Genetic Entropy? (Accidently Posted in "Introductions" Forum)

[OfficerVajardian]

I have been prodding around on Creationist Websites for fun and I came upon this:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=10038

In this he claims that Genetic Entropy now has evidence is it's favor.

He cites this paper published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling:

http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-9-42.pdf

To which the paper claims to have found Mutation Accumulation in the genome of the H1N1 virus from the 1918 flu, which seems to be in favor of Genetic Entropy.

Does anybody have some thoughts on this?

P.S. Is it just me or does it sound like Genetic Entropy is a reformed term for Muller's Ratchet?

P.S.S. I'm not actually a geneticist or biologist, but I understand some stuff like Transcription, Translation, DNA, etc. So it would be great if somebody could explain this, but still have the detail in it.

P.S.S.S. Could a Mod delete my post in the "Introduction" forum? I posted in the wrong spot.

Thanks!

[Esquilax]

And here we have the standard creationist tactic of misunderstanding some element of evolution, and then trying to turn that into a problem that doesn't exist.

First of all, nobody ever claimed that natural selection weeds out all negative mutations, just the ones that are fatal more often than not. Obviously, if a negative mutation doesn't result in a significant detriment to the organism's survival chances, then it will persist in those organisms that survive to breeding age with it intact.

So the "evolutionists believe that X, but actually Y! Nyuk, nyuk!" portion of the claim is completely wrong. But more importantly, what the fuck does "wearing out" a genome mean? The contention that since the virus' lethality has been reduced it's therefore "weaker" is absolutely stupid, since a reduction in viral symptoms doesn't necessarily correlate to a reduction in virus survivability. In fact, one could argue that a virus which leaves the host alive does a much better job of surviving; that's why Ebola outbreaks are relatively rare, but we all live with the common cold every year.

There seems to be this idea that there's a pre-set "perfect" genome for things, a specific code for humans, for viruses, for everything, and the more we stray away from that via mutation, the closer we are to disaster. But that's not true, that's just evolution. Things change over time, and mutations accumulate. There's no reason to even believe that negative mutations will stay that way; all it takes is a single generation for a bunch of negative things to evolve a single new trait that "completes" the picture, so to speak, and turns those negatives into one big positive. And that's just ignoring potential environmental changes that might cause us to need that stuff.

And let's say that all those negative mutations do build up and a species goes extinct... so what? That's what happens in nature. Things die. To spin this as evidence against evolution would just be an argument from consequences: "I don't like where this would lead, therefore it can't be true."

Sorry, doesn't work that way, creationists.

[OfficerVajardian]

And here we have the standard creationist tactic of misunderstanding some element of evolution, and then trying to turn that into a problem that doesn't exist.

First of all, nobody ever claimed that natural selection weeds out all negative mutations, just the ones that are fatal more often than not. Obviously, if a negative mutation doesn't result in a significant detriment to the organism's survival chances, then it will persist in those organisms that survive to breeding age with it intact.

So the "evolutionists believe that X, but actually Y! Nyuk, nyuk!" portion of the claim is completely wrong. But more importantly, what the fuck does "wearing out" a genome mean? The contention that since the virus' lethality has been reduced it's therefore "weaker" is absolutely stupid, since a reduction in viral symptoms doesn't necessarily correlate to a reduction in virus survivability. In fact, one could argue that a virus which leaves the host alive does a much better job of surviving; that's why Ebola outbreaks are relatively rare, but we all live with the common cold every year.

There seems to be this idea that there's a pre-set "perfect" genome for things, a specific code for humans, for viruses, for everything, and the more we stray away from that via mutation, the closer we are to disaster. But that's not true, that's just evolution. Things change over time, and mutations accumulate. There's no reason to even believe that negative mutations will stay that way; all it takes is a single generation for a bunch of negative things to evolve a single new trait that "completes" the picture, so to speak, and turns those negatives into one big positive. And that's just ignoring potential environmental changes that might cause us to need that stuff.

And let's say that all those negative mutations do build up and a species goes extinct... so what? That's what happens in nature. Things die. To spin this as evidence against evolution would just be an argument from consequences: "I don't like where this would lead, therefore it can't be true."

Sorry, doesn't work that way, creationists.

Wow. So much thing I did not think about when I was reading those things. I had a feeling that Jon (or is it John?) Sanford was arguing for devolution, but that doesn't mean Evolution is some how invalid, right?

We know that Evolution doesn't require a "more complex" form to arise, just one that is suited to fit it's environment best, right?

I also remember that there was a research paper that showed evidence of Muller's Ratchet in RNA Viruses, the same class of viruses which the H1N1 virus is in, right?

So how do we know that's it's NOT Muller's Ratchet acting and Genetic Entropy instead?

(Paper here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2247152)

[The Grand Nudger]

We know that Evolution doesn't require a "more complex" form to arise, just one that is suited to fit it's environment best, right?

Negatron. Evolution doesn't require any specific form to arise, not even one suited to it's environment (and certainly not "best" as it has no means of establishing what that would be). It only states that those "forms" with advantageous mutations are likely to out-compete those which do not have them-at the population level. If evolution required a "form" best suited to it's environment we'd have trouble explaining all of the defunct "forms" laying around.

[OfficerVajardian]

We know that Evolution doesn't require a "more complex" form to arise, just one that is suited to fit it's environment best, right?

Negatron. Evolution doesn't require any specific form to arise, not even one suited to it's environment (and certainly not "best" as it has no means of establishing what that would be). It only states that those "forms" with advantageous mutations are likely to out-compete those which do not have them-at the population level.

Oh, yes, right. Silly me. I stand corrected! So thank you!

[Mister Agenda]

This one is pretty easy to refute. First, get an estimate of how many generations it should take for a species to go extinct because of genetic entropy. Then remember that mice go through three or four generations a year, and figure out how long ago mice would have gone extinct if the earth is 6,000 years old. I've heard 400 generations, which means mice should have gone extinct by at least 3,000 BC.

[The Grand Nudger]

Arthur: Best laid plans of mice and men.
Slartibartfast: Oh. No, I don't think men had much to do with it.

[bennyboy]

Oh, yes, right. Silly me. I stand corrected! So thank you!

lol at Vaj's sig. Good one.

[OfficerVajardian]

This one is pretty easy to refute. First, get an estimate of how many generations it should take for a species to go extinct because of genetic entropy. Then remember that mice go through three or four generations a year, and figure out how long ago mice would have gone extinct if the earth is 6,000 years old. I've heard 400 generations, which means mice should have gone extinct by at least 3,000 BC.

I'm trying to put myself in the creationist's shoes here.

Firstly, not so sure why they are talking about Genetic Entropy supporting creationism. It is self refuting! Why? Why would an omnipotent and omniscient god let this sort of thing happen? That sort of god is very stupid.

Secondly, Agenda, wouldn't the creationist just go and say "Oh the mice isn't extinct because God did it!"?

[Esquilax]

Firstly, not so sure why they are talking about Genetic Entropy supporting creationism. It is self refuting! Why? Why would an omnipotent and omniscient god let this sort of thing happen? That sort of god is very stupid.

I think it's another argument from ignorance. Something along the lines of: "If the earth was millions of years old/if things were evolving, then our genetics would all break down due to entropy! Therefore, the earth must be young/there must be a designer making that not happen/evolution doesn't occur!"