Darwin's finches

Were they done by John Freshwater?

I read that the finches in question can interbreed- is this true?

I read that the finches in question can interbreed- is this true?

2oldstroke said: I read that the finches in question can interbreed- is this true?

My understanding of the theory is, "don't interbreed" always precedes "can't interbreed" by some sizeable number of generations.

That's impressive! I don't know anything about tattoos, but I think you'd really have to trust your tattoo artist to ask for such a technically challenging tattoo. It's lucky they didn't end up with Darwin's Blotches.

Peter Grant says the rate of interbreeding between G. fortis and G. scandens occurs between less than 5% of the total # of breeding pairs (Grant, 1994, Evol. Ecol. 8:598-617).

Jonathan Wells, on the other hand, clamed there is enough hybridization to collapse the number of species(Icons of Evolution, 2000), but that claim is refuted when one actually looks at the details of the Grants' work and not some conjecture made by Peter Grant when asked to speculate how long it might take to merge species through hybridization. And as most of us here know, Jonathan Wells is a filthy liar.

jswise said: That's impressive! I don't know anything about tattoos, but I think you'd really have to trust your tattoo artist to ask for such a technically challenging tattoo. It's lucky they didn't end up with Darwin's Blotches.

I just want to know what’s going to happen when they find the intermediate finch between #2 and #3.

Obviously, supposed to depict Lamarkian type evolution. Flex the muscles, or just gain weight and watch the evolution of the tatoo.

Henry J said:

I just want to know what’s going to happen when they find the intermediate finch between #2 and #3.

Wouldn't that be the mainland finches that all of them are descended from?

But, but... THEY'RE STILL JUST TATTOOS!!!

What I want to see is a tattoo turning into something which is not a tattoo, like a piercing.

A tattoo is so complex. It can't be drawn by just chance. You see, tattoos require tattooers!

And no, a book called "The blind tattooer" won't do very well.

"And no, a book called “The blind tattooer” won’t do very well.
"

No, but it would make a good Monty Python or Tim Conway sketch!

Is it a proven fact that changes in beak size are random?
Or is it more the case that no evidence exists to prove the existence of a cause.
Lion (IRC)

Finch beaks get bigger. Then finch beaks get smaller. Then ..er, they get bigger again. Seems like a clear edge of evolution. Has anyone seen finches break through this adaptive range?

Lion IRC said: Is it a proven fact that changes in beak size are random? Or is it more the case that no evidence exists to prove the existence of a cause. Lion (IRC)

Steve P. said: Finch beaks get bigger. Then finch beaks get smaller. Then ..er, they get bigger again. Seems like a clear edge of evolution. Has anyone seen finches break through this adaptive range?

What I want to see is a tattoo turning into something which is not a tattoo, like a piercing.

antiplastic said: But, but... THEY'RE STILL JUST TATTOOS!!! What I want to see is a tattoo turning into something which is not a tattoo, like a piercing.

Hi Stanton,
Thanks for the explanation and the good natured, jovial ad hom. It’s good that we can kid around calling each other morons and know its only in jest.
So just to clarify, do I understand you correctly that there are no mutations at the genetic level which result in bigger or smaller beaks in the offspring of a medium beak sized finch.
I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that random mutations caused beak sizes to vary and natural selection accounted for certain beak sizes being less prevalent or non-existent.
Best regards – Lion (IRC)

Lion IRC said: Hi Stanton, Thanks for the explanation and the good natured, jovial ad hom. It’s good that we can kid around calling each other morons and know its only in jest.

So just to clarify, do I understand you correctly that there are no mutations at the genetic level which result in bigger or smaller beaks in the offspring of a medium beak sized finch.

I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that random mutations caused beak sizes to vary and natural selection accounted for certain beak sizes being less prevalent or non-existent.

jovial ad hom.

I would normally say that it's really an insult, but calling you a moron is a reasoned conclusion based on evidence, not an ad hominem.

Steve P. said: Finch beaks get bigger. Then finch beaks get smaller. Then ..er, they get bigger again. Seems like a clear edge of evolution. Has anyone seen finches break through this adaptive range?

Ichthyic said: jovial ad hom. I would normally say that it's really an insult, but calling you a moron is a reasoned conclusion based on evidence, not an ad hominem.

DS said:

Steve P. said: Finch beaks get bigger. Then finch beaks get smaller. Then ..er, they get bigger again. Seems like a clear edge of evolution. Has anyone seen finches break through this adaptive range?

Actually, all of the finches in the Galapagos are demonstrably descended from birds on the South American mainland. So yes, the finches represent a spectacular example of speciation and adaptive radiation. Now Steve, why do you think that is? Is there any competition between finches? How do you explain the character displacement observed in sympatric populations if there is no competition? Are they all just one big happy family trying to help each other out? Come on Steve, explain the diversity of finch beaks to us. You know you want to.

Is it a proven fact that changes in beak size are random?

Or is it more the case that no evidence exists to prove the existence of a cause. Lion (IRC)

So just to clarify, do I understand you correctly that there are no mutations at the genetic level which result in bigger or smaller beaks in the offspring of a medium beak sized finch. I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that random mutations caused beak sizes to vary and natural selection accounted for certain beak sizes being less prevalent or non-existent. Best regards

Stanton said: Yuan to donuts says that Steve has never heard of the "vampire finch," and, as per the typical Intelligent Design proponent, doesn't care to learn about it, either.

Lion IRC -

Despite your stated interest in dialogue, my questions have gone unanswered. Perhaps you are working on the answers. In any case, for clarity, I will post them again. I won't re-post all of the explanatory material that was in my original post to you, but please don't fail to have a look at it.

