Creation Myth: Mutations Aren't Random
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- Creationists looooooooove this one. But it's based on this one paper and I'm not sure how many have actually read it. For the record: Mutations are probabilistic, not directed, programmed, etc. Just so we're all clear.
This is just a hobby for me, but if you appreciate what I'm doing and want to say thank you, you can contribute here:
/ creationmyths
paypal.me/crea...
And if you want early access to pre-recorded videos, you can become a channel member: / @creationmyths
If you disagree with anything in this video and want an opportunity to make your case, email me: creationmythschannel@gmail.com. I'll give you as much time as you want, and then I'll take the time I want to respond, and we can have a conversation.
God intervenes in the universe in ever more subtle ways. At one time, he would flood the entire planet or send his son in person to perform miracles in front of thousands. Now he’s tweaking the probability distribution of microbiological events that only a tiny percentage of people are able to observe, and even then only indirectly. What an amazing receding omnipotent deity we have
Apparently, he also anointed Donald Trump for president. Why an omnipotent being has to pick this POS when there are hundreds of millions of otherwise decent American-born fascists to choose from is yet another example of moving in mysterious ways. In this case, mysterious bowel movements.
I was _going_ to give an analysis on which this might make sense, but then I realised all the sensible people would think I was serious and all the loonies would think I was serious. Suffice it to say that observer effects _do_ presumably vary with the observational tools available, so with a suitably overstretched generalisation….
Not sure if sarcasm or authenticity.
This isn't about God. It's purposeful mutations, directed by MOLECULES.
@annaclarafenyo8185 Monads, monads, you are forgetting your Leibniz.
Thanks Dr Dan. To me the highlight of this video is how someone influential in ID or YEC misrepresents a paper and that misrepresentation flows throughout their base/audience.
It’s sad really how people just believe and trust what they are told but do no fact checking themselves or even read the paper they are so called “quoting from” but in reality are quoting from their ID/YEC influencer instead. Sad.
This has nothing to do with YEC, it's just a scientific fact. Mutations are not random, they are directed rewrites, not by anything supernatural, but by RNA networks rewriting DNA.
The worst part about this video is that a trained scientist has to agree with a proponent of YEC. The mutations in Eukaryotes are not random, and not due to God either. They are due to back-editing of the genome by RNA.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 we can literally observe that mutations in eukaryotes are probabilistic.
@@CreationMyths probabilistic isn't the same as random. Obviously there is a probabilistic component, the question is how it works in detail. There are certain neutral mutations which are completely random, those are single nucleotide polymorphisms, but they serve as a neutral clock, they don't do anything except for very very rare cases where they are deleterious (like sickle-cell). The standard mutation changes in genome organism to organism is through genome editing, mostly in non-coding sequences, and these are probabalistic, but not random, they are edits made by RNA which recognizes specific sequences. Most of them happen during crossing-over.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Please watch the first, like, 60 seconds. This video is specifically about single-base substitutions (which are most mutations), not any kind of indels or other rearrangements (which are often associated with crossing over).
Paper: "The direction of Gravity is not random"
Creationists: "zomg see the Scientismists are ADMITTING that God made gravity!"
That's what non-random mutations means and that's what god-botherers are doing with that mined quote. You just can't trust those clowns.
It's the first law of anti-science: gotta lie to anti-science
Great video as always, Dan. I always appreciate how succinctly and clearly you explain things.
Clear, succinct, and wrong.
@ oh great, the Overturner of Evolution is here to debunk all of evolutionary theory with the profound argument of, “Nuh-uh.”
When you get your idea published and win the Nobel Prize in Biology, get back to us.
@@CharlesPayet I have no gripe against evolution, I am not a creationist. But the claim that mutations are random is simply scientifically wrong. They are sometimes random in bacteria, and extremely rarely random in more complex life forms. Usually, they are directed by RNA editing of DNA, which is a very sophisticated mechanism, and, although it has random parts, calling it "random" is like calling a computer program like Firefox random.
