The Nature of Mutations

quote:

---

PLG:
All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature.

---

Interesting. I was under the impression that genetic changes WERE mutations...Silly me.

Well you know then that you HAVE NOT heard a thing I said.

quote:

---

Well you know then that you HAVE NOT heard a thing I said.

---

That is true. As I have already written, I do not usually even attempt to read your posts as they are so incoherent that I cannot follow them.

Well Phospho, it looks like I'm not the only one disenchanted with the gradualist, mutationist evolutionary myth. I agree with just about everything you have posted. The vast majority of all point mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Besides, macroevolution is finished anyway. One cannot evaluate a process which is no longer in operation. About all one can do is attempt a reconstruction of what it was all about. Thank God the truth has never been determined by majority vote. Hang in there. salty

Repeated assertions - who would have thought?Let me guess - YOU think that genetic changes are not mutations also?

quote:

---

First, let me clarify that mutations aren't "side effects". Mutations that are neutral have no effect, and deleterious mutations have destructive effects upon the organism in which they occur. The "side effect" would be such as the SCA mutation, where the side effect is the protection against the disease. It is not that I don't "think" that there is such a thing as a purely beneficial mutation, it is that this is what genetics has observed and recorded.

---

Can you cite some up to date material in which what "genetics" has "observed and recorded" is shown to be in line with yout assertions?Thanks.

I would like to draw Phospho's attention back to this post from Quetzal. I, too, share his questions/concerns.

quote:

---

PGL:
What is NOT considered a mutation (except by evolutionary theorists, and that illegitimately) are any other genetic changes, including adaptaion and variational changes, because these have proven to be not by random chance events, but mediated by specific organismic mechanisms

---

So, the fact that enzymes will splice or excise certain segments of DNA renders the act not a mutation?Mutation is probably not the precise term for this (insertion/deletion - though deletions can be mutations), but does the locus at which the event takes place indicate whether or not the event was random?

I wasn't talking to you Scott, I was talking to Phospho. There is no point in trying to communicate with you as you already know everything. "When all think alike, no one thinks very much" Walter LippmannIncidentally, I have had a great deal to say. You just don't like it!salty

Could you two take it to a different topic? We're trying to argue with PPG, here, and your respective fireworks don't augur well for topic continuity.Although if three posts a week is the best we can get from PPG it's not going to be a fruitful debate, I fear...

There are now two threads for you to post in...one in this forum called "there goes this freakin thread"...and one in the Free for All called "for salty"...show some class and let Phospho speak for himself..he is far more engaging and willing to debate than you.

Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Finally it comes down to it: Argument for sudden design by irreducible complexity.
If even one of these parts is nonfunctional, the whole organ is nonfunctional (you know, irreducibly complex).Not in dispute. I never claimed that any particular part of a living organism was without function, only without purpose.If you use a screwdriver to pound a nail, it has the function of a hammer. That doesn't mean that it has the purpose of a hammer. There's no way to connect function and purpose, without assuming that the purpose and function of something are the same. But, that's just an assumption. What you have yet to prove is that purpose can be reliably inferred from function. If you'll look closely you'll see this is the crux of your argument.Anyway, irreducable complexity is child's-play to refute. Consider a stone arch - irreducibly complex in that the removal of any stone will topple the arch. Ergo, it could not have been built stone by stone, right?Wrong, obviously. Arches are built stone by stone. How does this work? We put up a scaffold to support the arch as we build it. Is the scaffold as efficient or useful as the arch? No, not at all. But the scaffold is sufficiently simple that it can be built piece by piece, used to construct the "irreducibly complex" arch, and then taken away, leaving only the beautifully efficient arch.Then you have to consider that the male and female organ fit together perfectly, as most of us can well attest too!!!Perfectly? Have you talked to women about this? The clitoris is located outside of the vagina, where it becomes rather hard to stimulate with the penis. I wouldn't call that a perfect fit. In fact I'd say it's just good enough to perpetuate the species, which - surprise! - is exactly what the theory evolution would predict.How is it that, in a world prevously of asexual organs only, could sexual organs ever even get a start, and most importantly, why?Because sexual reproduction is great for the adaptation of species. It confers an enormous resitance against disease, for instance (through so-called "Hybrid vigor" and other effects). It maximises the selection of beneficial traits.Why do you assume that human genitals are some unique structure? All vertebrates and most invertibrates have genitals - and the rest usually have gonads, at least. Bacteria exchange genetic information before dividing. It's clear that sexual reproduction arose to the unicellular level. Genitals just evolved to match. They wouldn't have to have evolved from scratch for any animal, much less humans. They simply would have decended with modification, like anything else.Does this stuff really stump you? A minute of thinking "how could this confer a survival advantage?" is generally enough to debunk all your so-called "argument for design."[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 05-13-2003]

