The Nature of Mutations

quote:

---

changes in gene expression, from inactivated to activated sites. Nothing more.

---

So if there was a specific example of a mutation that was not there to be activated but occured by chance and that mutation confered benefit then you'd be wrong in your assertions?Just to clarify: You're saying that all beneficial mutations are a result of a gene activation? But you will agree that there are "real" mutations (that is genetic changes which were not there at all before)?What stops the "real" mutations from ever being beneficial?
What causes the gene to be activated when needed?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-12-2003]

quote:

---

Mutations that confer "beneficial" effects upon the affected organism are still deleterious mutations. The fact that they may in some small way give an organism some degree of solice in its environment does not change the fact of the nature of the mutation.

---

Your example of the sickle cell mutation is one which has both deleterious effects and beneficial ones. OK.Are you saying in the above that if there was any mutation that didn't have the deleterious side effect that the sickle cell mutation does that it would still not be "beneficial"? How could you say that?Or do you mean that you don't think there can be any such mutation that while beneficial don't also have some deleterious effect?

Could you try again? I don't seem to be smart enough or have enough command of the English language to make any sense whatsoever of your post.

I think it is possible to say some specific mutations are deleterious without any reference to the environment.Remember that some large fractions of all pregnancies spontaniously miscarry. If a mutation is behind a terminated pregnancy then I think it is deleterious independently of the environment it doesn't get to see.

quote:

---

Does that make any sense?

---

Yes, I think so. Looked at that way.It can be abstracted further I supose. The mutation is simply a change in a code. The code is meaningless without the environment to read it. So it all comes down to the interaction of the code and the environment.

Why thank you. And I'm new here.But seriously, that's only one way to look at it. The "environment" of the cellular machinery that the code must survive in is pretty stringent.I don't remember the specific ones but I believe there are genes that are common to all of us (right back to bacteria). These control the cellular division and such if I remember correctly. These seem to be very locked in as any changes would break them and therefore be "deleterious". As the environment becomes more stable and more stringent then any change is deleterious. In an environment with lots of variation and lots of change then there is room for more mutations to find value.Hmmm I'm not sure how much sense that made.

quote:

---

There is tremendous variety in all species and the so-called proofs of evolutionists are what I believe to be mere variations, or minor changes within the same species.

---

Are you saying that there are no new species?

quote:

---

Billions of living organisms and fossils have given us absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show the slightest tendency to evolve out of the original kind to which each belongs.

---

And what are those original "kinds"? And what is the barrier between them?

quote:

---

The TOE must prove Transmutation- that being a change in nature, substance, form, and alteration of essence by a slow and gradual process of mutation from one species to another, and from the lower to the higher. TOE just cannot find a way to do this, or find existing proof that it has happened, and without a change OF species there can be no evolution.

---

What would you take as evidence for this? What would the minimum be that you would require? Do I have to see a reptile change into a bird in one generation in front of your eyes?

quote:

---

Since reproduction is a prior condition to evolution, it Cannot be a product of it. This fact and the logical neccessity for the power of continued reproduction is a significant stumbling block to TOE. The power of reproduction is Not in the embryo, but only in the mature parent. Can an egg produce an egg? No. Can an egg improve upon itself? No. Improvement can only come in and through the mature form. Therefore, if life needs the mature form first, where does that leave us?? Quite a dilema for TOE indeed.

---

And what does this have to do with anything?

quote:

---

Original Kinds?... Well, anything from a molecule to a Human being- with close to 3,000,000 different species, take your pick.

---

So you take a kind as being equivalent to species? So there were more than 3,000,000 kinds on the ark. Is that correct?
And if a new species arose you'd be wrong. Is that correct?
By this I mean any living thing which was viable in itself but could not interbreed with species which had been ancestral to it.

quote:

---

Now, the barrier between them?... A scientifically proven inherent failure to be able to transmutate into another species.

