The Nature of Mutations

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.Although I'm holding out for his return. He seemed pretty adamant that he was right. I don't think he's just going to give up. There's a number of things that I for one would like him to address...

Once again, you've assumed purpose in a context where "purpose" is a meaningless term. There is no purpose in biology, only function. Your dismissal "only if you're talking about art" is simply false - function can arise without design, as well as design without function.Again with the talk about the "nature" of the mutation... throughout this thread you've made the assumption that objects can have inherent purpose. I do not believe this to be so. This is an assertation you'll have to support.Why do you insist that if the protien is different than in other individuals that it is broken? By the same reasoning, if I replace my computer's hard drive with a larger one, I've broken my computer because the old hard drive no longer has purpose. The fact that I can hold a lot more mp3's is just a "beneficial side-effect". Do you see how fallacious your reasoning is? Detrimental AND beneficial can only be judged in context of function, not of purpose. Didn't you, earlier, accept duplicate genes as mutations? The mosquitos who generated additional levels of pesticide-digesting enzymes did so through gene duplications. Unless you can point out a derimental effect to these additional levels of enzyme you'll have to conclude that it was a purely beneficial mutation, by your own reasoning.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-02-2003][This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-02-2003]

But the source of adaptation (at least, the heritable kind - which is the only kind that matters to populations) IS random. That is, whether or not a species will adapt to its environment is inherently random.Unless you can predict precisely when and how adaptations will occur? And explain why some species fail to adapt to their environment?Your specific use of a date suggests you're referring to some study or something. Could you supply it? I'd like to read it. I don't have a very deep biology background.

Perhaps you need to say what you mean by "variation". Most people assume that to mean "differences". Biologically it tends to refer to the phenomenon where individuals in a population tend not to be genetic clones of each other.In either case, it's clear that mutations represent novel genetic sequences in organisms not decended from it's parents - making that individual different - varied - from its peers and parents.How is that not variation through mutation?

You still haven't addressed what deleterious effect a gene duplication could have (particularly if its a duplication of a beneficial gene), given that they are, by your own admission, mutations...

Hello? PPG?Maybe we're overwhelming him with posts. Tell ya what, PPG, since a great many posters on this board are supremely more qualified to discuss this than I, I won't expect you to respond to any of my posts. I'll continue posting where I think I have something to add but don't feel like you have to respond unless you are particularly moved to do so.It's just that I'm quite interested to hear your rebuttals to the evidence of purely beneficial mutation that has been presented so far (as well as the specific example of the mosquitos, which by your own definition is a purely beneficial mutation, since duplications are mutations, by your own admission.) I'd hate for you to use all your time addressing my amaturish posts and ignoring the better arguments being levied your way.

Well, part of the problem is linguistic: words describe meaning, they don't contain it. Words are fuzzy in that regard. If you try to pin down their meaning you wind up restricting meanings you didn't mean to restrict - as you can see from the thread, we tried to choose a definition that was sufficiently specific without leaving things out. It's pretty hard, which is why I don't care much for dictionary games in debates. While there's an argument for defining terms before you argue about them, one has to realize that true, absolute agreement on meaning is never possible between speakers.

Well, you came back, didn't you? So now we get to see if all the work we did trying to come up with a definition that is as word-game-proof as possible was worth it. Of course, if you're just going to attack the things we said about you during your absence then it wasn't worth it, now was it?Honestly you were gone for like a week. I can understand if you've got better things to do, but it doesn't make debating with you any easier. It's like arguing with someone via postal carrier. It's not fast enough to be satisfying. I know it's not your fault, but you have to bear with some of our frustration. Well, then, why did you start by playing games? Your whole argument has been, so far, that beneficial mutations aren't really "beneficial" in the strictest sense of the word. If that's not a word game, what is?The facts (which you claim to prize) are that we've consitently shown purely benefical mutations - with no negative side effect to the organism whatsoever - which you seem to have dismissed. Your only response has been to argue that because the mutation removes a function that is now longer needed, it is still detrimental. We've tried to point out the illogic of this.Here's an analogy: By your argument, all modern Macintosh computers are inferior to the older ones because the new Macs lack floppy drives and legacy ports - despite the fact that neither floppy disks nor legacy devices (SCSI, ADB, etc.) are at all widely used by Apple owners. By your own argument, moving to USB and Firewire has broken all new Macs.That's simply ludicrous. Anyone can see that newer computers are much, much better than ones that are really old. (That's like a computer industry truism.) The lack of SCSI or ADB function is simply irrelevant because the environment of most Macs no longer includes devices that need those ports. Ergo, the utility of function depends soley on environment.If I've somehow misrepresented your argument it's only because you've mistated it. If so I invite you to clear up the confusion. To my knowledge, no more so than are at work in any other science - mainly, an assumption that natural principles can account for all natural phenomenon. This has been a succesful assumption in science for many, many years.If you feel that more assumptions are at work, could you outline those for me?