@ then you didn’t listen to the video. Dan is explained it quite well & clearly.
@@CharlesPayet He explained it clearly, confidently, and wrongly. He is only correct for bacterial mutations, which are not similar to the mutations in any complex organism like an animal or a plant, which are all eukaryotic.
Thank you - You really are such a good Teacher. And although we're talking Chemistry rather than Aesthetics here, I personally find poetry and joy in the clear, stepwise application of observation, experiment, and analysis to expand knowledge -- It's just so cool!
thank you!
The “tradeoff” is that of all the places where modification to inhibit mutation occurs, some areas will have more of an effect on fitness than others so we predict the modification to persist in those places.
Excellent explanation but of course for creationists any natural explanation is rejected if not compatible with pre-existing belief.
The intro was so helpful! I'd never thought about mutations like that 😊
Not having pressed play yet, just reading the description: it's gonna be that Arabidopsis paper, right?
Yes :)
The idea that an omnipotent creator was too _dumb_ to build a universe that works properly by itself just hurts my head. I am amazed at your ability to engage.
An omnipotent creator could be too dumb to design a working universe. An omniscient creator know how, but could be powerless to do it. An omnipresent creator be both clueless and inept, everywhere and all at once. An omnibenevolent creator could sit in one place and have pipe dreams.. But your omni-potent, omni-scient, omni-present, omni-benevolent creator, that’s the real deal. But with a resume like that, too wildly overqualified to be responsable for the bit of bricolage done here.
@@oldpossum57 I do sometimes wonder how software feels about software engineers. “Bricolage”, huh?
@@stephenspackman5573 “Bricolage” is a French term that Québec anglos use as well. It means DIY with the tools and materials at hand, and implies inventive but shoddy work. A bricoleur is someone who does a really amateur job, knocking things together and praying it works. (Also major cause of house fires and floods.) I can’t think of a noun form in English. Verbs and participles, yes: bodging, puttering, MacGyvering, jury-rigged, Jerry-rig. The macgyver is always ingenious: bricolage rarely is. Jerry-rigged sounds like German combat engineers. Only Brits know what bodging is, and real bodgers have a skill.
I wish I knew the person who said something like, “ Nature works only with what is on the bench”
Levi-Strauss-apparently-made the word fashionable in cultural criticism, to contrast the habits of mind typical of traditional problem solvers with those of rational and efficient ones:
Claude Levi Strauss’ Concept of Bricolage
BY NASRULLAH MAMBROL on MARCH 21, 2016 •
In The Savage Mind (1962), the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss used the word bricolage to describe the characteristic patterns of mythological thought. Bricolage is the skill of using whatever is at hand and recombining them to create something new. Levi-Strauss compares the working of the bricoleur and the engineer. The bricoleur, who is the “savage mind”, works with his hands in devious ways, puts pre-existing things together in new ways, and makes do with whatever is at hand. What Levi-Strauss points out here is that signs already in existence are used for purposes that they were originally not meant for.
The working of the bricoleur is parallel to the construction of mythological narratives. As opposed to the bricoleur, the engineer, who is the “scientific mind”, is a true craftsman in that he deals with projects in entirety, taking into account the availability of materials, and creating new tools. Drawing a parallel, Levi-Strauss argues that mythology functions more like the bricoleur, whereas modern western science works more like an engineer. He suggests that the engineer creates a holistic totalising system, in which there are elements of permanence.
The most funny part of this is actually that directed or programmed mutations is the exactly opposite of another idea that is popular among creationists: John Sanford's Genetic Entropy 'theory' which starts with the assumption that nearly all mutations are slightly harmful.
It would be some strange designer that programmed his creations to have harmful mutations!
Nobody is accusing creationists of being internally consistent.
Harmful depends on the perspective, amount of understanding available, and timespan.
Ah, I was going to comment on the first thing: probabilistic is not the same as completely random.
As for the "it's programmed" thing, I wouldn't even consider it worth addressing, but good on you.
Creationists are mutations!
