Age and Down Syndrome?

It is in my world. Use the quote function already, is what what? Sure, but as a gene gets fixated there shouldn't be a problem with calling it normal. Although, normalcy is kind of a fluffy concept anyways. Not necessarily, but the word "damage" can work. I can see unnecessary implications and that the usage is sloppy, but I don't think its totally unwarranted. I don't see that implication at all. The sun damages our skin, for instance.

And what everyone else is telling you is that you are wrong, and that damage is the correct, and commonly applied terminology. That the terminology is in common use by everybody but you is readily apparent from the results of a few internet searches using 'genetic damage'.Further, making up some other name to call detrimental mutations that produce disfunction does not even address Faith's accusation anyway.Just because Faith is wrong does not mean that every silly counter argument is legit.

I have no idea how to use the quote function. No one has told me. Remember, this is my 6th day on this site.What do you mean by "when a gene gets fixated"?I see your point, and there's nothing to argue about, because we are agreeing here that damage is a sloppy term

Okay, let's say there's a gene for, I don't know, having your legs be 45 inches. Now, the gene mutates and legs are only 43 inches. Is that damage? No, it is change. All I'm saying is that change is a better term here, if we want to be nit-picky. This is hardly about Faith anymore, is he even here still?

If you type into the text box: [qs]shaded quotes are easy[/qs], then it will become: If you type into the text box: [quote]regular quotes are also easy[/quote] then it will become:

quote:

---

regular quotes are also easy

---

I prefer shaded quotes ("qs" means "Quote Shaded") for when quoting from the message you're replying to and regular quotes for when you are quoting from outside of that message.After you hit "Reply" next to the text box you'll see this: That help link will take you to a page outlining the kinds of coding you can do.Also, at the bottom right corner of every message is a "Peek" button. That will show you exactly what the person entered into the text box. So if you see something awesome that you want to do, take a Peek. wiki on fixationFair enough. On the other hand, its a completely accurate term used by molecular biologists:

quote:

---

The process by which normal cells become progressively transformed to malignancy is now known to require the sequential acquisition of mutations which arise as a consequence of damage to the genome. This damage can be the result of endogenous processes such as errors in replication of DNA, the intrinsic chemical instability of certain DNA bases or from attack by free radicals generated during metabolism. DNA damage can also result from interactions with exogenous agents such as ionizing radiation, UV radiation and chemical carcinogens. Cells have evolved means to repair such damage, but for various reasons errors occur and permanent changes in the genome, mutations, are introduced.source

---

bold added for emphasis

No, I would not call that damage, but again contrived examples do not prove anything because I don't claim that all mutations are damage.Let's imagine a mutation that produces an inheritable change where the organism has no legs at all. Or where the animal is born with a spinal cord that won't transmit signals to the legs. I would call that genetic damage and so would everyone else except you.

So because everyone else would call it damage, that makes it more correct? I would definitely call that detrimental, I just wouldn't say the word damage.

What criteria do you have for the word damage to be used?
MERRIAM WEBSTERS:Detrimental Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster detrimental adjective \ˌde-trə-ˈmen-təl\ : causing damage or injury

Right. Which means that when there is a discussion about genetic damage, you will pretend to have an issue while the rest of us discuss the topic using correct terminology.

I'm not trying to, like, troll. I was making an argument for why using the word "damage" is not correct. Regardless of what the word actually means, it is how it is commonly used. For example, we use the word "peruse" to mean "skim over quickly" commonly, but it actually means to read something, usually quite thorough and careful way. Similarly, we use damage in a sense that it was tampered with by an outside force (like a small child, or a hurricane), even though it may mean something else. Do you see my point?

I do have a problem with calling an improvement "damage". When a gene is changed we don't know if it's going to be an improvement or damage, so I think it's best to call it a "change".

When I was in school, we used the word deleterious ,when describing damage or negative changes to genes. But I have no problem using the word damaged either.

Agreed. Damage has a negative connotation while the result of the change or mutation may not be negative at all. Though CS may be, in some small way, technically within bounds, the word damaged instead of changed or mutated does not give as accurate a reflection of what is taking place when discussing genetics. This may leave the mistaken impression (except if one is a creationist bent on misrepresentation) that the change, mutation, damage results in something less than what may accurately occur.

Of course damage is negative. That's why it is used to refer to deleterious mutations. What does deleterious mean?Nothing untoward results from using the term damage in connection with mutations "causing damage or injury.Here we have one person who claims that all mutations are damage and another who answers by saying no mutations cause damage. Both claims are wrong.

Who said that, and when? Please, go on and quote it. As I have said, "damage" in its most common usage implies tampering, and as far as I know, there isn't some little man in your DNA tampering with your genetic information.