Wrestling With Mitochondrial Eve

[QVQ]

Well, Hello! I am glad we can disagree and still have a respectful discussion.
It is an interesting subject and as the Walrus said, the time has come to talk of many things.

Dwarf Wheat was developed "through traditional cross-breeding techniques, utilizing naturally occurring dwarf genes." (quotte from article)
It isn't a mutation anymore than a poodle dog is a "mutation.

I have been watching Cannola as it would be the first transgenetic insertion to fulfill the parameters of evolution by mutation.
I wrote this on another thread but I just found the US Ag report yesterday.

It appeared GMO Cannola went wild, It was reported to 1) come true from seed passing the mutation along. 2) could survive in the wild.
This GMO Cannola could prove Darwin's Theory. The first proof as all of evolution proof is circumstantial and speculative.
The US Government conducted field studies, growing GMO cannola for several generations in wild condition.
The study was published in March 2025
GMO Canola
Pass 1) Fertile (could pass on the mutation )
Pass 2) Viable (could establish in the wild)
Fail 3) GMO Canola shed the mutation within a few generations (revert to type)
After a few generations GMO Canola had shed the transgene of the mutation and reverted to genetically original Canola.
Evolution by genetic mutation Failed.
No Evolution.

It is late and I will address only one point about the Garden of Eden inserted into the middle of history.
That Rib, which I am certain is glaring.
Tomorrow I will read your answer carefully and respond to the points.

 

[John Bauer]

Well, hello! I am glad we can disagree and still have a respectful discussion.

Me too, brother.

Dwarf wheat was developed "through traditional cross-breeding techniques, utilizing naturally occurring dwarf genes" (quote from article).

What article?

It isn't a mutation any more than a poodle dog is a mutation.

It certainly is a mutation. The Rht dwarfing alleles (e.g., Rht-B1b) are caused by point mutations (single nucleotide substitutions) in the DELLA protein-coding region of the gene. These mutations result in a premature stop codon, leading to a truncated protein that cannot bind gibberellins properly, making the plant gibberellin-insensitive.

The standard alleles (e.g., Rht-B1a) don't have these stop codons. They encode full-length functional DELLA proteins, which regulate gibberellin signaling normally. The only difference between Rht-B1a and Rht-B1b is this point mutation. This implies the dwarf version descended from the tall version via a specific nucleotide substitution—namely, a "C" to "T" substitution at codon 383 converted a glutamine codon (CAA) into a stop codon (TAA).

We know the dwarfing alleles are the result of specific mutational events because we can see the exact nucleotide changes, trace their phenotypic effects mechanistically, and observe their inheritance as stable, single-gene traits. It isn't speculative; it has been sequenced, expressed, tested, and functionally validated in transgenic systems and breeding programs.

I have been watching canola, as it would be the first transgenetic insertion to fulfill the parameters of evolution by mutation.

How did it fail the test? Because it lost the transgene? I fail to see how that's supposed to undermine the theory of evolution. GMO traits are artificial insertions, often with selective advantages only in agricultural settings (e.g., herbicide resistance). If the environment changes (e.g., no herbicide), the selective pressure to retain the transgene disappears—utterly consistent with the theory of evolution.

Loss of a transgene doesn't demonstrate that evolution fails; it only shows that the transgene was not advantageous in the wild and therefore subject to natural selection against it or genetic drift in small populations. That is just how evolution works: Mutations are preserved if they confer reproductive advantage, and may be lost if they don't. This is not a "failure" of evolution. It is a textbook illustration of how selection pressure governs allele frequency.

It is late and I will address only one point about the garden of Eden inserted into the middle of history:

• That rib, which I am certain is glaring.

It is not a glaring issue for me, at least. That question was settled almost ten years ago. I can take the account literally with this evolutionary view intact.

That is the beauty of this view. I can take the Genesis account seriously and literally, and the theory of evolution seriously and literally. People tend to think accepting one entails rejecting the other. I am living proof that's false.

Tomorrow I will read your answer carefully and respond to the points.

Cheers, brother. May you experience rest, renewal, and God's abiding presence on the Lord's day.

 

[QVQ]

This implies the dwarf version descended from the tall version via a specific nucleotide substitution—namely, a "C" to "T" substitution at codon 383 converted a glutamine codon (CAA) into a stop codon (TAA).