That’s awesome, you’re so right. They have mutated critical thinking skills.👍👍
How is the paper, research, or video a refutation of creation or the supernatural?
@@Talon19 First of all: Why the F are you asking me? And no one said the paper or this video refute creation or the supernatural!
It refutes false claims made by creationists! "The supernatural" is an unfalsifiable claim, since there is no way to investigate it, therefore to say there is such a thing is a false claim until shown true which it has never been shown to be, and not believed true despite a complete lack of evidence, just because no one can show it not to exist! The whole concept of a supernatural is a mere hypothesis with little weight to it, and literally just made up, so that would be what's called make believe!!
Creation is pretty much dead as to science, as there's zero evidence for it either, and nothing even points in that direction. All investigations into it have been a huge waste of time, and it isn't even viable in science to make a claim and then set out to find evidence for it! So far no research whatsoever even shows a need for such a thing as a creator, but quite the opposite! So again, there's no evidence for creation, and we have crap loads of evidence stuff came about without it, so again the default position should be to go with the evidence, than running around believing whatever BS people made up for lack of an actual answer.
@@Talon19
Because creation/supernatural is just an unsupported claim ATM. So you need to provide evidence that creation/supernatural things are a real phenomenon and then that any deity is the only explanation for it.
@
You say that like it’s a bug.
Not needing evidence to believe something is THE FEATURE of the supernatural.
Faith cannot be proven or disproven with evidence for or against the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.
Y’all really aren’t getting this.
Nice to see Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam book on your shelf.. I always tried to “hook” my Canadian high school book club students with Herr’s Dispatches, an old VHS of Cronkite in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive , Coppola’s Apocalypse Now and/or Cimino’s Deer Hunter. Most got the bug, and I could loan them Karnow just so they were aware.
Excellent video, and very relevant to our conversation later today!
Christianity has tens of thousands of denominations but dont worry. You definitely have the correct interpretation.
12:10
More important, if the mutations were programmed, we would expect them to be the same across multiple populations.
If they are not programmed, we would expect the development to different paths of the development of resistance.
And in that experiment and other (like antibiotic resistance), we usually find multiple pathways to whatever the trait in question is. Often we find parallel evolution, too, but there is usually more than one way to accomplish whatever the beneficial trait is.
@CreationMyths , yes, I'm just pointing out that I think that being different is more important than some populations getting it earlier, and having it more spread out.
Not only that, but you would expect an adaptive response to be much more consistent.
Bacteria with a Lac operon will almost immediately change expression levels of lactose metabolism genes based on the amounts of lactose and glucose, in every single individual.
If their resistance was similarly induced specifically by a certain antibiotic, you would expect every individual to do so independently. Instead of the reality where just one in millions does so, and outcompetes all the rest in a selective sweep.
Imagine a thermostat that will heat or cool your house to keep it room temperature based on outside and inside temperature readings. But only 1 in 10.000 units produced in the factory actually do it. No one would buy that, fundamentally flawed design and/or manufacturing. But still thousands of times more likely than resistance mutants.
The crux of the issue is there is no way to know either way with the level of understanding we currently have.
@@Talon19, exept experiments have already shown that mutations aren't preprogrammed.
So we already know.
I can hear the YECs already “you just described HOW god directs mutations! You can’t show that he doesn’t! Evolution is your presupposition!”
Well, considering the supernatural is inherently outside the scope of science, they aren’t correct or incorrect because it’s all based on faith, not evidence.
This isn't about YEC, this video is ignorant of how complex biology is. The biological molecules direct the mutations, not any supernatural entities.
@
Not that we know of.
@@Talon19 Yes, that we know of. Most mutations in Eukaryotes are caused by back-transcription of RNA into the genome.
@
That’s just the mechanics, the how.
The topic is why.
