The Nature of Mutations

quote:

---

If you equate design and function you commit an error. Simple as that.

---

Only if we are talking about art. Simple as that.

quote:

---

A tool, or protein, has no function in the absence of the elements that it acts upon.

---

Come on...you have got to be kidding, right? You are honestly going to say this? This is nothing more than mindless regurgitation of nonsense. Think about what you just said. A screwdriver has a purpose whether it is in an environment where screws are present or not. You are repeating mindless evolutionary Dawkins-like trash that makes no sense whatsoever. Try again.

quote:

---

Another assumption: Christian-style creation wins by default if evolution loses. Consider that my "World hatched from a Big Dingus Egg in 10,000 BC" theory, which I just made up, has never been "disproven" either. Now, granted, there's no evidence for it, but neither is there for specific creation.

---

You are wrong, but I won't hold that against you.Greetings!

quote:

---

Duplications that weren't there before are still additions. As they arose through copying errors and weren't present in the genes of the parents, they're mutations. You're just playing dictionary games.

---

Actually, I'm not playing dictionary games, thats usually what evolutionists do. Anyway, I was talking this subject over with a friend and he agrees that gene duplication technically would be considered a mutation, like you stated, because it takes place during its copying. He did state, however, that this does not help evolutionary theory because it does not make anything new, just a copy of the old. It won't cause a new ear or eye to grow from somewhere, or turn your arm into a leg.It may, or may not, help an organsim. In this case, it does, but only by providing additional enzymes that were already present. It didn't mutate new enzymes. So I can meet you half way on this one, but only because it (the mutation) took place during the gene being copied.

quote:

---

And what form to these "switches" take, if not genes? You're the one needlessly mutliplying assumptions. And what mechanism prompts the bacterium to switch on the ability to eat nylon? And why don't they all do it? Most of the population died on the nylon substrate. It's obviously not an effective mechanism.

---

Are you thinking before you ask these questions? The mechanism is called a transposon, a little piece of genetic material that "jumps" around DNA and is inserted and removed from exact locations by exact enzymes designed for the job.As for your other questions, do animals in the midst of adapting to severe climate (for example) all adapt at the same time and survive? No, they don't, some die. Thats just nature.Greetings!

quote:

---

Are you suggesting otherwise? My reading of this research suggests this:
1) The genetic changes that produce the nylon digesting capabilities are known. They are exactly a one unit addition witch shifts the code.
2) They are not present in the preceeding bacteria. It is an easy random mutation to get to it however.
3) In the environment of the experiment the mutation is beneficial.

​

What part do you disagree with?

---

I agree with all of the above except for calling the genetic segment that turned this capability "on" as a mutation. It is an insertion of genetic material at the precise spot needed to turn this capability on, and originated via specific enzymes. Bacteria have several different ways of adapting to limited or changed nutrients. Another way is that a whole enzymes is coded for within the bacteria's genome that, again, has its coding region made active via insertion piece or insertion of an entire sequence by specific enzymes that splice them into the DNA, just before the gene that is currently turned "off".These are not mutations. They are mediated by specific enzymes.Greetings!

quote:

---

First there has to be agreeement on the definition of mutation. Could someone propose a definition?

---

The original definition for mutation was a random change in DNA made to a gene during its replication via copying error that was not caught and corrected by correcting enzymes. This included additions (not insertions performed by specific enzymes), deletions (not extractions performed by specific enzymes), or substitution of one or more nucleotides. I concede that the accidental copying of an entire gene can be considered as a mutation.What is NOT considered a mutation (except by evolutionary theorists, and that illegitimately) are any other genetic changes, including adaptaion and variational changes, because these have proven to be not by random chance events, but mediated by specific organismic mechanisms.Greetings!

quote:

---

FK: And because of the benefits of the modified protein, the low level of HDL are irrelevant. In other words, a person with this mutation is better off than without it. It is beneficial. The significance of HDL in this context is diminished. HDL prevents plaque buildup. The new protein does the job more effectively; hence the mutation is beneficial.

---

You are confusing the actual nature of the mutation with its by-product effect. The mutation is a deleterious mutation because it deminishes the original purpose of the protein. Period. This causes the protein to malfunction and not produce HDL up to standard levels. It is a deleterious mutation. I did not deny that it has a beneficial side-effect. But nice try.As for the rest of your post, see the previous posts on transposons and adaptational variants. Single genetic pieces or entire sequences turning on and off gene expression. As for the "major" creationist organizations, I don't know, I haven't talked to any of them. But I bet that if we got down to the nitty-gritty, they would be agreeing with me rather than you.Again, I have not stated that there are no mutations that confer beneficial side-effects upon their bearers. What I have stated is that there are no strictly beneficial mutations that lend any aid to the evolutionary paradigm. All you quibble over is adaptational changes, but since these are not mutations, there is no such thing as micro-evolution (which is a misnomer). Therefore, there is no macro-evolution.Try again.Greetings!

quote:

---

Phospho's "rebuttal" to the RNASE mutation is in error. He misunderstands "adaptive" as meaning "non-random" rather than "beneficial". As his rebuttal rests on that error, it fails and the example remains unchallenged.

