Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,566 Year: 4,823/9,624 Month: 171/427 Week: 84/85 Day: 1/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 299 (342219)
08-22-2006 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by nator
08-21-2006 11:17 PM


Re: wisdom teeth wisdom
I think I'll wait until someone else gives me the information, if you don't mind, as I simply don't enjoy our exchanges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by nator, posted 08-21-2006 11:17 PM nator has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9005
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 272 of 299 (342221)
08-22-2006 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
08-22-2006 12:03 AM


Repeating ad infinitum
But again, how do you know it's a mutation and not just a built-in genetic option of low frequency in the population, a natural option that comes to the fore under heavy selection pressure or some accidental circumstances?
This has been explained over and over. It is a simple example of what we are talking about.
There is no place for this magic genetic potential to hide. This is understood in many of the cases discussed. In the nylon bacteria case it is easy to show. This has already been explained to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 12:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 1:03 AM NosyNed has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 273 of 299 (342222)
08-22-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
08-22-2006 12:03 AM


No, sickle cell does not stand. This just can't be an example of a beneficial mutation in a system which supposes that all the adaptations of life arose by mutations. You can't claim that all life has been made up of diseases combating diseases or life would never have existed.
That was weird.
Formally, your argument seems to be:
You say A is an example of X.
A has property Y
Not all examples of X can have property Y
Therefore, A is not an axample of X.
By parallel reasoning, an aardark is not an example of an organism, since it eats ants, and life could not exist if all organisms ate ants.
Still, if you don't like sickle-cell, how about the gene for lactose tolerance in adults, as found a pastoralists and their descendants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 12:03 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 274 of 299 (342223)
08-22-2006 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by NosyNed
08-22-2006 12:57 AM


Re: Repeating ad infinitum
This has been explained over and over. It is a simple example of what we are talking about.
Well I guess I'm just dense. Maybe you could explain it again just in case maybe it will get through this time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by NosyNed, posted 08-22-2006 12:57 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by NosyNed, posted 08-22-2006 1:08 AM Faith has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9005
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 275 of 299 (342227)
08-22-2006 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Faith
08-22-2006 1:03 AM


New alleles
In the very controlled case of the nylon bacteria (as in the cases of antibiotic resistance). The population is grown by the natural cloning of a single individual. The population then does not contain the particular genetic sequence of interest.
However, bacteria (paricularly) do not reproduce very accurately and very quickly all sorts of new sequences arise. It is shown that it was not anywhere in the originals.
Nowadays it is possible to determine the exact sequence and the change that happened. We know that these kind of changes can occur in the reproduction process.
There is no where for the built in diversity to hide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 1:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 1:17 AM NosyNed has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 299 (342230)
08-22-2006 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by NosyNed
08-22-2006 1:08 AM


Re: New alleles
In the very controlled case of the nylon bacteria (as in the cases of antibiotic resistance). The population is grown by the natural cloning of a single individual. The population then does not contain the particular genetic sequence of interest.
However, bacteria (paricularly) do not reproduce very accurately and very quickly all sorts of new sequences arise. It is shown that it was not anywhere in the originals.
Nowadays it is possible to determine the exact sequence and the change that happened. We know that these kind of changes can occur in the reproduction process.
There is no where for the built in diversity to hide.
OK. Thank you. Now would you please bear with me while I ask what is no doubt another very annoying question? Because this other possibility also frequently comes to mind.
How do you know that the novel sequence is not somehow a predictable if rare possibility in the process of reproduction? That is, how do you distinguish a real mutation, a "mistake," a "broken" sequence, etc., from a mathematically rare but nevertheless chemically potential sequence, which would be normal chemically and mathematically speaking, though very rare? If it happened to be the only one that survived a certain selection pressure, then it would proliferate.
I mean, this whole genetic thing happens on a string of chemicals which in different combinations have different effects. Some of the changes along these sequences I would think would simply be predictable given the nature of the chemical bases and their possible combinations. I hope this question makes sense.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by NosyNed, posted 08-22-2006 1:08 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by NosyNed, posted 08-22-2006 1:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 278 by NosyNed, posted 08-22-2006 1:42 AM Faith has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9005
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 277 of 299 (342232)
08-22-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
08-22-2006 1:17 AM