Questions -

1. If you disagree with the standard scientific explanation, can you offer an alternative explanation? If, for example, a designer is at work, where does the designer act? Does the designer magically change the genotype of finch zygotes? Or does the designer act on the phenotype as a magical “environmental” influence, so that a finch may actually have genes for a small beak, but magically express a large beak? Or perhaps you have another alternate explanation that I haven’t anticipated.

2. Even if a designer is magically altering finches, why wouldn’t natural selection potentially happen anyway? Is there a rigorous way that we can differentiate between the designer’s acts and natural selection?

3. Do you understand the meanings of the terms “allele”, “recessive”, “dominant”, “genotype”, and “phenotype”? These terms are fairly easy to understand, and critical for an informed discussion, so please speak up if you are ignorant of them, or have read definitions that you could not understand.

Question - Are you literally denying genetics? As far as I know, even most creationists accept that genes code for proteins and heavily influence phenotype.

Question - Which is it? Do you admit that some finches have bigger beaks than others, that this is to a large degree genetically determined, and that different beak sizes can be selected for under different environmental conditions? Or not?

Question - Why don’t you pay more attention to learning and using the appropriate, precise terminology (which is sometimes difficult even for us who bothered to educate ourselves)? The reason the terminology exists is to facilitate discussion and understanding.

Lion IRC -

Good news.

You may not have had a chance to respond to my questions today. Possibly your busy.

It may even happen that you will appear on another thread before getting around to answering them. It's easy to get distracted.

For your convenience, I have saved a copy of my posts here, so that if and when you do return, we will be able to take up the discussion again.

Oops, unforgivable. That's what I get for not previewing a "simple" post.

"Your" instead of "you're".

Hi Harold,

Sorry, I know I should have stayed up late to finish the homework questions you set for me but better late than never.

Q.1 – I can’t “disagree with the standard scientific explanation if I don’t FIRST understand it. I have asked a question whether random mutations can be proven as such. I don’t think it will be helpful if we digress into a Spanish inquisition about my views – just yet (or here!) The question is NOT whether genotypes/phenotypes/zygotes change but whether there is in fact a cause of the change.

Q.2 – Yes – by examining “caused” versus “random” change.

Q. 3 – Yes, I have an understanding of the nouns but the adjectives are ambiguous.

Q. (Question) – No I am not denying anything which is a proven fact. As yet I have not seen proof that random mutation is an empirical observation. Failure to identify a cause of mutation is NOT proof that NO cause exists.

A few of your other questions were false dilemma so I am going to pass on those. Eg. I did not say there are no genes related to beak size and nowhere did I assert that all beaks are the same size.

I understand evolution to be analogous to a horse and cart. The horse is so called “random” mutation and the cart is natural selection. Mutation causes beak sizes to vary and natural selection accounts for certain beak sizes (or species) being less prevalent or non-existent.

Lion (IRC)

PS – Stanton – My answer to you about use of the term “random mutation” is that same as Mr Dawkins. When asked what he thought about people who disliked (despaired at) the idea of random mutation he replied…”If it's true that it causes people to feel despair, that's tough. It’s the truth.” (Beliefnet.com)
Also see The Blind Watchmaker – “mutation is random”. Don’t blame me if you find yourself in dispute with one of your peers.
Also, you might like to use quotation marks when you try to vebal me. I NEVER said evolutionists see no value in life. People interested in truth can see for themselves what I wrote here on January 11, 2010 5:04 PM.

DS said:

Steve P. said: Finch beaks get bigger. Then finch beaks get smaller. Then ..er, they get bigger again. Seems like a clear edge of evolution. Has anyone seen finches break through this adaptive range?

Actually, all of the finches in the Galapagos are demonstrably descended from birds on the South American mainland. So yes, the finches represent a spectacular example of speciation and adaptive radiation. Now Steve, why do you think that is? Is there any competition between finches? How do you explain the character displacement observed in sympatric populations if there is no competition? Are they all just one big happy family trying to help each other out? Come on Steve, explain the diversity of finch beaks to us. You know you want to.

Stanton said:

DS said:

Steve P. said: Finch beaks get bigger. Then finch beaks get smaller. Then ..er, they get bigger again. Seems like a clear edge of evolution. Has anyone seen finches break through this adaptive range?

Actually, all of the finches in the Galapagos are demonstrably descended from birds on the South American mainland. So yes, the finches represent a spectacular example of speciation and adaptive radiation. Now Steve, why do you think that is? Is there any competition between finches? How do you explain the character displacement observed in sympatric populations if there is no competition? Are they all just one big happy family trying to help each other out? Come on Steve, explain the diversity of finch beaks to us. You know you want to.

Yuan to donuts says that Steve has never heard of the "vampire finch," and, as per the typical Intelligent Design proponent, doesn't care to learn about it, either.

DS,

Do you see finch beak size as an example of competition?

I am not certain that I understand Lion's language, but I think he is intimating that genetic mutations cannot be proven to occur at random, and that hence, there may be some purposeful plan to them. He need only make this claim for beneficial mutations that actually spread throughout a population. These, he could argue, are "signal". The rest is noise - which is, by definition, random.

The conclusion would follow from the premise, but the premise appears startling to me. How would one falsify the hypothesis that beneficial mutations do not occur at random? Is it falsifiable? If it is, the work has probably been done, and I shall learn something new when told of it. But I suspect that the hypothesis is essentially not falsifiable.