---

Negative, the misunderstanding falls into your court...ACE!!!Adaptation is NOT random, this has been demonstrated since 1986. Since your rebuttal rests on the ill fated ideal that they are random, it fails, and the challenge on my end remains unmet.Greetings!

quote:

---

technically there are two ways variation appears in an organism/population: 1) mutation and 2) recombination during meiosis. They really are two distinct mechanisms. Recombination is NOT a mutation - it's simply the randomization of existing DNA when the chromosomes split and shuffle during normal sexual reproduction (gametogenesis).

---

First, where is there any evidence that mutation gives rise to variation? There is none. Provide that which you call evidence, and I will demonstrate that it is only transposon-activated genes that before hand were dormant and non-expressed.Second, chromosomal rearangements have also been demonstrated not to be random actions, but they, too, are broken and spliced together by specific enzymes.But we do agree that they are not mutations.Greetings!

quote:

---

Phospho's assertion that all mutations are lethal is just plain wrong..

---

To clear up a misunderstanding...again...I never stated that all mutations are lethal, I said that of the two catagories of mutations (neutral and deleterious, of which only the deleterious affect the phenotype), those which affect the phenotype damage whatever physiological character that incurs that mutation.They will always carry a deleterious affect, whether it is lethal or not depends upon your definition. To me, when you say lethal, you are talking about the mutation killing the organism which it occurs in. Sickle Cell demonstrates that this is incorrect.Greetings!

quote:

---

It should be - they've just changed their policy to giving free access for everything from 1996 (I think...) to one year before the current issue. Science | AAAS - registration is free.

---

I tried to access it, but unless I really messed it up, I couldn't get past the registration page.Thanks!

quote:

---

The one problem with the definition is the vagueness regarding "changes in gene expression"...it covers epigenetic modification but does not account for variation induced by environment which is not really a mutation. I am thinking of variation in coat color in cloned cows or variation in paternal or maternal X chromosome inactivaition in female embryos which are driven by purely stochastic events....but I guess that is covered since the definition says heritable change.

---

OK, so can you codify this definition again in one, easy-to-read post so that I can get a grasp of what we are agreeing too? For a minute there, it almost sounds something like what I was trying to get across, unless I just worded it wrong.This is my last post for the day, I have to go. I promise that I will try to not make it so long in between my postings. I am subject to call-in and hold-over at work, it makes it rough sometimes when the work piles up.Thanks for the discussion...and for discussing it in a cordial manner. If I have said anything to anyone that seemed out of line or uncordial, please forgive and excuse, I did not mean it to be as such.Greetings!

Yes, I do have a life, thank you. And a very exciting and rewarding one, at that. Anyways...the only weaseling that has been done was already done. That by evolutionary theorists is playing word games with the definitions of the word mutation, which is what I am trying to get set straight for the debate.This is only my first post today, so I will refrain from further rattling until I can get to some other posts and see what ya'lls definition has come up to be.Hasta...

quote:

---

Unfortunately, it looks like PG lit out of here once he figured out that the beneficial mutations argument was one he couldn't win.

---

Again, you must be misunderstanding what my whole argument is. I have not stated that there were no mutations that, in certain environments, may provide some amount, however small, of a beneficial side-affect to its bearer.My argument is this: There is no such thing as a catagory of mutations in and of themselves that can be purely beneficial; that is, not having also a negative, deleterious affect directly upon the molecular machinery in which it occurs.And it is not this argument that I cannot win, it is yours.Greetings!

quote:

---

After all, the objective is to come up with a definition that covers the wide range of possible mutations while at the same time restricting things to something that the creationist can't weasel out of...

---

Interesting, "Q". Therefore, you are not interested here in debating what the facts are of the debate, all you want to do is corner me and try to make me look like I do not know what I am talking about. Poor sportsmanship, very poor. You show your true colors, and they have nothing to do with science.

quote:

---

If that's so, I wish he could have posted something like "Blah blah blah I'm done wasting my time with you people" like other people who give up seem to do, that way we wouldn't be wasting our time coming up with definitions we're not going to use.

