Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 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)
nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 181 of 218 (341473)
08-19-2006 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
08-19-2006 1:42 PM


quote:
Evolution seems to assume that genetic defects just happen to crop up from time to time at a probably predictable rate -- always and forever, on the uniformitarian principle -- but that we can count on the various selection processes to weed them out. Seems to me that as long as some don't interfere with reproduction that over time they would increase in the population and make for a rather sickly bunch even if they could survive because of compensating strengths or an accommodating environment. Ultimately such a trend WOULD tend to extinction though, which is simply an extreme selection process after all.
Did you read my wiki on Sickle Cell?
In the USA, where there is no endemic malaria, the incidence of sickle cell anaemia amongst African Americans is much lower than in West Africa and falling. Without endemic malaria from Africa, the condition is purely disadvantageous, and will tend to be bred out of the affected population.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 1:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 8:39 PM nator has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 182 of 218 (341483)
08-19-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
08-19-2006 2:26 PM


Faith writes:
It's easy to come up with a list of genetic diseases, but notably difficult to come up with any real evidence of beneficial mutations.
I agree, but it isn't because beneficial mutations are rare. Beneficial mutations are ubiquitous. Practically every gene in the human genome (and of all life in general) is the beneficiary of beneficial mutations, tons of them. If that weren't the case we wouldn't have them. Beneficial mutations spread quickly throughout a population. The only time they're overtly visible is in their early stages before they've propagated and before most individuals have them, such as the wisdom tooth mutation Schraf talks about that is uncommon at this point. And if/when the wisdom tooth mutation reaches most of the population, those without it will be considered to have a genetic defect. See how it works?
But harmful mutations that reside in that narrow region that permits life but doesn't allow it to flourish are both rare and very noticeable. The human genome has accumulated a number of them, like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. Harmful mutations that make people very sick generate a lot of attention and are the subject of a great deal of scientific research. Beneficial mutations that just keep people from getting sick or give them slightly greater endurance or strength or intelligence or attractiveness or charm are harder to notice and even when noticed don't rate the same level of scrutiny.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 2:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 8:48 PM Percy has not replied

Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 183 of 218 (341494)
08-19-2006 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
08-19-2006 3:19 PM


Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
Faith writes:
I do have a bad habit of thinking outside the evolution box.
First of all, that's not a bad habit at all. The best ideas come from people thinking outside boxes. The important trick is to remember to check the box occasionally to see if you're still thinking outside the same one.
I'm trying to get away from the reproductive fitness definition to point out that any disease process that is allowed to accumulate in a population, simply because it escapes the selection processes and does not interfere with reproduction, in itself works against the idea of evolution.
When you're talking about evolution there's no getting away from reproductive fitness because that's what evolution is all about. But let's concede your point for a moment.
A first reaction to that could be to say that something that escapes selection and does not interfere with reproduction, does not work against evolution, nor for it, because evolution is nothing but reproduction with selection. So something that affects neither, must be neutral with regard to evolution.
But on second thought one could say that it might have some influence after all, when, for instance, the elder, non-reproductive members of the species are a factor in the survival of the young ones until they reproduce. In other words, if the grandparents are looking after their grandchildren while daddy is out gathering stuff and mummy is out hunting (let's say we're talking about a very modern population), then it might be a bad thing if they are too weak for the job, for whatever reason.
However, unfortunately for your argument, this does not mean that it works against evolution. It may work against the survival of the species, but no one ever claimed that evolution is about the betterment or the preservation of species. Evolution is simply the process of change in living nature. If this change entails the extinction of a species, then so be it. It's simply the way things go.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 3:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 8:59 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 184 of 218 (341508)
08-19-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by nator
08-19-2006 6:47 PM


