Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,128 Year: 5,385/9,624 Month: 410/323 Week: 50/204 Day: 26/24 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2298
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 154 of 299 (341280)
08-19-2006 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
08-18-2006 4:11 PM


Is this "neutral?" Perhaps I misunderstand this and if so, please explain.
Good, bad and neutral are in relation to if the mutation helps or hurts the organism to reproduce. I have a condition called keratoconus, which has a genetic component. My corneas become deformed and don't focus light correctly and in the long run without cornea transplants I'd be blind. Keratoconus does not strike until late puberty and has a slow progression therefore it would not be a hinderance to reproduction. This is an example of a neutral mutation.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 08-18-2006 4:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 2:44 AM DrJones* has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2298
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 156 of 299 (341289)
08-19-2006 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
08-19-2006 2:44 AM


This clearly demonstrates that the mutation is actually harmful to the organism, person, in this case you, although it is called neutral for the merely technical reason that it does not interfere with reproduction.
Calling it a "merely technical reason" is ignoring the point. Evolution does not care about the individual, it cares about reproduction. Once the individual's genes have been passed on it becomes irrelevant to evolution.
This is a very odd trend if you think about it. It would seem to lead to a proliferation of genetic diseases in the population to such an extent that over a few millennia there couldn't be a healthy species left on earth.
Sure bad (and in this case I mean bad to the individual in the long term, like my keratoconus) mutations can slip past the reproduction filter, but so do good and neutral mutations that can counter or modify those bad ones.
edited to address your edit
but logically this should have led to nothing but sickness and weakness in all species by now
Only if you ignore good and neutral mutations
Edited by DrJones*, : responding to faith's edit

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 2:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 3:02 AM DrJones* has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2298
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 158 of 299 (341297)
08-19-2006 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
08-19-2006 3:02 AM


Far from ignoring the point, this IS the point. Since the defective genes are passed on we have a state of increasing genetic disease in the population.
A genetic disease in the population that has already reproduced is irrelevant. If I have a genetic disease that kills me 15 seconds after I reproduce am I evolutionary failure or success? Answer: success because I reproduced and passed on my genes.
o far there have been no examples of these, only examples of "neutral" mutations that cause disease
well I'm just a layperson you'll have to find someone more learned than I to show you those.
These supposed good mutations are pretty much a wishful fantasy so far.
There's good old sickle cell anemia, which helps the organism live to reproduce by giving them a resistance to malaria. I suspect you'll hand wave this away by claiming that since it hurts the organism in the long run that it is not "good", but in evolutionary (which is what we're talking about) terms it is.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 3:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 3:27 AM DrJones* has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2298
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 176 of 299 (341442)
08-19-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
08-19-2006 1:42 PM


Keratoconus is a fact. (Actually, I just looked it up, and contrary to what DrJones said, the wiki article says it does not lead to blindness.
From the wiki
It does not lead to blindness
Is a bit of an overstatement.
I should clarify, when I say blindness I don't mean no sight at all. In my left eye I've had two cornea transplants reject and my vision is at the worst it'll be in that eye. I can not read the biggest line on the eye chart, when I put my hand out at arms length I can't distinguish my fingers. All I can see out of my left eye is fuzzy blobs of color. I am effectivley blind in the left eye.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 1:42 PM Faith has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2298
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 187 of 299 (341521)
08-19-2006 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
08-19-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
I haven't yet seen a truly beneficial mutation demonstrated by anyone here.
So you're handwaving away sickel cell anemia and the rise of antibiotic resitant bacteria. These are beneficial mutations. You might not consider them to be benificial but thats because you're using your own definition.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 8:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:25 PM DrJones* has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2298
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 196 of 299 (341548)
08-19-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
08-19-2006 9:51 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
From schraf
You are willfully ignoring everything everyone has said to you in this thread.
You are simply repeating your initial objections without having addressed the vast majority of the points people have raised.
From you
I haven't yet seen a truly beneficial mutation demonstrated by anyone here.
After people had pointed out sickle cell anemia.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:27 PM DrJones* has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2298
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 203 of 299 (341573)
08-19-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
Oh for pete's sake, FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT!!!
I have been. The arguement is Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes in the Biological Evolution forum. Because we're talking about evolution "beneficial" is defined as: helping the organism live to reproduce.
There is no way a mutation that protects against one disease while causing another is TRULY beneficial.
Says you.
This continuing refrain about how reproductive success is the criterion just points up the poverty of evolution as an explanation for living things,
How so? Living things reproduce and pass on their genes. If they have bad genes they don't live to reproduce and therefore don't pass on those genes, if they have good or neutral genes then they do live and those genes are passed on. It's not very complicated.
They all describe at least some latent disease process, something that works against health and vigor.
And again, health and vigor only matter up until the point of reproduction. If the health and vigor don't show up until after the organism has reproduced then they are irrelevant to evoltution. Evolution is not about species getting bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, it is about species surviving.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:27 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024