Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

These aren't quite correct. If you would like, I'll pull my textbooks off the shelf and quote to you exactly the Second Law of Thermodynics as well as the exact meaning of entropy.- We also see the opposite. For example, a single cell develops into a complex adult organism under the rather mundane laws of physics and chemistry.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

To all:The topic is the evolution of sexes. Please adhere to that. The topic is not thermodynamics, information or perfection.Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author

Not really. The single cell can only develop into that which it's genetic information dictates. Any variation in that information is usually a loss or corruption thereof which leads to a mutation from the original. Usually, this mutation would be a rare event and would result in the ensuing organism to retain that information in a recessive gene making it unlikely to reproduce that same genetic malfunction in consecutive offspring. That genetic information will always be passed down to offspring but as a recessive gene may only show itself after several attempts of reproduction and sometimes may take generations for that information to manifest itself once again. Very rarely, do we see that genetic information become the dominating trait.

I find it all to be relative.Please excuse the stray off topic but in order to understand one, we must understand the foundation.

Wrong. Most mutations are neutral. Wrong. Mutations are common. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000 This is such a mish mash of so-wrong-it's-not-even-wrong that I don't know where to begin.First. A mutation, no matter what it's "effect", is just passed on, period. End of story.Second. You have no idea how genetic information and phenotypic traits are related.Third. Whether a phenotypic trait is expressed is a matter of chance. And no, it does not take "generations".Given any particular trait (if I know its genetic "make-up" and the genotype of both parents), I can predict the chances that any particular offspring will express that trait. That's undergraduate Genetics 101.For example, blond hair is a recessive trait. If one has two heterozygote brunette parents, the chances that they will have a blond child is 1:4. 25%.That said, if you'd like to discuss the nature of mutations in general, I suggest you pick a mutation thread. This is an evolution of the sexes thread. If you'd like to discuss mutation as it relates to the evolution of the sexes, fine. Then do so.

You need to follow the Forum Guidelines. The link, Rules, is at the top of the page.And, just FYI, do not respond to moderators.That's a quick way to a suspension.

And yet, just as you can't find any geneticists who agree with you about genetics, a subject that geneticists have studied and you haven't, so also you can't find any professors of thermodynamics to agree with you about thermodynamics, which is also a subject that you also know damn all about 'cos of never having studied it.

What gave you this strange idea?Are you once more trying to talk about a subject of which you know nothing? Bacteria, in the absence of genetic information telling them not to be bacteria, would be bacteria.If you meant something else by your enquiry, I should tell you frankly that your method of putting questions is distinctly opaque. Knowing what you're talking about might help you here. Those are all English words, and yet the order in which you have put them together conveys no meaning.

You also need to find out what "recessive" and "dominant" mean before you try to lecture us on genetics.You may also want to read up on the concept of "natural selection", it's fascinating.

So you've changed the subject from entropy to information. Would I be correct in assuming that you admit that you now realize that thermodynamics do not preclude biological evolution in any way?At any rate, this has been ruled off-topic. If you want to continue to discuss whether or not evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, I have found several thread that are still open and deal with this issue.The thread 2nd Law and Open / Closed Systems is the latest; it appears that there has been some discussion there, and you may find some of the information interesting.The thread Second Law of Thermodynamics is also relatively recent -- only a couple of years old, and there may be some interesting information there as well. (Added by edit: Oops, I just noticed that this thread is closed. But the discussion may still be informative.) Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution is an older thread. A Question about Evolution (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) predates my involvement here at EvC by a month or so; it never seemed to take off, so it may be ripe for resurrection.Finally, the thread Is evolution the only thing to contradict the Second law of Thermodynamics? is way, way old, but perhaps this can be brought back up as well.Anyway, the topic of thermodynamics is not appropriate here; if you want to discuss it, then you can bring it to one of the aforementioned threads. If not, I would like to discuss it and so I may bring one of these threads back up.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

Following in Chi's footsteps: Message 1Message 1Message 1Message 1Message 1Message 1Message 1Message 1These seem more suited to your "line of inquiry".I strongly suggest you read the threads before you post.

Recessive genes only happen in organisms with two copies of each chromosome. Bacteria do not have two copies of chromosomes: diploidy (having two chromosome sets) is an after-effect of bisexual reproduction. In organisms that only have one copy of each gene (haploid), all genes are expressed equally. If one gene is dysfunctional, the organism cannot express that trait properly, which can very often be detrimental.However, in diploid (sexually-reproducing) organisms, which have two copies of each gene, a dysfunctional gene can be covered if the other copy of that particular gene is not dysfunctional. Thus, the dysfunctional copy is what we call "recessive," and the properly-functioning copy is what we call "dominant."The bisexual condition may have been selected for because of its ability to mask detrimental and lethal recessive genes by providing a second, working copy of the gene. The downside is that it is less effective at removing those recessives from the gene pool. That pretty much sums up the point of this thread.So, when you say: and remember that bacteria can still do things we can't do: there is no "greater" and "lesser" in evolution, and there is no "apex."

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Just a thought. Sorry if this sounds more like a rant... just got home from a long day.Aren't creationists embarrassed everytime a creo shows up with a total lack of the most basic knowledge in biology yet have the "I know everything there is to know about everything" attitude, especially when they claim to be a "servant of god"?

Now, are you embarrassed every time you show up with a total lack of the most basic knowledge of creationism. First things first, all major religions (that are monotheistic) capitalize God (but I don't really care about that, just wanted to point it out ). On the more important side, your use of "servant of god." Do you know what that means? I don't think you do. :-/BTW, you think your long day was bad? Hah! You ain't got nothing on mine today. After this, I still have the knowledge of what's to come tomorrow and the next day and the next. It all translates into stress and lack of time. That translates to no more time on forums for a while.Hope you have a better day.

Bumping for Heygabbagabba's question in PNT Message 1