Thursday, June 2, 2016

Evolution News and Boos

‘Landmark study’ solves mystery behind classic evolution story

"The scientists found a single genetic variation in 95% of the dark moths that was missing in every pale moth they tested, they report online today in Nature. The mutation—the insertion of a portion of DNA that can “jump” to a new location within a genome—occurs within cortex, a gene known to affect cell division and egg development in fruit flies. “It’s surprising that it’s this gene, rather than something that’s more recognizably wing pattern–related or color pattern–related,” Saccheri says."
Really? So 5% of the dark moths do NOT have the mutation? And no one knows what that mutation actually does? So the mystery is "solved"? This is more bogus conclusions from what should be dispassionate science. They have NOT conclusively proved anything, because the data shows otherwise.
"Considering the differences between moths and butterflies—they’ve been following separate evolutionary pathways for about 100 million years—the fact that the same gene plays an important role in the wing coloration of both groups is an intriguing result, Holland says. He adds that the next step will be to find the mechanism by which cortex works. This latest addition to the peppered moth tale, he says, “is going to be in the textbooks for decades to come.”
Yes. I'm sure that it will be enthusiastically added despite not being the case.

16 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

There are at least 2 possible explanations as to why these 5% of black moths did not have the same gene mutation in the same location:
1) They have the same gene mutation, but at a different location (more likely)
2) Another mutation caused their color to turn black (less likely)

That part of the article was hinting at the first explanation:
"The discovery that the mutation itself is a transposable element will stimulate further debate about the importance of ‘jumping genes’ as a source of major phenotypic novelty".

Stan said...

And there is the simpler, more parsimonious explanation: Their genome contains pigmentation variability which occurs without mutation (like hair color in humans), and the selection occurs cyclically, just as does beak variation in Darwin's Finches. They do not know any different from that. There is no reason to assert evolution here, except for ideological purposes. Unless and until the reproduce the cause and effect, determine the entire purpose and use of the genetics, anything they claim is speculation - just like all evolution claims.

Hugo Pelland said...

You're asking a different question now. Of course the genome most likely already contained the pigmentation variability when black moths suddenly started to be selected for. The claim is not that they suddenly mutated as a result of the pollution; it could have happened a long time before, just a few years before, or more or less at the same time, it does not matter. The point is that this mutation happened; that's how the pigmentation variability appeared in the first place. Yes, just like hair color in humans. Natural selection drove the population that had the black-color gene to become more successful, because of environmental changes.

Stan said...

" The point is that this mutation happened; that's how the pigmentation variability appeared in the first place."

You don't know that. You are in the Darwinian habit of making claims which you can't possibly support with any facts. All you actually know is that within a species' genome, miscellaneous traits exist and can be passed down the line to progeny. Any other claim is just unskeptical, unprovable, unfalsifiable, ideological blathering based on True Belief.

Why is it that you don't stick to objective empirical knowledge - you're an engineer, right? Right? Do you not require repeatable, falsifiable testing? Seriously. (Even some software engineers require that...)

Hugo Pelland said...

We do know a lot more than what you wrote above. There is difference between just shuffling genes around, turning genes ON/OFF, and detecting actual novel mutations that are passed down generations. Such mutations were identified within human generations. It's not new information; it does not need to be proven again and again to people who don't understand evolution.

Stan said...

No. That is not the case. Observations of modern life were made. Declarations of the process were extrapolated speculation, and nothing more. Your claim of not understanding evolution is without merit, and is a trivial complaint applied when you cannot justify the "Knowledge" claims being made. What you are actually saying is that I ought to understand that any speculation made "scientists" must be considered FACT and therefore TRUTH, because that is how you understand it.

You are wrong.

Stan said...

So. Do you require testing, validation under the possibility of falsification for your products? Or not?

Kindly answer.

Xellos said...

Hugo:

"more likely"
"less likely"

I see this a lot. Can you derive/estimate this likelihood of each option? Preferrably compared to other options, too.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan said... (including previous quotes for context)
"Their genome contains pigmentation variability which occurs without mutation (like hair color in humans), and the selection occurs cyclically, just as does beak variation in Darwin's Finches.[...] All you actually know is that within a species' genome, miscellaneous traits exist and can be passed down the line to progeny. [...] Observations of modern life were made. Declarations of the process were extrapolated speculation, and nothing more"

At first they were speculations, yes. They were confirmed by more observations of modern life and more observations of fossils and more lab experiments. Saying 'nothing more' is a denial of entire field of evolutionary biology, after more than a century of research using the scientific method. You are wrong, because you don't understand the facts.