Consider: I toss a coin, say, ten thousand times. Tosses #8225 to #8236 inclusive are all heads. Twelve heads in a row! How do I prove that the run is not chance?

I suspect that I can't. Yes, I can show that the probability of such a run is not negligible, in ten thousand tosses. But I can't prove that it was chance. How do I know that God, or someone, didn't intervene? For that matter, how do I know that God, or someone, didn't intervene at every toss?

All I can show is that the event is physically possible, and not beyond reasonable probability, given the population. This has been done for all the beneficial mutations that have been studied at the molecular level, I believe. The conclusion is that these events are indistinguishable from random events, which suffices. If they are indistinguishable from random events, they may be treated in all respects as random events.

If Lion has evidence that they are not, I would be interested in seeing it, and then in seeing the results when the mathematicians here set to it.

Dave Luckett said: All I can show is that the event is physically possible, and not beyond reasonable probability, given the population. This has been done for all the beneficial mutations that have been studied at the molecular level, I believe. The conclusion is that these events are indistinguishable from random events, which suffices. If they are indistinguishable from random events, they may be treated in all respects as random events.

Lion IRC said: PS – Stanton – My answer to you about use of the term “random mutation” is that same as Mr Dawkins. When asked what he thought about people who disliked (despaired at) the idea of random mutation he replied…”If it's true that it causes people to feel despair, that's tough. It’s the truth.” (Beliefnet.com) Also see The Blind Watchmaker – “mutation is random”. Don’t blame me if you find yourself in dispute with one of your peers.

Also, you might like to use quotation marks when you try to vebal me. I NEVER said evolutionists see no value in life. People interested in truth can see for themselves what I wrote here on January 11, 2010 5:04 PM.

Steve P. said: Good for you, Stanton. You got that right. Never heard of the Vampire bat. Oh, yeah, by the way, I did read up on them. Drumroll, please. Ta Dah! ...Er, go on.

Steve P. said: DS, Do you see finch beak size as an example of competition?

Steve P. said: DS, Do you see finch beak size as an example of competition?

DS said:

Steve P. said: DS, Do you see finch beak size as an example of competition?

I already answered that. I asked if you did. Apparently you do not. You lose again. Read up on competition in those lions yet?

Steve,

If you think that competition is not important in the evolution of beak sizes in finches read the following article:

Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin's FInches Science 313(5784):224-226 (2006)

If you cannot or will not read the article then you can remain in ignorance.

Hi Dave Luckett,

The movement of a coin (mass) through the air is subject to predictable forces of physics.

I can sufficiently control those forces so as to achieve a coin landing heads up 100% of the time.

The theory of "random" mutation is provisional and like a dead tree which falls over in a direction which is apparently "random" but ACTUALLY the result of real forces - it too will fall when we aquire tools of sufficient accuracy to meassure the as yet unseen forces.

Lion (IRC)

Lion IRC said: Hi Dave Luckett, The movement of a coin (mass) through the air is subject to predictable forces of physics. I can sufficiently control those forces so as to achieve a coin landing heads up 100% of the time.

The theory of "random" mutation is provisional and like a dead tree which falls over in a direction which is apparently "random" but ACTUALLY the result of real forces - it too will fall when we aquire tools of sufficient accuracy to meassure the as yet unseen forces.

epic fail is the only way to describe that paragraph.

Lion admits that there is no evidence for his conjecture that mutation is not random in all cases. Further, he makes no suggestion as to how evidence might be obtained, and implies that he has made no effort to obtain it. This, however, is not surprising, since he is apparently committed to the conjecture, evidence notwithstanding.

One can see why Lion isn't a scientist. Indeed, considering his claimed powers over a flipped coin, if he is not a professional two-up tosser, he would appear to have missed his calling entirely.

I am not certain that I understand Lion's language

i warn you not to even bother, you'll just give yourself a headache that is SO not worth the effort.

For those who like to listen to finches:

Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090503132617.htm
reported on finches raised in complete isolation from their parents and other members of the species. The birds seemed to babble and experiment at first. Their offspring learned the “arrhythmic” song from their tutors, but gradually approached the native song heard in the wild. “What is remarkable about this result is that even though we started out with an isolated bird that had never heard the wild-type, cultured song, that’s what we ended up with after generations,” commented Partha Mitra [Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory]. “So in a sense, the cultured song was already there in the genome of the bird. It just took multiple generations for it to be shaped and come about.”

I can't understand why this topic of finch beaks is even used in the creation/evolution debates. Since varying finch beak sizes is a type of evolution that even creationists already believe in (well, most of them do, anyway), we evolutionists are wasting our time trying to argue about it with them.

Lion wrote:

"The theory of “random” mutation is provisional and like a dead tree which falls over in a direction which is apparently “random” but ACTUALLY the result of real forces - it too will fall when we aquire tools of sufficient accuracy to meassure the as yet unseen forces."

Actually, this is incorrect. When biologists claim that mutations are "random" they do not mean that every mutation is equally likely. All mutations are not equally likely. We know the molecular mechanisms involved and they are decidedly not "random" in that sense. However, they are random with respect to the needs of the organism and this is the important thing. Beneficial mutations doe not arise preferentially due to selection pressures. There are good theoretical reasons for this and lots of experimental evidence. In this sense mutations are most decidedly random and that is all that is required in order to evolution to occur.

Hector said: I can't understand why this topic of finch beaks is even used in the creation/evolution debates. Since varying finch beak sizes is a type of evolution that even creationists already believe in (well, most of them do, anyway), we evolutionists are wasting our time trying to argue about it with them.

