The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

But mutations do occur both somatically and gametically. As long as mutations occur and are passed down through the gametes than evolution occurs.Even if mutations occur once every hundred years in generations (which it occurs much, much more frequently), evolution would occur, albeit very slow, but it would occur.You cannot deny it.Studies show that the estimated average germline mutation rate (from generation to generation in humans is 401 for males and 31 in females per generation (generation=30 years). Biological basis of germline mutation: comparisons of spontaneous germline mutation rates among drosophila, mouse, and human.It is also interesting to note that the mutation rate for mtDNA (mitochondrial) is 50 times that of nucleic DNA (mainly because mtDNA are simpler and easier to change). And yes there are mitochondria in gametes. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans What constitutes a viable allele? Viable in what way? As long as the organism lives until it can reproduce and pass its genetics to preceding generations, evolutionary speaking, that allele is viable. Genetic viability has nothing to do whether that organism is strong, weak, etc. Though a stronger, more intelligent and socially adept (in some circumstances) organism is usually more likely to be able to propogate than a weak, less intelligent one (though not in all cases).(Warning: Stupid Analogy Alert In other words, evolution continues whether the organism is superman or a supernerd. If the supernerd gets the girl and has offspring with her and superman doesn't, than in the end the supernerd is the evolutionary hero not superman.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

LOL, sorry, sometimes my brain and my typing hands don't communicate so well, of course I meant "proceeding" not "preceding".Also, just a caveat and some clarification. As most of you know, and hopefully Faith as well. Most mutations are neutral in their affect on the human population due to the massive amount of redundancy and 'junk' DNA in the genome built up over hundreds of millions of years of genetic evolution. However, it only takes one or a sequence of mutations (frameshift, point, etc) in an allele(s) to possibly make phenotypic changes. A build up of these mutations will result in evolution of the genome over time. 'Beneficial' and 'harmful' mutations are really a misnomer and are subjective depending on what you are referencing to. As long as the mutation occurs in the gamete cells and that organism reproduces it will result in genomic evolution in a population of organism.I know this has probably already been said over and over but it seems this is something Faith still blatantly ignores. Just my thoughts on this subject.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

What is a normal allelle?

What is a 'normal' trait?You are using subjective anthropomorphic terms i.e. "normal" to describe biological functions. What standard are using this "normal"/"abnormal" from? In other words, "normal" based on what?As far as disease. Most organisms have some type of reoccurring diseases (disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors). They just differ in severity.So in other words, you would have to say the vast majority of organisms (except maybe those kept in very sterile conditions with very little disease agents or mutational factors) are abnormal because they are diseased. A dead gene is just an inactive or non-functioning gene. It may or may not be harmful to the organism. In many cases they are neutral and have no affect on the organism as is the case with most mutations in the genome. Dead gene does not equal dead organism.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

What evidence do you have that genetic variation is not a result of accumulated mutations in the genome? Can you back up this assertion?Furthermore, if you have germ line mutations in the genome you ARE definately going to have variation, irregardless if its beneficial or harmful.You are correct to say that if 100% of mutations are harmful (aka kills off the organism before it can reproduce) than that genetic population line will go extinct. Do you honestly believe that there are zero beneficial mutations in all organisms past or present thus making natural selection null and void? And you know this because? Mutations! Mutations keep evolution running irregardless of whether they are beneficial, neutral or harmful. Natural selection weeds out the weak populations and those with harmful mutations thus allowing the stronger populations with the more beneficial mutations to survive. Genetic drift and other evolutionary mechanisms also come into play here.It really is this simple. Please back up your assertions with facts instead of your baseless opinions. Yes, it is called natural selection i.e. survival of the fittest. Which applies to populations of organisms, individual organisms and individual genes in those organisms. As long as you have some beneficial mutations natural selection will keep those genome mutations in the gene pool longer than the harmful ones. Are you saying you do not think there are any mutations that could potentially benefit that organism? None? If so where is your evidence? None of this 'evidence' has passed the peer review test.99.9% of all life science professionals worldwide accept evolution as true. Disease just means that some outside influence i.e. virus, prions, etc are causing changes aka mutations to the genome. In other words 'disease' can cause mutations.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

100% agree.I am only using the term 'beneficial' in reference to mutations to refer to the ability of an organism to live long enough to pass its genetic code to the next generation (either asexually or sexually). This is the main factor that affects whether accumulated mutations result in biological evolution and thus in this context are 'beneficial' to that population. Whether that population later go's extinct because of these accumulated mutations is a different but related matter.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

A mistake implies a deviation (usually unintentional) from its originally designed process.The problem is that no one can definately say what this 'originally designed process' is supposed to be even if you do believe in a Creator God. Can you read the mind of God? How do you know what this 'originally designed process/gentic code' is supposed to look like?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

What pre-existing alleles? What are you talking about? What reference are you using to determine if an allele, a trait, or whatever other genetic terminology is normal or not.The term 'normal' can be used in many context. Mutational changes at the DNA is not one of them since mutations have been occuring throughout the life tree for millions of years. There is no way to judge what is 'normal' and what is not 'normal' at this level. All we can do is use preceding genomes to determine what changes have been made. That is because no one is claming that a 'normal' allele is created by mutation and no geneticist uses your convaluted and contrived terminology.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

You don't follow arguments very well do you?I am asking how do you know what to judge a 'normal' allele much less genome from. I am not talking about the process (DNA replication). I am talking about the source. If you don't know what the source DNA is supposed to look like, how do you know if preceding genetic changes (mutations) in the genome are 'normal' or 'abnormal'? Yes when referring to the process of replicating DNA code from generation to generation. Not when referring to the code itself. Which no one is denying. What you are leaving out is the evolutionary process of natural selection which weeds out these deficiencies and weakness and strengthens the population that are more fit and able to survive. Get off your hobby horse and calm down. If you can't talk intelligently without calling people liars than you need to find another venue to vent.It is a fact that mutations occur is it not? Is it also a fact that these mutations cause variation whether they are harmful or beneficial to the organism and population involved is it not?
If not please explain why.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Are you saying that there is no mutational changes at all in the genome from generation to generation? Does the sequenced genome not differ from the original source genome?Also there are differences with genomes of individual humans. Are you saying that all our genomes are 100% identical? If so how does DNA fingerprinting work?In other words, what are you using to determine the baseline source for 'normal' alleles/genomes for humans or any other organism? You are obtuse. What is a 'normal' trait? You are arguing in circles. Is mongoloid eyes normal? Kinky hair? Red hair? Dark skin? Light skin? Short? Tall? Fat? Skinny? etc, etc, ad infinitim. You are misconstruing the term here. A process such as DNA replication is expected not to function perfectly 100% of the time. In other words that is the norm not the other way around. That is a whole other ball of wax that I don't think we are prepared to tackle here. If it makes you feel better, counsel strike my last statement.I won't comment on the rest since it is basless ranting and raving.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World