The Nature of Mutations

Phospho's "rebuttal" to the RNASE mutation is in error. He misunderstands "adaptive" as meaning "non-random" rather than "beneficial". As his rebuttal rests on that error, it fails and the example remains unchallenged.

Adaption is used quire widely. In the case of the article at U-M Web Hosting
it is clearly used to express the idea that this mutation is beneficial and no more:"Our results suggest that this is an adaptation to the more acidic environment of the small intestine in colobine monkeys," says Zhang.THe ball is right back in your court.And am I right in thinking that you are a supporter of the ideas of Lee Spetner ? His followers tend to make the same errors as you in firstly misunderstanding the idea of "random mutations" (which means only that mutations are not directed in a way that automatically produces bebnfifical changes) and in assuming that if any mechanism is involved at all the mutations must be seen as non-random. Perhaps you woud like to explain why using a more error-prone replicase is better seen as producing non-random mutatiosn rather than a greater number of random mutations - in any sense.[Added by Edit] I have created a reply to show evidence that your understanding of "adaption" is in error.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-06-2003]

This is the Glossary entry for "Adaption" from Mark Ridley's _Evolution_(2nd Edition) - one of the leading undergraduate texts."Feature of an organism enabling it to survive and reproduce in its natural environment better than if it lacked the feature"So any beneficial mutaiton would be an adaption.

quote:

---

If the history of science has taught you anything, surely you know that science has been wrong on many occassions, and maintained that error ONLY because there was a vast number of scientists in that day and age who - based upon nothing more than emotional attatchment - kept the theory and ideals alive for their own agenda. Phlegistron (?) for example.

​

Adaptation is not due to mutation.

---

I notice that you are evading the point that your argument rested on misreading the article you referred to. And you do not even identify the supposed error in the science.

Your final point is a strawman. Adaption is explained mutation AND natural selection. Without a source of variation natural selection is powerless. Without natural selection there could not even be such a thing as a beneficial mutation. However a beneficial mutation is - by definition - an adaption.

quote:

---

I am not a supporter of anyone's "ideas", I am a supporter of the facts. And the facts dictate what is and what is not. A genetic change is not a mutation if it is mediated by the organism. Period.

---

I am not aware of any reason to think that that is anything other than your idiosyncratic idea. Why would a heritbable genetic change not be a mutation ?

quote:

---

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.

---

So it is your definition, but it is not your definition. If you can't even keep that straight in the course of a single paragraph then I am not about to accept your assertion that it is a fact.