Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9049 total)
28 online now:
kjsimons, nwr (2 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,597 Year: 5,243/14,102 Month: 164/677 Week: 23/26 Day: 5/6 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 463 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 851 (555047)
04-12-2010 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ZenMonkey
04-11-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
Hi Faith,
No, those points didn't come from a website, creationist or otherwise. I just wanted, as Percy suggested, to be sure that I understood your position correctly. I'm glad that you agree that it's substantially correct.

So far, despite many assurances to the contrary, nobody has really got what I'm trying to say but you so far. Percy gets some of it, Bluejay got some of it. That's about it. How I'm being misunderstood is hard for me to understand, but at least if one person could get it then I know I can't be getting things all that wrong.

Let's walk through a simple but realistic hypothetical model to see how your proposal plays out. How about rabbits?

Faith writes:
it's possible that there was once some sort of chemical event that produced viable alleles -- from a built-in potential set of possibilities, however -- that has since been lost to the vast majority of living things.

So regardless of whether or not this event took place at Creation or at some later date, the end result is that there will only ever be a set, defined number of alleles for any given gene in any given population.

Yes.

If that is so, then for rabbits, we can take any given gene locus, say the one that codes for fur color, and determine that there are only a limited, defined number of alleles for that gene. There will be alleles for brown fur, black fur, grey fur, and so on, but no alleles that would produce green fur or purple fur.

Sounds reasonable enough.

(This is highly simplified, since many genes can contribute to any given observable trait.

Yes they can.

Nevertheless, I believe that there are also plenty of traits that are determined by a single gene. And even if traits are complex enough that there are always more than just one gene involved in shaping them - say for example, a whole suite of genes involved in determining body size - that doesn't substantially change things. We can still realistically focus on the contribution of a single gene to that suite.)

I agree, for most circumstances we'd be discussing.

Back to the rabbits. Rabbits are diploid, just like most living things that we're familiar with. Under normal circumstances, each parent will contribute one allele for any given gene. Alleles are considered dominant or recessive based on how they manifest in the phenotype, that is, what the organism looks like.

Yes.

Faith writes:
Yes, and "crowded out" I suppose probably has something to do with dominant and recessive versions.

This is not really correct. Dominance describes the relationship between two alleles for a single gene.

Yes, but in terms of what gets expressed, for example it's possible to have many homozygous dominants for a given gene due to previous selection events and then the recessives will be decidedly in a minority and rarely or even never expressed if there are so few of them they pair up only extremely rarely. It can even happen that the recessives exist in greater numbers than the dominants for similar reasons, and if not in the parent population, then in a subsquent population where only homozygous recessive alleles for a particular trait were selected or randomly selected by drift or migration etc.

quote:
It is critical to understand that dominance is a genotypic relationship between alleles, as manifested in the phenotype. It is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, e.g., whether it is regarded as ‘normal or abnormal,’ ‘standard or nonstandard,’ ‘healthy or diseased,’ ‘stronger or weaker,’ or ‘more or less’ extreme.

Now you are sounding like you don't get what I'm saying all that well either, if you feel the need to explain this. I've never said or implied any of that.

For our rabbits, each parent would contribute one allele for fur color to its offspring. So if grey fur (G) were dominant with respect to black fur (B), then the possible combinations are:

GG: a rabbit with grey fur
GB: a rabbit with grey fur
BG: a rabbit with grey fur
BB: a rabbit with black fur

Yes for standard Mendelian genetis (though I read somewhere of circumstances where doms and recs seem to blend, so that you get a medium grey fur with the heterozygous combination -- but I'll leave it at the standard Mendelian foursome you spelled out.)

Again, this has nothing to do with how desirable it is to have grey fur or black fur. This is simply how genetics plays out.

Why are you saying this? I've never said one word to imply I think any of this has to do with desirability.

(We're still dealing with a simple system of complete dominance, but the principle remains the same for more complex situations.)

OK.

Here it should be obvious that the possibilities are limited. Under ordinary circumstances, an organism will at most have two alleles for any given gene, and no more. There is no place for additional alleles to hide. There may be an allele that is recessive to all the others, and so can be passed to generation to generation but only manifesting in the rare circumstances in which both parents pass on the recessive version. Nevertheless, if it exists at all, it will have to appear from time to time, however infrequently.

