Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 2:24 AM
164 online now:
GDR, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 162 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,791 Year: 21,397/21,208 Month: 1,830/2,326 Week: 285/881 Day: 3/107 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
63NextFF
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 316 of 936 (805608)
04-19-2017 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Faith
04-19-2017 1:42 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Any gene that has collected a huge number of "alleles," most of which of course don't do anything, is one of those parts of the genetic code that is especially prone to mutations. So such mutated "alleles" that get passed on are going to easily accumulate more mutations until finally they do something decidedly unbeneficial to the host. It's inevitable since mutations are inherently destructive.

So when you say that neutral mutations can become deleterious, what you mean is that other completely different mutations in the same locus could be deleterious.

So it's like saying: "This President could become bad for America, because an election could take place in which he could be replaced by a different President who is".

Your job is to repeat your case.

Oh Faith, no. It is not my job to act as a substitute for your memory. When you are shown something that proves you are wrong, it is your "job" to remember it, not to remember your error and forget the evidence. Otherwise we are doomed to have the same conversation over and over again. In which case I would remind you that the conversations we have are not a job. I am not paid. This is a hobby. It is no fun for me to have the same conversations with you over and over again. So this time, please make a note of what I'm saying.

Once again, there are at least five alleles of the E series in dogs, which determine the pattern of the coat, and which therefore affect "the variety we see".

Please try to remember this.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 1:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 3:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25903
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 317 of 936 (805609)
04-19-2017 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2017 2:59 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
No, what I'm saying is that the accumulation of mutations in one sequence is what leads to destructive effects.

I'm sorry but it has been an instruction by Admin that you are to repeat your points. I know you prefer to create confusion and obstruction of the discussion, but it's really not permitted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2017 2:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2017 3:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12989
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 318 of 936 (805613)
04-19-2017 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Faith
04-19-2017 2:41 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
quote:

Not if they are predominantly the "neutral" kind that are unaffected by selection. They'll just stay in the system without effect until more changes accumulate to become destructive.

You are missing the point. The existence of many neutral variations would be evidence that the gene can tolerate variation. That is the point - selection is NOT eliminating variation. And the final sentence is completely wrong - accumulating changes, especially those that affect function, would be creating new variations, not making existing variations harmful.

quote:

Such as?

As I explained only a short while ago, in the immune system. The existence of variants mean that the species is less vulnerable to being wiped out by a single disease.

quote:

You keep using that term "variations" in a vague way. If a gene can only have four naturally occurring variations, all the different "alleles" that have a neutral effect would be ticking time bombs as I say above, prone to accumulate more mutations until finally they threaten the organism. And get selected out, but meanwhile lots more of those are accumulating.

That is just nonsense. Accumulating variations make new alleles - and there is no reason that the presumed originals should be any less vulnerable (by definition all the other alleles must be mutated forms of the originals anyway so there is no distinction to be made)

quote:

This is an overworked assumption that is no doubt not true where it counts: most genetic diseases are going to get you no matter what your "environment." It's all in the changes to the gene itself, not the environment. There's no way an immune-deficiency muscle wasting disease could possibly be beneficial no matter what the environment.

It is hardly an assumption. Do you really think that "an immune deficiency muscle wasting disease" is harmless ? That it will suddenly become harmful for some reason ? Because that is what it would mean for an allele to become harmful.

What you actually seem to be saying is not that much better. If a gene is tolerant of change then it is obviously less likely to suffer harmful mutations - that is practically a tautology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 2:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 3:24 PM PaulK has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29187
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 319 of 936 (805615)
04-19-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Faith
04-19-2017 2:41 PM


Reality vs Faith
Faith writes:

Not if they are predominantly the "neutral" kind that are unaffected by selection. They'll just stay in the system without effect until more changes accumulate to become destructive.

Or until conditions (natural selection) changes and they become advantageous.

Or until additional mutations happen and they become advantageous.

Or they just hang around and have no effect at all.