Since epigenetics haven't been shown to persistent across enough generations for selection to be seen at the population level, this idea of cost-balanced adaptive character is not robust. Case in point: the paper received a published reply (if I link it my comment doesn't show) that puts into question the validity of its data. So, personally, and even though I'm just an enthusiast, I wouldn't even give much attention to that study. Quote:
"As the key trends associated with sequence importance are consistent with well-described mutation-calling artefacts and are not resilient to reanalysis using the higher-quality components of their data, we conclude that their claims are not robustly substantiated."
The older experiments, like the one you shared, are great for a simple reason: the data is noise-free and clear-cut.
I agree - I don't think the study actually holds up super well. BUT! I don't want non-experts to have to understand and explain that, and also I don't want creationists to get away with misrepresenting the study, AND ALSO for non-experts to think creationists are accurately representing it. So rather than and responding with "that study was flawed", I'd rather go with "that's not what that study showed did you even read it", so as to not give anyone the idea the creationists are accurately conveying the findings. And then bonus, already solved this one, thanks for playing.
Another good video Dr Dan.
Have you considered adding simple simulations or at least some visuals to these kind of videos? I'm not sure it would fit "your style" but i think it would help in commmunicating the difference here between random and probabilistic.
I've been pretty deeply involved in creationism most of my life, and I've personally never heard any informed creationists making the argument that mutations happen purposefully--unless you include some of the stuff by old-earth creationists who want to try to co-opt Darwinism into the Bible. However I did author an article some years back entitled, "Evolution’s well-kept secret: Mutations are not random!". The fact is, most people in general, whether creationist or evolutionist, are unaware that mutations are non-random. And this fact poses a serious problem for evolution, since the genetic makeup of DNA does not match the probability distribution we'd expect to find after millions of years of undirected mutations happening.
As I understand the paper, the 'essential genes' are actually closely correlated with relatively older genes (identified as genes that have homologues in a wide range of related species - as in all plants or even wider). This could actually be an independent explanation for the phenomenon that such genes being better protected against mutations: It takes time to build up such protection signals, so older genes would be expected to have more of it than newer ones. We should remember that such signals cannot be interfering with the protein coding ability of the gene. So without disturbing the translation to protein, such protection mechanisms have to build into the DNA-sequence. Not something that easily result from random mutations!
It's actually a direct result of natural selection; unprotected essential genes are differentially less represented in their future. The learning system represents itself, therefore the learning system learns (and learns how to protect its learning), and learns how to learn (and learns how to protect its learning of learning), and learns how to learn to learn (…), …, putting everything onto an exponential ramp.
We're a bit hampered (in both biology and physics) by our intuitions of incrementality in the English-speaking world coming to us from Newton rather than, say, Leibniz. The Newtonian legacy is over-wedded to continuity and a little too divorced from computation, and it makes us stupid about some topologies.
The TL;DR of the critique, handily linked by Zach in the live chat, and of the other critique referenced there:
- purifying selection can explain the difference in mutation rates between genes and intergenic sequence
- most of these mutations are likely false positive sequencing errors anyway (because their reported mutation rates are absurdly high, and are mostly in polynucleotide tracts like AAAAAA... or TTTTTT..., which are overrepresented outside of genes)
- this trend doesn't occur in humans and the reverse trend occurs in yeast, so it's not generally true either
mutations are the means to make populations be able to adapt to changing environments, and the ability to mutate is strongly selected FOR. You can design the most perfect lifeform for a given environment, if it replicates perfectly, without mutation, they will be outcompeted the first time that environment changes. So even if that theoretically existed, it doesnt exist anymore.
Except that's not quite correct. As the molecules in biological systems become more complex, and interact with each other in more sophisticated ways, you need the mutation mechanism to co-evolve with them. This has nothing to do with YEC or any form of religion, it's simply that the mechanism of mutation isn't blind modification of DNA, but purposeful rewriting based on RNA networks "deciding" what to do.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 the video just explained that mutations are random, and not purposeful in any way...
@@kamnale1317 The video is incorrect. And this has nothing to do with YEC, or any religion. It's just factually incorrect.
Can't remember the details now, but I came across a mathematical proof that if mutations are completely random, then even beneficial ones will die out.
