The Nature of Mutations

quote:

---

PLG:
All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature.

---

Interesting. I was under the impression that genetic changes WERE mutations...Silly me.

quote:

---

Well you know then that you HAVE NOT heard a thing I said.

---

That is true. As I have already written, I do not usually even attempt to read your posts as they are so incoherent that I cannot follow them.

Repeated assertions - who would have thought?Let me guess - YOU think that genetic changes are not mutations also?

quote:

---

First, let me clarify that mutations aren't "side effects". Mutations that are neutral have no effect, and deleterious mutations have destructive effects upon the organism in which they occur. The "side effect" would be such as the SCA mutation, where the side effect is the protection against the disease. It is not that I don't "think" that there is such a thing as a purely beneficial mutation, it is that this is what genetics has observed and recorded.

---

Can you cite some up to date material in which what "genetics" has "observed and recorded" is shown to be in line with yout assertions?Thanks.

I would like to draw Phospho's attention back to this post from Quetzal. I, too, share his questions/concerns.

quote:

---

PGL:
What is NOT considered a mutation (except by evolutionary theorists, and that illegitimately) are any other genetic changes, including adaptaion and variational changes, because these have proven to be not by random chance events, but mediated by specific organismic mechanisms

---

So, the fact that enzymes will splice or excise certain segments of DNA renders the act not a mutation?Mutation is probably not the precise term for this (insertion/deletion - though deletions can be mutations), but does the locus at which the event takes place indicate whether or not the event was random?

quote:

---

Could you two take it to a different topic? We're trying to argue with PPG, here, and your respective fireworks don't augur well for topic continuity.
Although if three posts a week is the best we can get from PPG it's not going to be a fruitful debate, I fear...

---

I just made an observation. You may have noticed that I asked PGL a few questions and made some pertinent comments, unlike the vacuous back-patting from the resident crackpot.You want to complain, complain to him.added in edit:
I just read the rest of the thread thus far. Looks like I am right... again...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 05-13-2003]

Who would have thought...

Yes and I agree...

Hi Phospholipid,I politely refer you tothis post . It appears to have been lost in the fray.

quote:

---

Phospho:
A genetic change is not a mutation if it is mediated by the organism. Period.
A mutation (I have not yet looked over the entire site so I do not yet know what we have decided that your definition of a mutation is, so I will stick with mine until I get that far) is only a random copying error made during replication that mutation correcting enzymes failed to fix. Period.

​

That is not my definition, that is the facts.

---

Can you please cite or direct me to some of the facts that indicate organisms can and do mediate their own genetic changes?Surely, you must have several sources handy. Thanks.

quote:

---

I have already posted about population genetics, they mean nothing to evolution.

---

Now where I have seen this before?

Well, it didn't make any sense the first time I read it, either...

Dr.James Crow, geneticist/evolutionary biologist: "As for population genetics, I think it is important and in fact is at the center of our current understanding of evolution. Of course, evolution as a historical occurrence was quite well established before population genetics became established, ca 1930If you regard evolution as the history of form and function, population genetics has played a relatively minor role. But if you ask about the mechanisms of evolution, population genetics has been most importantPopulation genetics, building on the foundation of Mendelian heredity, has provided a quantitative theory of how natural selection, mutation, random drift, and population structure determine how evolutionary changes occur. Recently, population genetics along with molecular biology has demonstrated the way evolution occurs at the nucleotide levelIn short, I disagree with Dr. Davison. Contrary to what he says, I believe (along with most evolutionists) that population genetics has provided the mechanistic basis for evolutionary change. Therefore, rather than being irrelevant, it is at the center of current evolutionary theory.

[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]

http://www.[/b]/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000220-16.html#228