The Nature of Mutations

PG: The data says that all mutations that have an affect upon the organisms to which they occur, have deleterious effects, regardless of whether they also confer some degree of beneficial outcome.Pardon my intrusion. I don't have time to reread this entire thread, but it seems that you are denying that any purely benefical mutations are known. Is that your position? If so, I can provide examples. If that is not what you are saying, then pardon my interruption.FK

OK, I have read through a few more of your posts and see that you do believe there are no purely beneficial mutations. Answers in Genesis would certainly disagree with you, as they acknowledge that they do exist (they just declare that they are all decreases in information).Here is a list that was posted earlier today at NAIG: http://www.science.doe.gov/...
{Shortened display form of url, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...ay/creation/dup_favorable.html
U-M Web Hosting
Are Mutations Harmful?There are a number of purely beneficial mutations listed.FK[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-21-2003]

crashfrog: Here's an example that comes up a lot: bacteria that, on a nylon substrate, mutated to become able to digest mylon. (Well, only a few of them did. The rest died because there was nothing else to eat. Eventually the population consisted mainly of nylon-eating bacteria.) In doing so, they lost the ability to digest carbohydrates. (I don't have the link on hand, maybe somebody could post it?)http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

quote:

---

PG: The Milano mutation, this is not a purely beneficial mutation. The wild type of the protein which it affects produces HDL. The mutated form, apoA-1 Milano, destroys that capability, which is why those inflicted with the mutation had low levels of HDL.

---

FK: And because of the benefits of the modified protein, the low level of HDL are irrelevant. In other words, a person with this mutation is better off than without it. It is beneficial. The significance of HDL in this context is diminished. HDL prevents plaque buildup. The new protein does the job more effectively; hence the mutation is beneficial.Your logic is similar to the following. I have a slow computer that I use for process modeling. Eventually I get a much faster computer. Most people would describe this as beneficial, even if I discarded the slow computer. I can do my work much more quickly with the fast computer. Using your logic, this is not beneficial because I lost the function of the slow computer. In context, you would say that the change is only beneficial if I keep both the slow computer and the fast computer.

quote:

---

PG: If it had not had the beneficial side affect of acting as an anti-oxidant, those afflicted with this mutation would die early deaths due to such low levels of HDL.

---

FK: And if my aunt were a man, she’d be my uncle. If the mutation had not had a beneficial effect, then it would not be classified as a beneficial mutation. If the sole purpose of the mutation was to diminish HDL levels, then your point would be valid. Unfortunately for you, that was not the case.

quote:

---

PG: Culex Pipiens Mosquito did not originate the insecticide digesting enzymes via mutation, they already had them.

---

FK: Once more you are incorrect. From the article:

quote:

---

The mosquitoes actually digest the poison, using a suite of enzymes known as esterases. The genes that make these esterases are known as alleles B1 and B2.

---

And

quote:

---

The mosquitoes acquired B1 and B2 by two mutations. They then acquired the huge number of copies by duplication mutations.

---

And

quote:

---

Until 1984, California mosquitoes had neither B1 nor B2. They acquired all those copies in a single decade.

---

Which part of this are you having trouble with? The enzymes come from B1 and B2, which did not exist before 1984. They originated via mutation.

quote:

---

PG: RNASE1 AND RNASE1B genes in old world monkeys, these are not beneficial mutations. They are not random copying errors within the monkeys genome. The article even admitted that these changes were not random, but adaptational in nature. Such changes are incurred via genetic switches being turned on, enabling genes prevously not expressed to now be expressed. These are genetic changes, but they are not mutations. The information has always been there, just previously unexpressed.

---

FK: This is practically incomprehensible, and wrong to boot. There are two genes involved here, one which encodes for RNASE1 and one which encodes RNASE1B. The one which encodes RNASE1B came from a gene duplication and subsequent mutation of the one that encodes RNASE1. Now the colobines produce both enzymes. Other species of monkey do not. This allows the colobines to make use of leaves, an abundant food source if it can be digested. The function of RNASE1B allows them to efficiently digest the leaves. The mutation allowed them to adapt to a new diet of a more abundant food source.I note though that in your last statement you are starting to shift the goal posts. You aren’t talking about whether the mutations were beneficial, but you are trying to talk about information. Different subject. It is pretty clear to me, as it is to others, that you are merely playing semantics games to try and disqualify all of these mutations as beneficial.I can assure you that you are pretty much alone on this issue. The major Creationist organizations all acknowledge beneficial mutations.FK

Respectfully, I do have a life outside of this board and I should be allowed more than 3 hours to respond before you start awarding points.FK

That is pretty much precisely as I would have proposed it. If the base pairs in a gene are altered in any way in passing from a parent to the offspring, it has mutated.FK

