Hi Faith,
Before we continue, could we reach an agreement about something important? This is from your previous message to me, but you included it in your opening except:
Faith in Message 185 writes:
But there is no actual EVIDENCE that ANY of them were the result of mutation...
It's really difficult to move the discussion forward if after presentations of evidence you come back with "There's no evidence" or "That's not evidence." If you disagree that what was described was really evidence, or if you don't see how the evidence supports the contention, or if you disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, or if you'd like to offer another interpretation of the evidence, then I think that'd be great.
I've done this Percy, over and over again, and I don't understand your repeating YOUR refrain. I've clearly disagreed that the evidence presented for the three supposed beneficial mutations is evidence for beneficial mutations, and I've clearly explained why it isn't -- they are obviously not beneficial, but destructive mutations. Except for the bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That's the only one. I've also offered the "other interpretation" you claim I have not offered, that they are simply further examples of the deterioration of life a creationist expects to see.
If you continue to have your same objection that I have not answered the claims to evidence, please let's end the discussion because there is nowhere for it to go and I refuse to take the rap for that.
Faith writes:
I do not see what this has to do with the idea that it is MUTATIONS that are the great agent of beneficial change.
I didn't say there were. You were looking for examples of beneficial mutations, so of course I was talking in the context of mutations. It is much more often the case the beneficial changes are the result of bringing together complementary alleles.
Then these are not novel, but the usual pattern of inheritance, by which differences that are already potential simply come to the fore on the genetic roulette wheel as it were, the way one gets eye color. Mendelian principles. Fine, this is what I would expect is the case rather than mutation. And such benefits may in fact be naturally selected.
But if we go beneath the gene level to the allele level and look at how each individual allele formed, except in those rare cases where the modern gene is very little changed from an ancient common ancestor, such as hox genes, we see that each gene is very different from that of the ancient common ancestor. In many cases the gene didn't exist in the ancient common ancestor, and so the entire gene had to have been constructed out of whole cloth from mutations.
How do you "see" this? You have the DNA of ancient ancestors handy? You "see" this for all genes? I don't know what you are saying.
The specific sequence of mutations can sometimes be ferreted out by comparisons with sequences from related species that shared common ancestors at points in time in the past. Most of the genes in modern genomes that we take for granted today as "normal" and therefore beneficial to the organism did not always exist.
How do you know this?
Only mutations can create new genes.
Yes, if they are truly created new, this would have to be the case. How do you know they are created new rather than simply built in alternative possibilities? It is simply the ToE that DICTATES that this is what is going on, that new genes are being created. There is, again, sorry to repeat myself, NO EVIDENCE for this, it's all theoretical.
Mutations range from simple nucleotide substitutions all the way up to chromosome duplication.
OK.
Population genetics can be discussed without reference to mutations it seems to me,...
True, but we *were* talking about mutations, although now I'm not so sure that you were aware of that. You were expressing doubt about the possibility of beneficial mutations spreading through a population.
I wouldn't express doubt about that. Where are you getting that? Anything truly beneficial is likely to spread. I've been doubting that there even IS such a thing as a beneficial MUTATION, or at least anywhere near enough of them to counter the negative mutations.
...and was a few decades ago, mutation being treated as a much more occasional event than it appears to be now, when it is regarded just about as the entire fuel source of evolution.
Uh, no.
I don't know if they've established any relative occurrence rates between changes driven by new mutations versus allele frequency changes and recombinations, but they are both significant factors. That we were talking about mutations, i.e., copying mistakes rather than allele remixing during reproduction, does not diminish the importance of allele remixing.
Fine. Good. How do you tell the difference? So far I haven't seen one example of a beneficial HUMAN mutation, nothing that can't be explained by allele mixing. Crash has a link to one he claims is but I haven't got to that yet. Maybe it is an example. In which we would now have ONE, just ONE, solid example of a beneficial mutation in human beings, as against a LONG list of genetic diseases all presumably brought about by mutations.
In the "olden days" it seems to me it was taken for granted that the basic genetic stuff, the genome, was just "there" and there was no problem talking about how it was reorganized in various ways through the concepts of population genetics even then, change in the frequency of alleles in a population and all that being the formula for evolution in any case. Now it seems to be taken for granted that it all GOT there by mutation, though this is purely theoretical (I'll get to the few supposed exceptions).
Faith, I just despair sometimes of you ever learning what evolution really says. Particularly difficult is that you sometimes think you know things that you don't. Your history of evolutionary theory is wrong. If you want to criticize how evolutionary theory has changed over time then at least learn about it first so you can criticize it for things that have actually happened. I'm not going to bother correcting the above, I've spent too much time on this message already and I'm still on your first paragraph, only 20 more to go.
Percy, just don't talk to me. That will solve all your problems. If you can't explain something to me in terms that really deal with my views, give up. Just stop criticizing me for what I'm saying if you can't give a clear answer to it.
Is it true or not that the observed errors in gene replication that are called mutations are associated either with a disease process or not associated with anything in particular, rather than with anything beneficial, except for these extremely few exceptions?
This is false.
OBSERVED errors. OBSERVED. Stuff you can point to in the DNA. Haven't seen this yet. All anybody has offered is a bunch of ASSUMED beneficial mutations, like Parasomnium's list, and your hypotheticals. And two known mutations that can hardly be called beneficial, the sickle cell and the missing wisdom teeth.
You gave a completely hypothetical example of an increase in muscle strength due to an identifiable alteration in a gene -- I think that was it -- but this was totally hypothetical, not observed. I'd have to regard it as a beneficial mutation if such a thing ever occurred, but nothing that beneficial, at least in human genetics, has been demonstrated to occur at the genetic level.
