Comment on How much of the Human Genome is Functional? by Sean Pitman.
It was my understanding that we were discussing the human genome, not the bacterial genome.
It doesn’t matter. The principles are the same.
Obviously, humans have been tinkering with the bacterial genomes for a long time, and made some fascinating discoveries. Humans are now tinkering with the human genome, but generally for the correction of harmful mutations. Even if humans should be successful in improving the human genome over its normal state (and that is a big “if”), this is no proof of naturally occuring evolutionary improvements.
While detrimental mutations do vastly outnumber beneficial mutations, the fact is that beneficial mutations do occur – even in humans. Here are a few examples:
1) The ccr5-Δ32 mutation confers HIV-1 resistance (as well as resistance to plague and smallpox) to those with a double copy of the allele (homozygous). (Link)
2) A small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug. (Link)
3) There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease. (Link)
4) Another beneficial mutation was first discovered when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. One doctor who’s studied the condition said, “None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.” In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. (Link)
5) There have also been mutations to human mtDNA that allows people in cold weather environments to survive better than those who don’t have these particular mutation. (Link)
And the list goes on and on…
Research on E. Coli bacteria, where one can observe billions of organisms over a short period of time, is much different from genetic research on the human genome. Whether or not bacteria can modify mechanisms of processing lactose or citrate, or develop alternate pathways inducing antibiotic resistance is, in my opinion, hardly evolutionary. These simple bacteria will always be bacteria, and are certainly not evolving into higher organisms. They are simply improving their survival.
That is the very definition of “evolution” via random mutations and function-based selection that favor survival in various environments. The reason why these bacteria “will always be bacteria” is because of the limits of what the evolutionary mechanism can do when it comes to “levels of functional complexity”. Evolution only works on the lowest rungs of the ladder of functional complexity – i.e., no higher than systems requiring 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.
This, in fact, is hardly a good thing for humans. It would be much preferable for humans to mutate and produce mechanisms of bacterial destruction. If some humans would mutate a gene that would selectively destroy harmful bacteria, that would be quite an event!
That already happens. It’s called immunity. Vaccinations, for example, help the immune system “learn” which bacterial and viral antigens to attack in the future…
While on the subject of lactase evolution, it should be noted that many humans have mutated into a state of lactase deficiency, thereby being unable to process lactose efficiently. Many of these humans are miserable when consuming dairy products. I think we would hardly label this a positive mutation, although this type of mutation is not nearly as harmful as cancer-producing mutations, or so many other life-shortening mutations.
Again, everyone agrees that detrimental mutations are far more common than beneficial mutations.
I am still extremely interested in any observed naturally occuring mutation in the human genome which has been found to be beneficial.
Well, now you know…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
This calculation is a too simplistic to be meaningful. It doesn’t take into account the ability of natural selection to weed out detrimental mutations and keep beneficial mutations. This ability is, of course, dependent upon the reproductive rate of a population. So, the real question you need to ask is: What is the minimum reproductive rate needed to effectively deal with a given detrimental mutation rate? I’ve already cited this calculation in my article above…
How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
U2…
How much of the Human Genome is Functional?
There are in fact a lot of examples of beneficial mutations – that are truly beneficial and not detrimental. However, all of these examples are at a very low level of functional complexity – involving systems that require no more than a few hundred amino acid residues.
As far as the detrimental mutation rate, it makes a big difference how much of the human genome is actually functional. This is important because it determines the required minimum reproductive rate needed for natural selection to effectively deal with the detrimental mutation rate.
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