No I didn't read your wiki on Sickle Cell. I'm tired of Sickle Cell. This one example that is always trotted out hardly proves the existence of beneficial mutations since it causes a terrible disease in the process of protecting against malaria. And yes I know evolution couldn't care less.
However, I did read through the link now, and to respond to the excerpt you quoted:
In the USA, where there is no endemic malaria, the incidence of sickle cell anaemia amongst African Americans is much lower than in West Africa and falling. Without endemic malaria from Africa, the condition is purely disadvantageous, and will tend to be bred out of the affected population.
And what would be the specifically GENETIC reason for this breeding out of the defective gene? As the wiki article says it is Autosomal Recessive, which means its transmission follows pretty standard inheritance patterns quite apart from the environmental situation.
Would it be silly of me to point out that African Americans are a mixture from all kinds of genetic sources, a lot of European slave-owner in the mix for one thing, so that there is likely to be a lot fewer sickle cell carriers in the overall population than in West Africa for THAT reason?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 6:47 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:25 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 185 of 218 (341511)
08-19-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Percy
08-19-2006 7:05 PM


It's easy to come up with a list of genetic diseases, but notably difficult to come up with any real evidence of beneficial mutations.
I agree, but it isn't because beneficial mutations are rare. Beneficial mutations are ubiquitous. Practically every gene in the human genome (and of all life in general) is the beneficiary of beneficial mutations, tons of them. If that weren't the case we wouldn't have them.
Well, this is an answer totally from the ToE, purely a logical conclusion based on the assumption of evolution as the explanation for how everything got here. But there is no actual EVIDENCE that ANY of them were the result of mutation rather than designed in from the beginning. There IS evidence, however, that defective genes are mutations because what they are replacing can be tracked.
Beneficial mutations spread quickly throughout a population.
Quite logical according to the theory, never demonstrated in fact. Not a single actual case of this has anyone brought forward.
The only time they're overtly visible is in their early stages before they've propagated and before most individuals have them, such as the wisdom tooth mutation Schraf talks about that is uncommon at this point. And if/when the wisdom tooth mutation reaches most of the population, those without it will be considered to have a genetic defect. See how it works?
Indeed. If a destructive mutation can be observed in its early stages, why not a beneficial mutation? Maybe somebody will catch one in the act sometime.
Lots MORE of those destructive ones, aren't there? and "neutral" ones that in actuality contribute to ill health although evolution doesn't give a damn, as I have been told so many times already.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 08-19-2006 7:05 PM Percy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 218 (341515)
08-19-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Parasomnium
08-19-2006 7:39 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
What I mean by "it works against evolution" is that it works against the theory as the explanation for living things. From the theory's point of view I KNOW it doesn't give a damn whether anything lives or dies, but what I am arguing is that the observed preponderance of disease-causing mutations means that life could not have existed AT ALL for millions of years, and if any did it would be in a very sorry state of health.
Now, as Percy said, evolution ASSUMES that ALL genetic material is the result of mutations to begin with, so that it is ASSUMED that beneficial mutations are happening all the time, and that these destructive mutations are merely observed because they stand out in the crowd.
Yes, that is what the theory says. Nobody has proved it. What we actually SEE is destructive mutations, a Loo-o-o-o-nng list of them. I haven't yet seen a truly beneficial mutation demonstrated by anyone here. Oh, bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Give me a break.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2006 7:39 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by DrJones*, posted 08-19-2006 9:15 PM Faith has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 187 of 218 (341522)
08-19-2006 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
08-19-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
I haven't yet seen a truly beneficial mutation demonstrated by anyone here.
So you're handwaving away sickel cell anemia and the rise of antibiotic resitant bacteria. These are beneficial mutations. You might not consider them to be benificial but thats because you're using your own definition.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 8:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:25 PM DrJones* has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 218 (341524)
08-19-2006 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by DrJones*
08-19-2006 9:15 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
I'm not saying they are not beneficial according to evolution's definitions, I'm saying they are a pretty pathetic offering in defense of the claim of massive beneficial mutations, in light of the known long list of destructive mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DrJones*, posted 08-19-2006 9:15 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:29 PM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 218 (341527)
08-19-2006 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
08-19-2006 8:39 PM


