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.DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 5:36 amI think you must have misunderstood me somewhere...Nils wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:38 amThis 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?DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:33 pmLet 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.
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 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.You've asserted that a few times but I am unaware of any empirically observed mutation rate data to support that assertion.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)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.
Yes that statement is correct, but it is a conditional statement. The question is now which alternative is the correct one?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.
You're actually getting pretty close here...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.
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.
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.
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?
I have looked at the Behe lectures on Youtube and read about him. That’s enough (but I will comment more later on).Oh I am debating with you...Ok, I thought you were debating with me. However, I would not recommend Behe’s writings.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.
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