Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution ⇒

The Nature of Mutations

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Mutations
Peter
Member (Idle past 1509 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Normal Thread Display
Message 46 of 344 (37664)
04-23-2003 7:50 AM 		Reply to: Message 37 by PhospholipidGen
04-20-2003 10:55 PM

Benificial Vs. Nuetral
It all depends on your definition of terms
unfortunately.
​
If you take the organism in isolation, and state,
as you have, that deleterious means unviable, then you
are correct. There are either deleterious (fatal/debilitating)
mutations or nuetral (non-fatal/debilitating) mutations.
​
Beneficial in an evolutionary framework means something
more like 'conferring an advantage'. Not exactly, but
along those lines.
​
Not entirely sure what you are arguing though, since even
in your framing of the issue there are demonstrably large
numbers of non-fatal mutations ... read up on it and you'll
be suprised.
​
And further, if a mutation can be non-fatal (and they can)
then given the right environment they could confer
some form of advantage.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PhospholipidGen, posted 04-20-2003 10:55 PM PhospholipidGen has not replied
Peter
Member (Idle past 1509 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Normal Thread Display
Message 150 of 344 (39794)
05-12-2003 6:47 AM 		Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
05-08-2003 4:13 PM

Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
I know it's not really aimed at you, but the main difference
between purpose and function is that purpose is about 'then
intent behind the design'.
​
Using 'purpose' to infer design is backwards reasoning.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2003 4:13 PM crashfrog has not replied
Peter
Member (Idle past 1509 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Normal Thread Display
Message 310 of 344 (42863)
06-13-2003 8:05 AM 		Reply to: Message 308 by Mammuthus
06-02-2003 10:34 AM

Re: bump for Phospho III
I dunno ... I think my current line of discussion in the
'ghosts' topic is ellivating ME up that list
This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Mammuthus, posted 06-02-2003 10:34 AM Mammuthus has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024