolution there is an enormous difference in speed between e.g. E coli that has evolved little over hundred million years and higher animals with sexual reproduction in rapidly changing environment. Even if many (or most) beneficial mutations don’t add information some do and that is enough. (I said that a few times but you never commented)

You've asserted that a few times but I am unaware of any empirically observed mutation rate data to support that assertion.

I have no specific reference but it is well known that differences in DNA is used as a measure of time since two species developed in separate directions. That requires a rough estimate of mutation speed.

One of the reasons I provide links to my sources is so that my assertions can be checked against scientific sources.
So far you have not provided any empirically observed data to support your "some do and that is enough" assertion.

On the other hand, the exponential difference between malaria developing resistance to atovaquone (1 mutation) and chloroquine (2 mutations) demonstrates that empirically observed rate at which "some do" is nowhere near enough.

First Lenski’s experiment doesn’t show that there are no beneficial mutations that add genetic information. Secondly, even if it were so, that doesn’t show that this is the case generally. As I have said repeatedly, E coli hasn’t changed much over one hundred million year. That implies that there have been very few beneficial mutations. E coli is a special case, not a general case. Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist.

You're actually getting pretty close here...

If evolution generally is as slow as it is for E coli, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Yes that statement is correct, but it is a conditional statement. The question is now which alternative is the correct one?
1. Is evolution generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.
Or
2. Is evolution not generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this doesn’t demonstrate that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Which do you choose and why?

The purpose of the links was to provide source material for anyone who might want to fact check my claims that beneficial mutations in nature and in the lab do not typically add new genetic information.
In fact the observed behavior of beneficial mutations in nature and in the lab overwhelming degrade existing genetic information.

Ok, I thought you were debating with me. However, I would not recommend Behe’s writings.

Oh I am debating with you...
And this has been enjoyable and beneficial to me as this discussion has pushed me to deep dive some topics that I had not previously looked in to.

However since we are on a public board, I think it is beneficial to post source material links for anyone else who may be following this discussion.
And I even hold out some hope that you might even take a look into some of Behe's work... even if your goal is to somehow prove him wrong

I have looked at the Behe lectures on Youtube and read about him. That’s enough (but I will comment more later on).

[DBowling]

And since the overwhelming majority of beneficial mutations that do occur in nature and in the lab degrade genetic information
I think it is even more "wrong" to expect a high rate of beneficial mutations to add genetic information.

That seems reasonably as long as you talk about Lemski’s E Coli populations. It may be true in many cases in nature but from what I read about evolution there is an enormous difference in speed between e.g. E coli that has evolved little over hundred million years and higher animals with sexual reproduction in rapidly changing environment. Even if many (or most) beneficial mutations don’t add information some do and that is enough.

You've asserted that a few times but I am unaware of any empirically observed mutation rate data to support that assertion.

I have no specific reference but it is well known that differences in DNA is used as a measure of time since two species developed in separate directions. That requires a rough estimate of mutation speed.

You are referring to the "presumed" rate of evolution based on reverse engineering the rate of evolution from the fossil record and genetic analysis of currently existing life forms.

The big problem is the empirically observed behavior of mutation at the genetic level in the lab and in nature is a far cry from the reverse engineered "presumed" rate of mutation required to generate the tree of life.

So far you have not provided any empirically observed data to support your "some do and that is enough" assertion.

On the other hand, the exponential difference between malaria developing resistance to atovaquone (1 mutation) and chloroquine (2 mutations) demonstrates that empirically observed rate at which "some do" is nowhere near enough.

First Lenski’s experiment doesn’t show that there are no beneficial mutations that add genetic information. Secondly, even if it were so, that doesn’t show that this is the case generally. As I have said repeatedly, E coli hasn’t changed much over one hundred million year. That implies that there have been very few beneficial mutations. E coli is a special case, not a general case. Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist.

You're actually getting pretty close here...

If evolution generally is as slow as it is for E coli, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Yes that statement is correct, but it is a conditional statement. The question is now which alternative is the correct one?
1. Is evolution generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.
Or
2. Is evolution not generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this doesn’t demonstrate that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Which do you choose and why?

How about #3
If evolution is generally as slow as the empirically observed rate for bacteria (e coli), parasites (malaria) and other eukaryotes in nature and in the lab, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

[Nils]

And since the overwhelming majority of beneficial mutations that do occur in nature and in the lab degrade genetic information
I think it is even more "wrong" to expect a high rate of beneficial mutations to add genetic information.

That seems reasonably as long as you talk about Lemski’s E Coli populations. It may be true in many cases in nature but from what I read about evolution there is an enormous difference in speed between e.g. E coli that has evolved little over hundred million years and higher animals with sexual reproduction in rapidly changing environment. Even if many (or most) beneficial mutations don’t add information some do and that is enough.

You've asserted that a few times but I am unaware of any empirically observed mutation rate data to support that assertion.

I have no specific reference but it is well known that differences in DNA is used as a measure of time since two species developed in separate directions. That requires a rough estimate of mutation speed.

You are referring to the "presumed" rate of evolution based on reverse engineering the rate of evolution from the fossil record and genetic analysis of currently existing life forms.

The big problem is the empirically observed behavior of mutation at the genetic level in the lab and in nature is a far cry from the reverse engineered "presumed" rate of mutation required to generate the tree of life.

Again and again you refer to “the empirically observed behavior of mutation at the genetic level in the lab and in nature” but you are only talking about some bacteria. What you never answer is what is the evidence that the evolution rate for species that are far more complex than bacteria is the same as for bacteria.