Dwarf Wheat will not be dwarf wheat if the breeding isn't controlled. Neither will a poodle. It is not a mutation. The genes for dwarf wheat and poodle exist within the species. It is simply controlled breeding that manipulates the expression of the genes.
That is 2) Not viable outside cultivation (controlled breeding)

Darwinism is the religion of my chidhood. Evolution created all things. Darwinism, as gospel truth, was the explanaton of all things.
Darwinist evolution is my favorite joke and the punch line is "Well, we know angiosperms evolved at least once."

And a very blessed Sunday to you also

 

[EarlyActs]

Me too, brother.




What article?




It certainly is a mutation. The Rht dwarfing alleles (e.g., Rht-B1b) are caused by point mutations (single nucleotide substitutions) in the DELLA protein-coding region of the gene. These mutations result in a premature stop codon, leading to a truncated protein that cannot bind gibberellins properly, making the plant gibberellin-insensitive.

The standard alleles (e.g., Rht-B1a) don't have these stop codons. They encode full-length functional DELLA proteins, which regulate gibberellin signaling normally. The only difference between Rht-B1a and Rht-B1b is this point mutation. This implies the dwarf version descended from the tall version via a specific nucleotide substitution—namely, a "C" to "T" substitution at codon 383 converted a glutamine codon (CAA) into a stop codon (TAA).

We know the dwarfing alleles are the result of specific mutational events because we can see the exact nucleotide changes, trace their phenotypic effects mechanistically, and observe their inheritance as stable, single-gene traits. It isn't speculative; it has been sequenced, expressed, tested, and functionally validated in transgenic systems and breeding programs.




How did it fail the test? Because it lost the transgene? I fail to see how that's supposed to undermine the theory of evolution. GMO traits are artificial insertions, often with selective advantages only in agricultural settings (e.g., herbicide resistance). If the environment changes (e.g., no herbicide), the selective pressure to retain the transgene disappears—utterly consistent with the theory of evolution.

Loss of a transgene doesn't demonstrate that evolution fails; it only shows that the transgene was not advantageous in the wild and therefore subject to natural selection against it or genetic drift in small populations. That is just how evolution works: Mutations are preserved if they confer reproductive advantage, and may be lost if they don't. This is not a "failure" of evolution. It is a textbook illustration of how selection pressure governs allele frequency.




It is not a glaring issue for me, at least. That question was settled almost ten years ago. I can take the account literally with this evolutionary view intact.

That is the beauty of this view. I can take the Genesis account seriously and literally, and the theory of evolution seriously and literally. People tend to think accepting one entails rejecting the other. I am living proof that's false.




Cheers, brother. May you experience rest, renewal, and God's abiding presence on the Lord's day.

That is the beauty of this view. I can take the Genesis account seriously and literally, and the theory of evolution seriously and literally. People tend to think accepting one entails rejecting the other. I am living proof that's false.

If you are talking about macro-evolution/cosmology, you are wrong. The plain meaning of the Genesis text is that life was suddenly, swarmingly, thrivingly existing as described in creation week. The species are to reproduce after their kind and when super-humans messed with that, God sent the cataclysm and wiped them out. That is NOT evolutionary cosmology. The number of books that show that evolutionary cosmology rejects Genesis are too numerous to count.

Darwin knew he was 'killing God' in his talks with Huxley about it, who really wanted that to be true. CD was angry that God had created a system that eliminated the weak instead of helping them. He was also angry that thriving meant imbalance, at least it did to him. This was personal to him. So he came up with 'nature' in which God did not exist and nature was the monist reality. Shortly after, Haeckl said that Germans were the only 'natural' race, hence German monism. Shortly after, all reference to God, creation, divine, ordained etc disappeared from Harvard law school curriculum. It was replaced by evolutionary nouns and verbs.

My paper on brutal nature and how the term 'nature' shifted after WW2 to the warm fuzzy cuddly thing we know today was chosen by the Am Soc of Popular Culture for a 1990 talk.

'The beauty of your view'?

If I hear you put yourself as an authority (I am living proof...) or some source as an authority rather than an idea that is self-evidently authoritative, or not, for intrinsic reasons, I will ignore any further posts you make. I am pretty sure I now understand what you are saying against Seegert, and it is merely the confusion of micro vs macro. Seegert is talking against macro resulting in all life known today, and against huge periods of time allowing that to happen.

To be clear, my distinct view from Seegert is just that the planet may have been around a while as a result of the 'spreading out' but not the thriving life of creation week.