Take the example of human chromosome #2. This is an example of existing genes that went through a mutation, a fusion in this case, to yield some changes in the descendants with that mutation.

"So. Do you require testing, validation under the possibility of falsification for your products? Or not? Kindly answer."

No, we don't; we build things and ship them without ever testing.
(Silly question; silly answer.)

Hugo Pelland said...

Xellos said...
""more likely"
"less likely"

I see this a lot. Can you derive/estimate this likelihood of each option? Preferrably compared to other options, too.
"

No I cannot; I was not pretending to have some numbers to attach to it, and I am not an expert in the field. But we know quite a lot about the 2 processes I listed above so that we can attach a relative probability of either happening, because of the number of steps required to get the same results.

Basically, there are 3 cases (at least) to talk about:
1) Black moths with the identified jumping genes in the observed location (95% of them)
2) Black moths with the jumping genes, but in another observed location (unknown %)
3) Black moths without the jumping gene (unknown %)

In order to get cases under #2, all that is needed is for that same gene, which cause the moth's color to turn black, to be present and active in the genome, but at a different location. This can happen with only 1 generation of moth.

In order to get cases under #3, we need a form of convergent evolution. Basically, 2 groups of moths would have evolved separately from each other, and both would have mutated in a way that gives them black color, but those mutations were not the same at all. The genes causing the black color are completely different, and yield a black color by coincidence.

Both #2 and #3 can happen and be selected for by natural selection, because of the environment, but it's much simpler to get #2 than #3, and thus much more likely that the explanation for the remaining 5% of black moths is #2. No idea what the exact # is but the simplicity of the process under #2 makes it more likely to happen, relative to #3, which is more complex.

Stan said...

First, If only 95% of black moths have mutation #X, then the mutation did not cause the color change. To claim that convergent evolution explains the difference is a story with no facts attached to it. This is all fantasy, top to bottom. The probability of two separate paths to a completely common coloration is zero. The far higher probability is that the genome contained the coloration the whole time. Especially since the transposon was found in an area not even related to color. Until the trick is replicated and not falsified, it is a huge leap of the imagination to assume that coloration variation is caused by a (normally disease causing) transposon in a non-coloration region. Further, it is common for transposons to be silenced epigentically; is this one?

And the reference to human Chromosome #2 is another failure. The fact that there was a fusion which took place is trivial, because the telomeres still exist at the ends of the two fused members to differentiate the two separate chromosomes, leading to no change in function. Evolution requires change in function. No evolution is known to have occurred due to this fusion. In fact, the function of Chromosome #2 is not even really known.

So if you require falsification testing on your products, why is it that you accept an entire worldview racking theory without any possibility of falsification, and which is based entirely on fatuous claims such as the above?

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan said...

The way you wrote your comment made me realize that there might be a third explanation as well: it's not that only 95% of black moths had the mutation, it's that it was 'found' in 95% of the black moths. They could have just missed it in the remaining 5%. I don't know how accurate these testing are but that would not be a horrible statistic to have. It leaves the door open for some of the white ones to also have it; for the same reason. But that becomes less and less likely the more moths are analyzed.

The claim of convergent evolution is just a possibility. You claim that it's 'impossible' for this coloring to be the cause of mutations. Hence, the mere proposal of a possible pathway disproves your claim. Claims of 'impossibility' are hard to prove but easy to dismiss. That's the case here, by proposing 3 different options.

The fusion of 2 chromosomes is an example of mutation. Your denial does not change that fact. Hence, we know that were were animals with 2 separate chromosomes that gave birth to a mutant with only 1 fused chromosome. Moreover, the telomeres you mentioned are actually not normal telomeres anymore; they have changed over the generations. This is another example of mutations being passed down generations.

This goes against your positions that mutations never survive and cannot possibly yield any change. Any change in DNA is susceptible to change in the organism' traits and characteristics. How can you claim that 'nothing' happen; this is claim that cannot be supported by fact. And it's not just humans that have the fused chromosomes and we can thus infer a hierarchy of descendants with our close cousins, the Neanderthals and Denisovans, being more similar to us than the other members of Hominidae, and other apes.