That doesn't quite hold up. Random mutations don't work alone; natural selection amplifies beneficial ones. Even if most mutations are neutral or harmful, the rare beneficial ones can spread through populations if they improve survival or reproduction. We've even seen this in action, like with antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Randomness is just the starting point; selection is what shapes the outcome.
@@seanpol9863 I can't remember the details, but it's because the probability that even a beneficial mutation will survive is less than 1 (might get eaten, get sick, etc.), so over enough generations the expectation will be that every mutation dies out.
Does anyone remember the maths for this? Without knowing the details, it's hard to know where the maths either goes wrong or fails to model reality.
@@MusicalRaichuYou're talking about the concept of genetic drift-the idea that even beneficial mutations can get lost due to random chance, especially in small populations. But natural selection counteracts that. In larger populations, beneficial mutations have a much higher chance of sticking around because they improve survival or reproduction rates. This has even been tested in experiments, like observing antibiotic resistance in bacteria, where beneficial mutations spread rapidly under selection pressure. The maths for drift vs. selection is legitimate, but it doesn't mean all mutations die out-it just depends on the balance of factors like population size and selection strength.
@ I think it depended on a mutation only happening once, which would be the case if they're completely random. If certain mutations are more likely than others and happen repeatedly then they'd have a better chance of sticking around.
Is that what you mean?
@@MusicalRaichuYeah, you're on the right track! If a beneficial mutation only happens once, it's definitely at risk of being lost due to random chance-this is especially true in small populations. But mutations aren't necessarily one-offs; some genes or areas of the genome are more prone to changes due to environmental factors or molecular mechanisms. Plus, mutations that improve survival are more likely to spread over generations because natural selection amplifies their effect. That's why we see traits like antibiotic resistance pop up and stick around so consistently in bacterial populations.
Thank you, Dr Dan we do appreciate all the work that you do, well I do at least.
7:35 The mutation rate is not just the rate of substitution of one nucleotide. The same study looks at indels too (removal or insertion of nucleotides).
My favorite thing to ask these types of evolution deniers the following: can something change without that thing being told (i) when to change and (ii) what to change into?
The answer is unequivocally yes. We have demonstrated this at least as far back as the 80s. In fact, we know how subcomponents can change without even identifying them as something to change.
And this is very important. Once you get them to acknowledge something doesn’t need to be told when, how, or even if it is to change yet it can still be changed, that is them admitting the validity of one of the two fundamental generalized concept that underlies evolution.
Getting them to acknowledge this puts them massively on the back foot because it substantially weakens their argument
How would this weaken the perspective of intelligent design or the existence of supernatural things?
@
This makes it so their argument against evolution is not capable of being “this is not even possible” to “this is possible but it isn’t actually how it happened.”
That’s a huge weakening of their position. It by no means is terminal, but it does a lot of work
@
Doesn’t really change anything for them. That’s kinda what faith is: belief not based on evidence or lack of evidence.
The supernatural is inherently outside the scope of science.
I once did a set of control experiments specifically to check which mutations a specific DNA polymerase would produce, by giving them a specific template to copy and intentionally not providing all 4 ATGC "letters" but only the three "wrong" ones. They weren't all equally likely: some mistakes were made more often (for example A G and T C occur more often than other changes). A very interesting feature was a specific control where there wasn't even a template, only the primer strand to be extended. This polymerase extended a primer without any basepair formation if you left it long enough, and overwhelmingly preferred to use A over all other ones.
These were small pieces of DNA with no relevant biological function, just sequences chosen by me for this experiment. For people who think mutations are directed, I wonder what they would say to how and why these mutations occured in the way that they did.
I've never understood why Creationists would run with this idea. It doesn't make things look good for there God if trye, it means for one thing that any medical condition which is caused by a mutation is part of their Gods design which for most of us isn't exactly a great selling point.
It all depends on the perspective, understanding, and timespan; especially of there is no definitive start, end, or path.
Science can’t prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.
