Age and Down Syndrome?

Many? Have you read the Bible? How many women are mentioned as having lived hundreds of years?And even in Abraham's day, birthing children at an advanced age was not the ordinary occurrence. Remember how Isaac got his name?

This is just as far from the truth as Faith's position. Of course mutation can result in damage. Not all mutations are beneficial. Some are detrimental with respect to their effect on an organism's survival to produce and raise offspring.

Altering a gene so that it produces a harmful consequence to an organism is physical damage.

Your position is ridiculous. If you alter a gene so that it does not produce it's helpful function, you want to say that there is no genetic damage? What you are then saying is that there is no such thing as damage to the genome. In short, you are attempting to define damage in some narrow way so that mutations or any other changes to a gene are not damage. So if I a mutation made you sterile, that wouldn't be damaging, right?I suggest that you think through what you are saying and that you come up with a better argument. You cannot use a single example to prove that no mutations cause damage.

And what everyone else is telling you is that you are wrong, and that damage is the correct, and commonly applied terminology. That the terminology is in common use by everybody but you is readily apparent from the results of a few internet searches using 'genetic damage'.Further, making up some other name to call detrimental mutations that produce disfunction does not even address Faith's accusation anyway.Just because Faith is wrong does not mean that every silly counter argument is legit.

No, I would not call that damage, but again contrived examples do not prove anything because I don't claim that all mutations are damage.Let's imagine a mutation that produces an inheritable change where the organism has no legs at all. Or where the animal is born with a spinal cord that won't transmit signals to the legs. I would call that genetic damage and so would everyone else except you.

Right. Which means that when there is a discussion about genetic damage, you will pretend to have an issue while the rest of us discuss the topic using correct terminology.

Of course damage is negative. That's why it is used to refer to deleterious mutations. What does deleterious mean?Nothing untoward results from using the term damage in connection with mutations "causing damage or injury.Here we have one person who claims that all mutations are damage and another who answers by saying no mutations cause damage. Both claims are wrong.

What kind of argument is it to tell me what you 'have said'? You are no authority on the use of the English language.Yes you did say that and it's wrong. In fact you've already been provided with examples of damage resulting without the action of a human agent. Does the term 'brain damage' imply that someone hit you with a hammer? Does UV radiation not cause damage to your skin?And in fact, others have quoted you technical usage of the term damage in connection with the genome.Those are examples of how the term is used, and not merely me saying how I wish it were used. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course. In particular CS found his rock speeds up car example problematic for exactly that reason.But if a mutation is responsible for Down's Syndrome, I think the judgment on whether the result is deleterious has already been passed.

The idea that a human agent is needed came from your posts. Did you not say the following: Is there some kind of 'someone' that is not a human?But if you want to relax the requirement for damage to not require humans then you have no point at all. Mutations are often caused by chemicals like benzene or cigarette tar, ionizing radiation, or even physical trauma. So there is a subject for your future sentences. Your skin cells contain genetic information that can be affected by UV radiation. You don't have a clue what you are talking about do you?

'First, that wasn't your argument. It's a twisting of what AZPaul said.Secondly, all you have done here is simply restating your position that damage is the wrong word. The term damage applies perfectly well to deleterious mutations. Not only does it fit, it is used to talk about harmful changes in the genome. Even if you want to let the word damage apply only to caused events, many mutations are caused by the environment. It may well be that the majority of mutations, beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, are not spontaneous.lAs a rebuttal to Faith's position, your argument also fails. Whatever the label you will accept for bad mutations turns out to be, Faith position is that bad mutations accumulate and over time produce a bad genome. Everyone here knows why she is wrong, and the reason has nothing to do with the dictionary.

Are you prepared to argue against it or otherwise demonstrate that it is wrong? Or is it that you just don't like it?

My statement was that it may be that most mutations are not spontaneous. What is there me to prove? Nothing, since I did not make a positive statement that mutations are mostly caused. It is enough to know that common, ever present agents do frequently cause mutations. Here is some support for that statement:

quote:

---

Four classes of mutations are (1) spontaneous mutations (molecular decay), (2) mutations due to error prone replication by-pass of naturally occurring DNA damage (also called error prone translesion synthesis), (3) errors introduced during DNA repair, and (4) induced mutations caused by mutagens. Scientists may also deliberately introduce mutant sequences through DNA manipulation for the sake of scientific experimentation.

---

If you have a problem with my statement about something that 'may' be true, then you must have some reason to believe otherwise. That reason seems to be inexplicably tied to the conclusion you cannot support. In other words, your argument is circular. Mutations cannot be caused because if they were we could call those changes damage, but you don't like the word damage.I don't see any evidence or support that you have provided for any of your positions in this thread. You claim the dictionary is wrong without citing any source. You claim that terminology is wrong without citing any examples of the terminology being used in the way you suggest. And then you don't see to recall the silly stuff you've posted and insist that I point quote back your folly to you.You are dismissed. Go finish your high school project.

If there is a meaningful distinction between your rejecting the dictionary definition and saying that it is wrong, that distinction is not readily apparent to me.I've pointed out several times some support for using damage to refer to some mutations, and I've not once referred you to a dictionary. You have yet to provide any thing other than your own say so for the opposite proposition. Nonsense. At best damage implies causation when used as a transitive verb in a sentence and even then, intent is not required to cause damage. Accidents and negligence are enough. Inanimate objects as well as events can cause damage including mutations. And yes I did provide support for that.But more importantly, we are using damage as a noun to identify a result. No causation required.As a side note, your inability to see the inconsistency in your statements astounds me. You require intent but when I pin you down on the requirement for human involvement you back off. If you are not talking about a human having intent or doing the tampering, then what are you talking about? What does 'someone' mean if not a human. You've just pegged the irony meter. Even your denial requests a quote. That notwithstanding, here are a two more of your 'accidents'.From Message 60A request I granted, but one you never acknowledged.From Message 65. It does not ask directly for a quote, but it asks me to prove that you said what I attributed to some poster without identifying you. From you, Stan. It came from you. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.