“Presumed” and “reverse engineering” are an incorrect words for abundant evidence.

So far you have not provided any empirically observed data to support your "some do and that is enough" assertion.

On the other hand, the exponential difference between malaria developing resistance to atovaquone (1 mutation) and chloroquine (2 mutations) demonstrates that empirically observed rate at which "some do" is nowhere near enough.

First Lenski’s experiment doesn’t show that there are no beneficial mutations that add genetic information. Secondly, even if it were so, that doesn’t show that this is the case generally. As I have said repeatedly, E coli hasn’t changed much over one hundred million year. That implies that there have been very few beneficial mutations. E coli is a special case, not a general case. Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist.

You're actually getting pretty close here...

If evolution generally is as slow as it is for E coli, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Yes that statement is correct, but it is a conditional statement. The question is now which alternative is the correct one?
1. Is evolution generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.
Or
2. Is evolution not generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this doesn’t demonstrate that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Which do you choose and why?

How about #3
If evolution is generally as slow as the empirically observed rate for bacteria (e coli), parasites (malaria) and other eukaryotes in nature and in the lab, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Apparently, you didn’t understand my comment. You stated a conditional sentence (approx. 14 lines above). It can be converted to two unconditional statements 1. and 2. one of which is true if your original sentence is true. Now you suggest a third alternative that is the same as the original sentence! A statement "If A then B" says nothing about B if A is false. You have to choose between A or not A (my 1. or 2.)

Besides, you seem to think that the mutation rate is a universal constant. This is completely against the theoretical consequences of the evolution theory and against all empirical data.

[DBowling]

I have no specific reference but it is well known that differences in DNA is used as a measure of time since two species developed in separate directions. That requires a rough estimate of mutation speed.

You are referring to the "presumed" rate of evolution based on reverse engineering the rate of evolution from the fossil record and genetic analysis of currently existing life forms.

The big problem is the empirically observed behavior of mutation at the genetic level in the lab and in nature is a far cry from the reverse engineered "presumed" rate of mutation required to generate the tree of life.

Again and again you refer to “the empirically observed behavior of mutation at the genetic level in the lab and in nature” but you are only talking about some bacteria. What you never answer is what is the evidence that the evolution rate for species that are far more complex than bacteria is the same as for bacteria.

“Presumed” and “reverse engineering” are an incorrect words for abundant evidence.

If there is abundant evidence then I would love to see some of that abundant evidence.

I would love to see the abundant evidence that higher order organisms mutate at a faster rate than bacteria.
(they don't)
I would love to see the abundant evidence that higher order organisms mutate at a faster rate than the malaria parasite.
(they don't)

The empirically evidence shows just the opposite. Simpler organisms, mutate at a significantly faster rate than more complex organisms.
If you want to assert the opposite then show me some of that abundant data.

So far you have not provided any empirically observed data to support your "some do and that is enough" assertion.

On the other hand, the exponential difference between malaria developing resistance to atovaquone (1 mutation) and chloroquine (2 mutations) demonstrates that empirically observed rate at which "some do" is nowhere near enough.

First Lenski’s experiment doesn’t show that there are no beneficial mutations that add genetic information. Secondly, even if it were so, that doesn’t show that this is the case generally. As I have said repeatedly, E coli hasn’t changed much over one hundred million year. That implies that there have been very few beneficial mutations. E coli is a special case, not a general case. Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist.

You're actually getting pretty close here...

If evolution generally is as slow as it is for E coli, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Yes that statement is correct, but it is a conditional statement. The question is now which alternative is the correct one?
1. Is evolution generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.
Or
2. Is evolution not generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this doesn’t demonstrate that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Which do you choose and why?

How about #3
If evolution is generally as slow as the empirically observed rate for bacteria (e coli), parasites (malaria) and other eukaryotes in nature and in the lab, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Apparently, you didn’t understand my comment. You stated a conditional sentence (approx. 14 lines above). It can be converted to two unconditional statements 1. and 2. one of which is true if your original sentence is true. Now you suggest a third alternative that is the same as the original sentence! A statement "If A then B" says nothing about B if A is false. You have to choose between A or not A (my 1. or 2.)

The mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than the mutation rate for bacteria.
The mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than the mutation rate for parasites (such as the malaria parasite).

==> since the observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than that of bacteria, then evolution is also generally slower for eukaryotes than it is for bacteria (suck as e coli).

[Nils]

I have no specific reference but it is well known that differences in DNA is used as a measure of time since two species developed in separate directions. That requires a rough estimate of mutation speed.

You are referring to the "presumed" rate of evolution based on reverse engineering the rate of evolution from the fossil record and genetic analysis of currently existing life forms.

The big problem is the empirically observed behavior of mutation at the genetic level in the lab and in nature is a far cry from the reverse engineered "presumed" rate of mutation required to generate the tree of life.

Again and again you refer to “the empirically observed behavior of mutation at the genetic level in the lab and in nature” but you are only talking about some bacteria. What you never answer is what is the evidence that the evolution rate for species that are far more complex than bacteria is the same as for bacteria.

“Presumed” and “reverse engineering” are an incorrect words for abundant evidence.

If there is abundant evidence then I would love to see some of that abundant evidence.