predictable mutations?
How do you know that the novel sequence is not somehow a predictable if rare possibility in the process of reproduction? That is, how do you distinguish a real mutation, a "mistake," a "broken" sequence, etc., from a mathematically rare but nevertheless chemically potential sequence, which would be normal chemically and mathematically speaking, though very rare? If it happened to be the only one that survived a certain selection pressure, then it would proliferate.
Your problem here is using words like "mistake" or "broken" in this context.
It is, as you say, perfectly predictable that there will be novel sequences from the reproductive process. It is by it's nature imperfect. It is even clear that some changes will be more likely to occur than others by the nature of the chemistry.
But this is exactly what mutations are. They are changes that produce novel sequences. One may label them mistakes if we think that the gene reproducing process MUST produce perfect copies. It is clear that this would be a VERY BAD thing. These "mistakes" are what makes it possible for ongoing populations of organisms to deal with environmental changes (of all types). The overall population doesn't care that many billions of individuals die because they have changes that are not useful. It is a successful population because it contains these "mistakes". With that view they are not "mistakes" they are simply trails that weren't such a good idea at the current time and place. When they arise again and again they may well happen in the right time and place.
It is fair to apply the word "broken" to some (when a gene ceases to function for example). However, this is looking at it from our own immediate and anthrocentric point of view. "Broken" or a "mistake" is simple a change that happened to come along in an environment for which it was less suitable.
Antibiotic resistance is "broken" or a "mistake" (generally, I don't know about all cases) in an environment for which the antibiotic is not present. (One suggestion for preserving useful antibiotics is to stop using a specific one for some years. The mutations conferring resistance apparently are less "fit" in this environment and would be selected against thus producing a complete population of non-resistant individuals (other than the rare, now-and-again, new mutation bearing individual). It resets the clock on the development of resistance.)
However, in todays antibiotic soaked environment the mutation is not a "mistake" or "broken" at all. It is a darned good and useful trick that has been stumbled over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 1:17 AM Faith has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9005
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 278 of 299 (342233)
08-22-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
08-22-2006 1:17 AM


Predicatable
I mean, this whole genetic thing happens on a string of chemicals which in different combinations have different effects. Some of the changes along these sequences I would think would simply be predictable given the nature of the chemical bases and their possible combinations. I hope this question makes sense.
The question makes perfectly good sense. It is just a detail that isn't all that important in the big picture we are discussing.
Not all mutations can happen as easily as others. That doesn't change the fact that they arise and produce novel sequences. That is the point of the current discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 1:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 3:28 AM NosyNed has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 279 of 299 (342237)
08-22-2006 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
08-22-2006 12:03 AM


More Callipyge details
The "beautiful buttocks" gene sounds to me like a gene that was probably predominant in wild sheep -- for strength in climbing steep mountains as you say -- gradually lost in domesticity but still lurking in very low frequencies in populations of domestic sheep. This gene simply found expression in one population after years of dormancy in domestic populations. It's merely assumed, as per the ToE, that it was originally a mutation.
Once again you just make up an ad hoc, totally irrelevant explanation with absolutely nothing to support it. Did you look at any of the actual research on Callipyge before coming up with your explanation?
In this case the founder of the line, the ram 'Solid Gold', is known and has been genotyped as being mosaic for the Callipyge mutation, meaning that only some of his cells carried the mutation. This mosaicism, both in the somatic and germ line, makes it virtually certain, in the absence of some previously unknown mechanism, that the mutation originated during the embryonic development of 'Solid Gold'. The specifc mutation for 'Callipyge' is not actually within a protein coding gene at all, so it in no way 'damages' or 'breaks' any gene. What the mutation, a single nucleotide substitution (Smit et al., 2003), actually does is prevent the methylation of a number of genes around it causing them to be expressed post-natally (Murphy etal., 2006).
There are also no readily apparent downsides to the Callipyge allele. While there is a minute reduction in the ovulation rate it has no significant effect on conception rates, fecundity, maternal ability, or ewe longevity (Freking and Leymaster, 2006).
Interestingly homozygotes for the Callipyge allele do not have the Callipyge phenotype. I haven't finished reading the paper which has a model explaining this anomaly, I might update this post when I have.
I really think you need more than wishful thinking to explain this one away Faith.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 12:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 3:20 AM Wounded King has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 280 of 299 (342243)
08-22-2006 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Wounded King
08-22-2006 2:59 AM