@@MrDeadhead1952, if it is good, it's god's design, if it is bad, it's the fall.
They would probably take programmed cell death as a direct sign of intelligent design.
Teaching and debunking at the same time, bravo Maestro!
That's the sign of a good debunking video.
ooh fun, teaching creationists about survivorship bias? I'm in
Wouldn't this make mutations still random, just with a more complicated probability distribution than a uniform one?
Yes, it is random but there are also mechanisms zo bettwr protectvessential parts of the Genom.
@@esbendit, that's the point.
When creationists use the word "random" they don't care what it means. It's a form of gaslighting. What "not random" means for them is "purposeful hence goddiddid."
Always remember that their ignorance is willful. They always neglect explanations of probabilism, unless they've found a way to incorporate it in there narrative.
I think creationists would believe that humans were their god's ultimate goal. They also believe he is omnipotent. So then why did he take billions of years of selecting mutations as a way of eventually making humans, when he could just have made them on day 1? Oh, and by the way, what was he doing BEFORE the universe started? Playing canasta with the arch angels?
Frankly I have no issue with describing mutations as non-random. This is however nothing to do with 'purposeful', and is entirely consistent with darwinism/neo-darwinism/modern consensus.
Mutations are NOT random, as they exist in a bound space. Given a bound space you have a metric of distribution. Hence "Probability". Using Chloride sterilization will induce antibiotic resistances in E.coli - the environment increases the expectation of losing the chlorine pore.
Loss of the chlorine pore increases penicillin resistance - mechanistic demonstration.
So, regions that would have large negative effects for most mutations have those mutations aggressively filtered out?
That sounds like the opposite of shocking
Urgh who got the idea to dub this.
TH-cam. I turned it off so it shouldn't default to the terrible dubbing anymore.
Another great video! Keep em coming.
That research makes me wonder if there are similar mechanisms in other organisms that lower the mutation rate in coding regions.
Could you correct for survivor bias from purifying selection, by looking for example specifically at pollen, and specifically at genes expressed only after fertilization and germination?
Because genes that make roots but don't do anything in the pollen yet, which have cripplingly deleterious mutations, are invisible to selection at the pollen phenotype.
Sequence the pollen and you capture the lethal mutations that cause individuals to not reach the stage of germinated plants. Sequencing earlier life stages would predict less survivor bias.
If there was no survivor bias, and the lower rate in functional regions was due to repair, the recovered rates should not depend on life stages.
I need a Vivi t-shirt too...
Great video, Dan!
This is really cool!
Brilliant work. Cheers from Harvard Med
Good Show! 😊👍
Very interesting that there are protection mechanisms that can prevent mutations or repair them quickly. Nature is fascinating.
But is it really justified from the evidence to say that _natural selection_ plays a role in the selection of which genomes to protect? Don't get me wrong, it certainly seems plausible. But is there real experimental evidence to back up that hypothesis?
From the snippets of the text from this study that you show, this study does not say that. Specifically, the text you highlight at 9:20, does NOT say what you claim that it says.
The Luria-Delbrück study that you quote in the end, deals with the randomness of mutations in general, not with this specific mechanism that protects certain genomes from mutations and not others.
Good points, but natural selection shaping repair mechanisms isn't just plausible; it's supported by evidence. Studies on bacteria and eukaryotes show that DNA repair systems vary based on environmental pressures, with genomes adapting to minimise harmful mutations in vital genes. The Luria-Delbrück experiment was foundational, but more recent research (like adaptive mutation studies) backs up how selection influences mutation rates. Nature 'choosing' to protect critical genes makes sense when it boosts survival.
@@seanpol9863 The results of the Luria-Delbrück experiment support the theory that general mutations are random, and that natural selection only plays a role in determining which mutations survive. That is clear. But that experiment says nothing at all about the gene repair mechanisms we are talking about here; at that time it was not even known that such mechanisms exist. Mentioning that study is good for background information, but does not directly reflect on the mechanisms discussed in the "Mutation Bias" Monroe paper that the video is discussing.