I would love to see the abundant evidence that higher order organisms mutate at a faster rate than bacteria.
(they don't)
I would love to see the abundant evidence that higher order organisms mutate at a faster rate than the malaria parasite.
(they don't)

The empirically evidence shows just the opposite. Simpler organisms, mutate at a significantly faster rate than more complex organisms.
If you want to assert the opposite then show me some of that abundant data.

So far you have not provided any empirically observed data to support your "some do and that is enough" assertion.

On the other hand, the exponential difference between malaria developing resistance to atovaquone (1 mutation) and chloroquine (2 mutations) demonstrates that empirically observed rate at which "some do" is nowhere near enough.

You're actually getting pretty close here...

If evolution generally is as slow as it is for E coli, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Yes that statement is correct, but it is a conditional statement. The question is now which alternative is the correct one?
1. Is evolution generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.
Or
2. Is evolution not generally as slow as it is for E coli? Then this doesn’t demonstrate that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Which do you choose and why?

How about #3
If evolution is generally as slow as the empirically observed rate for bacteria (e coli), parasites (malaria) and other eukaryotes in nature and in the lab, this demonstrates that (unguided) evolution in and of itself is an inadequate explanation for why you and I do in fact exist.

Apparently, you didn’t understand my comment. You stated a conditional sentence (approx. 14 lines above). It can be converted to two unconditional statements 1. and 2. one of which is true if your original sentence is true. Now you suggest a third alternative that is the same as the original sentence! A statement "If A then B" says nothing about B if A is false. You have to choose between A or not A (my 1. or 2.)

The mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than the mutation rate for bacteria.
The mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than the mutation rate for parasites (such as the malaria parasite).

==> since the observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than that of bacteria, then evolution is also generally slower for eukaryotes than it is for bacteria (suck as e coli).

What’s is of interest is the rate of beneficial mutations. The rate of beneficial mutations in most eukaryotes (e.g. plants and mammals) is higher than at least in E coli. E coli hasn’t evolved much during it’s existence one hundred+ millions of years. Mammals has evolved much since the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. From something like rats to humans.

About mutation rate see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_evolution

[DBowling]

The mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than the mutation rate for bacteria.
The mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than the mutation rate for parasites (such as the malaria parasite).

==> since the observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than that of bacteria, then evolution is also generally slower for eukaryotes than it is for bacteria (suck as e coli).

What’s is of interest is the rate of beneficial mutations. The rate of beneficial mutations in most eukaryotes (e.g. plants and mammals) is higher than at least in E coli. E coli hasn’t evolved much during it’s existence one hundred+ millions of years. Mammals has evolved much since the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. From something like rats to humans.

This is precisely the point I am getting at...

Is "random" mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life that we see in the fossil record or the complex genetic code that we find in the DNA of life today?
(a quick reminder... in evolutional theory mutation is the only "causal" mechanism. Natural selection is "selective" not "causal".)
The empirically observed behavior of mutation and evolution in nature and in the lab says it is not.

You assert that based on the fossil record, the the evolution rate for eukaryotes is faster than bacteria such as e coli.
If that is an accurate assertion, that just demonstrates that "random" mutation by itself is an insufficient causal mechanism for the presumed evolution rate.
Because every empirically observed analysis of mutation rates shows just the opposite. The observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is significantly slower than the mutation rates for bacteria.
This confirms yet again that the empirically observed behavior of "random" mutation is incapable of producing the evolutionary rate required to produce either the fossil record or the complexity of the genetic code in the DNA of life on our planet.

[Philip]

This has been a great and fascinating discussion - and it's generated over 7,600 views so far!

[Nils]

The mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than the mutation rate for bacteria.
The mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than the mutation rate for parasites (such as the malaria parasite).

==> since the observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is slower than that of bacteria, then evolution is also generally slower for eukaryotes than it is for bacteria (suck as e coli).

What’s is of interest is the rate of beneficial mutations. The rate of beneficial mutations in most eukaryotes (e.g. plants and mammals) is higher than at least in E coli. E coli hasn’t evolved much during it’s existence one hundred+ millions of years. Mammals has evolved much since the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. From something like rats to humans.

DB, this is getting a bit boring, you repeat the same statements again and again without motivation and you don’t counter my arguments.

This is precisely the point I am getting at...

Is "random" mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life that we see in the fossil record or the complex genetic code that we find in the DNA of life today?

(Not only in the fossil record but in the DNA analysis of animals that live today. )

(a quick reminder... in evolutional theory mutation is the only "causal" mechanism. Natural selection is "selective" not "causal".)

(It can be discussed if selection is a “causal” mechanism. Not important now. )

The empirically observed behavior of mutation and evolution in nature and in the lab says it is not.

You have said this a lot of times but you never present any references. We have discussed Lenski’s experiments and the findings about Malaria but neither of these implies that random mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) isn’t “a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life”. And what “emperical observed” behavior in nature do you refer to?

You assert that based on the fossil record, the the evolution rate for eukaryotes is faster than bacteria such as e coli.
If that is an accurate assertion, that just demonstrates that "random" mutation by itself is an insufficient causal mechanism for the presumed evolution rate.
Because every empirically observed analysis of mutation rates shows just the opposite. The observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is significantly slower than the mutation rates for bacteria.

Do you say that the observed rate of beneficial mutations for all eukaryotes (e.g. mamals) are slower than rate of beneficial mutations in any bacteria (e.g. E coli)? That’s the statement that is needed for you conclusion.
What’s your evidence?

This confirms yet again that the empirically observed behavior of "random" mutation is incapable of producing the evolutionary rate required to produce either the fossil record or the complexity of the genetic code in the DNA of life on our planet.