Re: Now for phase II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Greetings PLG,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLG ultimately does not want to concede that mutations can confer any benefit but he ignores the meaning of beneficial in the context of natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is not so, please read my posts again.M: I have and this is my interpretation..I will elaborate belowPLG: More side-tracking. The issue is not one outweighing the other, the issue is not so much even the effects of the mutation. Although they do play a part in this because the catagories of mutation are specified by their neutral or deleterious affects. The issue is the NATURE of mutations...what they are, and what they are not.Again, some, very rare deleterious mutations have proven that they can, in certain environments, confer some amount of beneficial side-affects to their bearer. But then again, this is not what I am arguing.M: wrong, the entire issue is the effect of the mutation. If a C to T transition in the Dloop of mitochondria has absolutely no effect on mtDNA replication, mitochondrial gene expression, etc. then the mutation is irrelevant as it has no effect on the organism. It is neutral with regards to evolution. However, any mutation that under a specific environmental condition ehances and indivduals chance at reproduction has a better chance of becoming more frequent. So not all mutations are deleterious...what does it matter if a pseudogene has a C or a T at a given position?PLG:Is this your reasoning for accepting that variation arises from mutation? If so, it is poor reasoning...no insult intended. We are not clones because we did not all come from the same egg. As for other arguments along that line, even identical twins have differences in expressed variant alleles...in short, no one is exactly identical. Even twins have different finger prints, this much I can attest to.M: You are confused PLG, you are talking about non-heritable variation during developement which is responsible for differences among twins. We are not clones because of heritable genetic variation. Thus, the source of heritable variation IS genetic. That is not a strictly evolutionary concept as all genetics relies on this.PLG:
Not so, evolutionary theory needs variation, otherwise it goes no where. There are plenty of top evolutionists that disagree with you, Mayr, for one. As for genetic drift, another false play by evolutionary theorists of the last century, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It has to do with population genetics, which also has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.M: You are completely wrong on two fronts. First, I said one does not need endless variation for evolution to occur..not that variaition is uneccessary..Please read my posts more carefully as I was addressing your statement.Population genetics and evolution are the same thing. That you deny this suggests you are either poorly informed about evolutionary biology or someone has purposefully mislead you...Here..from a basic biology textbook for your edification"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986PLGopulation genetics only traces the differences in expressed variant alleles within populations, and that is all.M: Wrong again, population genetics does not trace differences in "expressed" variant alleles. The majority of population genetic markers are non-expressed. Are you sure you know anything about pop gen? Just asking..have you ever taken a course? Read a textbook? Primary literature? I ask because you are making definitive statements that are completely false.PLG:
Evolutionary theory is not about variation, it is about speciation (and with that we open up another can of worms).M: Uh, you have not read Darwin either it seems. Evolutionary theory is exceptionally pre-occupied with variation and how said variation is acted upon by selection resulting in (mostly extinction actually) but also speciation.PLG:
This was my first clue that something was amiss with the theory, everytime I came up to a pivotal point in one portion of evolutionary explanations for proving evolution true, there came a road block. At that roadblock, there magically formed an assumption to overthrow that blockade...answer this, please...M: Because that is how science works. All theories, gravity and relativity for example are tentative. They are constantly being tested and modified as novel discoveries are made. A theory can be overthrown. Evolution is the best supported theory in biological science but is still tentative. You will no more "prove" evolution as you will "prove" the theory of gravity. Assumptins are not magically formed by the way...at least nobody has ever accused me of performing magic in the lab..especially when I drop my tube rack on the floor...doh!PLG:
Pure beneficial mutations are assumed, why? Because without mutations you have no variant alleles. Why does evolution need variant alleles? Because variants are differences between organisms.M: You were doing a bit better up to this point...PLG: But variation does not give rise speciation...since when has one creature ever been observed to change into another creature?M: one creature does not turn into another....Lamark was wrong.However, variation in populations does give rise to new species and this has been observed in the case of bacteria, cichlids, and in various plants among other things.PLG:
