We've experimented with "long-term" evolution?

Wow. They must have come a LONG, LONG way from those mutant-inbred fruitfly experiments we did 30 years ago... Those were fun though.

In terms of long term survival generality > specialization
In terms of short term best fit specialization > generality

Simple truth of life.

Creationists shouldn't comment on science, it is hilarious and makes deconverts from religion as seen on Dawkins's Convert's Corner.

Of course there are limits on evolution as on every other natural mechanism. If the environment changes too fast, the population genome can't adapt. But if not it will, as we know have happened. Biology is the best tested science we have due to its complexity, demonstrated in the article.

There are no restrictions in the genome, genes appear and disappear all the time, as seen in junk-DNA (former, now dead genes). Again demonstrated in this very article, 128 initial proteins (genes) made 16 000.

Only a laughable creationist can then say "genes already exist" - because he/she didn't even read the research. Basic fallacy of red herring, not responding to the situation. And again, this is why religion fails, magic is not the answer as demonstrated by each and every creationist commenting on science.

Seriously? We first began to understand the molecular basis for genetic inheritance over 100 years ago, not 30. Yes, we've come a long way.

Genes are created ALL THE TIME.
Molecular Biology shows that genome replication is very good, but not perfect. Random mutations, translocations and transversions spontaneously occur during replication. Not to mention transposons, lncRNAs, and viruses: all of which are designed to move DNA from one place to another.

This is why exons exist. Blocks of protein-coding DNA (exons) are surrounded by less important introns. Breaks are likely to occur in introns, and can be used like building blocks that are mix and matched to create new genes ALL THE TIME.

As a scientist, I regularly mutate every gene in the entire genome of c. elegans in an afternoon, and nature has ALOT more DNA available to mutate. All combinations of DNA are possible, so the best combination will be selected.

---____-_____----___---____- (-exon, _intron)

If it's predictable, then it should be possible to predict what certain types of animals or plants will look like in the distant future, and what types of adaptations they'll develop.

Creationists shouldn't comment on science...


Go ahead and study how many of the great scientists in history took the Bible as fact.

A very partial list includes Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Bayes, Euler, Faraday, Mendel, Joule, Hertz, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck...

You really want to erase their contribution to science?


Irrelevant. A man preaching creationism is a creationist and a man employing the scientific method is a scientist. In all instances where those men acted as creationist we have in fact done as you say and ignored their input. Where are their great works on religion? discarded, if any. But their work as scientists? Why that is, as you pointed out, what makes them great, and all that's remembered of them.

Darwin's "conditions of existence" predict that the epigenetic effect of a novel nutrient will alter the cell wall and permit its receptor-mediated entry. If intracellular thermodynamically-controlled protein biosynthesis is positively effected, the nutrient may result in de novo gene expression via protein folding that enables amino acid substitutions.

If the amino acid substitution does not positively effect organism level thermoregulation, adaptive evolution does not occur. Clearly, however, adaptive evolution does not occur via random mutations.

Nutrient-dependent "conditions of existence" must be established via ecological niche construction before Natural Selection can occur. Compare: "Two birds are vying for food. One bird's beak is shaped, by virtue of a random mutation..." to this: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation http://dx.doi.org...e.643393

How does a random mutation enable selection for beak morphology?

As a scientist, I regularly mutate every gene in the entire genome of c. elegans in an afternoon, and nature has ALOT more DNA available to mutate. All combinations of DNA are possible, so the best combination will be selected.


This may give others the wrong idea about what's selected and how selection occurs. Here's a realistic approach:

Differences in the behavior of nematodes that enable natural selection are determined by nutrient-dependent rewiring of their primitive nervous system (Bumbarger, Riebesell, Rödelsperger, & Sommer, 2013). Species incompatibilities are associated with cysteine-to-alanine substitutions (Wilson et al., 2011), which can be expected to alter thermoregulation via the same molecular mechanisms of microbes.