quote:
And what would be the specifically GENETIC reason for this breeding out of the defective gene? As the wiki article says it is Autosomal Recessive, which means its transmission follows pretty standard inheritance patterns quite apart from the environmental situation.
There is no selection pressure in favor in the US since there is no endemic malaria here.
There is selection pressure against it because people who get two copies of the mutation tend to have lower reproductive success.
On balance of these two selection pressures, the incidence of SCD would tend to decrease withing the population.
quote:
Would it be silly of me to point out that African Americans are a mixture from all kinds of genetic sources, a lot of European slave-owner in the mix for one thing, so that there is likely to be a lot fewer sickle cell carriers in the overall population than in West Africa for THAT reason?
Sure, that is certainly a possibility, although this does not explain why the incidence is declining in the US.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 8:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:46 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 190 of 218 (341530)
08-19-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
08-19-2006 9:25 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
quote:
I'm not saying they are not beneficial according to evolution's definitions,
Then you agree that beneficial mutations exist.
quote:
I'm saying they are a pretty pathetic offering in defense of the claim of massive beneficial mutations, in light of the known long list of destructive mutations.
You are willfully ignoring everything everyone has said to you in this thread.
You are simply repeating your initial objections without having addressed the vast majority of the points people have raised.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:51 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 191 of 218 (341534)
08-19-2006 9:34 PM


why Sickle Cell Disease is "cool"
The real reason SCD is so interesting within the Evolutionary framework is that it is such a great example of how the ToE can explain this seeming paradox of why a genetic disease would be retained within a population.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:49 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 218 (341538)
08-19-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by nator
08-19-2006 9:25 PM


Fine, the lack of malaria means more without the sickle cell survive in the US. Sorry, I posted too fast.
But the genetic dilution certainly DOES contribute to the declining incidence of sickle cell. It means there are fewer sickle cell genes in the overall population, so that the incidence of their pairing up is reduced. Unless you are claiming that Europeans carry the same gene.
But now that this is getting sorted out, I don't see any point to the whole discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:25 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:51 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 193 of 218 (341542)
08-19-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by nator
08-19-2006 9:34 PM


Re: why Sickle Cell Disease is "cool"
The real reason SCD is so interesting within the Evolutionary framework is that it is such a great example of how the ToE can explain this seeming paradox of why a genetic disease would be retained within a population.
A completely irrelevant point it seems to me. It's rare to the point of singularity for one thing, and as such it's wasting this thread.
All it takes for a genetic disease to be retained within a population is that the victim of it survive to reproduce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:34 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:58 PM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2254 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 194 of 218 (341543)
08-19-2006 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Faith
08-19-2006 9:46 PM


quote:
Fine, the lack of malaria means more without the sickle cell survive in the US. Sorry, I posted too fast.
No problem, we all do that.
quote:
But the genetic dilution certainly DOES contribute to the declining incidence of sickle cell. It means there are fewer sickle cell genes in the overall population, so that the incidence of their pairing up is reduced. Unless you are claiming that Europeans carry the same gene.
SCD in the "overall population" was never under discussion.
Again, from the wiki:
Due to the above phenomenon, the illness is still prevalent, especially among people with recent ancestry in malaria-stricken areas, such as Africa, the Mediterranean, India and the Middle East. In fact, sickle-cell anemia is the most common genetic disorder among African Americans; about 1 in every 12 is a carrier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:46 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 218 (341546)
08-19-2006 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by nator
08-19-2006 9:29 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
I'm saying they are a pretty pathetic offering in defense of the claim of massive beneficial mutations, in light of the known long list of destructive mutations.
You are willfully ignoring everything everyone has said to you in this thread.
You are simply repeating your initial objections without having addressed the vast majority of the points people have raised.
Back that up! This is a totally off-the-wall accusation. I've answered everything that matters. You are contributing nothing to this discussion and I'm sorry I've answered anything you've posted.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:29 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by DrJones*, posted 08-19-2006 9:58 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024