Proposal Claims Evolution Makes Biased Substitutions

An article in PLoS Biology makes an astounding claim which is not consistent with an non-thinking random process. No, they are not saying it’s creationism, which would give the likes of Dawkins who is an militant atheist a heart attack, but in fact what they are claiming is that evolutionary processes are bias.

“Genes that have experienced accelerated evolutionary rates on the human lineage during recent evolution are candidates for involvement in human-specific adaptations.

To determine the forces that cause increased evolutionary rates in certain genes, we analyzed alignments of 10,238 human genes to their orthologues in chimpanzee and macaque. Using a likelihood ratio test, we identified protein-coding sequences with an accelerated rate of base substitutions along the human lineage.”

“These genes also show evidence of clusters of weak-to-strong biased substitutions. These findings indicate that a recombination-associated process, such as biased gene conversion (BGC), is driving fixation of GC alleles in the human genome. This process can lead to accelerated evolution in coding sequences and excess amino acid replacement substitutions, thereby generating significant results for tests of positive selection.”

Does this mean evolution is not random anymore but now “biased?” We are talking about a process with no intelligence. We are talking about a process that merely uses random accidents.

“Regions of the human genome that appear to evolve rapidly may have been under strong positive selection and could contain the genetic changes responsible for the uniqueness of our species.”

Austin L. Hughes, an evolutionary biologist at the University of South Carolina has stated there is no “signature on the genome” and he is right about this aspect of evolution but wrong in other ways.  Not one is detectable for positive selection, so this makes it mere speculation and so are all the thousands of scientific papers including this latest article in PLoS.

Evolution is full of gaps, often times these gaps are filled with more assumptions, and more speculations, not to mention  more gaps. It’s not explanatory power as some would like to suggest, but just explanations that contains a lot of jargon at times. It’s what I call a maze trying to avoid an intelligent designer, namely God, as seen it’s claiming evolution is baised now. All this hypothesis does and it does it very well, is create dead ends.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Proposal Claims Evolution Makes Biased Substitutions

  1. Creation or Intelligent design would be purposeful, not evolution. As far as talking origins which I suggested you stop reading, it’s not a very good representation of evolution. For one thing, it’s not only creationists who say evolution is random. PZ Meyers, not sure if you ever heard of him, he was one of the professors interviewed in the movie called; “Expelled” so he could give his materialist spin on things. PZ Meyers spends a lot of time promoting evolution as well as trying to study it, he’s considered as one of the leaders in this area. He recently wrote an article called; “Random Acts of Evolution.”

    “There’s a lot of thought these days going into trying to figure out some adaptive reason for such a sorry state of affairs. None of it is particularly convincing. We’d be better off reconciling ourselves to the notion that much of evolution is random, and that nothing prevents nonfunctional complexity from simply accumulating.”

    What he argues in this particular article is one of the heavily promoted principles in intelligent design, while in the process he’s trying to prove that evolution is random. Of course I believe being a Creationist/Christian that the intelligence which had a purpose and responsible for the creation of the Universe is God.

    You might be referring to randomness in variation is selected by the environment therefore not really random. However, according to evolution, the environment is random too. I agree in this way, that chance is not a process, nor a mechanism chance is not the law of nature, chance is nothing. How can a blind eye which cannot think (evolution) build a brain, build a human hand, a human eye, and so on? How could natural selection tell the difference between a good trait and a bad trait? Inquiring minds want to know…

  2. You are again suggesting that I should stop reading specific websites ! Are you trying to censor me ?
    I would suggest you actually *start* reading http://www.talkorgins.org, so you stop presenting misconceptions about evolution …
    Have you read the website I quoted ?

    Of course I am happy to quote other websites if that makes you happier: plenty of them explain well that evolution is not a random process, but http://www.talkorigins.org is a nice database of all common misconceptions that seem to haunt people like yourself.
    So for variation, have a look at number 7 of
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

    As for Myers’ article, which is quite interesting, I’m afraid you don’t really understand what he is trying to say … althought the use of the word ‘random’ in the bit you quote is sloppy: this should be ‘undirected’, in my opinion. Evolution certainly is undirected, and doesn’t have a purpose: I do agree with your first line.

    Are you simply typing ‘random evolution’ into google to find these articles, hunting for quotes that suit you ?

  3. What do you think Myer’s is trying to say? Random genetic drift is a stochastic process, wouldn’t you agree? It also means that it’s an accidental event. That all deals with random variables. So what part of random are you disagreeing with? You seem a bit vague in your explanation.

  4. I asked you a question, and the first thing you do is ask me a question. Normally you would answer first … so please do.

    I haven’t been explaining anything, I just linked to webpages that have done this already. No point to repeat all that. These webpages are not vague at all. Have a read!

    The Myers article is saying in more detail what it says in the first line: that humankind is not the paragon of design, i.e. evolution is not directed towards producing homo sapiens. We just happened to come out of the whole process.

    With ‘undirected’ I mean not directed towards a specific goal, for example homo sapiens, or the Japenese puffer fish that featured in the article.

  5. I think the title speaks what Meyers is trying to convey, the opposite of design is random, but according to your website, evolution is not random…lol…You say undirected, but what about positive adaption in an environment? I’m not saying evolution has purpose, it shouldn’t. An undirected process is like a computer without software, it does nothing.

  6. The title says “random acts of evolution”, not “random evolution”.

    It is not my website. I just do not want to repeat what other have said already.

    Of course an undirected process does something. It is undirected, not dead. Your software analogue does not work, really. Software can do anything, from directed to undirected. Depends on the software.

    You still do not seem to like answering questions … but it is your blog, of course.

  7. If the undirected process is not dead, how is it alive? A computer cannot do anything without software. A computer also needs “controlled” power. Natural electricity known as surges would wreck a computer. So if it can’t power up naturally, it wouldn’t matter what software can do. But like I say, without software a computer can’t do nothing. Try a blank hard drive once without BIOS and see what your computer does…lol

  8. With ‘dead’ I rather meant inactive, or passive, if you prefer that.

    I have no idea what you want to say with your computer analogy – of course a computer needs controlled power. Just like we need to eat healthily. I don’t know what you are trying to say.

    Still not answering question, but always coming up with new questions yourself without answering those of posters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s