Lion IRC said: The movement of a coin (mass) through the air is subject to predictable forces of physics. I can sufficiently control those forces so as to achieve a coin landing heads up 100% of the time. The theory of "random" mutation is provisional and like a dead tree which falls over in a direction which is apparently "random" but ACTUALLY the result of real forces - it too will fall when we aquire tools of sufficient accuracy to meassure the as yet unseen forces.

Lion IRC said: No I am not denying anything which is a proven fact. As yet I have not seen proof that random mutation is an empirical observation. Failure to identify a cause of mutation is NOT proof that NO cause exists.

Lion IRC said: No I am not denying anything which is a proven fact. As yet I have not seen proof that random mutation is an empirical observation. Failure to identify a cause of mutation is NOT proof that NO cause exists.

Aether and phlogiston? :-)

The tragic Greek lovers....

fnxtr said: Aether and phlogiston? :-) ... The tragic Greek lovers....

Oh, right, "Couscous and Dolmade".

I think there's an unpublished Shakespeare version, too.

fnxtr said: Aether and phlogiston? :-)

Well since the word "phlosgium" now exists, we have to make up a definition for it.

Lyin wrote:

"No I am not denying anything which is a proven fact. As yet I have not seen proof that random mutation is an empirical observation. Failure to identify a cause of mutation is NOT proof that NO cause exists."

I told you that that hypothesis has already been extensively tested. Your ignorance of the results does not give you the right to reject the hypothesis. The causes of mutations are known in great detail. Selection pressure isn't one of them.

1. If you disagree with the standard scientific explanation, can you offer an alternative explanation? If, for example, a designer is at work, where does the designer act? Does the designer magically change the genotype of finch zygotes? Or does the designer act on the phenotype as a magical “environmental” influence, so that a finch may actually have genes for a small beak, but magically express a large beak? Or perhaps you have another alternate explanation that I haven’t anticipated.

Q.1 – I can’t “disagree with the standard scientific explanation if I don’t FIRST understand it. I have asked a question whether random mutations can be proven as such. I don’t think it will be helpful if we digress into a Spanish inquisition about my views – just yet (or here!) The question is NOT whether genotypes/phenotypes/zygotes change but whether there is in fact a cause of the change.

2. Even if a designer is magically altering finches, why wouldn’t natural selection potentially happen anyway? Is there a rigorous way that we can differentiate between the designer’s acts and natural selection?

Q.2 – Yes – by examining “caused” versus “random” change.

3. Do you understand the meanings of the terms “allele”, “recessive”, “dominant”, “genotype”, and “phenotype”? These terms are fairly easy to understand, and critical for an informed discussion, so please speak up if you are ignorant of them, or have read definitions that you could not understand.

Q. 3 – Yes, I have an understanding of the nouns but the adjectives are ambiguous.

If I understand this correctly, you are implying that maybe finch beak size has no known genetic controls. Question - Are you literally denying genetics? As far as I know, even most creationists accept that genes code for proteins and heavily influence phenotype.

Q. (Question) – No I am not denying anything which is a proven fact. As yet I have not seen proof that random mutation is an empirical observation. Failure to identify a cause of mutation is NOT proof that NO cause exists.

A few of your other questions were false dilemma so I am going to pass on those. Eg. I did not say there are no genes related to beak size and nowhere did I assert that all beaks are the same size.

I understand evolution to be analogous to a horse and cart. The horse is so called “random” mutation and the cart is natural selection. Mutation causes beak sizes to vary and natural selection accounts for certain beak sizes (or species) being less prevalent or non-existent.

Assuming that you are merely mis-using the term “mutation” when you meant to say “existing alleles”, your understanding borders on being correct.

Lion IRC,

SInce you don't seem to understand the relevant terminology, I will make this really simple for you.

When flipping a coin there is a fifty percent chance of heads and an equal chance of tails. Each outcome is random in the sense that the outcome any one flip cannot be accurately predicted. In the long run, the ratio of heads to tails will come out close to fifty/fifty. The more trials you have the more closely the ratio will come to fifty/fifty. The odds for each individual flip will not change no matter how manny flips have come before or what the outcome of any previous flip was. Now here is the important part, the ratio will not change because you need heads to come up in order to win one thousand dollars. The odds will still be the same for every flip regardless of how much money you have riding on the flip.

It is in this sense that mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism. The probability of any given mutation relative to others does not change in any particular environment. Beneficial mutations are not preferentially produced in response to selection. This is the conclusion of many years of controlled experiments. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise. Oh and you might want to take a trip to Vegas also.

Lion IRC said: No I am not denying anything which is a proven fact. As yet I have not seen proof that random mutation is an empirical observation.

Two classes of mutations are spontaneous mutations (molecular decay) and induced mutations caused by mutagens. Spontaneous mutations (those that occur due to the basic, imperfect, chemistry of DNA) * Tautomerism – A base is changed by the repositioning of a hydrogen atom, altering the hydrogen bonding pattern... * Depurination – Loss of a purine base (A or G) to form an apurinic site (AP site). * Deamination – Hydrolysis changes a normal base to an atypical base containing a keto group in place of the original amine group... * Transition – A purine changes to another purine, or a pyrimidine to a pyrimidine. * Transversion – A purine becomes a pyrimidine, or vice versa. * A covalent adduct between benzo[a]pyrene, the major mutagen in tobacco smoke, and DNA[29] Induced mutations (those that are caused on the molecular level by outside forces) * Chemicals o Hydroxylamine NH2OH o Base analogs (e.g. BrdU) o Alkylating agents (e.g. N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea) These agents can mutate both replicating and non-replicating DNA. o Agents that form DNA adducts (e.g. ochratoxin A metabolites)[30] o DNA intercalating agents (e.g. ethidium bromide) o DNA crosslinkers o Oxidative damage o Nitrous acid converts amine groups on A and C to diazo groups, altering their hydrogen bonding patterns which leads to incorrect base pairing during replication. * Radiation o Ultraviolet radiation (nonionizing radiation). o Ionizing radiation * Viral infections DNA has so-called hotspots, where mutations occur up to 100 times more frequently than the normal mutation rate. A hotspot can be at an unusual base, e.g., 5-methylcytosine.