Sheesh Faith. Stop being willfully ignorant.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 2:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25903
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 320 of 936 (805622)
04-19-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by PaulK
04-19-2017 3:05 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
You are missing the point. The existence of many neutral variations would be evidence that the gene can tolerate variation. That is the point - selection is NOT eliminating variation. And the final sentence is completely wrong - accumulating changes, especially those that affect function, would be creating new variations, not making existing variations harmful.

The more mutations the more chance of something harmful developing because mutations are inherently destructive. Neutral changes are just ticking time bombs. They destroy some part of the sequence but the function survives. If more mutations destroy more of the sequence what can it do but lead ultimately to something harmful.

As I explained only a short while ago, in the immune system. The existence of variants mean that the species is less vulnerable to being wiped out by a single disease.

But not by a series of diseases that occur down the generations.

That is just nonsense. Accumulating variations make new alleles - and there is no reason that the presumed originals should be any less vulnerable (by definition all the other alleles must be mutated forms of the originals anyway so there is no distinction to be made)

Well, here what you are doing is asserting your different theory of mutations. I would think the proliferation of genetic diseases in the population would eventually disabuse you of your theory but I guess we haven't arrived at that point yet. My theory is that all mutations are destructive, that the genome was originally created to vary through four alternative gene forms and no more, and that all changes to those forms/alleles are inherently destructive even if there is enough flexibility to allow most of them to make no changes at all in the function. But if more accumulated along one sequence there is no way that sequence could become anything other than destructive in one way or another because all mutations distort the original healthy allele.

This is an overworked assumption that is no doubt not true where it counts: most genetic diseases are going to get you no matter what your "environment." It's all in the changes to the gene itself, not the environment. There's no way an immune-deficiency muscle wasting disease could possibly be beneficial no matter what the environment.

It is hardly an assumption. Do you really think that "an immune deficiency muscle wasting disease" is harmless ?

What?

That it will suddenly become harmful for some reason ? Because that is what it would mean for an allele to become harmful.

What?

I'm talking about a "neutral" mutation/allele that accumulates more mutations. \Enough such changes and the result is most likely to be harmful because of the destructive nature of mutations.

What you actually seem to be saying is not that much better. If a gene is tolerant of change then it is obviously less likely to suffer harmful mutations - that is practically a tautology.

What you are calling "tolerant of change" describes what is otherwise called "prone to mutations." There are different parts of the genome that are more or less vulnerable to mutation. A gene that has collected a huge number of "alleles" or mutations is one of the segments that is prone to mutations. That most of them are neutral is good for as long as it lasts, but further mutations run the risk of changing the allele into a disease-producer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 3:05 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 321 of 936 (805623)
04-19-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Faith
04-19-2017 3:03 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
No, what I'm saying is that the accumulation of mutations in one sequence is what leads to destructive effects.

That may have been what you meant, but it is not what you said.

I'm sorry but it has been an instruction by Admin that you are to repeat your points.

Where did he say that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 3:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12989
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 322 of 936 (805627)
04-19-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Faith
04-19-2017 3:24 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
quote:

The more mutations the more chance of something harmful developing because mutations are inherently destructive. Neutral changes are just ticking time bombs. They destroy some part of the sequence but the function survives. If more mutations destroy more of the sequence what can it do but lead ultimately to something harmful.

You are still talking nonsense. Mutations are not "inherently destructive", neutral changes need not be "ticking time bombs" (and since loss of function can be beneficial even if neutral changes did lose unneeded function there is no way to say that that function would ever be necessary again)

quote:

But not by a series of diseases that occur down the generations.

If you are saying that it only improves the odds of survival - significantly - that is still a very good thing.

quote:

Well, here what you are doing is asserting your different theory of mutations

In fact I was not.

quote:

I would think the proliferation of genetic diseases in the population would eventually disabuse you of your theory but I guess we haven't arrived at that point yet

How could it do that ? (And isn't it more likely that any "proliferation" is due to our help and support to the sufferers?). An existing neutral allele won't suddenly produce a genetic disease unless something changes to make it do so.

quote:

My theory is that all mutations are destructive, that the genome was originally created to vary through four alternative gene forms and no more, and that all changes to those forms/alleles are inherently destructive even if there is enough flexibility to allow most of them to make no changes at all in the function

If the change makes no difference in the function at all it can hardly be considered destructive, or a "ticking time bomb". That should be obvious.

quote:

What?