Yes, and I mentioned that I expect it to appear from time to time, in my first post to RAZD today.

In other words, if there is an allele for tan fur that is recessive to all the others, it will still manifest when two parents, say a BT father (who would be black) and a GT mother (who would be grey), produce a TT offspring (who would be tan).

Yes.

One more time. If an allele is "normal" it will always appear in a breeding population from time to time, even if it doesn't do so very often.

Yes, and then there is the scenario I sketched out somewhere higher in this post, of circumstances where you can have more of either dominants or recessives where there is strong selection (even random selection) pressure for or against one of them.

Faith writes:
I try to avoid using the term "speciation" unless inability to interbreed has resulted from the population split, but just in the loose sense of a population having developed a new phenotype after such a split, it's true enough.

So under your model, if a population splits off, whether by isolation or natural selection or some other mechanism, in such a way that certain alleles are lost, the frequency with which a given allele may manifest might change, but no new alleles will be created.

Yes. However, the frequencies WILL change, not just "might."

Thus if we have a population of rabbits in which the allele for black fur has been lost, we may see a lot more tan rabbits than formerly, but we still won't suddenly start seeing red rabbits if there were no red rabbits before. What looks like an apparent increase in diversity (more tan rabbits) is an actual loss of diversity (no more black rabbits).

Or just fewer if the black fur frequency has been simply very reduced. Yes.

All other things being equal, if fur color doesn't contribute in any meaningful way to a rabbit's' ability to produce more rabbits, then the frequency of a given allele in a population should be determined by whether it is dominant or recessive to the other alleles for that gene.

Or random selection has affected the frequency as I say above.

However, if fur color does matter, then the frequency of alleles will be affected by the environment. So even if the allele for tan fur is recessive to all the others, if having tan fur starts to provide a reproductive advantage, then its presence in a population will increase and you'll start seeing more tan rabbits than before.

Yes, which is pretty much what I said above a ways where I talk about the effect of selection on dominance and recessiveness.

Remember, dominance is only a relationship between alleles. It has nothing to do with whether or not it codes for a "desirable" trait or is a "strong" or "weak" allele. If tan fur is an advantage, then you will inevitably see more tan rabbits than black rabbits, since tan rabbits will reproduce more often.

You must think you're talking to a kid or something. Where did I say anything that suggests I need this explained to me?

That's Natural Selection. In this regard, your model appears to be in agreement with the standard biological model.

Good.

Alleles that produce traits that confer a reproductive advantage will become more prevalent, and alleles that produce traits that are disadvantageous will become less prevalent or even vanish.

Yes. But I hardly ever talk about natural selection alone; I usually include the random ways changes can occur, genetic drift and migration and geographic isolation and so on.

If your model is correct, and there is no mechanism for producing new alleles, then you are right - genetic diversity can only decline and never increase. There is no source for new alleles to emerge, only for existing ones to either thrive or fail.

If that is really the case then all that's left IS to show that mutations don't occur (although I still think that even if mutations do occur at anything like the rate expected by evolutionists, the processes that reduce will even cut them down in the end). So somebody has to do some research to determine if any of the assumed mutations ever produce a viable allele.

I'll pause here once again to see if I'm misrepresenting your position in any way, or if you disagree with any new material that I've presented.

Some points I've noted where you seem to be explaining something you must think I don't understand though I see no reason why you would think that. Otherwise there's really nothing new in this post that I can see. Very basic stuff.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 265 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-11-2010 5:06 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 1:18 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 274 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 6:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 272 of 851 (555054)
04-12-2010 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
04-10-2010 9:18 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
No mutations that make real alleles. Wherever there is a real allele it's been there from the beginning. Mutations only make disease and junk, that's my conclusion.

And the fact that your "conclusion" is known to be completely untrue not only vitiates your argument but also sheds an interesting light on your thought processes.

A "conclusion" is meant to be something one draws from the evidence, not something one makes up because one's other fantasies depend on it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 04-10-2010 9:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 273 of 851 (555056)
04-12-2010 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
04-12-2010 12:23 AM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
If that is really the case then all that's left IS to show that mutations don't occur

Heh. Good luck with that. Why don't you work up to it gradually by proving that pigs have silvery wings?