Lion IRC said: ... examining “caused” versus “random” change. ...

Dan said: I think I see part of Lion IRC's problem. S/he thinks that there's some sort of contradiction between caused and random. I toss a penny into the air. It comes down heads or tails at random. But that doesn't mean there's no cause ... indeed the toss was caused by my hand.

Consider: I toss a coin, say, ten thousand times. Tosses #8225 to #8236 inclusive are all heads. Twelve heads in a row! How do I prove that the run is not chance? I suspect that I can’t. Yes, I can show that the probability of such a run is not negligible, in ten thousand tosses. But I can’t prove that it was chance. How do I know that God, or someone, didn’t intervene? For that matter, how do I know that God, or someone, didn’t intervene at every toss?

Lion: I hope this will help you not sound so uninformed (notice I didn't say "stupid").

"Random" does NOT mean that any damn thing can happen!

It means that of the things that are POSSIBLE in that situation, there's no way to predict reliably which one will happen. A "random" coin toss can ONLY come up heads or tails--it can't come up elephants.

"Random mutations" are likewise random only within what is possible given that genome. A cow, for instance, is not going to have a random mutation that gives it feathered wings. There's no single mutation or reasonable group of them possible in cow DNA that could result in wings. It's very possible, however, for Black Angus parents to produce a white calf (albino), or to produce a blind one.

And yes, if life began spontaneously from non-living chemicals, that too was "random" only within what is possible for those chemicals to do. Chemicals do not combine any old which way "at random". Carbon, especially, can do a lot of things, but not just any "random" thing, and it's more likely to do certain things than others, like linking up with other things in long chains (polymers), like DNA. And the likelihood of particular chemical reactions happening is influenced by surrounding conditions (like sticking a wad of gum on one side of a coin is likely to reduce the randomness of coin tosses). A little heat may make carbon link up faster--a little gum may make it "heads" 60% of the time.

People who provide lists of all the causes of mutation are putting nails in the coffin of randomness.
The more causes of mutation you discover the further away you move from the description of mutations as random - unpredictable.

I can describe quite accurately (on paper) the forces acting upon a coin which affect whether it will land heads up or tails. The only thing contributing to uncertainty/unpredictability of the result is my ability to precisely control/measure the forces involved.

I can build a machine which will take a coin and mechanically flip it once or twice or three times. The result of such a designed toss will be predictable. If I try to design a machine which will make the coin land on its edge 100% of the time it is theoretically possible - as long as I can control all the forces very accurately. The only forces which might cause the coin NOT to land on its edge are the ones I miscalculated.

If that is not true then I may as well say there is an unpredictable ghost in the machine which causes random fluctuations. I might as well go the “whole hog” and describe the ghost as a scientific fact and say (with a completely straight face) that it has free will as well.

Lion (IRC)

Lion IRC said: People who provide lists of all the causes of mutation are putting nails in the coffin of randomness. The more causes of mutation you discover the further away you move from the description of mutations as random - unpredictable.

Lion IRC said: People who provide lists of all the causes of mutation are putting nails in the coffin of randomness. The more causes of mutation you discover the further away you move from the description of mutations as random - unpredictable. I can describe quite accurately (on paper) the forces acting upon a coin which affect whether it will land heads up or tails. The only thing contributing to uncertainty/unpredictability of the result is my ability to precisely control/measure the forces involved. I can build a machine which will take a coin and mechanically flip it once or twice or three times. The result of such a designed toss will be predictable. If I try to design a machine which will make the coin land on its edge 100% of the time it is theoretically possible - as long as I can control all the forces very accurately. The only forces which might cause the coin NOT to land on its edge are the ones I miscalculated. If that is not true then I may as well say there is an unpredictable ghost in the machine which causes random fluctuations. I might as well go the “whole hog” and describe the ghost as a scientific fact and say (with a completely straight face) that it has free will as well. Lion (IRC)

I think the problem my lovely Lion IRC is that you are misunderstanding the term random in many and varied ways.

Radioactivity is random - we know that 202Pb has a half-life of approximately 53,000 years, which means that in 53 000 years half of the lead that is 202Pb will have changed into another element (I will leave it to you to find out to what as you have shown such eagerness to learn I wouldn't want to deprive you). However, we don't know which half as we can't predict which atoms will decay. We know why they decay (i.e we know the cause) but we don't know why specific atoms decay. Is it caused, absolutely! Is it random? Yes. Being caused and being random are not contradictory.

Then we get to random mutation. What does this mean? It's not quite the same as radioactivity but it's similar. We know the cause as you read above, but with mutation it's more complex as, unlike Pb202 which always changes into the element you'll be finding out about soon,there's a whole range of possibilities. However, there is an even more important difference which your statement above shows you haven't yet appreciated. Mutation is random with respect to the requirements of the organism, i.e. the likelihood or probability of a mutation isn't dictated by the organism, so for example if a finch would be better off with long-beaked offspring this does not affect the likelihood of such a mutation occurring.

