Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,179 Year: 5,436/9,624 Month: 461/323 Week: 101/204 Day: 1/16 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creationist's view of Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 28 of 218 (185549)
02-15-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
02-15-2005 8:39 AM


Re: Considering rapid rate of mutation
So basically your entire argument boils down to one of a few things:
1. Mutations do not happen at all. All genetic variation is pre-programmed.
or
2. That beneficial or neutral mutations do not occur with any significant frequency.
or
3. That mutations in general are not any source of genetic variation.
If one of these is true then you have your limit to evolution. You have given quite a bit of your hypothesis but have yet to produce any evidence that any of those things are actually true. Moreover, please produce the evidence that contradicts the mainstream evidence that:
1. Mutations do occur and are observed.
2. Benefits derived from genetic mutation have fixed within polulations of living creatures with significant frequency, also observed.
3. That mutations are the primary source of genetic variability withing a population, also observed.
When given the example of bacteria resistence arising from a monoculture you claimed that said resistence could not have formed from mutation. You need back up this claim with evidence or retract it as mere speculation based on personal ignorance.
I eagerly await your reply.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 02-15-2005 10:36 AM

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 02-15-2005 8:39 AM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 40 of 218 (185838)
02-16-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
02-16-2005 7:47 AM


Re: Mutation appears to be everything
First off, great string of posts! It is rare to see a creationist that actually has the ability to admit that their argument might be flawed and who can think for themselves independent of the organized creationist's information stream.
So the causes of drift are, say, differences in breeding patterns within the population over time, or mutation?
Mutation always happens. You are not an exact copy of half your father and half your mother. Certain parts of your genetic makup are unique to you independent of your parents and that is a fact. The vast majority of these mutations do absolutly nothing. Some have a small negative or positive effect on your survivability depending on the environment you live in. Some that are unlucky enough to happen in an important piece of your genetic code may cause you to have a severe genetic defect. Luckly this is rare and due to decreased survivability these mutations are rarely passed on to offspring. Hence selection.
Mutation is the primary source of variability in a population. Selection ensures that bad mutations do not permeate the population and that good mutations will. Along with all the good and bad there are the neutal mutations that may or may not get passed on based on nothing more than random luck. Hence genetic drift.
Not sure I'm getting you. You mean scientists had noticed that the theory of evolution WOULD fail because of the overall tendency to reduction in variability from all the selective processes, and therefore had to suppose input from somewhere to balance out or overcome these processes?
Scientists do not suppose input in variability. Scientists did not invent the "concept of mutation". It is a fact that you are not a discrete representation of 1/2 of each of your parents genes. You have genetic variability that you did not recieve from your parents. Mutations happen and are observed.
In the bacteria monoculture, children of the original bacterium had genetic differences that they did not inherit from their parent. This genetic difference must have come from somewhere. Others on this site have tried to argue that the differences are a result of some kind of programmed mutation but have done so unsuccessfully. Either way, we know that changes in genetic variability in a new creature happen independently of its parent(s).
Because all the processes of evolution except immigration and mutation tend in that direction. Rate doesn't seem crucial if this is the overall tendency and these processes are operating as frequently as SEEMS to be understood to be the case. But I understand that the Hardy-Weinberg principle was formulated because of the observation of overall reduction in genetic diversity through all the processes of reduction, needing to account for the fact that in reality such drastic reduction in diversity doesn't occur as rapidly as would be expected if those were the only processes in operation.
And now I see the source of your main argument. You currently have an assertion that the combination of all the different types of selective pressures always constitutes a reduction in genetic variability. I would like to point out that this is an assertion and you must now provide evidence to show that is it more than such.
Any rate of mutation sufficient to be counterforce to the processes of reduction of variability seems to me to be a great rate.
Notice the "seems to me to be" portion of your quote. In order for your argument to be credible it needs to "actually be". If you can show that the rate that genetic variability being lost by selection is greater than the rate of genetic variability being introduced by mutation then you have a platform for your argument that evolution has limits.
Even if you can establish that the amount of mutation required to keep up with selection needs to be "great" in whatever metric you choose, you also need to show that such a "great" rate of mutation is detrimental. What is "great"?
Given that a not insignificant number of mutations happen each time an organism reproduces I am not convinced that selective pressures reduce the amount of genetic variability faster than mutations can put it back.
Yes, your bacterium. But still in my mind are the examples from the PBS program that called the process of selection of the poisonous newt and the antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis "mutation" while nevertheless ILLUSTRATING the process by diagrams showing that the adaptive trait was present in the beginning of the process. Surely that is not mutation, that is simply an already-present allelic variant. And such a case makes the whole question of mutation very iffy.
To clarify further about the bacteria experiment. If the population is decendent from a single genetic source then any trait that one individual has different from the source must have come from a mutation. If mutations could not produce genetic variability then there is no way that the child of a bacterium could attain a trait that was not also held by the parent.
In the particular experiment there were numerous bacteria that were genetically different enough from the original bacterium to be resistant to the anti-biotic. In fact, if I remember correctly, the mutation that conferred the resistance happened often, independent of heritability. In other words, it wasn't just one bacterium that gained the resistance and passed it on but rather many who independently gained the resistence off and on while the culture was not exposed to the anti-biotic. Someone else may be able to provide more details in the form of a source I hope.
I have trouble with the whole idea of mutation, a random input that follows no law but somehow manages to be a beneficial effect in some cases. The probabilities against anything that would increase survivability would seem to have to outstrip any rate of such random changes whatever but yes, I'm no mathematician and would rather keep away from rates and estimates. I don't think they are really necessary.
The random input is only beneficial because of selection. The best source of new information is a random number generator according to certain aspects of information theory.
In the case of the bacterium, the resistance to anti-biotics was only beneficial once the culture was actually exposed to teh anti-biotic. Before that the mutations were just part of the populations variability.
If you don't want to consider rates then you might want to reconstruct your argument because, when rigerously defined, your entire argument depends on rates. The "tendency" to reduce genetic variability is a rate. If your argument is that selection will "tend" to always reduce the genetic variability of a population despite mutation then you are already in the realm of rates!
Thanks,

