A second study shows that mutations are not random

You know what isn't random? Aliens making a TikTok account for the deliberate and helpful purpose of explaining to our society why Earth and life didn't just randomly happen. Too bad that's not a thing, because people might actually take it seriously if those ET engineers and historians actually did take advantage of social media to properly educate our society.

The question is, who "out there" would take us seriously?

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

It can't be that simple. There has to be a published paper out there that supports Darwin's original intent. If not, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart. If I'm reading this correctly, there should be clear evidence of natural selection being involved with the origin of a species and not non random mutations. I will be interested to read a paper that challenges this if there is one.

Exactly!

It's that simple and that's why you haven't seen the usual Darwinist that hop on every thread blindly defending a natural interpretation of evolution posting a link to a paper or study.

After all of these years, you would think it would be simple to do. The fact is, there isn't a shred of evidence that supports Darwin's original intent which was natural selection also gives you the origin of species. Let's look at the peppered moth. This is supposed to be the best evidence for Darwin.

The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.[1][2] In 1978 Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."[3][4]

The dark-coloured or melanic form of the peppered moth (var. carbonaria) was not known before 1811. After field collection in 1848 from Manchester, an industrial city in England, the frequency of the variety was found to have increased drastically. By the end of the 19th century it almost completely outnumbered the original light-coloured type (var. typica), with a record of 98% in 1895.[5] The evolutionary importance of the moth was only speculated upon during Darwin's lifetime. It was 14 years after Darwin's death, in 1896, that J.W. Tutt presented it as a case of natural selection.[6] Due to this, the idea widely spread, and more people believed in Darwin's theory.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again:

In 1978 Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."

Since I have been debating this topic, the peppered moth always makes an appearence. It's one of the clearest cases of evolution. What does it show?

It shows what's called directional selection.



This is what's called directional selection. You start with the light colored moth dominating the population because it has traits to survive better in the environment. The industrial revolution happened and the dark colored moth survived better in the environment and began to dominate the population. Eventually, this switched back to the light colored moth.

Does this support Darwin?

Absolutely not! Darwin's original intent was that natural selection was the origin of species. The peppered moth is an example of survival of the fittest AFTER THE FACT!

Natural selection says nothing about the origins of species. It says nothing about how the species reached the environment.

Darwin though that environmental pressures triggered these random, intermediate varieties that have no purpose or direction, and the varieties or traits that best help the organism survive grew throughout the population via reproduction. There's no evidence of this. This is why Alfred Russel Wallace disagreed with Darwin.

To be a little fair to Darwin, he didn't know about the supercomputer in the cell. He didn't know about the genetic code or modular molecular machinery. It's the blind believers after Darwin who kept this nonsense alive in the face of facts.

Natural selection doesn't explain how the light colored peppered moth and the dark colored peppered moth reach the environment in the first place. Darwin thought it did through INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES.

I still want to see any evidence that supports Darwin's original intent and shows natural selection is the origin of species. I'll wait.........

originally posted by: neoholographic

Natural selection says nothing about the origins of species. It says nothing about how the species reached the environment.

A good point here. Allele drift is an adaptation mechanism for populations as a whole. Look at for example Japheths lineage migrating North through the Caucus mountains from the middle east and slowly giving rise to "Caucasians". The higher latitudes on earth receive less sunlight and therefore less melanin skin pigment is required.



The thing is, this alellic combination was already in the tool-belt of the human gene pool. it was just a matter of them inhabiting the relevant environment to pronounce the trait.

a reply to: cooperton

The thing is, this alellic combination was already in the tool-belt of the human gene pool. it was just a matter of them inhabiting the relevant environment to pronounce the trait.

Yes. And that alellic combination got into "the tool-belt of the human gene pool" through some sequence of random mutations in the past. We don't know when it occured (though we can compute an approximation based on observed mutation rates), but by the time we started paying attention the "alellic combination" for both light and dark colored moths were in the population.

Look at Neo's graph with the bell curves showing the peppered moth colors. Both light and dark moths have been observed in the population for as long as we have been noticing (the blue bell curve on the left). There were always SOME moths that were light, some that were dark, but since we have been paying attention, most of them were light - up until the environment changed.

Then when the environment changed, the dark ones had an advantage over the light ones because they could hide better and not get eaten. The percentage of dark in the population went up so the bell curve shifted to the dark end (the red bell curve on the right). The light ones have not disappeared altogether, they just became a smaller part of the population. The 'light' alleles are still there, if the environment changes again the ratio may change again.

That is the "natural selection" part. The part of the population that has an environmental advantage over the part of the population that does not, expands to dominate the population as a whole.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? It has been explained to you over and over and over and over.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: cooperton


Yes. And that alellic combination got into "the tool-belt of the human gene pool" through some sequence of random mutations in the past.

That is what you believe. But where's the proof that happened? You're assuming evolution is true, and then apply that to all biological observations.

We don't know when it occured (though we can compute an approximation based on observed mutation rates), but by the time we started paying attention the "alellic combination" for both light and dark colored moths were in the population.

Look at Neo's graph with the bell curves showing the peppered moth colors. Both light and dark moths have been observed in the population for as long as we have been noticing (the blue bell curve on the left). There were always SOME moths that were light, some that were dark, but since we have been paying attention, most of them were light - up until the environment changed.

Then when the environment changed, the dark ones had an advantage over the light ones because they could hide better and not get eaten. The percentage of dark in the population went up so the bell curve shifted to the dark end (the red bell curve on the right). The light ones have not disappeared altogether, they just became a smaller part of the population. The 'light' alleles are still there, if the environment changes again the ratio may change again.

That is the "natural selection" part. The part of the population that has an environmental advantage over the part of the population that does not, expands to dominate the population as a whole.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? It has been explained to you over and over and over and over.

I understand your point, but you're assuming the diversity of organisms came by random chance mutations.

Such a distinct genetic change to code for various biological pigments that are non-toxic and are able to integrate with relevant tissue is by no means an easy task. It is much more likely that the diversity is due to an intelligent source that codes for various phenotypes in organisms.

To go back to my example of humans, skin color involves at least 6 distinct alleles. How could this have arisen by piece-by-piece mutation? When there was just 1 allele it would be erroneous, and even up to 5 alleles it wouldn't implement the same phenotypic variability. Instead it needs all 6 (and likely other factors) to allow human skin to adapt to a variety of climates.

This sort of genetic precision does not happen by accident.