Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 211 of 299 (341598)
08-19-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:58 PM


Would you please just read the whole argument. This has been answered umpteen times by now.
No, it hasn't.
It hasn't been answered once.
Will you try to answer it, or will you admit that you haven't a leg to stand on?
Perhaps you think you have answered it. If so, please point out the post in which you believe you have done so, and I will point out your trivial error in reasoning.
Cheers.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 212 of 299 (341605)
08-19-2006 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2006 11:06 PM


Find the post yourself. I don't care what you do with it. The thread is a disaster now with so many chiming in to remind me of things I've already answered. Yes answered. Nobody wants to think, you just want to regurgitate evo assumptions. Trash it all the way to the end now. Have the usual evo self-congratulatory blast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 11:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2006 12:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 214 by nator, posted 08-20-2006 12:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 215 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 12:06 AM Faith has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 213 of 299 (341615)
08-20-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-19-2006 11:23 PM


So, you claim to have an answer but you can't say what it is.
Creationist integrity at its very best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 214 of 299 (341616)
08-20-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-19-2006 11:23 PM


quote:
Find the post yourself. I don't care what you do with it. The thread is a disaster now with so many chiming in to remind me of things I've already answered. Yes answered. Nobody wants to think, you just want to regurgitate evo assumptions. Trash it all the way to the end now. Have the usual evo self-congratulatory blast.
And this is why you should probalby not venture into the science fora, faith.
You have a stroke any time your ideas are treated just like we would treat each others'.
You do not appear to be listening.
You appear to be repeating your initial claims and redefining terms and words into your own special meanings as fast as can be to keep up with all of the demolition of your objections.
You may flail and shout and exasperate all you want, but it is simply not the case that you have adequately addressed any of the responses to your claims.
If you can't take the heat of scientific inquiry, then maybe you should stay out of the Biology lecture hall, so to speak.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6438 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 215 of 299 (341622)
08-20-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-19-2006 11:23 PM


I've had a quick trawl through your posts in this thread.
Would you say that Message 154 and Message 155 are a fair summary of the position you are trying to get across?
Dr.Jones* in Message 154 writes:
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.
Faith in Message 155 writes:
Thank you. 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. It's the same situation as in the case of diabetes, which causes all kinds of misery and ultimately kills people, though it doesn't interfere with reproduction and so escapes the selection processes that would weed it out.
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.
{Edit: Which is pretty much what biblical creationism says. Except that we assume that this is not the normal way genetics works. We assume PRIOR greater health, and gradual deterioration over time, due to the accumulating effects of the Fall from generation to generation. Only uniformitarianism supposes that such disease processes are normal, but logically this should have led to nothing but sickness and weakness in all species by now, and mass extinctions despite reproductive ability, if it really is a normal process of evolution}.
I want to be sure I understand your position before I make any further comment.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2006 12:15 AM MangyTiger has not replied
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 6:39 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 299 (341625)
08-20-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by MangyTiger
08-20-2006 12:06 AM


While we're waiting, I'll point out that neither keratoconus and diabetes is "neutral" (nor, for that matter, entirely genetic in its etiology, but that is by the by.)
Being ill is bad for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 12:06 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 299 (341642)
08-20-2006 1:23 AM


Moving this thread and retitling it
This is the very first thread I started at EvC when I started posting here over a year and a half ago. I have since learned to avoid the science fora because of the crabbed pro-evo / anti-creo mentality that lurks there. So I am now going to move this thread to the Theological Creationism and ID forum where any thread of mine on science topics should always be located.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Clark, posted 08-20-2006 1:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 220 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2006 1:33 AM Faith has not replied

AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 299 (341644)
08-20-2006 1:25 AM


Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution forum.

Clark
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 299 (341646)
08-20-2006 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
08-20-2006 1:23 AM


delurk
So I am now going to move this thread to the Theological Creationism thread ...
Weak.
Edited by Clark, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 1:23 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 220 of 299 (341648)
08-20-2006 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
08-20-2006 1:23 AM


So, you want to discuss "evolutionary processes" in a subforum devoted to "theological creationism".
I'm intrigued by your mental processes. Do explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 1:23 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 221 of 299 (341695)
08-20-2006 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by MangyTiger
08-20-2006 12:06 AM


recap
I want to be sure I understand your position before I make any further comment.
Thank you for taking the time to review the argument, and for your politeness.
I lost track of the line of argument I was pursuing and lost interest in it thanks to the way everybody piled on saying the same old same old without bothering to try to understand the point I was trying to make, but if you have something you want to say about what you quoted, please do.
It is certainly a quote that makes it clear the discussion belongs on this side of the EvC divide, since I bring in creationist assumptions in order to answer evo uniformitarianism.
But maybe I'll take a stab at stating the complete argument again.
The evolutionists here want to dismiss the idea that genetic mutations that cause disease have anything to say about the viability of evolution as a theory, because evolution couldn't care less what happens genetically or to the organism. All that matters is whether the gene is passed on or not.
But I'm trying to argue that given the very high rate at which mutation is said to occur, and the fact that genetic diseases occur at quite a high rate in the population, the ToE is thrown into great doubt. (The rate was given back a few pages yesterday I believe, and I don't remember who said it, but if the rate is wrong a correction would be a welcome addition at this point.)
This rate includes an enormously high percentage of destructive mutations {mutations which remove or "break" a gene that produces a useful protein, or substitute a gene that makes a protein that causes damage -- see Crash's Message 170 -- which high percentage is easily demonstrated by a list of currently recognized genetic diseases which I linked back there somewhere; as well as these "neutral" mutations that cause some degree of disease that doesn't interfere with reproduction or even quality of life in most cases (I see that Dr. A regards it as an error to call these "neutral"); and so far about three highly questionable examples of "beneficial" mutations in the lot.
Evolution theory ASSUMES but has not proved that all the useful or beneficial genetic material that makes us what we are has also been created by mutation -- See Percy's Message 164 -- claiming that in fact the rate of beneficial mutations is extravagantly greater than either destructive or neutral mutations. But again, this is assumed, and so far there is not one shred of actual evidence for such beneficial mutations. The YE creationist assumption, by contrast, is that the basic genetic stuff is built in from Eden, and that all changes since then are destructive, even if they don't manifest in a flagrant disease in the early stages of gene destruction.
Without such evidence, I think my point stands, that the observed preponderance of destructive mutations supports the creationist expectation of a gradual process of degeneration or devolution. Add this to the fact that all the other misnamed "evolutionary processes" (Natural Selection, Migration, Genetic Drift, Bottleneck, Founder Effect, etc. etc. etc.) tend ultimately to a decrease in genetic variability, and I'd say that this spells "curtains" for the ToE. Or should, though it will die very hard if it does, though more likely it will go on as if it weren't fatally flawed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 12:06 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2006 10:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 224 by Modulous, posted 08-20-2006 1:02 PM Faith has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 222 of 299 (341705)
08-20-2006 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
08-19-2006 8:48 PM