---

Oops, this statment is invalid in itself without outside reference. You're saying that a negative has been "proven". Aside from that not finding an example does not demonstrate a barrier. Let's pretend there weren't any "transmutations" into "another species". That doesn't explain why. I asked you why it can't happen. What is the genetic barrier which makes it impossible?

quote:

---

Evidence?... The same as you. Any shred at all! Which we've yet to see. Given the above statement however, I believe no generation will ever see evidence to turn TOE into Scientific fact.

---

So if a new speices arose that would be evidence?If a fossilized form (or preferably a series of them) that showed characteristics of one higher taxa and another mixed together that would be a "shed" of evidence.If the genomes of species (and higher taxa) which is where your barrier would have to be were closly related without any barrier visible then that would be evidence?In each of the above, if you say it wouldn't be evidence please give reasoning to support your position.No I don't know what you mean. I've assumed I know what people mean a lot of times and found out that just gets confusing. As best as I can tell you are confusing the origin of life with evolution. Will you confuse quantum physics with evolution next?{Fixed one quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-14-2003]

quote:

---

Ark ? Did I metion an Ark in my post ? Please Ned, stay on track.

---

Oops, pardon me. Maybe you could tell me where the species came from then?

quote:

---

Now back to Evolution- It's the Law of Sterility that stands guard at the far frontiers of each species to guard against transmutation, and in fact protects the integrity of each individual species. It's just there, period. Thats your barrier

---

So if an asexually reproducing organism changed from one generation to the next the "Law of Sterility" will somehow stop it from reproducting?I asked about what you would accept as evidence. Please elaborate. It is possible for a new species to arise. One that is separated from it's ancestral species by the so called "law of sterility" you know.
While you're at it please give some more detail on exactly what the "law of sterility" is and who formulated it first. A reference or two would be nice.

quote:

---

There's no confusion whatsoever on my part Ned. As I said, TOE is a speculative, bankrupt PHILOSOPHY that thinks it's using science to further establish itself, when in fact day by day science is quickly clearing a space on the shelf for it.

---

But I offered a guess as to what you might be talking about in the original paragraph. You haven't told me what you were saying. So you now say you weren't confusing the origin of life issue with evolution. I've demonstrated that I don't know what you are getting at. You assertion of the quote above doesn't contain any meaningful information. It is a statement of your unsupported opinion.Go back and clarify the original paragraph please.
Here is it in case you've forgotten.

quote:

---

Since reproduction is a prior condition to evolution, it Cannot be a product of it. This fact and the logical neccessity for the power of continued reproduction is a significant stumbling block to TOE. The power of reproduction is Not in the embryo, but only in the mature parent. Can an egg produce an egg? No. Can an egg improve upon itself? No. Improvement can only come in and through the mature form. Therefore, if life needs the mature form first, where does that leave us?? Quite a dilema for TOE indeed.

---

quote:

---

Do you really think that these bacteria evolved to be able to "eat" nylon in only a few short generations?

---

Are you suggesting otherwise? My reading of this research suggests this:
1) The genetic changes that produce the nylon digesting capabilities are known. They are exactly a one unit addition witch shifts the code.
2) They are not present in the preceeding bacteria. It is an easy random mutation to get to it however.
3) In the environment of the experiment the mutation is beneficial.What part do you disagree with?

Hey, don't worry about the mid game score! It's the score when the whistle blows that counts.It's fun to see what issues are under discussion and who's ahead at any given time. Now the points can be updated.And thanks for the effort, bye the way.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-24-2003]

I signed up for a free subscription and can't read the full text.

I think it's a winner but don't know what epigenetic means.

How do you define "naturalistic paradigm"?As I understand it is an approach that uses exactly that for which there is "evidence" and excludes anything else. And by evidence I mean all the different forms of input that science uses and that it is repeatable as needed to produce a broad consensus of both skeptical and "friendly" observers.If you think you have "evidence" that suggest that the naturalistic paradigm need revision please tell us.

Hang on!! WhoaYou just spun off topic. If you want to start talking ID and irreducible complexity then post this to a new topic or find the one it belongs under.