You complained about this already, and I already explained I wasn't trying to produce an actual example. I was trying to provide an illustration of the principle by using something easily understood, like muscle. If you don't like the explanation of the reason for the illustration then please pick on that next time, but please stop making me repeat the explanation.
I understand the PRINCIPLE. There are no ACTUAL EXAMPLES of the principle actually happening.
All the beneficial factors appear to be pre-existing, built into the genome. At least, again, this is the creationist assumption and it is a perfectly reasonable assumption, there being nothing to show it wrong.
The most significant indication that it is wrong is the way in which reproductive errors propagate through genomes of populations, population genetics again. It happens now, and analysis of the genes of organisms related at various levels indicates that it was happening in the past. Yes, certainly, God could have just created them the way there were 6000 years ago and then let the process run on from there, but in that case he placed misleading evidence in genomes indicating that the same process was going on for a lot longer than 6000 years.
I have no idea what you are saying, what you think I'm saying, what you think you are answering or anything. Obviously the miscommunication is so extreme that there is no point in continuing this.
This includes the greater visual acuity of the Patagonians you mentioned, for instance, which my version of creationism would explain as simply one genetic expression in the total human gene pool that got sorted out by migration of the people to Patagonia and spread through the population in subsequent generations. There is nothing to show that at any point a mutation for great visual acuity developed in a Patagonian that was selected because it was particularly beneficial in the Patagonian environment. That is all theory.
You've misremembered what this was an example of. The Patagonian example was in support of your contention that the human genome is accumulating more and more genetic defects. I agreed with you.
I don't think I grasped this at the time if you were actually agreeing with me. I'd be interested in checking that out except that by now I have lost interest in this whole frustrating exchange.
I'm tired of repeating myself, if you don't believe me and want the full context then you do the link-clicking and scrolling and searching.
I'm tired of repeating myself too, probably a lot tireder than you are. I have lost interest in this discussion. Obviously it is going nowhere.
The wisdom tooth example cannot possibly be taken seriously as a beneficial mutation, or even a neutral mutation since it has a definite effect in eliminating wisdom teeth. It gets all philosophically confused to try to figure out how the absence of such teeth MIGHT conceivably confer a benefit. It seems to me that if it involves the destruction of a gene, that ought to be the defining factor, and I can't see such destruction as a positive in any sense whatever.
I'll bet even you have no idea what you were trying to say in this paragraph. If you don't believe the wisdom tooth example was actually a beneficial mutation, then please address the specifics of my explanation about why it was beneficial. Again, you can do the link-clicking and scrolling and searching yourself. Normally I don't mind repeating explanations, but I'm beginning to believe you're ignoring arguments as a tactic to exhaust the people discussing with you.
No, I am repeating myself because you are acting like you don't get it. I'm tired of having to repeat myself too, VERY Tired. Your answers don't answer anything. "The specifics of your explanation" were hypothetical. Many explanations for why it MIGHT BE beneficial, all wildly hypothetical, have been given. I am SPECIFICALLY rejecting wild hypotheticals. So I'm saying simply that the LOSS of something just doesn't suggest anything beneficial at all, even if because of other losses and defects in a very roundabout way it ends up at least not a bad thing.
The same with sickle cell. How anybody can possibly consider it a beneficial development that a mutation that kills people happens also to protect against a disease that kills people is beyond me.
Please be more specific. This is just an argument from incredulity. What part of the explanation for sickle cell anemia do you have a problem with?
The part that tries to claim that something that causes pain and suffering and often kills people is a benefit.
No, I am not incredulous about anything here. I understand the principle. I can't regard it as a benefit. To call it a benefit requires something like a black sense of humor, low expectations -- but I think that's what the ToE does to one.
And those two are the only human examples of a supposed beneficial mutation so far offered, as opposed to a very long list of known disease-causing mutations as well as the "neutral" kind that remove perfectly normal functions. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics shouldn't even be considered in this context, and that leaves TWO supposed beneficial mutations that aren't beneficial by any meaningful use of the term.
This is the identical argument that you made before and that I answered before. Please tell me what problems you had with my answers. Please stop repeating your original arguments as if they had never been addressed.
Yes, I'm driven to repeat myself. I've answered everything you said. I have exactly the same experience of feeling you are ignoring my explanations. Obviously we are at an impasse and I don't want to continue at this point.
At the very least, I think this has to be regarded as a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for such phenomena than that given by the ToE.
You mean as science? Or as faith? If as science then you couldn't be more wrong. There is no scientific evidence for the creationist viewpoint that God did it.
As science. God did what? I'm talking about built-in genetic material. We don't have to discuss origins at this point. I am proposing this as an alternative explanation. yes without evidence, as an exact parallel with the evo explanation that also has no evidence. It is just as reasonable an explanation for the known phenomena.
Yes, but the point is that it hasn't been shown that there is any other kind of mutation than those that are harmful to one degree or another, including the ones that cause no appreciable disease process or functional loss as discussed above.
At best we're in the middle of still discussing beneficial mutations. This is just another "There's no evidence" claim that you periodically issue after evidence has been presented. Evidence has been presented, but you can't seem to get beyond repeating your original objections. Please address the arguments that have been made to you.
I've answered the arguments quite thoroughly over and over again. It isn't evidence. The supposed benefits aren't benefits, and the rest of the evidence isn't evidence, it's all hypotheticals that have no evidence for them but merely follow from the ToE. That's an answer, Percy, that's an answer. I am tired of repeating it.
END OF DISCUSSION, OK? No point in dragging this mess on.
™ Version 4.2