Some people can't seem to grasp the fact that the molecular mechanisms (e.g., the amino acid substitutions) are conserved in species from microbes to man. Please help them to grasp the biological facts and dispense with ridiculous theory!

verkle:"If creationists couldn't comment on science, let alone engage in it, the world would not be what it is today"

No kidding the world wouldn't be what it is today because if religion prevailed over science then many scientist would have been put to death/jailed for challenging the so called "facts" set forth by the church. That's the basic premise of religion control by way of fear.

If you check your facts Galileo was imprisoned for challenging the blindly followed facts of the bible. Ecclesiastes 1:5,Psalm 104:5, Psalm 93:1, 96:10 all state that heliocentrism is the true structure of the solar system.

Please remove yourself from these threads as you provide no sensible input. I guess you are just filling your duties as a good old Christian fear monger on the latest contribution science until the can no longer be denied? As they say history repeats itself. Science will continue to disprove religion and the bible as it has done for centuries.

Science will continue to disprove religion and the bible as it has done for centuries.

Darwin told us, "conditions of existence" during past centuries have a higher priority in the context of explanatory power. The nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled "conditions of existence" have since been largely ignored to favor the ever-more apparently ridiculous assumption that it was Darwin who proposed the theory of random mutations to explain natural selection.

Not only is random mutations theory not representative of science, it should have never been assumed to explain anything about species divergence, which is clearly nutrient-dependent. What is it that you think has been disproved by science about religion and the Bible? You seem to be horribly under-informed.

Conditions of existence (proof):
Excerpt: "Two birds are vying for food. One bird's beak is shaped... such that it's slightly more adept at cracking seeds. This sets the bird on the road toward acquiring more food...

"What is it that you think has been disproved by science about religion and the Bible? You seem to be horribly under-informed."

I think you need a history lesson and need to read a post before you comment. I am quite unclear of how you didn't get this from my previous post but I will bring it down to your level of understanding. The bible states in Ecclesiastes 1:5,Psalm 104:5, Psalm 93:1, 96:10 that heliocentrism(that means the earth is the center of the solar system) is the true structure of the solar system. I'm not sure how in your mind this is not an example of how science disproved the bible? The only conclusion I can make from your comment is that you believe the earth is still the center of the solar system and that its only 6000 years old and dinosaurs fossils are here to challenge your blind faith. If that's the case then I truly feel sorry for you.

If it's predictable, then it should be possible to predict what certain types of animals or plants will look like in the distant future, and what types of adaptations they'll develop.

Only if the envionment remains static (which it doesn't). At the very least the changing organisms also alters its environment (e.g. by more efficiently depriving it of nutrients it gobbles up).

And even though the above suggests that the number of paths are limited they are not necessarily limited to a set of one. A choice very early on can lead to rather drastically different evolutionary paths (each of which can be constrained themselves).

Think about the simple choice of some animal species evolving to be able to live on dry land vs. water. Only two choices...but the long term outcomes are rather different.



How does a random mutation enable selection for beak morphology?


You are ignoring the natural variation within species. There is a bell-shaped curve describing natural variation of traits withing species. That means that beak morphology would not be identical between different members of the same species, there would be variation, and some members would have beaks that were better suited for certain conditions. These members would be selected for in future generations.



How does a random mutation enable selection for beak morphology?


You are ignoring the natural variation within species. There is a bell-shaped curve describing natural variation of traits withing species. That means that beak morphology would not be identical between different members of the same species, there would be variation, and some members would have beaks that were better suited for certain conditions. These members would be selected for in future generations.


inb4 "is there a model for that?"

...some members would have beaks that were better suited for certain conditions. These members would be selected for in future generations.

What enables the selection of those members?
See, for comparison: Ben-Sahra et al, Stimulation of de novo pyrimidine synthesis by growth signaling through mTOR and S6K1. Science 339, 1323–1328 (2013)

Excerpt: "...mTORC1 and S6K1 are not essential for de novo pyrimidine synthesis...in response to growth-promoting signals, such as insulin and nutrients. The direct regulation ... by S6K1 serves as a mechanism to increase the pool of nucleotides available for the RNA and DNA synthesis that accompanies cell growth. ...pyrimidine synthesis represents another major anabolic process that is responsive to changes in cellular growth conditions through mTORC1 signaling."