So mutations occur and we know why. For every gene there are lots of possible mutations, most will be neutral, some deleterious, and a very few beneficial. But they are random because the chances of them occurring are down to the physics and biochemistry of the genome. So to make this simple, for others than your erudite self, if we have a hypothetical gene a-g-c-t and we know that if a cosmic ray hits it, we can predict the probability that it will mutate, and the probability of each change (they don't need to be the same)that says nothing about it not being random. In evolutionary terms what we are saying is that the chance of a change from agct to aact (giving offspring a longer beak)is not increased because it is beneficial to the organism. So knowing how it happened and what was likely to happened doesn't make mutation non-random. Mutation is random because the genome has no control over it.

What we would expect to see if the genome was being driven by outside forces from god to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that changes which benefit the organism would be more common, i.e need would drive mutation. It doesn't hence mutation is random as opposed to directed.

Hopefully you found that useful and will no longer be in confusion as to what random actually means in an evolutionary context.

Stanton wrote:

"The problem is, Lion, you are using a different definition of “randomness,” and we call you “idiot” and “moron” because you steadfast refuse to listen to what we’re trying to say."

You are correct. Perhaps it would be best to document the ways in which mutations are not random. Then perhaps Lion will no longer claim that we are saying that they are random in those ways.

For example, repetitive sequences are more prone to insertion and deletion events due to slipped strand mispairing. Thymine dinucleotides are more prone to UV damage. Observed transitions are ten times more frequent than observed transversions. Insertion target sequences are more prone to transposition than other sequences. The list goes on and on. the point is that we know the reasons for all of these observed examples of nonrandomness. None of them preferentially produce beneficial mutations.

Lion is either intentionally or unintentionally using the term "random" in an inappropriate way. I have done my best to educate him. There is nothing left but name calling if he persists. It is already getting to the point where the unintentional hypothesis is in danger of being falsified.

Mike, I should have written "how can I prove that the run (of twelve heads in a row) is chance", not "is not chance".

Of course I was arguing that it is chance, just as I am arguing that, contra Lion, mutations are chance events.

The probability of a run of twelve heads in a row, on a fair coin toss, is one over 2^12, or one in 4096 (as you well know). But there are 9988 sequences of twelve tosses in a sample of ten thousand consecutive tosses, so one would expect a run of twelve heads to come up once or twice. It's well within the odds that this would happen. Chance is therefore a reasonable explanation for it.

But I was also noting the (purely philosophical) argument that there is no proving that an apparently random event is truly random. Herein lies Lion's only shred of rationality. I cannot prove that it was not God's will that twelve heads came up in a row. All I can show is that God's will is not distinguishable from chance.

The same arguments apply to genetic mutation, with the proviso that the event is not as simple as a coin toss, with many, many more than two possible outcomes.

But if the probability of an event like the result of a coin toss or a genetic mutation is not distinguishable from chance, then there is no point in treating it as if it were; and this is where Lion departs from rationality.

In theory, it really wouldn't matter if he, or anyone, chose to see God's hand in the operation of chance events, so long as he was fully prepared to treat them as chance events, from the fact that they are not distinguishable from chance. However, Lion is not actually prepared to do this. He is doing exactly the opposite: treating chance events as purposeful. He is really trying to say that the impossibility of ruling out Divine intervention is the same thing as assuming it, therefore God. This, of course, is irrational.

Or I think that's what he's trying to say, for his language is imprecise. He could be trying to say that favourable genetic mutation (however we define 'favourable') is not random, therefore God. (You will observe the difference between this and saying favourable genetic mutation is not distinguishable from chance.) The only result of this, more radical, position is that Lion departs from rationality earlier.

DS said: Perhaps it would be best to document the ways in which mutations are not random. For example, repetitive sequences are more prone to insertion and deletion events due to slipped strand mispairing. Thymine dinucleotides are more prone to UV damage. Observed transitions are ten times more frequent than observed transversions. Insertion target sequences are more prone to transposition than other sequences.

DS said: Lion is either intentionally or unintentionally using the term "random" in an inappropriate way. I have done my best to educate him. There is nothing left but name calling if he persists. It is already getting to the point where the unintentional hypothesis is in danger of being falsified.

Lion IRC said: People who provide lists of all the causes of mutation are putting nails in the coffin of randomness. The more causes of mutation you discover the further away you move from the description of mutations as random - unpredictable.

Stanton wrote:

"There, fixed it for you. It’s quite obvious that Lion is intentionally misusing the term “random,” as he has deliberately ignored everyone’s attempts to correct him in his mischaracterizations."

OK. Then from now on everyone should respond to him that mutations are NOT random and see what he says to that. Chances are that he will again intentionally choose to misunderstand in yet another spectacularly trivial way.

Joyous wrote:

"This is exactly the point. We can identify what the most likely changes are from physics and chemistry alone. This then allows us to see whether or not in vivo the changes are different. We have not yet found evidence that they are - it’s a simple test for directed evolution - one example would be sufficient. Where are they?"

Well you have to quit lion before you can tell the truth apparently.

The more causes of mutation you discover the further away you move from the description of mutations as random - unpredictable.

I'm sure this has been said to you many times before, but this is not what is meant when we apply the term "random" wrt to the vast bulk of mutations.

what we mean is wrt to specific fitness, they ARE random; they are not driven by the whatever improved fitness the organism might obtain.

IOW, we don't see increasing numbers of mutations favoring long noses in anteaters, simply because it would help them eat ants better.

mutations are random with regards to their effect on fitness.

whether statistically, some specific insertions or deletions have higher probabilities than others is based on chemistry mostly, and has nothing to do with the way random is used in the phrase "random mutation"

that IS the only clear way to explain this, and if you still don't get it, then you have more to worry about than your understanding of evolution and religion.