Re: More Callipyge details
I DIDN'T "explain it away." I accepted it as a beneficial development and I didn't describe it as broken or damaged. I simply postulated that it was a rare but probably not truly novel development in sheep.
I got the mechanism wrong apparently, since it didn't arise as a merely low frequency allele in the sheep population, as I guessed, but I've also been trying to think about the chemistry involved in these gene changes, along lines that came up in the above discussion with NosyNed. Some of this appears to be simply chemically predictable, makes functional useful proteins etc., some combinations more rare than others but perfectly functional.
I'm just trying to get a sense of how some can be functional and some cause disease or even neutral effects, since the theory that evolution couldn't care less doesn't do it for me.
Hey, maybe this one is a novel beneficial change. I haven't said such can't exist, I just haven't seen it yet except in bacteria, and the claims for the supposed abundance of these just falls flat.
And as for reading the research, usually I can't follow it so I have to rely on you guys to digest it for me. Sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 2:59 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 4:48 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 281 of 299 (342245)
08-22-2006 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by NosyNed
08-22-2006 1:42 AM


Re: Predicatable
That doesn't change the fact that they arise and produce novel sequences. That is the point of the current discussion.
Well, but it is a question in my mind what "novel" means if it's a predictable chemical combination, however rare. Sounds like it has to be a normal part of the reproductive system, as normal as a very low-frequency allele already existing in the population. If it can arise at any time, it could have arisen at other times too when circumstances were right for it. That's not novelty, not the introduction of something new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by NosyNed, posted 08-22-2006 1:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 282 of 299 (342259)
08-22-2006 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
08-22-2006 3:20 AM


Re: More Callipyge details
I simply postulated that it was a rare but probably not truly novel development in sheep.
In what way is this not precisely 'trying to explain it away' given that it was given specifically as an example of a de novo mutation.
De novo is the relevant biological term rather than novel since a mutation need not be singularly unique to have been newly generated in any particular instance.
You seem now to be shifting to claiming that unless a mutation can be shown to have never arisen before then it can't be considered, which is clearly a completely impossible thing to show and is also completely irrelevant.
These things are only predictable stochastically. It isn't like predicting the flight of a projectile but like predicting the behaviour of particles in Brownian motion.
Hey, maybe this one is a novel beneficial change. I haven't said such can't exist, I just haven't seen it yet except in bacteria, and the claims for the supposed abundance of these just falls flat.
Can you show where you have been given a specific claim for their abundance and it has fallen flat. Other than Parasomnium's quickly retracted guesstimate I can't bring one to mind. Perhaps you just mean that they have failed to convince you.
And as for reading the research, usually I can't follow it so I have to rely on you guys to digest it for me. Sorry.
Thats perfectly reasonable, and some of the research isn't freely available anyway, but given your complete unfamiliatrity with the research might it not be a better idea to withhold comment in favour of asking questions to increase your understanding until you have comprehended the Reader's Digest version rather than going off half cocked with your own wild guesses?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 3:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 4:54 AM Wounded King has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 283 of 299 (342261)
08-22-2006 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Wounded King
08-22-2006 4:48 AM