Begging the question: Where did all those different eggs come from? There's way more alleles in the human population than could ever have been stored in the genetics of two people. Unless a big sky-man is inventing new kinds of people as we go along, where are all those new alleles coming from?Mutational variation, of course. Biologists disagree with this, because (obviously) only populations evolve - individuals don't. Your assertation that population genetics doesn't have anything to do with evolution is either hand-waving or ignorance. In fact the synthesis of population genetics and evolutionary theory is responsible for the vast growth of the theory of evolution's explanitory power and experimental confirmation in recent years. Sure, and speciation only happens to populations. How can it not be related to evolution? If you disagree with this then you're operating under an inaccurate view of what speciation is. They're not assumed, they're observed. This doesn't even make sense. Creatures aren't Transformers (sorry, listening to Optimus Rhyme right now). A creature stays the creature it was born as until it dies. I mean, if you have kids, we don't say that you turned into your kids, do we?Populations DO change because some traits are selected for - individuals with that trait tend to leave more offspring - and some are selected against - individuals with that trait leave less offspring. it is through this differental reproduction that the ratio of expressed traits shifts in a population. If a population is seperated into two groups, trait ratios drift apart until the two populations can no longer produce viable offspring. This is basic speciation and we observe it regularly. Why do I have to tell you this? If the changes can be inherited, then they are mutations. How they occur is not relevant. If they can be inherited and confer a survival benefit to the organism, then the population will experience a change in trait ratios. Well, if by evolution you refer only to Darwin's original theory (which you seem to in your rejection of population genetics) then you are correct. The thing is we've come a little farther (understatement) with the theory these days, due to the introduction of knowledge of genetic mechanisms and population studies.Ultimately you appear to be arguing against a version of the theory that is a hundred years old. Why is that relevant?

Yeah, totally, PPG. I'd love to hear your evidence that the naturalistic paradigm is incomplete. Of course, never mind the fact that if the existence of supernatural entities could be inferred by their actions in the natural world they would cease to be supernatural, wouldn't they?"Slap in the face to reality"? Reality as I perceive it contains no supernatural entities. You'll have to show evidence to the contrary that can't be explained by naturalistic means. Of course, no one ever has...

Finally it comes down to it: Argument for sudden design by irreducible complexity. Not in dispute. I never claimed that any particular part of a living organism was without function, only without purpose.If you use a screwdriver to pound a nail, it has the function of a hammer. That doesn't mean that it has the purpose of a hammer. There's no way to connect function and purpose, without assuming that the purpose and function of something are the same. But, that's just an assumption. What you have yet to prove is that purpose can be reliably inferred from function. If you'll look closely you'll see this is the crux of your argument.Anyway, irreducable complexity is child's-play to refute. Consider a stone arch - irreducibly complex in that the removal of any stone will topple the arch. Ergo, it could not have been built stone by stone, right?Wrong, obviously. Arches are built stone by stone. How does this work? We put up a scaffold to support the arch as we build it. Is the scaffold as efficient or useful as the arch? No, not at all. But the scaffold is sufficiently simple that it can be built piece by piece, used to construct the "irreducibly complex" arch, and then taken away, leaving only the beautifully efficient arch. Perfectly? Have you talked to women about this? The clitoris is located outside of the vagina, where it becomes rather hard to stimulate with the penis. I wouldn't call that a perfect fit. In fact I'd say it's just good enough to perpetuate the species, which - surprise! - is exactly what the theory evolution would predict. Because sexual reproduction is great for the adaptation of species. It confers an enormous resitance against disease, for instance (through so-called "Hybrid vigor" and other effects). It maximises the selection of beneficial traits.Why do you assume that human genitals are some unique structure? All vertebrates and most invertibrates have genitals - and the rest usually have gonads, at least. Bacteria exchange genetic information before dividing. It's clear that sexual reproduction arose to the unicellular level. Genitals just evolved to match. They wouldn't have to have evolved from scratch for any animal, much less humans. They simply would have decended with modification, like anything else.Does this stuff really stump you? A minute of thinking "how could this confer a survival advantage?" is generally enough to debunk all your so-called "argument for design."