I have not read the Monroe paper, but the information presented in the video about it, only says that there are biased mutation rates, and that this is due to the existence of protection and repair mechanisms which are biased towards certain genes. It does not state how those mechanisms came about, in contrast to what Creation Myth says about that. Creation Myths then brings the hypothesis that this could be due to the "energy costs" of those mechanisms, and suggests a role for natural selection to restrict those mechanisms to only certain genes.
Again, that seems very plausible, but the Monroe study does not present evidence for that specific hypothesis, as far as I can see.
@@renedekker9806You're right that the Luria-Delbrück experiment doesn't directly address gene repair mechanisms-it's more foundational for showing how mutations arise randomly. But more recent research has built on this to explore how repair mechanisms vary. Studies on adaptive mutation (like work on E. coli by John Cairns) and biased mutation rates show how environmental pressures influence where repair systems focus.
As for the Monroe paper, you're also right that it doesn't prove how those repair mechanisms evolved-it focuses on describing the bias. However, the 'energy cost' hypothesis makes sense because natural selection favours efficiency. Systems that prioritise protecting essential genes over less critical ones would provide a survival advantage. So while the paper may not prove that aspect, it aligns with what we know about evolutionary processes. The video is speculating, but it's reasonable speculation based on evidence.
I can listen to this dubbed in AI generated German apparently. I didn’t even know this was a feature on TH-cam. How weird! I don’t know why am I only seeing it on this video - do creators have to opt in or something?
No, it was foisted on us. Not sure why some people have it and others don't, but I turned it off. So hopefully it's an option but it doesn't default to the apparently awful auto-dubbing.
Randy Guliuzza. 🙂
🤘 Black Mages rock 🤘
Those creationists are outright colonizers!
Doesn't epigenetics also play a role in inheritance? (non-random and also "non-Darwinian" inheritance, in fact really more Lamarckian inheritance!)
Epigenetics is fascinating, but it’s not really 'non-Darwinian.' Epigenetic changes can influence inheritance for a few generations, but they don't alter the DNA sequence itself. Plus, natural selection still applies-if an epigenetic trait gives an advantage, it can help that organism thrive, just like any genetic mutation. It's more like a layer on top of evolution, not a replacement for it.
@@seanpol9863 If an epigenetic change gives an organism a selective advantage, is there a mechanism for it to become permanent (that we know of)?
@@AmitySapiensGood question! Epigenetic changes themselves aren't usually permanent since they don’t change the DNA sequence-they're more like reversible 'switches.' But here's the interesting part: if an epigenetic trait provides a big advantage, it can lead to changes in behaviour or survival that influence genetic evolution. Over time, mutations in the actual DNA might 'lock in' that advantage. So while epigenetics isn't permanent by itself, it can guide evolution indirectly. Some studies in plants and even rodents have hinted at these kinds of interactions!
@@seanpol9863 wow, so the short answer is "yes, sometimes". Thanks for answering my questions. I'm going to try to think of another couple. You are very helpful.
@@AmitySapiensYep, 'yes, sometimes' sums it up pretty well! Epigenetics is a fascinating area where we're still learning a lot. If you're interested, look into studies on transgenerational epigenetics in plants or rodents; it's amazing how these temporary changes can sometimes nudge evolution forward.
While I wait for it to become available for me, I'd like to ask you to disable the robot dubbing, because youtube is making an awful translation and if I add it to watch later, for some reason youtube doesn't allow me to watch it in the original language.
Tf? Why is that even a thing it would default to? I’ll try to fix it.
@CreationMyths , I have no idea.
And yours is not the only channel this is happening.
I don't understand why youtube doesn't allow us to completely turn off dubbing from the viewer side.
That's what I'd do if I had the option.
@ ok, turned it off! Should be better now.
@@CreationMyths, thanks.
@@CreationMyths Translation to portuguese is ok.. FYI
👍
Doesn’t really matter if mutations are random or not, because there is no way to know either way. What may appear random or chaotic to us may be perfectly predictable given better understanding. So what’s the point?