---

And even more interesting, Frog. If this really is your entire goal, "coming up with definitions" that your "not going to use" in a debate, why even come here?Honestly, I thought that I would meet people on this board that would be interested in sitting down and talking about the facts, not coming here to play games. I am not like your "run-of-the-mill" anti-evolutionist. At one time I believed, but after having a desire to actually know what all the fuss was about, I left my bias at the front door and began to actively search for the facts on the subject, and only the facts.There are a huge amount of assumptions at play in the theory of evolution, far too many to make it tenable to a thinking person interested in finding out what the truth is. I am not here promoting God, I am here saying that evolutionary theory doesn't cut it. Looking at it from a forensic science point of view, there are too many holes in the story to make me believe that "evolution did it".Please, if your only time here is to play games with me, then go home and let me talk to someone who has a real interest in what I say. I may be wrong in some things, but that is another reason why I am here, to talk to people who are worth talking to and to learn some more things that I do not already know. Thanks.Greetings!

quote:

---

PLG ultimately does not want to concede that mutations can confer any benefit but he ignores the meaning of beneficial in the context of natural selection.

---

This is not so, please read my posts again.

quote:

---

Thus, the detrimental effects of the slight sickle phenotype are outweighed by the benefits

---

More side-tracking. The issue is not one outweighing the other, the issue is not so much even the effects of the mutation. Although they do play a part in this because the catagories of mutation are specified by their neutral or deleterious affects. The issue is the NATURE of mutations...what they are, and what they are not.Again, some, very rare deleterious mutations have proven that they can, in certain environments, confer some amount of beneficial side-affects to their bearer. But then again, this is not what I am arguing.

quote:

---

If genetic variation does not derive from mutation then why are we not all clones?

---

Is this your reasoning for accepting that variation arises from mutation? If so, it is poor reasoning...no insult intended. We are not clones because we did not all come from the same egg. As for other arguments along that line, even identical twins have differences in expressed variant alleles...in short, no one is exactly identical. Even twins have different finger prints, this much I can attest to.

quote:

---

This is also completely false. One does not require endless variation for evolutionary change. In fact genetic drift which reduces variation can do as much for evolutionary change as increase in mutation accumulation in a large population.

---

Not so, evolutionary theory needs variation, otherwise it goes no where. There are plenty of top evolutionists that disagree with you, Mayr, for one. As for genetic drift, another false play by evolutionary theorists of the last century, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It has to do with population genetics, which also has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.Population genetics only traces the differences in expressed variant alleles within populations, and that is all. Evolutionary theory is not about variation, it is about speciation (and with that we open up another can of worms). This was my first clue that something was amiss with the theory, everytime I came up to a pivotal point in one portion of evolutionary explanations for proving evolution true, there came a road block. At that roadblock, there magically formed an assumption to overthrow that blockade...answer this, please...Pure beneficial mutations are assumed, why? Because without mutations you have no variant alleles. Why does evolution need variant alleles? Because variants are differences between organisms. But variation does not give rise speciation...since when has one creature ever been observed to change into another creature? So, we have to come up with a definition of speciation that demonstrates evolution is a reality, and so Mayr has...in his own mind, anyway. However, none of these examples change one creature into another, they only demonstrate variation.We have come up against another wall, so we assume that with enough micro variation, we will eventually observe macro variation...speciation. This is not the case. We have now jumped over what the factual data will allow with invalid and unwarranted assumptions four times, and it is interesting to me that at every wall is when these assumptions are called upon. Then we call upon another one, the assumption that evolution is simply change, this way we can call upon population genetics to demonstrate evolution, but does it really?No. It does not demonstrate nor observe one creature turning into another, it only documents variational differences. If we reduce the theory of evolution to what some call micro-evolution, changes within organisms'expressed allelic gene versions, then I agree. But until it can be demonstrated that we have one organism turning into another, there is no evolutionper say. Darwin did not give a thesis on trying to explain variation, but on the divergence between a modern dog and its ancestors. Between a modern elephant and its ancestors, etc.In short, unless you have a genetic mechanism that can add to a single celled organism, that in time will build blue-prints for arms, legs, sex organs, other organs, a head, mouth, fingers, etc....you have no evolution. My argument is this, that there is no such mechanism. All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature.My whole argument, boiled down, I guess, is that what scientists are calling as mutations today are fabrications and mis-callings based upon what the evolutionary theorists of yester-year propagandized the to be in their efforts at keeping the theory alive. What needs to be done is this, these areas need to be looked at again, from the very beginning, identifying these assumptions that are holding the theory together (many and unfounded are they), and test them. But for now, there are just too many, even by science's standards [Kitcher], for the theory of evolution to be considered a valid theory.Greetings!

quote:

---

Crashfrog made it pretty clear that for him the naturalistic paradigm is the default because it requires no supernatural entities.

---

Frog can assume a naturalistic paradigm all he wants too, but evidence demonstrates that this is a slap in the face to reality.