The Nature of Mutations

It all depends on your definition of terms
unfortunately.If you take the organism in isolation, and state,
as you have, that deleterious means unviable, then you
are correct. There are either deleterious (fatal/debilitating)
mutations or nuetral (non-fatal/debilitating) mutations.Beneficial in an evolutionary framework means something
more like 'conferring an advantage'. Not exactly, but
along those lines.Not entirely sure what you are arguing though, since even
in your framing of the issue there are demonstrably large
numbers of non-fatal mutations ... read up on it and you'll
be suprised.And further, if a mutation can be non-fatal (and they can)
then given the right environment they could confer
some form of advantage.

quote:

---

You calling them "damaged" implies that they're somehow not what they're supposed to be. But biologically, that's a meaningless assertion. Your assumption of design permiates your worldview, however, so I don't imagine you can see how wrong you are to suggest that blood cells have some way they're "supposed" to be.

---

My calling them damaged implies nothing, it is a straightforward observation. Your illegitimate assertion that design is a meaningless term in regards to biology is rediculous. This is an assumption on your part, and on the part of evolutionary theory that cannot be substantiated nor proven. And if we are to get off the subject (which I do not want to do) and speak of paradigms, it is not my paradigm that is lost in space. When you can provide evidence for your naturalistic paradigm, then you may have some ground on which to stand, but right now you don't.

quote:

---

All proteins do is fold into a shape. All possible proteins have shape. Whether or not that shape is useful (i.e. it catalyizes chemical reactions) depends on what chemicals surround the protein - its environment.

---

Are you serious? What you mean to say is that all possible polypeptides have a shape. A protein is a polypeptide that has a specific function to carry out, otherwise it is just a conglomerate of polypeptide materials. And its "usefulness" does not depend upon its environment, where do you get this stuff from, talk.origins? A proteins usefulness comes from its funtion, which is dictated by its specific conformation, which is dictated by its amino acid sequencing. It has absolutely nothing to do with its environment.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I think you fail, because you can't divorce yourself of a teleogically driven biology.

---

Actually, again, you fail. And your failure is based upon the fact that you take a theory that is based entirely upon speculation and assumption as a demonstratedly proven idea, when it is not.Something for you to think about, frog, creation has never been disproven, it was abandoned by those looking to escape God. Hint, there is no escape.Greetings!

quote:

---

Pardon my intrusion. I don't have time to reread this entire thread, but it seems that you are denying that any purely benefical mutations are known. Is that your position? If so, I can provide examples. If that is not what you are saying, then pardon my interruption.

---

Yes, this is what I am saying, to the best of my knowledge. All supposed "mutations" that are considered purely beneficial are in fact not mutations at all, but simply genetic changes such as recombination. But recombination is not a mutation.Greetings!

I'm afraid you're incorrect. If you'd care to peruse the Zhang & Rosenberg abstract I posted on the previous page? Quite clearly shows substitution - mutation - followed by duplication producing a positive effect (13-fold increase in enzyme activity). You also might find this collection of abstracts interesting: Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans. So, after reading those, do you still maintain all beneficial genetic changes are simply recombinations?

There's a dozen posts about non-deleterious, beneficial mutations. I'd prefer that you address them before jumping down my throat because they're much more of a threat to your arguments. I don't have to provide evidence for a naturalistic paradigm. It's the simplest assumption of them all because it doesn't require the existence of any entities that can't be tested. It's essentially a negative paradigm: "Nothing supernatural exists." If you seek to replace it with a supernatural paradigm, your model assumes far more than mine. Thus it is incumbent on you to show the evidence for your paradigm. Not so. As GP programs show, it is possible to arrive at function without design. If you equate design and function you commit an error. Simple as that. Let me pose the question this way. If you lived in a country where there was no metal, no machines, and I handed you a Phillips screwdriver, could you tell me the function of that tool? Probably not. (The best you could do would be some kind of weapon.) A tool, or protein, has no function in the absence of the elements that it acts upon. "Protein" is just a name we give to polypeptide chains that, by lucky accident, have a shape that allows them to do something we deem useful to the cell. That's part of the reason protein research is so hard - it's impossible to determine the function of a protein in the absense of its chemical context. Another assumption: Christian-style creation wins by default if evolution loses. Consider that my "World hatched from a Big Dingus Egg in 10,000 BC" theory, which I just made up, has never been "disproven" either. Now, granted, there's no evidence for it, but neither is there for specific creation.