It does matter, though, because whether mutations are random or directed affects how we understand evolution. Studies like the Luria-Delbrück experiment show that mutations happen randomly with respect to their usefulness, and that randomness is key to how natural selection works. If mutations were fully predictable or directed, evolution would work completely differently. The 'point' is that understanding this helps us make sense of everything from disease resistance to biodiversity.
@
You missed my point. We can’t know the “usefulness” of adaptations because we can’t know the future.
For example, some mutations that seem useless now, may become useful in the future, and some mutations that seem useful now may become useless in the future.
A laboratory experiment cannot accurately predict the outcomes in the wild over millions of years.
@@Talon19 You're right that we can't predict the future, but that's not the point of studying mutations. The randomness of mutations doesn't mean their usefulness is unknowable; it just means they aren't caused by an organism 'trying' to adapt. Natural selection figures out what works in real time. Experiments like Luria-Delbrück aren't about predicting the distant future; they show how mutations arise and spread based on current conditions, which matches what we observe in nature, even over long timescales.
@
Right, but none of that disproves supernatural influences.
@@Talon19True, science doesn’t disprove supernatural influences-it's not meant to. But there's no evidence for supernatural forces in mutation or evolution, so we stick with natural explanations that we can test and observe. Random mutations, natural selection, and billions of years explain what we see without needing anything extra. If supernatural influences were at play, we'd need evidence to even consider them.
Opine on this;
We are mindfully created.
Well, no. We are not. Hope that helps.
@@oldpossum57
You are mindlessly created? How are you Mindful?
Still it is random for all purposes. It doesn't change anything concerning the evolution mistakes. The article doesn't change anything.
Please understand that this teory has reached its dead end decades ago. All that remains now is a desperate sequence of arguments trying to save it.
But I understand it. Evolutionists simply need to continue with their teory. Their academic lives depend on it.
Lol
as a creationist, it's new to me that random mutation is attacked by other creationist 🤔
I can take mutations and natural selection and still attack the claim we evolved from 1 something living. so I agree that species change "evolve" but disagree with the assumption that new species are created by evolution processes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you agree that species change and evolve, then you're already acknowledging the processes that lead to new species. Speciation has been directly observed-like in Darwin's finches, cichlid fish, and even fruit flies in experiments. Over time, small changes add up, especially with isolation and environmental shifts. It's not an assumption either; it's evidence-backed science. If mutations and natural selection can lead to variation within a species, why couldn't they eventually lead to new species?
_"I can take mutations and natural selection and still attack the claim we evolved from 1 something living"_ Actually you can't because those aren't even the same thing. You seem to be trying to link evolution to abiogenesis, which is another false narrative put forth by creationists. It really doesn't matter to evolution if all life is related or if there are many different origins for all life. The fact is that we observe all life evolving and how it started is irrelevant.
If you want to argue against all life being related you're going to need to attack the genetic evidence, which is something you can't really do without lying.
There is nothing supernatural about non-random mutations, there is a whole machinery of rewriting mechanism for DNA. While mutations are partly probabilistic, they are mostly directed, not by rules of pure probability, but by rules of RNA and DNA editing. You are wrong on the science.
Yeah, so, this was a decent chunk of my dissertation work, which is to say, I’m pretty damn familiar with the science.
@@CreationMyths Obviously, you are not, or else you wouldn't make the false claims you make in this video.
It still doesn't explain how random processes can create information. Without that, it is a fairytale.
What do you mean by information?
Yeah, what is this "information"?
@@esbendit Information related to the construction of various organs and systems.
@IkarusKommt how do you quantify that information in order to measure additions to the existing?
If you take a virus, remove a gene it needs to infect the host bacterium from its genome, and insert a fully randomized DNA sequence into that virus (from a random sequence library of millions to billions of different random variants), and one of those viruses regains the ability to infect because it now has a functional new protein that was formed by random synthesis.
Would that be an example of a random process producing functional genetic information?