I like that definition too. Of course mutations can take place with any cell division, but for the purposes of the debate the ones we are concerned with are those that are descended with modification from a parent.Incidentally, by my count the score (Message 58) is now:Score: Phospho 0, evolutionists 4FK

Yeah, that works for me too. Unfortunately, it looks like PG lit out of here once he figured out that the beneficial mutations argument was one he couldn't win.FK

PG: The mutation is a deleterious mutation because it deminishes the original purpose of the protein. Period. This causes the protein to malfunction and not produce HDL up to standard levels. It is a deleterious mutation. I did not deny that it has a beneficial side-effect. But nice try.FK: As others have pointed out, you certainly have an odd way of looking at mutations. If there is a mutation to a gene such that the organism benefits, this is not a beneficial mutation if any portion of the initial function was lost. As Crashfrog pointed out, you are making some unwarranted assumptions as to the meaning of original function. But I will play your game. What are the deleterious effects of this mutation? It certainly wasn’t the decrease in HDL levels, since the mutated protein is more effective at its job. High HDL levels are not needed. To be a deleterious mutation, it has to have a deleterious effect. To say that HDL levels are diminished is meaningless in the context that their importance is diminished. I guess the bottom line is: Would you like to have this mutation?2nd, let’s say you are correct. A mutation that changes the original function of a gene is deleterious. If we traced the mutation of a bacteria through all of the generations to human beings, we would find one deleterious mutation after another (based on your definition), because each mutation would have changed the original purpose of the bacterial genes. So according to you, it is possible to get from a bacteria to a man with nothing but deleterious mutations.PG: As for the rest of your post, see the previous posts on transposons and adaptational variants. Single genetic pieces or entire sequences turning on and off gene expression.FK: In what way does that apply to the mosquito mutation, which happened via gene duplication and subsequent mutations?PG: As for the "major" creationist organizations, I don't know, I haven't talked to any of them. But I bet that if we got down to the nitty-gritty, they would be agreeing with me rather than you.FK: In the grand scheme of things, yes. But whether or not some mutations are beneficial, they will certainly disagree with you. The evidence is simply irrefutable. I have a suggestion. Write to AIG and ask them if it is true that there are no beneficial mutations. Their response will be that there are beneficial mutations, but they will claim that they don’t add information (another falsehood).FK

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.FK: Darn, Mammuthus beat me to this. I have seen this debate style before. When presented with beneficial mutations, either assert:1. That they are not actually mutations,
2. That they were directed by THE DESIGNER,
3. That they must have some unknown harmful effect, or
4. That they caused the genome to lose information.Under no circumstances should you admit the possibility that a beneficial mutation may have occurred, or all may be lost.I have news for you, PG. Assertions are not evidence. Please support your statements above with something other than "because I said so". Your credibility is on the line.FK

PG: You are assuming evolution to be a fact, the very issue that we are discussing, therefore your entire argument presented here is null and void.FK: Ah, the old Fred Williams tactic of finding some minor nitpick and then trying to have the entire argument thrown out based on the nitpick.So let's rephrase just for you. IF evolution happened from single-celled organism to man, then based on your definitions it occurred primarily via deleterious mutations since the original functions of the genes would have been co-opted for other purposes. This should point out how silly your semantic argument is.Edited to add: The bottom line is that according to the way you have defined beneficial mutations, they are not required for evolution. Pretty much all evolution proceeds via deleterious mutations (based on your definition). This includes the line that would extend from single-celled organism to man.FK[This message has been edited by Fedmahn Kassad, 05-18-2003]

By the way, PG, if you recall I pointed out that the major Creationist organizations would all disagree with you regarding beneficial mutations. Here is Jon Safarti, of AIG, writing on the matter:

quote:

---

AiG has LONG pointed out that one should not deny beneficial mutations, but merely point out that evolution from goo to you via the zoo requires a HUGE number of information-GAINING mutations.

---

The linkGo down to the post by "Socrates" about 2/3 down the page for the rest of the discussion. "Socrates" is Jon Sarfati.FK{Shortened display form of link, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-19-2003]

PG: As far as education goes (some of you are going to love this, so I hesitate even saying it), I have studied biology texts but never had the money nor the time to take courses.FK: Believe it or not, most of us had already figured that one out.

Salty: Hang in there phospho. I agree with you entirely. saltyFK: You do? I thought your position was that evolution has taken place in the past, but has stopped. That's not PG's position at all. His position is no evolution.FK

Salty: You see sexual (Mendelian) genetics has nothing to do with evolution except to bring it to a screeching halt.FK: No matter how many times you say it, it is still not true. Sexual genetics is like a hand of poker. Sometimes your offspring draws a hand of junk, sometimes they draw three of a kind, and maybe every once in a while one draws a royal flush. Natural selection will preferentially discard the junk and allow the good hands to have more offspring, thus accumulating these genes in the POPULATION.Of course if you hadn't slept through Crow's class, you would know this.FK