Alleles don't suddenly become harmful for no reason.

quote:

I'm talking about a "neutral" mutation/allele that accumulates more mutations.

Which would be a deleterious mutation - or series of deleterious mutations - generating a new allele (or a series of new alleles). Not an existing allele becoming harmful. The two really are quite distinct scenarios.

quote:

What you are calling "tolerant of change" describes what is otherwise called "prone to mutations."

Not really. The existence of variant alleles is more dependent on selection failing to eliminate them than mutation creating them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 3:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 323 of 936 (805662)
04-20-2017 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Dr Adequate
04-18-2017 12:22 AM


Re: If Not, What?
Dr. Adequate: "And would CRR and Dredge like to tell us what the right word for evolution is - if not evolution?"

Instead of calling natural selection. "evolution", why not call it, "natural selection"? Instead of calling antibiotic resistance, "evolution", why not call it "antibiotic resistance"?

------------------------------

How about, "the bacteria have ... developed ... resistance to the antibiotic"? Or better still, come up with a term that reflects what has actually happened - ie, that a minority of the original population that were always resistance have multiplied and taken over the joint.

-------------------------------
Dr. Adequate: "... creationists ... should find another word for it."

Maybe replacing "microevolution" with "applied biology" would work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2017 12:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2017 9:41 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 324 of 936 (805663)
04-20-2017 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by herebedragons
04-17-2017 9:42 PM


I don't know what your job entails, but I am sure that if I could somehow remove the theory that all life shares a common ancestor from your consciousness, its absence wouldn't make a scrap of difference to the efficaciousness your work ... because I am sure all the biological principles you rely on would still be applicable. Think of it this way, a Bible-bashing fundamentalist creationist who thoroughly rejects the aforementioned theory, on rhe other hand, rejects nothing that has proved useful in applied biology.

As I've said before, if no one had ever heard of Charles Darwin and his theory, applied biology would be none the poorer and just as advanced as it is now.

herebedragons: "No amount of definition shifting, mathematical ciphering or personal credulity will be capable of convincing scientists to abandon ToE. The reason: because it works." I would agree that applied biology works. Perhaps it's the case what you call ToE, I call applied biology. But what doesn't work is the theory that all life shares a common ancestor - a theory that cannot be put to the test nor has any practical application cannot be said to "work".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2017 9:42 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2017 5:47 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


(2)
Message 325 of 936 (805664)
04-20-2017 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coyote
04-17-2017 10:40 PM


Re: Heritable changes in a population.
Creationists don't reject anything that is useful in applied biology, so your claim that "creationists are ... inherently anti-science" is baseless.

Name one creationist belief that would prevent a creationist from becoming a competent professional in the field of applied biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2017 10:40 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2017 10:05 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 326 of 936 (805665)
04-20-2017 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Davidjay
04-17-2017 11:51 AM


Re: Desperate evolutionists desperately need proof
Davidjay: "Desperate Evolutionists will twist anything."

Well said; you hit the nail on the head, imo. You can't trust them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Davidjay, posted 04-17-2017 11:51 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2017 9:44 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 406 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2017 11:50 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25903
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 327 of 936 (805675)
04-20-2017 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by herebedragons
04-17-2017 9:42 PM


An Alternative consistent and coherent model
You think the ToE is essential to your work. I understand the need for a theoretical framework but I have strong doubts that anything essential to the ToE could be useful in such work, so I consider it likely that you are confusing incidentals with the ToE.

In any case, let me offer you a working model as I see it:

  • God created separate Kinds in Eden.

  • The Fall affected all living things just as it did human beings. Death entered the world for all living things, death meaning every kind of deterioration, deformity and disease. Plants died anyway of course but disease and deformity affect them now as they didn't before the Fall.

