Introduction to Genetics

Chimps have about 40 million places where their DNA sequence differs from our own. If changes to the human genome can only produce damage, then how can chimps get along just fine, and even thrive, with 40 million pieces of damage in their genome? As we move elsewhere in the animal kingdom we see even more differences from the human genome, and once again those species are thriving.Reality shows that genomes can be different without causing harm.

She doesn't think that chimps have 40 million places of damage relative to their "original ancestors".

Her argument is that changes to the human genome can only produce damage. The test for that is to see if genomes different than ours result in viable species. As it turns out, there are millions of species with genomes different than ours, and they are completely viable.Obviously, the human genome can mutate without resulting in non-viable individuals.

Welcome to Faitholution, where any term used by scientists is suspect because it implies that evolution is true, so she describes actual evolutionary processes but says that the terms are not appropriate ... hence subspecies and variability. Anything beneficial or neutral will be from hidden alleles from the original kind, anything deleterious will be mutations. ... show beneficial mutations that are not in previous genomes. Not that it will do any good ...Edited by RAZD, : ,,,

Odd you would think I or anyone thought otherwise.

"You can't prove that mutations do anything but damage DNA."--Faith

Within each of the kind\clades ... of course she needs to establish the root kind\clade ...

Genomes ARE different from kind to kind, and also through the processes that bring about subspecies.. Don't see what that has to do with mutations being destructive.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are claiming that changing a genome is destructive. I am showing that genomes that are different from each other are just fine. Reality shows that you are wrong. Genomes can change in ways that are not destructive.Also, until you have a way of objectively determining which species or subspecies belong to which kind it is a useless term.

But I'm not claiming that changing a genome is even what happens when mutations change genes. It's still the same genome, but with unhealthy elements, such as junk DNA which is probably mostly the result of mutations, just as human beings are human beings even if suffering from genetic disease. There IS in a sense many ways a genome changes that have nothing to do with mutations, most of it having to do with normal routes to the formation of new species/subspecies/races. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In reality, mutations change genomes. Are we talking about reality or not? Junk DNA is not unhealthy, first of all. If it was, it would be selected against. It isn't.Mutations that cause genetic diseases are selected against. This is why genetic diseases like hemophilia are not spreading through the population at rates consistent with drift.We also observe that each person is born with around 30 to 50 substitution mutations. Each person is not born with 30 to 50 genetic diseases.Obviously, the vast bulk of mutations are not deleterious. That is what reality shows us.

I don't mean that junk DNA is unhealthy in the sense that it causes disease, it is unhealthy in the sense that it represents a weakened genetic situation, being a lot of dead or half dead or nonfunctioning DNA that in former times was most likely protective of health in all kinds of ways. The junk DNA would not be selected against because it doesn't DO anything, it just occupies space in the genome like a cemetery.

I see a lot of claims, but zero evidence.

They don't change genomes in the absurd sense you were implying. However, there is an amazingly long list of genetic diseases and they do take their toll. The fact that such diseases are selected against is itself a toll on the human race for that matter, being the cause of death. I'm aware that most mutations are "neutral" in that they don't do anything observable at all. However, since I regard them as a disease process in themselves, a destructive process, a mistake in the system, it seems likely that that so many of them lurking in each person's body represents some degree of compromise of the system's healthy function that isn't observable, but could accumulate over generations until it is observable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence is really mostly in what I hear from you all, about the LACK of evidence for beneficial mutations, plus the long long list of known genetic diseases. In reality YOU don't have any evidence for your belief that mutations are the source of normal alleles.ABE: The claims otherwise are just a statement of my model, which is based on the expectation that life is deteriorating rather than evolving.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.