So, we have to come up with a definition of speciation that demonstrates evolution is a reality, and so Mayr has...in his own mind, anyway. However, none of these examples change one creature into another, they only demonstrate variation.M: Again, your logic is flawed and also demonstrates you have no grasp of the scientific method.PLG:
We have come up against another wall, so we assume that with enough micro variation, we will eventually observe macro variation...speciation. This is not the case. We have now jumped over what the factual data will allow with invalid and unwarranted assumptions four times, and it is interesting to me that at every wall is when these assumptions are called upon. Then we call upon another one, the assumption that evolution is simply change, this way we can call upon population genetics to demonstrate evolution, but does it really?M: Firs n genetics demonstrates evolution very well in fact..here are just two examples of manySchliewen UK, Tautz D, Paabo S. Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids.
Nature. 1994 Apr 14;368(6472):629-32.Lenski RE, Winkworth CL, Riley MA.
Rates of DNA Sequence Evolution in Experimental Populations of Escherichia coli During 20,000 Generations.
J Mol Evol. 2003 Apr;56(4):498-508.PLG:
No. It does not demonstrate nor observe one creature turning into another, it only documents variational differences. If we reduce the theory of evolution to what some call micro-evolution, changes within organisms'expressed allelic gene versions, then I agree. But until it can be demonstrated that we have one organism turning into another, there is no evolutionper say. Darwin did not give a thesis on trying to explain variation, but on the divergence between a modern dog and its ancestors. Between a modern elephant and its ancestors, etc.M: This is a typical creationist rant that one organism turning into another which evolution and genetics do not propose. This is neo-Lamarkian thinking and is thus a strawman arguement against evolution.
Find a definition by an evolutionary biologist or geneticist that claims one organism turns into another...your are describing the typical cartoonish version of science uneducated creationsists adhere to.PLG:In short, unless you have a genetic mechanism that can add to a single celled organism, that in time will build blue-prints for arms, legs, sex organs, other organs, a head, mouth, fingers, etc....M: Actually there is...they are called Hox genes...I can't believe you have never heard of thisPLG:
you have no evolution. My argument is this, that there is no such mechanism.M: Your argument is refuted by developmental genesPLG:
All of the supposed "mutations" that I have read in papers have to do with variation adaptation to nylon, or mosquito resistance to DDT are not true mutations. They are only genetic changes induced in one way or another by the organisms cellular or sub-cellular systems. They are not mutations by nature.M: You clearly do not know what a mutation is. So genetic changes leading to an altered phenotype is not mutation?...that will be news to the entire scientific community....please cite the papers you have read by the way so that we can discuss these supposed cellular or sub cellular system changes you claim there is evidence for.PLG:My whole argument, boiled down, I guess, is that what scientists are calling as mutations today are fabrications and mis-callings based upon what the evolutionary theorists of yester-year propagandized the to be in their efforts at keeping the theory alive. What needs to be done is this, these areas need to be looked at again, from the very beginning, identifying these assumptions that are holding the theory together (many and unfounded are they), and test them. But for now, there are just too many, even by science's standards [Kitcher], for the theory of evolution to be considered a valid theory.M: Sorry that my tone is turning snide but you apparently have no background in biology and yet are attempting to make difinitive statements about biological phenomenon.So, your argument boils down to what a geneticisit calls a mutation is a lie propagated by the scientific community to mislead people like you? That is a weak and frankly a paranoid argument.I am not convinced you have any knowledge of what a mutation is or what evolution is..Please define what you think is the scientific and generally accepted (in the scientific community) definition of
1. Mutation. Please provide supporting references for your definition
2. Evolution. Also provide supporting references and in addition please demonstrate how the definition I provided by Futuyma is false and is not accepted by scientists.This should be an easy task considering you claim to be an authority on mutation and evolution.Looking forward to it...Cheers,
M

I realize I am not suposed to offer my views but the fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that diploid organisms are capable at present of evolution beyond the subspecies. This was not original with me but was the conclusion of Grasse, Broom and, stealing the idea from Broom without ever acknowledging it, that great spokesperson for the Synthesis (GROUPTHINK) Julian Huxley. Sorry to interrupt. salty

For a thousand years, the generaly accepted physics was that of Aristotle. salty