Dave Luckett said: Mike, I should have written "how can I prove that the run (of twelve heads in a row) is chance", not "is not chance".

But I was also noting the (purely philosophical) argument that there is no proving that an apparently random event is truly random. Herein lies Lion’s only shred of rationality. I cannot prove that it was not God’s will that twelve heads came up in a row. All I can show is that God’s will is not distinguishable from chance.

Lion IRC said: I can build a machine which will take a coin and mechanically flip it once or twice or three times. The result of such a designed toss will be predictable. If I try to design a machine which will make the coin land on its edge 100% of the time it is theoretically possible - as long as I can control all the forces very accurately. The only forces which might cause the coin NOT to land on its edge are the ones I miscalculated. If that is not true then I may as well say there is an unpredictable ghost in the machine which causes random fluctuations. I might as well go the “whole hog” and describe the ghost as a scientific fact and say (with a completely straight face) that it has free will as well.

Lion, I want to further reinforce the point that many others have made because I'm starting to wonder if the problem here is that you possess a degree of hyper literalism that I've sometimes seen in others before.

When mutations are called random, the intent is not to suggest that inside a cell there is a magical little random number generator that decides what DNA will be mutated and what it will be altered to. If you are trying to argue that there is no random number generator inside the cell, well, congratulations, you are in fact correct.

And the sum of the "darwinist" world completely agrees with you.

You are driving nails into the coffin of a your own private hyper literal interpretation. Some would call it a strawman, but I'm not certain this is intentional.

Or perhaps this isn't your own creation, perhaps you were taught that this is the case by another. If that's the case then you've been lied to. This should be becoming apparent as you repeat the same argument that you think should be a slam dunk and get only blank stares in response.

If you are unable to divorce the term "random" from the concept of an ideal random number generator then it might benefit you to switch to using the term "undirected". Undirected with respect to fitness.

In other words, in comparison to the typical example of Lamarckian evolution, giraffe DNA isn't altered by the effort of the animal stretching for tall branches in order to give the animal's offspring longer necks. The various and sundry forces at work in mutating the DNA have no concern for the needs of the animal's offspring. Maybe the mutation will have a beneficial effect, maybe it'll have a negative one. Most likely it'll have no effect at all. The needs of the animal do not direct the mutations to enable the creature's offspring to become more fit.

If this is in fact exactly what you were trying to say than congratulations, your insight was quite correct. If it isn't then you're not well served by focusing on your hyper literal interpretation of a word being used with a different intent.

My 2p worth:
The genome of the "new" finch is fixed at conception isn't it? Any random variation which *may* be beneficial is not apparent until said finch hatches into an environment.
2 finch eggs may be produced by the same 2 parents, with different "random" changes in makeup. One may have a longer beak than the other.
One may therefore have a better chance of survival *in the real environment* when they hatch. Is some designer taking preference of 1 finch over another at the time of conception? The beak size is not 100% predictable from knowing the parents, and the benefit certainly cannot be known in advance because the environment into which the chicks will hatch is not known in advance. Thus natural selection can work on random variations. Simple.

Lion,

If you choose to respond, please define the word "random" precisely. Until you do, no one can have an intelligent discussion with you if you keep changing the meaning of the word. I can make it a multiple choice question if you want. If you cannot define this term that you keep using there is no point in any further discussion. We will then know that you were being deliberately obtuse all along and that any further comments can be safely ignored.

Number52 wrote:

"The beak size is not 100% predictable from knowing the parents, and the benefit certainly cannot be known in advance because the environment into which the chicks will hatch is not known in advance. Thus natural selection can work on random variations. Simple."

Exactly. In order for directed mutations to occur there must be a mechanism for predicting environmental conditions in the future. There must also be some criteria for what characteristics are desirable. Then there must be some mechanism for generating beneficial mutations preferentially, which of course would require not only an intimate knowledge of molecular mechanisms but the ability to actually produce the required changes. No such mechanisms are known, no such mechanisms are observed. Random mutation, followed by selection in a changing environment is all that is required in order for evolution to occur, even microevolution, which we all know is real.

The word "random", like most words, has many meanings. My son has a friend named Jacob, who has many peculiar habits. My son says "Jacob is random". This is in fact the exact opposite of the normal definition of "random", because it is entirely predictable that Jacob is peculiar.

In short, if you look at common usage you'll find definitions of "random" that span the entire range from "completely unpredictable" to "completely predictable".

Lion is using -- or rather abusing -- this span to pluck out exactly the definition of "random" he wants in one paragraph, then a completely different definition in a second paragraph, then another definition all together in a third paragraph.

Dan said: Lion is using -- or rather abusing -- this span to pluck out exactly the definition of "random" he wants in one paragraph, then a completely different definition in a second paragraph, then another definition all together in a third paragraph.

Dan said: Lion is using -- or rather abusing -- this span to pluck out exactly the definition of "random" he wants in one paragraph...

In order for directed mutations to occur there must be a mechanism for predicting environmental conditions in the future. There must also be some criteria for what characteristics are desirable. Then there must be some mechanism for generating beneficial mutations preferentially, which of course would require not only an intimate knowledge of molecular mechanisms but the ability to actually produce the required changes. No such mechanisms are known, no such mechanisms are observed.

The point is not that mutations occur randomly. They do not.

That should be "multinomial" not "binomial" in the example.

