Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,566 Year: 4,823/9,624 Month: 171/427 Week: 84/85 Day: 1/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creationist's view of Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 196 of 218 (341547)
08-19-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
08-19-2006 9:51 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
From schraf
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.
From you
I haven't yet seen a truly beneficial mutation demonstrated by anyone here.
After people had pointed out sickle cell anemia.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

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 195 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:27 PM DrJones* has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 197 of 218 (341550)
08-19-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
08-19-2006 9:49 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.
quote:
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.
Not irrelevant, on at least these two points:
1) your claim that there are no beneficial mutations is refuted.
2) your claim that the retention of genetic diseases in a population runs counter to the ToE has been refuted.
quote:
All it takes for a genetic disease to be retained within a population is that the victim of it survive to reproduce.
Not quite.
It also needs to confer a reproductive advantage to remin prevalent in a population.
That's why SCD continues to flourish in places where malaria is endemic, and also why it is tending to decline in the US among populations with recent ancestry in places where SCD confers reproductive advantage.
Edited by schrafinator, : kan't spel

"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 193 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 9:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:20 PM nator has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 218 (341556)
08-19-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by nator
08-19-2006 6:38 PM


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.
No, it really doesn't.
Yes it does.
This is because it tends to overall reduction in health of that population, which bodes ill for that population's prospects of survival in the long run, let alone the thriving condition one would expect would be required to evolve.
What makes you think that evolution requires a species to "survive in the long run"?
Oh how tiresome is this same old irrelevant refrain. What "evolution requires," given the observed rate of disease-producing mutations and assuming this rate has been constant, per the uniformitarian assumption, meaning it allows the proliferation of all kinds of genetic diseases, apparently leads to such a condition of ill health, no species could gone on for long let alone evolved over millions of years.
Indeed, the history of evolution on Earth is that over 99% of all species have gone extinct.
A case in point. And more extinctions coming up. Surely evolution will triumph with the extinction of all living things. No way this theory could explain the survival let alone vigor of any living thing.
The incredible rate of mutation people have referred to here
I am not sure what you refer to here.
What "incredible rate of mutation" do you speak of?
Please review the thread a few pages back. I'm sure you'll encounter the claim.
suggests to me that disease factors must be accumulating in all species at the present time. If this had been the case over millions of years, life would simply not exist at all at present.
But it has has already been explained, most mutations are neutral.
And I've answered this. Pay attention or get off the thread. "Neutral" in the examples others here have given means destructive disease conditions, including your missing wisdom teeth, since that involves the destruction of the gene for wisdom teeth, things that evolution couldn't care less about since they don't affect reproductive success. Which I've been arguing only proves that evolution can't be the explanation for the abundance of life on this earth.
Neutral mutations don't do anything.
Follow the argument. They don't do anything by the definition of evolution. They do plenty in terms of compromising the ability of anything living to thrive.
I would think that for evolution to be possible, mutation would have to be able to produce healthy specimens,
It does.
I am healthy, and I have a mutation.
The mutation did not produce your state of health, and superficially it confers no disease on you, but it's still a destruction of genetic material, and this is ALL that we see in mutations and they often produce active disease, NEVER anything beneficial. Oh, excuse me, except bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Nothing beneficial to human beings certainly.
And "healthy" WRT evolution simply means "able to pass on one's genes successfuly."
I am trying to discuss this problem as a problem for evolution outside its own cramped definitions and parameters. Clearly you cannot follow the discussion.
but it appears to do a much better job of producing genetic diseases.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria has produced "superbugs" which are very healthy, wouldn't you say?
This is the ONLY "positive" mutation anyone has been able to come up with as against the LONG LONG list of genetic diseases.
This is a different problem from the one that inspired me to start this thread in the first place, the fact that the majority of the "processes of evolution" are misnamed, because they are all selective processes that decrease genetic variability.
No, they are not.
Yes they are. This is elementary and others have acknowledged it. I'm sorry if you are unable to appreciate the argument, but that only means that you shouldn't be participating in the discussion.
That this has been explained to you multiple times seems to have done no good at all, so I'm going to leave it to someone else to slog on ahead and try again.
Oh good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 6:38 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:28 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 199 of 218 (341560)
08-19-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by nator
08-19-2006 9:58 PM