Yes, I know what you think. You have repeated this innumerable times but you need to forward some evidence that supports that rather strong statement. A statement that is contradictory to current science.

[DBowling]

What’s is of interest is the rate of beneficial mutations. The rate of beneficial mutations in most eukaryotes (e.g. plants and mammals) is higher than at least in E coli. E coli hasn’t evolved much during it’s existence one hundred+ millions of years. Mammals has evolved much since the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. From something like rats to humans.

This is precisely the point I am getting at...
Is "random" mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life that we see in the fossil record or the complex genetic code that we find in the DNA of life today?

(Not only in the fossil record but in the DNA analysis of animals that live today. )

Correct...
But the evolution rate calculated from the fossil record and DNA analysis of animals today presumes "random mutation".
So it is nothing more than circular reasoning to use an evolution rate that presumes "random mutation" as some sort of evidence of the sufficiency of random mutation as a causal agent.

Especially when the empirically observed behavior of mutation rate (the causal mechanism of evolution) for eukaryotes is slower than the empirically observed mutation rate for bacteria.

The empirically observed behavior of mutation in bacteria and eukaryotes IS the direct refutation of your argument that the presumed evolution rate for eukaryotes is faster for eukaryotes than bacteria

The empirically observed behavior of mutation and evolution in nature and in the lab says it is not.

You have said this a lot of times but you never present any references. We have discussed Lenski’s experiments and the findings about Malaria but neither of these implies that random mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) isn’t “a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life”. And what “emperical observed” behavior in nature do you refer to?

Those are the empirically observed examples I have been repeatedly referring to.

You have acknowledged that the empirically observed mutation rate in Lenski's experiments in bacteria is insufficient to produce what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

And based on the malaria example you have also acknowledged that six coordinated mutations exceeds the capability of the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.

You assert that based on the fossil record, the the evolution rate for eukaryotes is faster than bacteria such as e coli.
If that is an accurate assertion, that just demonstrates that "random" mutation by itself is an insufficient causal mechanism for the presumed evolution rate.
Because every empirically observed analysis of mutation rates shows just the opposite. The observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is significantly slower than the mutation rates for bacteria.

Do you say that the observed rate of beneficial mutations for all eukaryotes (e.g. mamals) are slower than rate of beneficial mutations in any bacteria (e.g. E coli)? That’s the statement that is needed for you conclusion.
What’s your evidence?

There are a lot of charts like this out there, but this one demonstrates the point effectively.
Higher level eukaryotes do not have a faster mutation rate than bacteria.

[Nils]

What’s is of interest is the rate of beneficial mutations. The rate of beneficial mutations in most eukaryotes (e.g. plants and mammals) is higher than at least in E coli. E coli hasn’t evolved much during it’s existence one hundred+ millions of years. Mammals has evolved much since the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. From something like rats to humans.

This is precisely the point I am getting at...
Is "random" mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life that we see in the fossil record or the complex genetic code that we find in the DNA of life today?

(Not only in the fossil record but in the DNA analysis of animals that live today. )

Correct...
But the evolution rate calculated from the fossil record and DNA analysis of animals today presumes "random mutation".
So it is nothing more than circular reasoning to use an evolution rate that presumes "random mutation" as some sort of evidence of the sufficiency of random mutation as a causal agent.

I agree that the argument would be circular if there were not any studies that linked evolution rate to mutation rate.

Especially when the empirically observed behavior of mutation rate (the causal mechanism of evolution) for eukaryotes is slower than the empirically observed mutation rate for bacteria.

The empirically observed behavior of mutation in bacteria and eukaryotes IS the direct refutation of your argument that the presumed evolution rate for eukaryotes is faster for eukaryotes than bacteria

No, see below.

The empirically observed behavior of mutation and evolution in nature and in the lab says it is not.

You have said this a lot of times but you never present any references. We have discussed Lenski’s experiments and the findings about Malaria but neither of these implies that random mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) isn’t “a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life”. And what “emperical observed” behavior in nature do you refer to?

Those are the empirically observed examples I have been repeatedly referring to.

You have acknowledged that the empirically observed mutation rate in Lenski's experiments in bacteria is insufficient to produce what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

What do you refer to? This seems out of context.

And based on the malaria example you have also acknowledged that six coordinated mutations exceeds the capability of the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.

No, no, not again! We have been through this in long discussions. Nobody refers to “six coordinated mutations” as a tool for evolution if you by coordinated mutations mean six non-beneficial mutations that occur almost at the same time to give a new function.

You assert that based on the fossil record, the the evolution rate for eukaryotes is faster than bacteria such as e coli.
If that is an accurate assertion, that just demonstrates that "random" mutation by itself is an insufficient causal mechanism for the presumed evolution rate.
Because every empirically observed analysis of mutation rates shows just the opposite. The observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is significantly slower than the mutation rates for bacteria.

Do you say that the observed rate of beneficial mutations for all eukaryotes (e.g. mamals) are slower than rate of beneficial mutations in any bacteria (e.g. E coli)? That’s the statement that is needed for you conclusion.
What’s your evidence?

There are a lot of charts like this out there, but this one demonstrates the point effectively.
Higher level eukaryotes do not have a faster mutation rate than bacteria.

It is difficult to evaluate this diagram, what is the unit on the y-axis?
More important is that you answer wasn’t an answer to my question. One thing is that I asked for information about beneficial mutations. Only beneficial mutations are involved in evolution.