My question is, what form of mutation isn't, colloquially speaking, recombination? Maybe I'm way off here, but basically every mutation is a shuffling of amino acid sequences with some addition and subtraction in the mix. The idea that mutations don't happen because the 'mutations' are only recombinations smacks of an argument by definition. Define mutation as recombination. Claim that recombination isn't mutation thereby setting up a false dichotomy. And then claim that there are therefore no (beneficial) mutations.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

OK, I have read through a few more of your posts and see that you do believe there are no purely beneficial mutations. Answers in Genesis would certainly disagree with you, as they acknowledge that they do exist (they just declare that they are all decreases in information).

---

Actually, let's go through your provided list...The Milano mutation, this is not a purely beneficial mutation. The wild type of the protein which it affects produces HDL. The mutated form, apoA-1 Milano, destroys that capability, which is why those inflicted with the mutation had low levels of HDL. Sure, it also has the beneficial effect of working as an anti-oxidant molecule, but the key issue is that the original function of the protein is destroyed. If it had not had the beneficial side affect of acting as an anti-oxidant, those afflicted with this mutation would die early deaths due to such low levels of HDL.Culex Pipiens Mosquito did not originate the insecticide digesting enzymes via mutation, they already had them. The key that enables them to survive this particular pesticide is the copies of the gene that codes for them. The more copies they have, the more enzymes they produce which takes care of the pesticide before it can cause lethal damage. The copies of the genes are not true mutations, they are copies of genes that were already within the genome. This is not a deletion, addition or substitution of nucleotides/amino acids during translation of DNA segments.RNASE1 AND RNASE1B genes in old world monkeys, these are not beneficial mutations. They are not random copying errors within the monkeys genome. The article even admitted that these changes were not random, but adaptational in nature. Such changes are incurred via genetic switches being turned on, enabling genes prevously not expressed to now be expressed. These are genetic changes, but they are not mutations. The information has always been there, just previously unexpressed.Nylon eating bacteria is always a favorite for evolutionists on debating boards. As the article pointed out, it is not so much nylon, but nylon oligomers, which are not new to the world. They are called "nylon" and people automatically think of your household nylon rope, this is not the case. Nylon occurs naturally from certain plants as waste, as the article clearly says, the only thing is that true.origins has never been up front in any of their articles about all things. Naturally occurring nylon oligomers from plants has always been around, so how do they get away with saying that they are not found in naturally occurring products? I have no idea. The fact remains that while modern science has identified bacteria that can now "digest" nylon oligomers that before (in the scientists small sampling world) could not do so, does not mean that they did not do so in the past. This is also indicated by the fact that, we are told it has taken millions of years for evolutionary changes to take place and be selected for, waiting for the right selection pressure and environment to come along inducing such pressure. Do you really think that these bacteria evolved to be able to "eat" nylon in only a few short generations?Lets get real here. The only possible explanation that fits with the facts of known science (not the unprovable assumptions of evolutionary theory) is that these bacteria have had this adaptational capability, only it was not utilized and switched off because it was not needed. Then, when the need arose, the genetic switch was thrown into the "on" position by the organsim, and here we go. The change is not mutational, and it is not random.Greetings!P.S., I cannot answer any more today, I have to go. I will answer the others as soon as I can get the time.

quote:

---

A tool, or protein, has no function in the absence of the elements that it acts upon.

---

Right... the phillips screwdriver in the absense of phillips screws would have no purpose. It could still be co-opted for something else though, which is how evolution works. A freak accident hands you a tool. It has no designed purpose, like the phillips screwdriver, but something can sometimes be found to do with it, like, say... the screwdriver could serve as a weapon.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Sure. The apparent function of the screwdriver depends on its environment. Its use as weapon depends on the presence of bodies to stab it into. Its use as a screwdriver depends on the presence of screws.

Sure it's an addition of nucleotides. The copies had to be made out of something, right? Duplications that weren't there before are still additions. As they arose through copying errors and weren't present in the genes of the parents, they're mutations. You're just playing dictionary games. Since all that it took was one point mutation in a gene normally used for carbohydrate digestion, sure. Why couldn't one mutation happen in the space of a few generations? In fact, lots of mutations happen in every generation. And what form to these "switches" take, if not genes? You're the one needlessly mutliplying assumptions. And what mechanism prompts the bacterium to switch on the ability to eat nylon? And why don't they all do it? Most of the population died on the nylon substrate. It's obviously not an effective mechanism.