 

[QVQ]

'The beauty of your view'?

@John Bauer is entitled to his view and to express that view freely in whatever terms he chooses within the bounds of decency and the board's guidelines. He is also entitled to respectful consideration, however much another person may disagree.

 

[EarlyActs]

@John Bauer is entitled to his view and to express that view freely in whatever terms he chooses within the bounds of decency and the board's guidelines. He is also entitled to respectful consideration, however much another person may disagree.

That was directed at the inconsistency of the view , not the person.

By contrast, he writes of me (the person) that 'you've never understood anything correctly about (this).' It is called vilification in psy ops and he should be referring to the topic or an aspect, not me. I will not respect insults. I will disrespect them.

That's why I posted Seegerts 'book editing' illustration about mutation, to solicit John's comments. A dismissive response means nothing. I have to know why he objects. I have never heard John say clearly whether he is aware of the difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro being a cosmological statement that is naturalist (not supernaturalistic) and therefore does not reconcile with about 1000 "literal" Biblical statements, to which John claims to subscribe.

I'm dealing his views not his person. If he makes a view about his person like 'I'm living proof this is true' he will feel personally attacked, and that's his problem, not mine.

 

[EarlyActs]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935758226529603880

Happy to hear John talk about this, not me. This article is not about me. I'm happy to have John talk about the article. But if he talks about me, or makes himself the proof of something, I won't spend any time on his stuff again.

 

[John Bauer]

That's why I posted Seegerts 'book editing' illustration about mutation, to solicit John's comments. A dismissive response means nothing. I have to know why he objects.

Then provide a proper citation, please, so I can verify what Seegert said and respond to it.

I have never heard John say clearly whether he is aware of the difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro being a cosmological statement that is naturalist (not supernaturalistic) and therefore does not reconcile with about 1000 "literal" Biblical statements, to which John claims to subscribe.

"Macro evolution" is not a cosmological statement, but a biological one that regards the continuity of our planet's biodiversity.

Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes within a species or population, specifically changes in the frequency of alleles across generations. These changes result from mechanisms such as mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, intraspecific competition, and gene flow.

Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolutionary patterns and processes that occur at or above the level of species, including speciation, adaptive radiation, extinction, and the emergence of major new forms or lineages (e.g., transition from water to land)—some branches are pruned off, other new branches sprout and spread.

They are interconnected and interdependent, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution, and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life through patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

 

[EarlyActs]

Then provide a proper citation, please, so I can verify what Seegert said and respond to it.




"Macro evolution" is not a cosmological statement, but a biological one that regards the continuity of our planet's biodiversity.

Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes within a species or population, specifically changes in the frequency of alleles across generations. These changes result from mechanisms such as mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, intraspecific competition, and gene flow.

Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolutionary patterns and processes that occur at or above the level of species, including speciation, adaptive radiation, extinction, and the emergence of major new forms or lineages (e.g., transition from water to land)—some branches are pruned off, other new branches sprout and spread.

They are interconnected and interdependent, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution, and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life through patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

Says who?

I’ve been at this maybe more decades than your lifespan.

 

[EarlyActs]

If I look up Seeger, you’ll find some deconstructing explanation for my reference. You have the topics and analogies and his organization name , so look it up directly.

 

[QVQ]

Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes within a species or population, specifically changes in the frequency of alleles across generations. These changes result from mechanisms such as mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, intraspecific competition, and gene flow.

Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolutionary patterns and processes that occur at or above the level of species, including speciation, adaptive radiation, extinction, and the emergence of major new forms or lineages (e.g., transition from water to land)—some branches are pruned off, other new branches sprout and spread.

They are interconnected and interdependent, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution, and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life through patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

@John Bauer
Not to be personal or go off topic but was the above quoted portion of Post #28 generated by Chat GPT?

 

[John Bauer]

Says who?

I’ve been at this maybe more decades than your lifespan.

If I look up Seeger, you’ll find some deconstructing explanation for my reference. You have the topics and analogies and his organization name , so look it up directly.

This is a non-response, leaving me nothing to address.

 

[John Bauer]

@John Bauer
Not to be personal or go off topic but was the above quoted portion of Post #28 generated by Chat GPT?

No, it was crafted from my experiences discussing these issues in the subreddit r/DebateEvolution (in addition to a ton of reading), about a year before ChatGPT was rolled out for public access. And ChatGPT was fairly retarded back at the beginning; it wasn't generating responses with that level of sophistication until late last year, which was almost three years after I had written that.