[DBowling]

What’s is of interest is the rate of beneficial mutations. The rate of beneficial mutations in most eukaryotes (e.g. plants and mammals) is higher than at least in E coli. E coli hasn’t evolved much during it’s existence one hundred+ millions of years. Mammals has evolved much since the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. From something like rats to humans.

This is precisely the point I am getting at...
Is "random" mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life that we see in the fossil record or the complex genetic code that we find in the DNA of life today?

(Not only in the fossil record but in the DNA analysis of animals that live today. )

Correct...
But the evolution rate calculated from the fossil record and DNA analysis of animals today presumes "random mutation".
So it is nothing more than circular reasoning to use an evolution rate that presumes "random mutation" as some sort of evidence of the sufficiency of random mutation as a causal agent.

I agree that the argument would be circular if there were not any studies that linked evolution rate to mutation rate.

I am unaware of any study where the empirically observed mutation rate is consistent with the evolution rate (especially in the higher animals) required for the change we see in the fossil record or the DNA that we see in life today.

If you have any empirically observed data to the contrary, I would love to see it.

The empirically observed behavior of mutation and evolution in nature and in the lab says it is not.

You have said this a lot of times but you never present any references. We have discussed Lenski’s experiments and the findings about Malaria but neither of these implies that random mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) isn’t “a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life”. And what “emperical observed” behavior in nature do you refer to?

Those are the empirically observed examples I have been repeatedly referring to.

You have acknowledged that the empirically observed mutation rate in Lenski's experiments in bacteria is insufficient to produce what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

What do you refer to? This seems out of context.

This is the quote I am referring to...
"Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist."

And based on the malaria example you have also acknowledged that six coordinated mutations exceeds the capability of the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.

No, no, not again! We have been through this in long discussions. Nobody refers to “six coordinated mutations” as a tool for evolution if you by coordinated mutations mean six non-beneficial mutations that occur almost at the same time to give a new function.

Oh yes... again... and I'll repeat the same answer every time you repeat the same question.

One more time
"I use the term 'coordinated' to refer to multiple specific and separate mutations working together to perform a unique specific function.

The real world example of coordinated mutations that we have been discussing is Malaria's resistance to chloroquine.
Both mutations are required (ie working together) to provide a single function (resistance to chloroquine) that is independent from functions that the individual mutations alone provide."

You assert that based on the fossil record, the the evolution rate for eukaryotes is faster than bacteria such as e coli.
If that is an accurate assertion, that just demonstrates that "random" mutation by itself is an insufficient causal mechanism for the presumed evolution rate.
Because every empirically observed analysis of mutation rates shows just the opposite. The observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is significantly slower than the mutation rates for bacteria.

Do you say that the observed rate of beneficial mutations for all eukaryotes (e.g. mamals) are slower than rate of beneficial mutations in any bacteria (e.g. E coli)? That’s the statement that is needed for you conclusion.
What’s your evidence?

There are a lot of charts like this out there, but this one demonstrates the point effectively.
Higher level eukaryotes do not have a faster mutation rate than bacteria.

It is difficult to evaluate this diagram, what is the unit on the y-axis?

The unit of measure on the y-axis is
mutations per base pair per generation

The data on the chart shows that
"mutation rates vary greatly across organisms: the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate."

More important is that you answer wasn’t an answer to my question. One thing is that I asked for information about beneficial mutations. Only beneficial mutations are involved in evolution.

The chart does answer your question
All mutations (including beneficial mutations) are a function of the mutation rate of biological organisms.

So the fundamental causal mechanism for genetic change in any organism is the organism's mutation rate.
Most mutations are harmful to an organism so "beneficial mutations" are a small subset of total mutations which are a function of the mutation rate.
As Behe points out, even when we focus on that small subset of "beneficial mutations", beneficial mutations overwhelming degrade or remove existing genetic information, instead of adding new information.

So it is groundless to presume that 'beneficial mutations' in organisms somehow evade the general principles that apply to all mutations in those organisms.

[Nils]

I am unaware of any study where the empirically observed mutation rate is consistent with the evolution rate (especially in the higher animals) required for the change we see in the fossil record or the DNA that we see in life today.

If you have any empirically observed data to the contrary, I would love to see it.

Earlier I gave you the reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_evolution. The problem is that current science assumes that there is no other source than mutations for DNA change and evolution so the correlation is assumed and it not easy to find an experiment explicitly studying that. In the same way it is very difficult to find studies verifying the gravitation law on earth nowadays. But i’ll try to find something on mutations.

The empirically observed behavior of mutation and evolution in nature and in the lab says it is not.

You have said this a lot of times but you never present any references. We have discussed Lenski’s experiments and the findings about Malaria but neither of these implies that random mutation (in conjunction with natural selection) isn’t “a sufficient mechanism to produce the development of life”. And what “emperical observed” behavior in nature do you refer to?

Those are the empirically observed examples I have been repeatedly referring to.
You have acknowledged that the empirically observed mutation rate in Lenski's experiments in bacteria is insufficient to produce what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

What do you refer to? This seems out of context.

This is the quote I am referring to...
"Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist."

Please be a bit more careful when you quote. What I wrote was:

“First Lenski’s experiment doesn’t show that there are no beneficial mutations that add genetic information. Secondly, even if it were so, that doesn’t show that this is the case generally. As I have said repeatedly, E coli hasn’t changed much over one hundred million year. That implies that there have been very few beneficial mutations. E coli is a special case, not a general case. Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist.”