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 02-16-2005 7:47 AM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 68 of 218 (186045)
02-16-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
02-16-2005 11:31 PM


Re: Mutation appears to be everything
Hello Faith,
I know you have a lot to reply to but I would appreciate at least a passing response to either of my replies to you.
Message 40 (Message 40) in particular seems that it was overlooked.
I tend to think all such traits are what somebody here called "hidden" traits if I understood his use of the term, that is, they are latent in the population until a selective event kills off or reduces the alleles with greater frequencies and allows it to come to the fore.
If a trait that was "hidden", or in other words recessive, then it should never appear in a population created from a monoculture. If mutations don't happen then there is never a case when the "hidden" gene could "unhide". It cannot just spontaniously show itself. It must be combined with another one of its type to be expressed. If you are only making copies of yourself with no change then this cannot happen.
There's the assumption I keep finding in most of you here, this notion that mutation is the ONLY way new traits are created. But the most common way is for alleles with lower frequencies and probably recessive character to be expressed in the phenotype as those with higher frequencies are suppressed by the selecting factor.
Lower frequencies do not automatically make a gene recessive. A particular gene is recessive simply by its properties. A new mutation might introduce a gene that is dominant and therefore expressed right away. If this expression allows the creature to be more successful at reproducing then the scenario in which you describe is overcome.
As above. You describe the same process but assume that the origin of the allele was mutation. I don't assume that any allele is produced by mutation, but is "already present in the population" as a normal variant, given in the Species at its origin. Perhaps this is because I am a creationist and you an evolutionist, so we have different expectations, different models, but you can't trump mine by simply assuming mutation because it fits your model. That begs the very question we are discussing, or at least an important aspect of it.
Mutations are not assumed. Please address my post 40 (Message 40). Mutations are an observable thing. No creature is an exact copy of its parent or half an exact copy of its parents. This is proveable.
Thank you for your reply,

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 02-16-2005 11:31 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 69 of 218 (186046)
02-16-2005 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
02-16-2005 11:40 PM


Haploid
Good point about the bacteria being haploid. That greatly simplifies the situation. Absolutly any change must be a result of mutation. There is no place for recessive genes to hide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 11:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024