  • The Second Law of Thermodynamics Entropy is a result of the Fall, an expression of the Death that came to all creation. (ABE: The Pedantry Mob has been having at the idea of the Second Law and since I'm interested in the facts and could not care less about such nitpicking distinctions I have substituted "entropy" as an attempt to say what I mean: LOSS rather than GAIN in all kinds of physical and biological systems. If "entropy" doesn't do it, I'll look for another term. Bunch of hyenas./ABE)

  • The deterioration includes genetic deterioration. Mutations are a legacy of the Fall, contributing only to deformity, disease and death.

  • If it weren't for the Fall, weren't for death, the necessary loss of genetic diversity in a population of living things would not lead to disease and death, it would just be the mechanism by which phenotypic variation is brought about. Even a creature with a huge amount of fixed loci, such as the cheetah, such as purebred animals before they discovered that those animals are genetically prone to various diseases and weaknesses. But since the Fall made that genetic situation a threat to the animal, efforts must be made to preserve genetic diversity over the desire for exotic purebreds. This is the situation conservationists have to deal with too, when creatures in the wild get themselves so naturally selected they are endangered by their own loss of genetic diversity.

  • "Fitness" is an overworked concept, useful in rare circumstances.

  • Natural Selection is also overworked: it is one of the many ways that new phenotypes are formed at the expense of genetic diversity, not the only and not even the most common. Simple population splits do the same thing without the carnage as it were.

  • If you split a population into two and preserve them both in reproductive isolation, both new populations will eventually develop new traits that distinguish them from each other and define them as subspecies.

  • If you separate a small population from a large one, and keep it in reproductive isolation, the smaller one will develop strikingly different new traits at the cost of great genetic decrease due to the new allele frequencies. The closer you approach to Founder Effect the more dramatic will be both of these effects.

  • Sometimes an evolving line of animals, or I suppose also plants, will reach a point where it can no longer breed with other members of its species. This usually describes a condition of genetic mismatch due to decreased genetic diversity in an inbreeding population.

  • Fossils of any living thing are merely varieties that lived before the Flood.

  • The genetic history of any living thing, except some sea creatures, goes back to the Flood.

Depends on what you want to do in your job of course, but I would think something along these lines should be a sufficient guide.

Cheers.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : Change paragraph about Second Law of Thermodynamics

Edited by Faith, : capitalize "Entropy"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2017 9:42 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2017 6:07 AM Faith has responded
 Message 353 by herebedragons, posted 04-20-2017 5:30 PM Faith has responded
 Message 382 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2017 3:01 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 390 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2017 7:32 PM Faith has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 328 of 936 (805678)
04-20-2017 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Dredge
04-20-2017 1:59 AM


This one also is funny.

Dredge writes:

I don't know what your job entails, but I am sure that if I could somehow remove the theory that all life shares a common ancestor from your consciousness,...

Well, I'm not a biologist, but from the rocks I studied it was clear that the first forms of life, as we know life, were unicellular. Those fossils I personally found in those rocks. Very, very old rocks. From my work I concluded that the the first forms of life (as we know life) were unicellular. No fish were dropped in there.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 1:59 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:27 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9816
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 329 of 936 (805679)
04-20-2017 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Faith
04-20-2017 4:14 AM


Sometimes an evolving line of animals, or I suppose also plants, will reach a point where it can no longer breed with other members of its species. This usually describes a condition of genetic mismatch due to decreased genetic diversity in an inbreeding population.

This belief would obviously affect biological inquiry. It also happens to be that pet theory that you have spent countless hours failing to convince anyone of, and for which there is no biological evidence.

At a minimum, if there is no evidence for this, ca-ca, then it cannot be taken as a postulate.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a result of the Fall, an expression of the Death that came to all creation.

What do you think that the second law of thermodynamics says, Faith? How do you think digestion worked prior to the Fall?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2017 7:10 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 2:52 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 330 of 936 (805682)
04-20-2017 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by NoNukes
04-20-2017 6:07 AM


Hey, a lot of creationists claim that scientific laws only came to effect after the so-called Fall. Basically, according to them, scientific laws and explanations only started operating after Eve had a bite of that fruit. Then all of it temporarily got suspended again during some Magic Flood later.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2017 6:07 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2017 1:58 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
63NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017