So I didn’t refer to Lenski’s experiment for the conclusion that E coli hasn’t changed much. I don’t think Lenski’s experiment showed that. It was about what happens when you change the environment, not about a rather constant environment.

And based on the malaria example you have also acknowledged that six coordinated mutations exceeds the capability of the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.

No, no, not again! We have been through this in long discussions. Nobody refers to “six coordinated mutations” as a tool for evolution if you by coordinated mutations mean six non-beneficial mutations that occur almost at the same time to give a new function.

Oh yes... again... and I'll repeat the same answer every time you repeat the same question.
One more time
"I use the term 'coordinated' to refer to multiple specific and separate mutations working together to perform a unique specific function.

The real world example of coordinated mutations that we have been discussing is Malaria's resistance to chloroquine.
Both mutations are required (ie working together) to provide a single function (resistance to chloroquine) that is independent from functions that the individual mutations alone provide."

Your definition of “coordinated” mutations I find rather vague therefore I expressed it (vaguely) my own words. I think it doesn’t differ from you definition. More important, the Malaria case is about two mutations, and you didn’t comment my statement: “Nobody refers to “six coordinated mutations” as a tool for evolution”. Why did you bring this up again?

You assert that based on the fossil record, the the evolution rate for eukaryotes is faster than bacteria such as e coli.
If that is an accurate assertion, that just demonstrates that "random" mutation by itself is an insufficient causal mechanism for the presumed evolution rate.
Because every empirically observed analysis of mutation rates shows just the opposite. The observed mutation rate for eukaryotes is significantly slower than the mutation rates for bacteria.

Do you say that the observed rate of beneficial mutations for all eukaryotes (e.g. mamals) are slower than rate of beneficial mutations in any bacteria (e.g. E coli)? That’s the statement that is needed for you conclusion.
What’s your evidence?

There are a lot of charts like this out there, but this one demonstrates the point effectively.
Higher level eukaryotes do not have a faster mutation rate than bacteria.

It is difficult to evaluate this diagram, what is the unit on the y-axis?

The unit of measure on the y-axis is
mutations per base pair per generation

The data on the chart shows that
"mutation rates vary greatly across organisms: the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate."

More important is that you answer wasn’t an answer to my question. One thing is that I asked for information about beneficial mutations. Only beneficial mutations are involved in evolution.

The chart does answer your question
All mutations (including beneficial mutations) are a function of the mutation rate of biological organisms.

So the fundamental causal mechanism for genetic change in any organism is the organism's mutation rate.
Most mutations are harmful to an organism so "beneficial mutations" are a small subset of total mutations which are a function of the mutation rate.
As Behe points out, even when we focus on that small subset of "beneficial mutations", beneficial mutations overwhelming degrade or remove existing genetic information, instead of adding new information.

So it is groundless to presume that 'beneficial mutations' in organisms somehow evade the general principles that apply to all mutations in those organisms.

The diagram doesn’t answer my question about the evidence for the rate of beneficial mutations. You are correct that beneficial mutation-rate is a function of the general mutation rate, but there are also other dependencies.
When a mutation occurs there is no difference between beneficial and non-beneficial mutations. Its not until later generations it will be noticed which mutations are beneficial to the organism and that depends on the environment. So the proportion of beneficial mutations varies widely within a species depending on the environment. In Lenski’s experiment they placed E coli bacteria in a special glucose-limited minimal medium. They “showed a [….] pattern of rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time, faster growth rates, and increased cell size”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_l ... experiment). The rapid improvement was caused by beneficial mutations. The rate was high at the beginning of the experiment but decelerated according to a power law. In the long run the rate of beneficial mutations in the experiment will get very close to zero as it is for E coli in it’s nodrmal environment.
Your are correct that few of the total number of mutations are beneficial but the proportion varies a lot and the conclusion is that your diagram says nothing about the frequency of beneficial mutations.

[DBowling]

I am unaware of any study where the empirically observed mutation rate is consistent with the evolution rate (especially in the higher animals) required for the change we see in the fossil record or the DNA that we see in life today.

If you have any empirically observed data to the contrary, I would love to see it.

Earlier I gave you the reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_evolution. The problem is that current science assumes that there is no other source than mutations for DNA change and evolution so the correlation is assumed and it not easy to find an experiment explicitly studying that. In the same way it is very difficult to find studies verifying the gravitation law on earth nowadays. But i’ll try to find something on mutations.

Thanks

The issue here is that we are now able to observe the behavior of mutation and evolution at the genetic level.
And as Behe points out in his work, the empirically observed behavior of evolution in nature and in the lab at the genetic level does not allign with some of the key assumptions about the adequacy of "random" mutation as the sole causal agent for evolution.

Again the key here is the adequacy of "random" mutation as a causal agent. And the adequacy of "random" mutation is the unverified achilles heel of current evolutionary theory.

This is the quote I am referring to...
"Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist."

What I wrote was:

“First Lenski’s experiment doesn’t show that there are no beneficial mutations that add genetic information. Secondly, even if it were so, that doesn’t show that this is the case generally. As I have said repeatedly, E coli hasn’t changed much over one hundred million year. That implies that there have been very few beneficial mutations. E coli is a special case, not a general case. Certainly, if evolution generally were as slow as it is for E coli neither you nor I would exist.”

So I didn’t refer to Lenski’s experiment for the conclusion that E coli hasn’t changed much. I don’t think Lenski’s experiment showed that. It was about what happens when you change the environment, not about a rather constant environment.