The Solid Gold sheep
I simply postulated that it was a rare but probably not truly novel development in sheep.
In what way is this not precisely 'trying to explain it away' given that it was given specifically as an example of a de novo mutation.
OK, then I'm trying to explain it away. I haven't seen that it is truly de novo, or I mean novel, if that means absolutely new, and of course I'm biased in the direction of assuming it's not until it's conclusively demonstrated that it is.
De novo is the relevant biological term rather than novel since a mutation need not be singularly unique to have been newly generated in any particular instance.
You seem now to be shifting to claiming that unless a mutation can be shown to have never arisen before then it can't be considered, which is clearly a completely impossible thing to show and is also completely irrelevant.
Well, this may not be a big difference to you, but to me it is. An absolutely novel gene sequence -- if it's demonstrably beneficial -- demonstrably, not merely hypothetically -- and if there were truly the great abundance of these the ToE appears to assume -- would be strong support for the ToE -- which after all postulates that all life forms arose in some similar fashion, and that means many truly novel traits must be a real occurrence. A few of them wouldn't be particularly strong support, but many of them probably would, because they'd offer a basis for the development of truly new forms from old, rather than the usual variations on the Kind. A merely rare occurrence of a particular gene sequence, one that can be assumed to have occurred before, implies a built-in or designed-in basic potential, something that throws up predictable if rare variations from time to time to see if the environment will bite as it were, that is, favor its spread in the population, or select it out as an unfavorable trait -- much the way a very low-frequency allele that has always been present in a population would behave. This is perfectly compatible with creationist assumptions, whereas a great many truly brand-new useful mutations would not be.
These things are only predictable stochastically. It isn't like predicting the flight of a projectile but like predicting the behaviour of particles in Brownian motion.
But for purposes of the distinction that is crucial for me this won't do. At least if it can't be pinned down more specifically then you can't claim that it supports the ToE assumptions. It doesn't support anything in particular until its character and incidence are more predictable.
Hey, maybe this one is a novel beneficial change. I haven't said such can't exist, I just haven't seen it yet except in bacteria, and the claims for the supposed abundance of these just falls flat.
Can you show where you have been given a specific claim for their abundance and it has fallen flat. Other than Parasomnium's quickly retracted guesstimate I can't bring one to mind. Perhaps you just mean that they have failed to convince you.
Percy in Message 222 says
quote:
I earlier explained how beneficial mutations are inevitable
and in Message 182 says
quote:
Beneficial mutations are ubiquitous. Practically every gene in the human genome (and of all life in general) is the beneficiary of beneficial mutations, tons of them.
For this ubiquity all he could offer was the usual hypothetical scenario based on the assumptions of the ToE.
And as for reading the research, usually I can't follow it so I have to rely on you guys to digest it for me. Sorry.
Thats perfectly reasonable, and some of the research isn't freely available anyway, but given your complete unfamiliatrity with the research might it not be a better idea to withhold comment in favour of asking questions to increase your understanding until you have comprehended the Reader's Digest version rather than going off half cocked with your own wild guesses?
I have no way of judging what version I have comprehended. If I have some idea of how a process works I simply try it out. This may be frustrating for the scientists here but I don't know what else to do. I'm a creationist, I'm not going to be thinking like an evolutionist, I'm always going to be looking for any evidence that supports my view and trying to unravel the evolutionist claims that they already have it all sewn up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 4:48 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 7:09 AM Faith has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 284 of 299 (342277)
08-22-2006 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Faith
08-22-2006 4:54 AM