Could you two take it to a different topic? We're trying to argue with PPG, here, and your respective fireworks don't augur well for topic continuity.Although if three posts a week is the best we can get from PPG it's not going to be a fruitful debate, I fear...

That's not variation, per se - that's the results of variation after being acted on by natural selection.Variation would be whatever process would have resulted in one or more individuals having longer hair or wider hooves than their parents. We're arguing that mutation causes that.Certain variations, then, are acted on by natural selection, which selects for or against those traits, leading, over time, to their spread through the population of mountain goats. That's adaptation - the population adapts to its new environment. Sure, not all forms of variation are herediary. it is ony the hereditary variations that matter to natural selection because those are the only traits that are passed on to offspring and spread through populations.Variation between individuals can have many sources, most of them not genetic. heritable variation, on the other hand, is always genetic and it is that which natural selection is concerned.Hopefully this is making some sense to you. Also I think your definition of mutation is far too narrow. A mutation is simply a genetic variation that makes an offspring's genes different from the sum of its parents. In terms of population genetics we are concerned only with the mutations that occur in reproductive cells rather than mutations in somatic cells as these cannot be passed on.

If you're going to reject our explanations as soon as we say the word "evolution", how could we possibly do that?But, I'll try. I'll present some data and we'll try to come up with a theory that generalizes the data through natural processes (a requirement of science).1)Population studies. Long-term observation of populations shows changes in trait frequencies with a correllation to trait usefulness in the environment. Offspring tend to resemble their parents in certain predictable ways (as shown by Mendel). Sometimes new traits seem to appear from nowhere - an organism has a trait that none of it's ancestors had. The change in trait ratios could be explained by a hypothetical "selection" process where organisms with beneficial traits are "rewarded" with more offspring, and organisms with detrimental traits are eliminated.2) Similarity of organisms: Organisms demonstrate an apparent, loose hierarchy of forms - particularly vertebrate life. In particular, the most similar but yet still distinct species tend to be geographically close to each other. One explanation for this is that if a population is split into separated groups, new traits accumulate in those populations until the populations could be classified as different species.3) The fossil record: Fossil organisms display sorting by apparent sophistication over depth of strata. One explanation for this is the gradual emergence of taxonomic forms over geologic time. This would be concurrent with an explanation of common descent for all modern life.I'm sure I've left something out; the point is that the ToE (like any scientific theory) isn't confirmed by one "smoking gun" evidence, but rather inferred from a vast weight of data. That's how science is done.But if you're just going to assert that this researcher or that one "assumes" evolution, you've got a bullet-rpoof way to reject any data that doesn't appear to support your position. In that's the case, why argue with you? You may reject the conclusion of the researcher (which is totally fine) but data is data, no matter what assumptions were held by those who uncovered it. If you have a better theory to explain the above data, let's hear it. Recourse to supernatural entities, however, isn't a hypothesis worth our time. Supernatural entities have no place in science because they're not accessable to science, by definition. Therefore how can any predictions be made about their behavior?

You can change the genetics of a fly and make its halters full fledged wings, but none of this gave the organism something novel or new, it just changed the area from where it is suppose to be to where it was not suppose to be. This is change, not evolution.Word games. By your own definitions, there's no biological novelty, because every biological structure we observe is simply an improvement on prior structures.Wings are legs in a different shape. The complex human eye has only minor improvements from simpler eyes. There's no structure you can name that is anything but a minor improvement in a prior structure.Evolution doesn't require large amounts of novelty, simply minor improvements over time. If you're trying to argue against evolution because it's impossible for a bacteria to give birth to a human, you're arguing a straw man.