(although I still think that even if mutations do occur at anything like the rate expected by evolutionists ...

Not "expected". Measured. Evolutionists, you see, get their facts from the real world.

... the processes that reduce will even cut them down in the end).

Observation proves that your fantasy is wrong.

So somebody has to do some research to determine if any of the assumed mutations ever produce a viable allele.

And these people are called "scientists" and they have done the research, and the answer is yes.

If you can't be bothered to look at reality yourself, you could at least look at the results of the people who have looked at reality.

---

And could I suggest again --- until you've taken the trouble to find out the most basic things about genetics, you shouldn't be humiliating yourself by discussing it in public.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 12:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 2120 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 274 of 851 (555073)
04-12-2010 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
04-12-2010 12:23 AM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
If that is really the case then all that's left IS to show that mutations don't occur (although I still think that even if mutations do occur at anything like the rate expected by evolutionists, the processes that reduce will even cut them down in the end).

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

Faith writes:

So somebody has to do some research to determine if any of the assumed mutations ever produce a viable allele.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 12:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 04-12-2010 6:35 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3113 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 275 of 851 (555074)
04-12-2010 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Percy
04-11-2010 11:12 PM


Faith's greatest hits re-mix
Maybe Faith should just re-read her Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation? thread, which was the consequence of almost the exact same set of arguments in her five year old thread she mentioned in the OP.

If she wants to go round it again I'd be happy to discuss the existence or otherwise of beneficial mutations in a Great Debate, I'll even ignore bacteria if she insists, I can tie one hand behind my back as well if it helps .

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 11:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 6:40 AM Wounded King has responded
 Message 280 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 7:46 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20326
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 276 of 851 (555076)
04-12-2010 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by DevilsAdvocate
04-12-2010 6:02 AM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
DevilsAdvocate writes:

As long as the organism lives until it can reproduce and pass its genetics to preceding generations...

That would be a neat trick.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 6:02 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 7:38 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12723
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 277 of 851 (555077)
04-12-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Wounded King
04-12-2010 6:22 AM


Re: Faith's greatest hits re-mix
Hi WK!

BlueJay has decided to conclude his participation in the Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and Bluejay Only) thread. Since you've expressed an interest in a Great Debate concerning the existence of beneficial mutations, and since Faith's position is dependent on their non-existence, could you please take over for him?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 6:22 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 7:41 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 284 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 7:53 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 2120 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 278 of 851 (555080)
04-12-2010 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Percy
04-12-2010 6:35 AM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
Percy writes:

DA writes:

As long as the organism lives until it can reproduce and pass its genetics to preceding generations...

That would be a neat trick

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 04-12-2010 6:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 463 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 851 (555082)
04-12-2010 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Admin
04-12-2010 6:40 AM


I'd rather not have Wounded King on the other thread. Aside from his generally hostile attitude to my topic, I'm not interested in rehashing mutations. The few examples of supposedly beneficial mutations don't answer to the thousands of disease-producing mutations, AND the fact that you assume that they make normal alleles although you cannot demonstrate them, talking about a mere hypothesis as a fact, as if you had proved it, has done it for me. You can't prove your hypothetical and I can't prove my objection. It's a standoff to my mind.

Zen Monkey has conceded that my model is correct if there are no mutations. I'd like to see where he goes next.

I also want to see if I can come up with a diagram that does a better job with the model of how evolutionary processes come to an end -- with or without mutations.

Also, I do some time want to go back over this thread and answer some earlier posts.

If no polite Bluejay shows up for the other thread I'm for leaving it for now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 6:40 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 7:50 AM Faith has responded
 Message 286 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 7:56 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 287 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 7:58 AM Faith has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12723
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 280 of 851 (555083)
04-12-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Wounded King
04-12-2010 6:22 AM


Re: Faith's greatest hits re-mix
Hi WK!