Re: The Solid Gold sheep
I'm not sure how we can be on post 284 of a thread more than a year old and you still seem to have no more idea what you are talking about vis a vis mutations than you did with message 1.
OK, then I'm trying to explain it away. I haven't seen that it is truly de novo, or I mean novel, if that means absolutely new, and of course I'm biased in the direction of assuming it's not until it's conclusively demonstrated that it is.
As you say, you are biased towards constructing insane and impossible requirements. How can you possibly prove that a mutation has never arisen before without having the complete genomes of every animal that ever lived? And what possible relevance would this have to whether evolution occurs or not?
A merely rare occurrence of a particular gene sequence, one that can be assumed to have occurred before, implies a built-in or designed-in basic potential, something that throws up predictable if rare variations from time to time to see if the environment will bite as it were, that is, favor its spread in the population, or select it out as an unfavorable trait -- much the way a very low-frequency allele that has always been present in a population would behave. This is perfectly compatible with creationist assumptions
What you have just said, bar the 'designed-in' part, is almost exactly what random mutation and natural selection is. But as I pointed out the mutations are only predictable in a stochastic manner.
the arising of truly novel traits or structures would need to be based upon the compounding of such mutations. Therefore a gene duplication may be a rare but repeated event, but after that event selection on those copies operates differently allowing neo and sub functionalisation to occur by way of mutations which would have severely compromised the organism if it only had one functional copy of the gene.
So while all of the mutations involved, i.e. the gene duplication and the domain or sequences changes affcting function, may all occur sporadically inependently the changes in domain or sequence are able to persist only subsequent to the gene duplication.
It is completely distinct from a low frequency allele because for great stretches of time it isn't there at all. you seem to be sliding down to some sort of hidden variable form of intelligent design, like Randman and Syamsu seem to hold bolstered by the wackiness of QM, which is philosophically tenable but scientifically has no value at all.
But for purposes of the distinction that is crucial for me this won't do. At least if it can't be pinned down more specifically then you can't claim that it supports the ToE assumptions. It doesn't support anything in particular until its character and incidence are more predictable.
The whole point is that specific mutations aren't predictable!!! That is why it is called random mutation!!! ( Oh dear, excessive exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!) So to support TOE we need to show that random mutations in a population are deterministically predictable? I think we have just gone through the looking glass and are operating on Carrolline logic. I think rather that since you wish to show that the mutations are something other than random then that is what your side of the argument needs to show.
Percy writes:
I earlier explained how beneficial mutations are inevitable
You yourself seem to have accepted this now, otherwise why are you reframing the argument in terms of 'truly' novel mutations? Since mutations occur randomly some of them in some environment are inevitably going to produce a benefit to their organisms reproduction. And some of them have as we have seen.
quote:
Beneficial mutations are ubiquitous. Practically every gene in the human genome (and of all life in general) is the beneficiary of beneficial mutations, tons of them.
  —Percy
For this ubiquity all he could offer was the usual hypothetical scenario based on the assumptions of the ToE.
Well as I have pointed out given the fact that DNA sequencing has only been viable for a little over half a century and that human generation intervals are estimates as between 25 and 30 years at most we could have information on around four generations at best. Consequently humans are a poor species to study for this sort of thing.
The sort of levels of proof you seem to require are totally unrealistic and no actual science will convince you since all the proofs you desire seem to require either a time machine or full time genomic screening of huge human populations. Perhpas with the rise of cheaper genomic screening the second of these will one day be a reality and we will capture many more de novo mutations, although it would take many generations for reliable estimations of fitness. I wonder what rabbit hole you will find to hop down should that day come.
Once again it rest on what level of assumption is reasonable given the evidence we have. Percy's conclusion that all the positively selected genes are the result of de novo mutations at some point in the history of life is not generally directl demonstrable scientifically but it is a perfectly reasonable assumption consistent with everything we know about biology and genetics.
I'm a creationist, I'm not going to be thinking like an evolutionist, I'm always going to be looking for any evidence that supports my view and trying to unravel the evolutionist claims that they already have it all sewn up.
But if you don't understand the claims in the first place your attempts at unravelling just look like sheer ignorant bloody mindedness because you are inevitably addressing straw men based on your own misunderstandings. That is why people are consistently reccommending you to familiarise yourself with the basic science, because at the moment you don't really seem to have even a basic idea of how the processes of mutation and evolution are thought to work. There are some really excellent biology textbooks available in full online at the pubmed bookshelf.
You obviously aren't stupid Faith but given that people have been asking you to familiarise yourself with some of the fundamentals of these issues for years you do seem to be trying for wilful ignorance. You don't have to think like an evolutionist but if you tried to think like a scientist it might help, even if it is an effort. Alternatively I could try and think like Humpty Dumpty if you like, but I'm not sure it would benefit the level of discussion.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 08-22-2006 4:54 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by nator, posted 08-22-2006 8:32 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 285 of 299 (342283)
08-22-2006 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
08-21-2006 4:38 PM