I doubt that lion will ever 'get'it, but all these explanations sure helped me. thanks ya'll.

What she said.

So to summarize:

Mutations Are NOT random in the sense that:

1) Not all types of mutations are equally likely

2) Not all nucleotides are equally likely to mutate

3) Not all mutations are equally likely to be repaired

4) Not all mutations are equally likely to be passed on to offspring

5) Not all mutations are equally likely to increase in frequency in the population in every environment

Mutations ARE random in the sense that the distribution of mutations:

1) Is not statistically different from that expected by random chance

2) Is not affected by the current needs of the organism

3) Is not affected by the future needs of the organism

4) Is not ordinarily affected by the desires of human beings

5) Is not altered by any supernatural intervention (at least as far as we can tell)

Hi DS,

You forgot one thing in your summary.

Apparently since 1900 we have given up seeking a unified theory of everything - except for the theory that "There NEVER will be a TOE."

(chaos / uncertainty / unpredictability - quantum weirdness trumps science)

Which sort of emphasizes my point.

What Heisenberg called "uncertainty" should have more accurately been paraphrased as follows;

"We don’t yet know exactly what’s going on here because the instruments we are using are not small enough and precise enough to see what is actually going on."

"Random" means all possible causes empirically verified and ruled out.

"Apparently random" means we think we have eliminated all the causes we can think of so far or there are so many contributing variables that we just can’t be bothered finding out which one matters most.

But please don’t dress up a concept like random mutation with “Kings New Clothes” jargon. Just call a spade a spade.

You either know why something happens or you dont.

Lion (IRC)

Lion, you are making an idiot out of yourself again.

We have repeatedly pointed out to you that you are misusing the term "random" in your pathetic attempt to disparage mutation's role in evolution.

Please go away: you are a stupid and annoying hypocrite.

I mean, honestly, Lion, if you claim that "random mutations" aren't what help drive evolution, then what is, and why haven't you put forth any evidence to support your claim?

Or, is this all a part of your inane master plan of trying to paint science and scientists as being evil and incompetent so you can wow us when you whip out God with His Magic Pixie Wand as THE ANSWER tm?

I mean, Lion, you have to be aware that there is an earthshakingly valid reason why we view you as being a malicious idiot.

Lion opined: "Random" means all possible causes empirically verified and ruled out.

Lion you are wrong:

"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement has been interpreted in two different ways. According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. According to others (for instance Ballentine)[1] this is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the absolute position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain - it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavelength of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more accurate position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less accurate (and vice versa)."

Wiki's good for some things.

Note that this has nothing to do with the size and precision of instruments. It is the nature of... well, Nature, actually.

See, Lion? Even you can learn something!

fnxtr said: See, Lion? Even you can learn something!

Lyin,

You have been told. We understand exactly what the mechanisms of mutations are at the molecular level. If you are ignorant of this evidence then you have no right to any opinion. Now if you want to claim that mutations are not random you must choose a meaning of the word, then demonstrate how mutations are not random in that sense. Until you do this you are just playing word games and ignoring all evidence. No one cares what you think. Either grow up and have an intelligent adult conversation or go away.

Evolutionary Biologists Rethink Evolution

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

But the accumulation and selection of mutations does not explain certain things that biologists have observed. For example, University of Arizona biologist Alexander Badaev, who has tracked over 12,000 house finches near Missoula, Montana, for over a decade, has noticed rapid changes in their beak shapes. A recent article in The Scientist pointed out that “the only way for finches to survive would be if their beak shape had changed rapidly—too rapidly to have resulted from just random mutations.”2 Badaev’s formal results will be published in an upcoming issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

These finch finds parallel the rapid changes in beak shapes seen in Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands.3 Much evidence, in fact, has been accumulating regarding biological changes that occur too fast for the slow and gradual amassing of mutations, as per the modern synthesis, to explain.4

References

2. Grant, B. 2010. Some biologists are calling for a rethink of the rules of evolution. The Scientist. 24 (1): 25-30.
3. Thomas, B. New Finch Species Shows Conservation, Not Macroevolution. ICR News. Posted on icr.org December 9, 2009, accessed January 25, 2010.
4. Reproducing Early and Often is the Key to Rapid Evolution in Plants. Yale University press release, October 2, 2008, reporting on research published in Smith, S. A. and M. J. Donoghue. 2008. Rates of Molecular Evolution Are Linked to Life History in Flowering Plants. Science. 322 (5898): 86-89.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on February 3, 2010.

How was this possible? To answer the question, Badyaev looked into the developmental patterns that give rise to the beak’s structure in house finches. He found a complex interplay of processes, such as the migration of five islands of neural crest cells that constitute skeletal beak components in the embryo. Interacting embryonic processes result in an initial level of phenotypic variation greater than what would be predicted from underlying genotypic variation alone.2

henry, we already know you are a dishonest idiot.

Please take a long walk off a short pier.

eric said: You know Henry, you don't even quotemine well. A complaint about random mutation,even taken out of context, hardly provides support for creationism. There are many other evolutionary mechanisms for change. But just to make the beat down comprehensive, here's the next paragraph:

How was this possible? To answer the question, Badyaev looked into the developmental patterns that give rise to the beak’s structure in house finches. He found a complex interplay of processes, such as the migration of five islands of neural crest cells that constitute skeletal beak components in the embryo. Interacting embryonic processes result in an initial level of phenotypic variation greater than what would be predicted from underlying genotypic variation alone.2

The author is clearly arguing that development plays a large(r) role in beak size. The Evo-Devo debate is interesting, but its mainstream science. The idea that this support creationism is laughable.