" So if you require falsification testing on your products, why is it that you accept an entire worldview racking theory without any possibility of falsification, and which is based entirely on fatuous claims such as the above?"

You just cannot help making useless commentary every single comment... Are you just poking because you are annoyed that I made 1 long series of commentaries and then stick to my promise of just talking about arguments?

Stan said...

Here is the data given:
1. The "jumping gene" was found in only 95% of the black moths.
2. The "jumping gene" was not found in the coloration segment.
3. The "jumping gene" was not found in 5% of the black moths.

Without creating any new stories and hole-plugs, what can be said about this data?

The story-telling non-science of "evolution" has enabled you to create, out of thin air, two excuse theories to cover for the fact that the data does NOT support the conclusion that the specific "jumping gene" they found has anything at all to do with coloration.

To help out, here is what is actually known:

1. There is a mutation in the non-coloration area.
2. Not all black moths even have it.

So the conclusion that this data of this specific mutation shows that it IS IN FACT the cause for the black coloration FAILS all possible logic.

And the fact that you immediately make up all sorts of excuse-stories demonstrates fully your unskeptical credulousness for things called "evolution" AND your willing participation in the obvious ruse-as-purported-science.

Given the actual data as reported, minus the fictional story-telling, the probability of that mutation being the cause for the black coloration in the moths is ZERO.

Data chopping is an intellectual failure: Jumping to Cause, enabled by misconstruing actual data beyond what it actually shows.

Stan said...

I brought up the issue of falsifiability of your products because you adhere to a culture of claiming fact when having no falsifiable empirical data to support your claim: the culture of "evolution", which you defend vigorously, regardless of the conclusions allowed by the data. This requires a polar dichotomy in your worldview, if for one pursuit you require a high standard of validation, yet in another you require no falsifiability validation for your fervent belief whatsoever. The skepticism application is split by that polar dichotomy as well.

And the dichotomy extends beyond the issue of validation; it extends to the firm attachment to an overarching, worldview-driving conclusion for which there is no possible objective falsification validation. Very interesting, this blind belief phenomenon.

Stan said...

I forgot to mention: I enjoyed your hypothesis that they "missed" the 5%, which actually do have the mutation in the wrong place. It is the height of [censored] to claim that their data/method is WRONG in order to prove that the obviously bogus conclusion is RIGHT.

Hugo Pelland said...

Right, you were asking a silly question just to write down more insults. That's what I thought. You just keep writing commentaries instead of sticking to topics. Good job, you convinced me to diverge a bit too this time... but first, the context:

Regarding the 95%, there are 2 options:
1) The author did not realize their mistake; the conclusion is completely wrong. It's that simple.
2) The authors already have explanations as to why finding the mutation in 95% of black moths and 0% of white moths is significant even if it's not 100%. It's not as simple as you put it.

You declared that 1) must be the case; there is ZERO probability of them being right. These scientists are incredibly stupid and were caught in their lies in the pursuit of evolutionary theory dogma. How silly of them to have written 95%; if they are to lie about evolution research anyway, they should have put 100%. But they were too stupid to do so, too blinded by their wicked evolutionists worldviews.

Their critical thinking skills are so bad that only someone like you, Stan, could see how silly they are to conclude that this 95% is meaningful. It is not because you know how biology really works though, it's just because you know evolutionary theories are always wrong. You know nothing else, but that's enough to prove them wrong.

OTH, I pick #2. Ya, it's strange that they find that mutation in only 95% if black moths if that's really the cause of that coloration. But the article is a simplified version of their full paper, so it would be interesting to know more, let's find out, so I posted a comment and sent an email to the author, we'll see. I might learn something interesting.

But you Stan, will surely NOT learn anything at all, and continue this INSANE denial of the scientific facts of Biology. You will continue to quote articles like that and write comments full of errors and ILLOGICAL statements. And of course, that just made you smile, right? You love these insults. That's why you throw so many yourself, to get some in return and feel some happy tingling of success because you think you pissed someone off due to your impossibly good logic. Good, you have a few other friends to keep you company here. You're in good hands.