In your extended quote you assert "E coli is a special case, not a general case."
What is the basis of that assertion?
The mutation rate for ecoli is within the range for bacteria in general.
Ecoli shares a general environment with other organisms.

Appealing to ecoli as a "special case" indicates that there is some agent other than random mutation and natural selection that is distinguishing the evolution rate of ecoli from the "general case".
Which is kinda the point I've been trying to make.

One more time
"I use the term 'coordinated' to refer to multiple specific and separate mutations working together to perform a unique specific function.

The real world example of coordinated mutations that we have been discussing is Malaria's resistance to chloroquine.
Both mutations are required (ie working together) to provide a single function (resistance to chloroquine) that is independent from functions that the individual mutations alone provide."

Your definition of “coordinated” mutations I find rather vague therefore I expressed it (vaguely) my own words. I think it doesn’t differ from you definition. More important, the Malaria case is about two mutations, and you didn’t comment my statement: “Nobody refers to “six coordinated mutations” as a tool for evolution”. Why did you bring this up again?

Because this continues to be a significant example of the inadequacy of "random" mutation as a causal agent for evolution.

Way back in post 18 I made the following point

The smallest genomes, belonging to primitive, single-celled organisms, contain just over half a million base pairs of DNA.
Humans have around 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA.

So the genetic gap between the most primitive single-celled organisms and humans is around 3 billion base pairs.
It is obvious that it takes more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to bridge a genetic gap of 3 billion base pairs between a simple single cell organism and a complex functional selectable state that has multiple complex functional biological mechanisms that work together for the benefit of the biological organism.

The genetic gap between the most primitive single celled organisms and the most high level organisims is around 3 billion base pairs.
If 5 or 6 coordinated mutations exceeds the capability of all life that that has ever existed on our planet, then billions of coordinated mutations will also exceed the capability of all life that has ever existed on our planet.

Do you say that the observed rate of beneficial mutations for all eukaryotes (e.g. mamals) are slower than rate of beneficial mutations in any bacteria (e.g. E coli)? That’s the statement that is needed for you conclusion.
What’s your evidence?

There are a lot of charts like this out there, but this one demonstrates the point effectively.
Higher level eukaryotes do not have a faster mutation rate than bacteria.

The data on the chart shows that
"mutation rates vary greatly across organisms: the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate."

All mutations (including beneficial mutations) are a function of the mutation rate of biological organisms.

So the fundamental causal mechanism for genetic change in any organism is the organism's mutation rate.
Most mutations are harmful to an organism so "beneficial mutations" are a small subset of total mutations which are a function of the mutation rate.
As Behe points out, even when we focus on that small subset of "beneficial mutations", beneficial mutations overwhelming degrade or remove existing genetic information, instead of adding new information.

The diagram doesn’t answer my question about the evidence for the rate of beneficial mutations. You are correct that beneficial mutation-rate is a function of the general mutation rate, but there are also other dependencies.
When a mutation occurs there is no difference between beneficial and non-beneficial mutations. Its not until later generations it will be noticed which mutations are beneficial to the organism and that depends on the environment.

But since natural selection is "selective" not causal, and different organisms share environments then the fundamental behavior of the primary causal agent (mutations) will also apply to subsets of that causal agent (beneficial mutations).

Since "the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate" is true for mutations in general.
"the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate" will also be true for she small subset of beneficial mutations.

If someone wants to claim that the general principle of "the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate" is for some reason not applicable to beneficial mutations then the burden of proof is on the person wishing to make an exception to this general principle for the specific case of beneficial mutations.

Once again I am unaware of any empirically observed evidence to support the unverified claim that beneficial mutations occur at a higher rate for larger genomes.
This is another example of the big difference between the empirically observed behavior of mutation and evolution and the unverified presumed behavior of mutation and evolution.

[Nils]

There is much to discuss in your last post but I have to concentrate on the last part. The rest is really important but I will wait discussing that until later.

Do you say that the observed rate of beneficial mutations for all eukaryotes (e.g. mamals) are slower than rate of beneficial mutations in any bacteria (e.g. E coli)? That’s the statement that is needed for you conclusion.
What’s your evidence?

There are a lot of charts like this out there, but this one demonstrates the point effectively.
Higher level eukaryotes do not have a faster mutation rate than bacteria.

The data on the chart shows that
"mutation rates vary greatly across organisms: the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate."

All mutations (including beneficial mutations) are a function of the mutation rate of biological organisms.

So the fundamental causal mechanism for genetic change in any organism is the organism's mutation rate.
Most mutations are harmful to an organism so "beneficial mutations" are a small subset of total mutations which are a function of the mutation rate.
As Behe points out, even when we focus on that small subset of "beneficial mutations", beneficial mutations overwhelming degrade or remove existing genetic information, instead of adding new information.

The diagram doesn’t answer my question about the evidence for the rate of beneficial mutations. You are correct that beneficial mutation-rate is a function of the general mutation rate, but there are also other dependencies.
When a mutation occurs there is no difference between beneficial and non-beneficial mutations. Its not until later generations it will be noticed which mutations are beneficial to the organism and that depends on the environment.

But since natural selection is "selective" not causal, and different organisms share environments then the fundamental behavior of the primary causal agent (mutations) will also apply to subsets of that causal agent (beneficial mutations).

Since "the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate" is true for mutations in general.
"the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate" will also be true for she small subset of beneficial mutations.