 

[John Bauer]

I’ve been at this maybe more decades than your lifespan.

And yet you can't articulate these things in a way that is recognizable to an evolutionary biologist? Maybe you have been at this for longer than I have been alive, but it clearly has not been either deep enough or from credible sources.

 

[QVQ]

And yet you can't articulate these things in a way that is recognizable to an evolutionary biologist? Maybe you have been at this for longer than I have been alive, but it clearly has not been either deep enough or from credible sources.

@EarlyActs @John Bauer
Pulling rank, are we?
Age and experience against acolyte?

Both of you, I am interested in what each of you has to say. Address me as well as each other making your points, as both of you are understood by me and I am considering both points of view

 

[EarlyActs]

This is a non-response, leaving me nothing to address.

No it's not. I do not accept your continual stream of self-authoritative statements. If the reference is not above , as you know, there are parallel discussions. Look up Seegert, The Starting Point, and his material on mutation. How difficult is that? If that is difficult, should you be in research?

My years in reading/research have seen a lot of trends come and go. I have found material by qualified people that conflicts with many things you say.

To be clear: are you saying that the evolutionary process all took place in 168 hours of creation week? It would help to know that.

 

[EarlyActs]

And yet you can't articulate these things in a way that is recognizable to an evolutionary biologist? Maybe you have been at this for longer than I have been alive, but it clearly has not been either deep enough or from credible sources.

I do not accept your conclusions repeated over and over. They are platitudes; you must deal in specifics. I have written Seegerts objections (the analogy of deleting, doubling and interchanging) out twice but you don't deal with one specific part of it, which is transparently clear. And as he often says, when done with a unit, 'that's not the worst part of it for conventional science.'

You are the first person I have read is years who does not know that macroevolution is a cosmological view of conventional secular, anti-supernatural science. So even on that, I don't know why I should trust anything you put up.

Are you saying the ordinary meaning of Genesis 1 (and 1000 other Biblical statements) is not credible or that Genesis 1 is the evolutionary process you think happened and that it took place in 168 hours?

 

[EarlyActs]

And yet you can't articulate these things in a way that is recognizable to an evolutionary biologist? Maybe you have been at this for longer than I have been alive, but it clearly has not been either deep enough or from credible sources.

I'd like to make clear that conflict between conventional science and Biblical-informed science is real. Every person I have read over the past decades who said it was not in conflict, was misconstruing one or the other.

I have a maverick cosmology, but one of its tenets is that there is no cosmological evolution, because of how Genesis 1 was intended to express itself when set beside the huge epochs of time of conventional science. But I disconnect lifeless time from the 'swarming life' of Genesis 1 in another plank of my view. I do this as found in Genesis 1 and in 2 Peter 3. And because 'evolution is unknown in the universe'--Dr. Wilder-Smith. A 'spreading out' event did not result in life.

To be 'recognizable to an evolutionary biologist' therefore can simply mean that the person is so immersed in cosmological evolution that he cannot see the flaws, especially if he is saying that he sees no conflict. One or both of them have been misunderstood. Maybe he is not even aware when he is in the cosmological vs the current realm. Lyell said the present is the key to the past. Really? Had he been there?

 

[EarlyActs]

@EarlyActs @John Bauer
Pulling rank, are we?
Age and experience against acolyte?

Both of you, I am interested in what each of you has to say. Address me as well as each other making your points, as both of you are understood by me and I am considering both points of view

No one is excluding anyone from the discussion that I can tell. Just because I direct a comment to A does not mean that B--F are supposed to leave or ignore it.

 

[EarlyActs]

Then provide a proper citation, please, so I can verify what Seegert said and respond to it.




"Macro evolution" is not a cosmological statement, but a biological one that regards the continuity of our planet's biodiversity.

Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes within a species or population, specifically changes in the frequency of alleles across generations. These changes result from mechanisms such as mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, intraspecific competition, and gene flow.

Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolutionary patterns and processes that occur at or above the level of species, including speciation, adaptive radiation, extinction, and the emergence of major new forms or lineages (e.g., transition from water to land)—some branches are pruned off, other new branches sprout and spread.

They are interconnected and interdependent, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution, and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life through patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

The core thought of OS was that species originated other than found in Gen 1. Microevolution is adaption within one, often unsuccessful. 'shaping the context' is completely unclear on these things.