There is a model of selection for amino acid substitutions for comparison to theories of "somehow selected" beak morphology. http://dx.doi.org...e.643393

Sorry JVK, you lost me. Some nucleotide changes are more likely, because depending on the mutagen only certain nucleotide replacements are allowed. You keep quoting things but I don't understand what your point is.

I apologize; I do not know how to put this succinctly because I don't know how much you already understand.

System-wide Rewiring Underlies Behavioral Differences in Predatory and Bacterial-Feeding Nematodes: http://linkinghub...12015000

The change is due to divergent feeding behavior (i.e., nutrient driven). Nutrient-dependent pheromone production controls reproduction. My point is that mutagens do not cause nucleotide replacements that result in adaptive evolution, which is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man.

What? Why? I promise you, mutations are happening. Sure, behaviors may influence evolutionary trajectories, but that is to be expected. As you might say, only the most nutritious survive.

As to your paper: this is about two related species of nematodes. You see, nematodes grow from larva to adults when food is around. When there isn't, an alternate developmental step is entered, the dauer stage. Dauers are hardy, long-lived, and specialized to conditions of little food. Once food returns, they continue on to grow into adults.

That is what that paper is talking about. This other species of nematode has a dauer-stage that is predatory. Remarkably, they find that most of the original neurons are present in the diverged species, but that they have repurposed their firing capabilities to control novel behaviors. This is caused by individual mutations in many genes that ultimately change the ratio of proteins in these neurons. I agree, it was a very cool paper.

This is caused by individual mutations in many genes that ultimately change the ratio of proteins in these neurons. I agree, it was a very cool paper.


You seem to be arguing for mutation-caused adaptive evolution via ecological, social, and neurogenic niche construction in nematodes at a time when we know that a nutrient-dependent amino acid cysteine-to-alanine substitution represents pheromone-controlled species incompatibilities.

Is there a mutation that concurrently directs or controls adaptive from the bottom up (nutrition) and from the top down (by pheromone controlled reproduction), or are you representing less than half of what's required to get from pleiotropy to epistatis across species from microbes to man. For example, a mutation that results in better nutrient utilization might cause something adaptive, but nothing that shows up in phenotype that can be naturally selected.

You seem to be saying that mutations are somehow selected. Is there a model for that?

Natural selection is the model.

I still don't follow. Why does cysteine-to-alanine represent species 'incompatabilities'. That's an amino acid, not a nucleotide. Amino acids are not typically inherited. Are you referring to the mutation in the DNA sequence that causes Cys->Ala? That paper is not a documentation of two species diverging, it's a comparison of two diverged species that have a similar life-stage (dauers). The authors mention pheromones because that is the signal to enter a dauer or normal developmental cycle. If the environment is crowded (lots of pheromones around), then pheromones become detected by receptors on neurons. Those detected pheromones cause the nematode to deviate towards the alternate dauer state during development.

Also, please define epistasis? It means to 'cover up'. This is often a term used by geneticists to identify gene in the same pathway, as one gene's phenotype will be epistatic to all other genes downstream in that genetic pathway.

For example, a mutation that results in better nutrient utilization might cause something adaptive, but nothing that shows up in phenotype that can be naturally selected.


That's not true. If the effect of the mutation is 'better nutrient utilization', then that is the phenotype! Natural selection chooses mutations that drive fecundity.

Imagine a plate of 500 worms. One of them has a mutation (genotype) for better nutrient utilization (phenotype). That worm will be able to metabolize its food better, make more progeny than its competitors, and the gene will spread to fixation over time.

There is no scientific evidence that mutations are selected and no molecular mechanisms that would allow their selection. Mutations theory is a statistical misrepresentation of Darwin's conditions of existence. Those conditions must be met before natural selection occurs. For the role of amino acid substitutions see: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation http://dx.doi.org...e.643393

Ok, thanks.