Looks like I have to withdraw the invitation, Faith objects. Sorry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 6:22 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12723
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 281 of 851 (555085)
04-12-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ZenMonkey
04-11-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
Hi ZenMonkey,

Would you like to continue the discussion with Faith in a one-on-one over at Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and Bluejay Only)?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-11-2010 5:06 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-12-2010 11:05 AM Admin has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 2120 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 282 of 851 (555086)
04-12-2010 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
04-12-2010 7:41 AM


Faith writes:

The few examples of supposedly beneficial mutations don't answer to the thousands of disease-producing mutations, AND the fact that you assume that they make normal alleles although you cannot demonstrate them, talking about a mere hypothesis as a fact, as if you had proved it, has done it for me.

What is a normal allelle?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 7:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 7:54 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 463 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 283 of 851 (555088)
04-12-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Percy
04-11-2010 11:12 PM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Hi Faith!
Rest assured that everyone understands what you're proposing.

RAZD for one has shown that he hasn't a clue.

It isn't complicated. Your scenario is not impossible, it could really happen, but it is an unlikely scenario among many with much higher probability, most of which include mutations, including beneficial ones.

Even with mutations, the selecting-reducing-isolating processes will still lead in the direction of genetic depletion as speciation is approached.

That's why everyone has been trying to help you understand the reality of beneficial mutations. See, for example, my so far unremarked upon Message 258.

You can't help me "understand a reality" that you can't demonstrate IN reality but only assume based on some highly questionable oddball examples.

Finding beneficial mutations in higher organisms is extremely difficult. The larger the impact of a mutation the less likely it is to be beneficial, because the likelihood of a positive effect goes down the more widespread the changes. Beneficial mutations usually have a very tiny, indetectable impact, indetectable because higher organisms are the result of complex interactions between many different cell types. Finding beneficial mutations in humans shortly after they happen is especially difficult because not only are we complex, we have long generation times (coincidentally, just as long as the experimenters ) and experimentation on humans is frowned upon.

Right, so you can get away with not having to prove any of it, simply declare it a FACT based only on your assumption-- that is really fraudulent! Evolution NEEDS mutations -- you can't just declare they are there with no evidence.

Consider the elite athlete. For all we know some elite athletes may owe their abilities to beneficial mutations, but the kind of experimentation that might uncover such possibilities can't be done on people. But it has been done on other animals. For example, the whippet was found to have experienced a mutation that increased muscle mass and therefore speed (e.g., Why athletes should look to the whippet).

Found how? By assumption simply because the whippet turned out to have the genetic stuff for increased speed? Yes, I'll go read your references after I write this.

Many genetic studies use bacteria because of their very short generation times, as short as 20 minutes in some cases. BlueJay provided a couple examples of beneficial mutations in E. coli in the other thread:

Novel quinolone resistance mutations of the Escherichia coli DNA gyrase A protein: enzymatic analysis of the mutant proteins

gyrA and gyrB mutations in quinolone-resistant strains of Escherichia coli

Yes, but for reasons I've given I'm not accepting anything about bacteria. They are too different in ways I've specified from the rest of creation.

The eventual product of DNA is proteins. A random genetic change can affect the resulting protein. In multicellular organisms that protein is released by the cell and travels throughout the rest of the body where it may or may not have a modified effect. Any modified effect could be deleterious or beneficial. It can be deleterious because at worst the protein's ability to function could be destroyed. And it could be beneficial because proteins are unlikely to be optimal, plus changing environmental conditions can turn previously satisfactory proteins into underperformers.

A lot of speculative assumptive stuff going on in all these things.

If evolution depends on such an iffy process as mutation, that alone ought to doom evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 04-11-2010 11:12 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 04-12-2010 9:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3113 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 284 of 851 (555089)
04-12-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Admin
04-12-2010 6:40 AM


Re: Faith's greatest hits re-mix
If Faith is happy discussing beneficial mutations then I will, but I know it is a slight deviation from the original topic of the OP.

I agree with you that their existence or non-existence is one of the cruxes of her argument, but I don't know if she does since she seemed to indicate to Bluejay that she doesn't even accept that mutations can give rise to novel alleles.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 6:40 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 463 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 851 (555090)
04-12-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by DevilsAdvocate
04-12-2010 7:50 AM


What is a normal allelle?

One that produces a normal trait, not a disease and not a dead gene.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 7:50 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 7:58 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 293 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 8:12 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021