Faith writes:
Well, this is an answer totally from the ToE, purely a logical conclusion based on the assumption of evolution as the explanation for how everything got here. But there is no actual EVIDENCE that ANY of them were the result of mutation rather than designed in from the beginning.
This is actually just the science of population genetics. It was the work of the population geneticists that revealed the evidence and the mathematical basic for forming the modern synthesis between Darwinian evolution and genetics. Prior to that work there was no evidence that Darwinian evolution and genetics were even consistent and compatible, let alone mutually supportive.
There IS evidence, however, that defective genes are mutations because what they are replacing can be tracked.
I'm not sure what you mean when you conclude your paragraph with this. If this is an argument that mutations can only be harmful, then of course this isn't true, and this has been explained already, both generally by myself, and more specifically by Schraf with her wisdom tooth gene example.
Or if it is an argument that only harmful mutations can spread through a population, then this is false, too. Parents pass their genes on to offspring, including mutations harmful or not.
Quite logical according to the theory, never demonstrated in fact. Not a single actual case of this has anyone brought forward.
Schraf offered the example of her wisdom tooth gene and the HIV gene, and the general example of mutations in bacterial populations where mutations can be studied closely because bacteria provide many generations in a single day.
You seem to be just declaring that beneficial mutations either don't exist or aren't really beneficial. I earlier explained how beneficial mutations are inevitable and provided one hypothetical example of a process by which they can happen. And people who don't die from infections caused by wisdom tooth infections produce more offspring than those who do, and people who don't die of HIV a few years after exposure produce more offspring than those who do. These are clearly beneficial mutations with an effect on reproduction.
Indeed. If a destructive mutation can be observed in its early stages, why not a beneficial mutation?...Lots MORE of those destructive ones, aren't there?
I just explained this in the very message you're replying to: Beneficial mutations that just keep people from getting sick or give them slightly greater endurance or strength or intelligence or attractiveness or charm are harder to notice and even when noticed don't rate the same level of scrutiny.
Maybe somebody will catch one in the act sometime.
Some have been caught in the act, and you've been provided a couple examples.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 8:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 4:11 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 299 (341717)
08-20-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
08-20-2006 6:39 AM


Re: recap
as well as these "neutral" mutations that cause some degree of disease that doesn't interfere with reproduction or even quality of life in most cases (I see that Dr. A regards it as an error to call these "neutral");
If this is what you think a neutral mutation is, then somebody didn't explain neutral mutations to you.
Neutral mutations are mutations to genes that alter base sequences but don't change the ultimate protein product, or the function of that product, in any significant way. For instance, if a gene had "CGA" at one position, that sequence would encode a protein that had the amino acid alanine at that homologous position. If a mutation changed that portion of the gene to read "CGG", instead, it would be a neutral mutation because that gene would still encode alanine at that position. (You can see that there are multiple, synonymous codon sequences for each amino acid at:
Genetic code - Wikipedia
Neutral mutations have no effect on the function of a gene. Mutations that cause even a slight disease effect such as you describe cannot be neutral, by definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 6:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 2:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 224 of 299 (341738)
08-20-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
08-20-2006 6:39 AM


genes and their alleles
All that matters is whether the gene is passed on or not.
Actually that's not strictly speaking accurate. Evolution is not just concerned with whether or not the gene is passed on but how often one gene is passed on relative to its allele(s). If one gene is not passed on at all, then its frequency in the population is reduced to 0. If those that posess the gene only produce an average of 1.9 reproductive offspring and those that posess its allele produce 2.0 reproductive offspring, then the frequency of the gene in the population will decrease and the frequency of its allele will increase.
The less good gene may remain in the population for a long time, but it becomes less frequent than its alleles.
Human evolution is complicated in that we are able to increase the potential reproductive capability of people with less than ideal genes.
So, whilst our population is increasing the amount of genetic diseases also increases. Without intervention they might grow in size but still reduce in frequency. Once the population settles down to a set size (or begins to reduce) and competition for survival over resources we will then see those that are genetically less able to reproduce being the first subsets to be reduced and go extinct. In a population that is still growing, things are a little more complicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 6:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 08-20-2006 2:46 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 08-20-2006 3:00 PM Modulous has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 225 of 299 (341750)
08-20-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
08-20-2006 10:45 AM


Re: recap
Neutral mutations have no effect on the function of a gene. Mutations that cause even a slight disease effect such as you describe cannot be neutral, by definition.
Thank you, that makes more sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2006 10:45 AM crashfrog 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