We agree. Prolly has something to with evidence vs. exegesis... hmmmm.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Do you really think that these bacteria evolved to be able to "eat" nylon in only a few short generations?

---

Are you suggesting otherwise? My reading of this research suggests this:
1) The genetic changes that produce the nylon digesting capabilities are known. They are exactly a one unit addition witch shifts the code.
2) They are not present in the preceeding bacteria. It is an easy random mutation to get to it however.
3) In the environment of the experiment the mutation is beneficial.What part do you disagree with?

I'm going to try and keep score.First there has to be agreeement on the definition of mutation. Could someone propose a definition?

• The Milano mutation: No rebuttal. Point for Phospho.
  ​
• Culex Pipiens Mosquito: Difference of opinion is possibly due to different definitions of mutation. Tie.
  ​
• RNASE1 AND RNASE1B genes: No rebuttal. Point for Phospho.
  ​
• Nylon eating bacteria: Solid rebuttal. Point to evolutionists.

Score: Phospho 2-1/2, evolutionists 1-1/2I'll revise the score as discussion of the examples of beneficial mutations continues.--Percy

quote:

---

PG: The Milano mutation, this is not a purely beneficial mutation. The wild type of the protein which it affects produces HDL. The mutated form, apoA-1 Milano, destroys that capability, which is why those inflicted with the mutation had low levels of HDL.

---

FK: And because of the benefits of the modified protein, the low level of HDL are irrelevant. In other words, a person with this mutation is better off than without it. It is beneficial. The significance of HDL in this context is diminished. HDL prevents plaque buildup. The new protein does the job more effectively; hence the mutation is beneficial.Your logic is similar to the following. I have a slow computer that I use for process modeling. Eventually I get a much faster computer. Most people would describe this as beneficial, even if I discarded the slow computer. I can do my work much more quickly with the fast computer. Using your logic, this is not beneficial because I lost the function of the slow computer. In context, you would say that the change is only beneficial if I keep both the slow computer and the fast computer.

quote:

---

PG: If it had not had the beneficial side affect of acting as an anti-oxidant, those afflicted with this mutation would die early deaths due to such low levels of HDL.

---

FK: And if my aunt were a man, she’d be my uncle. If the mutation had not had a beneficial effect, then it would not be classified as a beneficial mutation. If the sole purpose of the mutation was to diminish HDL levels, then your point would be valid. Unfortunately for you, that was not the case.

quote:

---

PG: Culex Pipiens Mosquito did not originate the insecticide digesting enzymes via mutation, they already had them.

---

FK: Once more you are incorrect. From the article:

quote:

---

The mosquitoes actually digest the poison, using a suite of enzymes known as esterases. The genes that make these esterases are known as alleles B1 and B2.

---

And

quote:

---

The mosquitoes acquired B1 and B2 by two mutations. They then acquired the huge number of copies by duplication mutations.

---

And

quote:

---

Until 1984, California mosquitoes had neither B1 nor B2. They acquired all those copies in a single decade.

---

Which part of this are you having trouble with? The enzymes come from B1 and B2, which did not exist before 1984. They originated via mutation.

quote:

---

PG: RNASE1 AND RNASE1B genes in old world monkeys, these are not beneficial mutations. They are not random copying errors within the monkeys genome. The article even admitted that these changes were not random, but adaptational in nature. Such changes are incurred via genetic switches being turned on, enabling genes prevously not expressed to now be expressed. These are genetic changes, but they are not mutations. The information has always been there, just previously unexpressed.

---

FK: This is practically incomprehensible, and wrong to boot. There are two genes involved here, one which encodes for RNASE1 and one which encodes RNASE1B. The one which encodes RNASE1B came from a gene duplication and subsequent mutation of the one that encodes RNASE1. Now the colobines produce both enzymes. Other species of monkey do not. This allows the colobines to make use of leaves, an abundant food source if it can be digested. The function of RNASE1B allows them to efficiently digest the leaves. The mutation allowed them to adapt to a new diet of a more abundant food source.I note though that in your last statement you are starting to shift the goal posts. You aren’t talking about whether the mutations were beneficial, but you are trying to talk about information. Different subject. It is pretty clear to me, as it is to others, that you are merely playing semantics games to try and disqualify all of these mutations as beneficial.I can assure you that you are pretty much alone on this issue. The major Creationist organizations all acknowledge beneficial mutations.FK

Respectfully, I do have a life outside of this board and I should be allowed more than 3 hours to respond before you start awarding points.FK