Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creationist's view of Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 205 of 218 (341582)
08-19-2006 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:27 PM


What is truly beneficial
I haven't yet seen a truly beneficial mutation demonstrated by anyone here.
After people had pointed out sickle cell anemia.
Oh for pete's sake, FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT!!! I've answered this a dozen times already. I said ****TRULY**** BENEFICIAL. There is no way a mutation that protects against one disease while causing another is TRULY beneficial.
I think the problem is the definition of 'truly beneficial' (see, you can say it without shouting ).
You are using a human intellectual viewpoint to define it - the sickle cell mutation can't be truly beneficial because as well as giving people some protection against malaria it also adversely affects their health.
Unfortunately in evolutionary terms this definition is completely worthless. The only thing that counts in an evolutionary definition of truly beneficial is does it give you an advantage in reproduction.
There are NO examples ANYONE has produced yet of a TRULY beneficial mutation, one that produces health and vigor.
As counter-intuitive as it seems, health and vigour are not, in and of themselves, worth anything at all. It's all about having offspring. Of course health and vigour may well help you have more offspring than your competitors - but it ain't necessarily so.
Mind you, I'm not a biologist so I may be talking out my backside

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:55 PM MangyTiger has not replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 210 of 218 (341594)
08-19-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
08-19-2006 1:42 PM


Just as an aside
my father who had severe red-green color blindness (he distinguished the red signal light from the green one by degree of brightness and position above or below on the pole).
One of the guys I work with is red-green colour blind. We were both sent to Austin in Texas to work in the early '90s and he was horrified to discover that at many junctions near where we worked the traffic signals weren't on poles they were suspended on cables over the junction. Unfortunately for him they were suspended horizontally rather than vertically, and of course at first he didn't know whether the red was at the right hand end or the left.
It turned out it didn't actually matter - as anyone who drove in Austin in the early '90s will be able to confirm, the traffic signals had three shades of green rather than the traditional red, amber and green. At least that's how it seemed since nobody ever seemed to stop at a signal
Apparantly nowadays the traffic is so bad you don't have to worry about people shooting signals any more because of the gridlock...

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 1:42 PM Faith has not replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 215 of 218 (341621)
08-20-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
08-19-2006 11:23 PM


I've had a quick trawl through your posts in this thread.
Would you say that Message 154 and Message 155 are a fair summary of the position you are trying to get across?
Dr.Jones* in Message 154 writes:
Good, bad and neutral are in relation to if the mutation helps or hurts the organism to reproduce. I have a condition called keratoconus, which has a genetic component. My corneas become deformed and don't focus light correctly and in the long run without cornea transplants I'd be blind. Keratoconus does not strike until late puberty and has a slow progression therefore it would not be a hinderance to reproduction. This is an example of a neutral mutation.
Faith in Message 155 writes:
Thank you. This clearly demonstrates that the mutation is actually harmful to the organism, person, in this case you, although it is called neutral for the merely technical reason that it does not interfere with reproduction. It's the same situation as in the case of diabetes, which causes all kinds of misery and ultimately kills people, though it doesn't interfere with reproduction and so escapes the selection processes that would weed it out.
This is a very odd trend if you think about it. It would seem to lead to a proliferation of genetic diseases in the population to such an extent that over a few millennia there couldn't be a healthy species left on earth.
{Edit: Which is pretty much what biblical creationism says. Except that we assume that this is not the normal way genetics works. We assume PRIOR greater health, and gradual deterioration over time, due to the accumulating effects of the Fall from generation to generation. Only uniformitarianism supposes that such disease processes are normal, but logically this should have led to nothing but sickness and weakness in all species by now, and mass extinctions despite reproductive ability, if it really is a normal process of evolution}.
I want to be sure I understand your position before I make any further comment.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2006 12:15 AM MangyTiger 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