Re: why Sickle Cell Disease is "cool"
One "beneficial" mutation that is won at the expense of a terrible disease is NOT an example of a benefit. And who cares if there are one or ten, the point is that they are astronomically outstripped by destructive mutations. Follow the argument.
All it takes for a genetic disease to be retained within a population is that the victim of it survive to reproduce.
Not quite.
It also needs to confer a reproductive advantage to remin prevalent in a population.
I didn't say prevalent. I said retained. Follow the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:58 PM nator has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 218 (341563)
08-19-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by DrJones*
08-19-2006 9:58 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
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.
There are NO examples ANYONE has produced yet of a TRULY beneficial mutation, one that produces health and vigor.
Except for bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and this doesn't count. I want examples of beneficial mutations in humans, because we have tons of examples of destructive mutations in humans.
And again, even if you could produce a dozen beneficial mutations, this would be interesting certainly, but it still would not meet the requirement that beneficial mutations outstrip destructive mutations by some enormous percentage if a species is going to survive and evolve.
This continuing refrain about how reproductive success is the criterion just points up the poverty of evolution as an explanation for living things, especially when everyone is agreeing that so many "neutral" mutations are of course not selected out, but not one of them shows any benefit that I can see. They all describe at least some latent disease process, something that works against health and vigor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by DrJones*, posted 08-19-2006 9:58 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by DrJones*, posted 08-19-2006 10:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 10:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 205 by MangyTiger, posted 08-19-2006 10:51 PM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 201 of 218 (341566)
08-19-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:16 PM


Faith, you are begining to become belligerant.
You are simply repeating your initial assertions and willfully ignoring or selectively misinterpreting what everyone has been trying to say to you.
Intelligent, productive conversation is impossible with one such as you, since you refuse to learn or. All you do is project personal incredulity in place of rational argument while twisting what everyone tries to tell you about science.
The same thing has happened in every thread you attempt in the science fora.
Perhaps it really isn't "everybody else" who refuses to accept your obvious brilliant understanding of Evolution and the scientific method, but your own inability to debate the issues in good faith.

"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 198 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:53 PM nator has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 218 (341571)
08-19-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
08-19-2006 3:19 PM


I do have a bad habit of thinking outside the evolution box. 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 ...
How can there be a genetic disease which is not selected against?

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 206 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 203 of 218 (341574)
08-19-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Working against evolution? I'm afraid not.
Oh for pete's sake, FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT!!!
I have been. The arguement is Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes in the Biological Evolution forum. Because we're talking about evolution "beneficial" is defined as: helping the organism live to reproduce.
There is no way a mutation that protects against one disease while causing another is TRULY beneficial.
Says you.
This continuing refrain about how reproductive success is the criterion just points up the poverty of evolution as an explanation for living things,
How so? Living things reproduce and pass on their genes. If they have bad genes they don't live to reproduce and therefore don't pass on those genes, if they have good or neutral genes then they do live and those genes are passed on. It's not very complicated.
They all describe at least some latent disease process, something that works against health and vigor.
And again, health and vigor only matter up until the point of reproduction. If the health and vigor don't show up until after the organism has reproduced then they are irrelevant to evoltution. Evolution is not about species getting bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, it is about species surviving.

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 200 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:27 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 218 (341579)
08-19-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
08-19-2006 10:27 PM


There are NO examples ANYONE has produced yet of a TRULY beneficial mutation, one that produces health and vigor.
Except for bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and this doesn't count.
Well, obviously it does count, because that's an example of many, many beneficial mutations.
And again, even if you could produce a dozen beneficial mutations, this would be interesting certainly, but it still would not meet the requirement that beneficial mutations outstrip destructive mutations by some enormous percentage if a species is going to survive and evolve.
There is no such requirement. Bad mutations can outnumber good mutations by thousands to one. The good will be selected FOR, the bad will be selected AGAINST.
I don't see what it is that you don't see, but the words "NATURAL SELECTION" probably loom large in the explanation.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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 209 by Faith, posted 08-19-2006 10:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6430 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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 206 of 218 (341583)
08-19-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2006 10:41 PM


How can there be a genetic disease which is not selected against?
Read the last few pages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 10:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 207 of 218 (341586)
08-19-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by nator
08-19-2006 10:28 PM


I'm trying to raise something that is OUTSIDE your usual kneejerk assumptions but all you do is repeat them. Good grief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:28 PM nator has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 218 (341587)
08-19-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by MangyTiger
08-19-2006 10:51 PM


Re: What is truly beneficial
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.
THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED OVER THE LAST FEW PAGES.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by MangyTiger, posted 08-19-2006 10:51 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 218 (341591)
08-19-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2006 10:48 PM


And again, even if you could produce a dozen beneficial mutations, this would be interesting certainly, but it still would not meet the requirement that beneficial mutations outstrip destructive mutations by some enormous percentage if a species is going to survive and evolve.
There is no such requirement. Bad mutations can outnumber good mutations by thousands to one. The good will be selected FOR, the bad will be selected AGAINST.
Would you please just read the whole argument. This has been answered umpteen times by now. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 10:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 11:06 PM Faith has replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6430 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024