If someone wants to claim that the general principle of "the smaller the genome, the higher the mutation rate" is for some reason not applicable to beneficial mutations then the burden of proof is on the person wishing to make an exception to this general principle for the specific case of beneficial mutations.

Once again I am unaware of any empirically observed evidence to support the unverified claim that beneficial mutations occur at a higher rate for larger genomes.
This is another example of the big difference between the empirically observed behavior of mutation and evolution and the unverified presumed behavior of mutation and evolution.

Sorry, I don’t follow you argument and what empirically observed behaviour you refer to.

First, you seem to presume that the proportion of beneficial mutations relatively to the total number of mutations is constant in some species or between species. This is far from true. As I said earlier the Lemski experiment clearly shows that the rate of beneficial mutation varies. (See the Wikipedia article about Lemski’s experiment)

Secondly, what is important is not the number of mutations per base pair per generation which is shown in the diagram but the total number of mutation in the genome per generation. Now, as you say in the last post: “The smallest genomes, belonging to primitive, single-celled organisms, contain just over half a million base pairs of DNA. Humans have around 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA.” That gives that the total mutation rate is higher in humans than in bacteria.

Thirdly, the importance of mutations is to introduce a variability in the genome on which natural selection can work but there is another way to increase variability namely sexual reproduction. This is an important source of variability in higher organisms. The reason why sexual reproduction is developed is to increase the variability of the inherited genome to increase the evolutionary speed. Mutations isn’t the only one. (I have mentioned this several times but you have never commented this).

This shows that it is impossible to find some general figure of beneficial mutations per individual. It is highly dependent of for instance the actual environment.

[DBowling]

Sorry, I don’t follow you argument and what empirically observed behaviour you refer to.

The empirically observed behavior I am referring to is...
1. In the malaria example, the 2 coordinated mutations (substitutions) that provide resistance to chloroquine occurs at an exponential rate as opposed to the linear rate presumed for and required by current evolutionary theory.
2. In Lenski's experiments the overwhelming majority of beneficial mutations degrade genetic information instead of adding genetic information. So even when you get to the small subset of beneficial mutations you still haven't reached a level that is capable (at least through random processes) of generating the substitutions and adds required to generate what we see in the fossil record and the DNA of life today.
3. As Behe points out, genetic analysis of observed evolutionary activity in nature today confirms what we see in Lenski's experiments. Beneficial mutations in nature overwhelmingly degrade genetic information insteading of adding new genetic information.

First, you seem to presume that the proportion of beneficial mutations relatively to the total number of mutations is constant in some species or between species. This is far from true. As I said earlier the Lemski experiment clearly shows that the rate of beneficial mutation varies. (See the Wikipedia article about Lemski’s experiment)

I agree that while the mutation rate is relatively constant for an organism, a larger number of those mutations will need to be beneficial in order for an organism to thrive in a changing environment.

Secondly, what is important is not the number of mutations per base pair per generation which is shown in the diagram but the total number of mutation in the genome per generation. Now, as you say in the last post: “The smallest genomes, belonging to primitive, single-celled organisms, contain just over half a million base pairs of DNA. Humans have around 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA.” That gives that the total mutation rate is higher in humans than in bacteria.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here...
the mutation rate is mutations per base pair per generation
However
- a larger genome will have more base pairs.
- a smaller genome has a much larger population
- a generation for a smaller genome occurs much more rapidly than for a larger genome.

This is why we are actually able to empirically observe the behavior of evolution in organisms with a smaller genome, because evolution occurs much more rapidly in small genomes than in large genomes.
Hence Lenski's evolution experiment with e.coli.

Thirdly, the importance of mutations is to introduce a variability in the genome on which natural selection can work but there is another way to increase variability namely sexual reproduction. This is an important source of variability in higher organisms. The reason why sexual reproduction is developed is to increase the variability of the inherited genome to increase the evolutionary speed. Mutations isn’t the only one. (I have mentioned this several times but you have never commented this).

I haven't commented on it because...
Sexual reproduction passes on genetic information (including mutations) from a progenitor to an offspring.
But sexual reproduction (in and of itself) does not cause mutations.
"Mutations can result from DNA copying mistakes made during cell division, exposure to ionizing radiation, exposure to chemicals called mutagens, or infection by viruses."

So sexual reproduction is neither causal (mutation) or selective (natural selection).
Sexual reproduction is a means of propagating genetic information (including mutations) throughout a population.

I did smile when I read this
"The reason why sexual reproduction is developed is to increase the variability of the inherited genome"
That almost sounds like there was a "purpose" behind the development of sexual reproduction.

This shows that it is impossible to find some general figure of beneficial mutations per individual. It is highly dependent of for instance the actual environment.

One thing to note.
The observed behavior of "beneficial mutations" in and of themselves is not adequate to support evolutionary theory.
In order to create the tree of life and the DNA in life today you need specific types of beneficial mutations (not just any beneficial mutation), namely adds and substitutions, and even more importantly you need coordinated adds and substitution to generate new genetic information.

This is why examining the behavior of "beneficial mutations" in nature and in the lab is so important.
And when beneficial mutations are empirically observed, we see that beneficial mutations overwhelmingly degrade existing genetic information and do not generate new genetic information.

So "beneficail mutations" don't get the job done. You need lots and lots of beneficial adds and substitutions (which we just don't see in either the lab or nature).
Now lots and lots of beneficial adds and substitutions be impossible for "random mutations"
But they would be well within the skill set of the causal agent for the big bang and the physical laws of our universe.