Re: beneficial
I'm aware of the long list of genetic diseases, and the oddness of being given only two strange contenders for beneficial mutations on the other side, this wisdom tooth thing and this sickle cell thing, both of which I have trouble categorizing as anything but negative no matter what secondary benefits they may also confer.
You now have more than two strange contenders. You also have been given a reason as to why single beneficial mutations are much less noticable than single negative mutations if you wish to make a comment on that.
They ASSUME the mutation part of the story.
If the genes weren't inherited from the parents, would you agree it must be novel?
The actual fact of a mutation I guess just can't be shown at this point, it CAN only be assumed.
Apparantly it can if the mutation has a negative impact. You said so yourself. Why do you not accept examples which have a beneficial effect?
In other words, in a certain sense mutation is ALWAYS happening to genes, with every sexual combination, but in this case mutation is the normal way genes are shuffled, rather than the introduction of something novel.
This isn't mutation, and geneticists would not get the terms confused. If, somehow one geneticist did get the terms confused, his peers would not permit his paper to be published.
Evolutionists must ALWAYS start from the assumption that the basic stuff of life was brought into being by complex genetic processes happening frequently all along the way, so that mutations are just assumed to be the original cause of any trait whatever -- and Mendelian genetics simply operates to shuffle these traits once mutation has brought them into being, or something roughly like that. Percy said I'm wrong about this, but what else can you all be thinking?
I'm not sure what complex genetic processes you refer to. But genetics is a complex subject...even meiosis and sexual recombination is a complex procedure when you look at what is happening.
Mutations aren't assumed to be the original cause of any trait, mutations are one of the mechanisms proposed by the theory. As with all the mechanisms of the theory they can be observed, tested and replicated. Since we are not in a lab at the moment, obviously we can't observe, test and replicate mutations so it may appear like we are 'assuming' they happened but we are just relying on the hard work of those that did the observing, testing and replications.
From what we have observed/tested/replicated we can make a judgement... if basically all genes were the result of mutations et al then we'd be able to make some predictions about things we should see, the extent of differences in certain genes between related and less reltated species. We make those predictions, we find they are right. Either this is coincidence or the theory provides a good explanation.
it appears to be a malfunction rather than genetic business as usual
Genetic business as usual includes mutations. Mutations occur at a certain frequency, this has been observed and it has been tested.
On the other hand, I ALWAYS start with the creationist view that the basic stuff of life is just There, a given, and that changes are either built-in genetic variations along Mendelian lines, such as shufflings of dominant-recessive genes and no doubt many others I don't know much about, OR they are these mistakes called mutations, which alter some "normal" pattern of protein-making functions of genes, and it's hard for me to think of these as anything but a bad thing.
It may be difficult for you to think of these things as anything but a bad thing, but that is your problem. Plenty of other people can see why not having wisdom teeth or cardio-arterial disease is a good thing.
Some of them seem to be simply normal potentials that are already in the population left over from the original gene pool, rather than mutations, but I don't know what criterion could be applied to tell the difference.
So how on earth can you say they 'seem to be...' if you have no criteria to say that? Actually they seem to be novel mutations according to the rigorous testing standards applied by science. There is a criteria, its been shown to work, it has been tested thousands of times, replicated and its predictions have borne out. You have decided to ignore it because you are not happy with the results of these tests. You still somehow manage to say that something seems to be x without any criterian for determining how one can determine if something seems to be x.
But once the conversation has gotten to the level of asking what a mutation really is I think it has to end because I can't follow if it gets too technical and the fact that we operate from completely different basic assumptions just adds to the difficulty.
Mutations can be detected, they can be tested against known models of genetics. Assumptions in science are always put forward as predictions. 'If our assumption is true, then we should expect to see x'. If we don't see x our assumption is false. Otherwise the strength of our confidence in our assumption grows.
Mutations are really easy to define. They are errors in the copying process of DNA. The ones that really matter for evolution happen in the germ line, or to be simple - the sex cells.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 08-21-2006 4:38 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