|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Beneficial Mutations | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daaaaaBEAR Inactive Member |
Are you convinced yet? no, sorry. If by convinced you mean converted to evolution then never, but at the time I don't see how this article makes it possible for mutation that is more advanced than improvment against disease and immune systems, etc.. Crashfrog says that every species is in a state of transition. If humans are are in transition then how does resistance to disease make us mutate into a different species? That article gives no examples of beneficial mutation that would lend to whole new species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm afraid that your misunderstandings are so total that it will take a very long time for you to get the underpinnings you need here.
There are many books that are more carefully written than any posts here are going to be. They might help you get enough understanding to be able to ask better questions and understand what you are being told. Now, about the galloping goalposts. We started this thread with:
.too bad mutations are never beneficial to any species whatsoever. Now that this has been shown to be an utterly incorrect statement you wish to discuss speciation without the courtesy to admit that you were wrong. When you have gotten that clear this thread will be finished and another thread on speciation can be started. Speciation is off topic here and not what you were originally talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6022 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
no, sorry. If by convinced you mean converted to evolution then never Never? How open-minded of you. Actually, though, I meant, "are you convinced that beneficial mutations occur?" - I'm still wondering what you think on that point.
at the time I don't see how this article makes it possible for mutation that is more advanced than improvment against disease and immune systems, etc.. It doesn't, though I would say that a gene spreading through the human population that prevents HIV infection, or prevents heart disease despite a poor diet and smoking, is quite "advanced". You are not going to find a single scientific paper that "proves" evolution. Each study presents its findings, nothing more. If it presented more, it would likely cease to be science.
Crashfrog says that every species is in a state of transition. Every organism, including you, is a "transitional" between its/your parents and its/your children. If that wasn't the case, you would be identical to your parents and children.
If humans are are in transition then how does resistance to disease make us mutate into a different species? You seem to be mixing up concepts a bit. You were asking about "beneficial mutations", which I gave you examples of in humans. Now you've switched the issue to "speciation", that is, one species becoming two species.
That article gives no examples of beneficial mutation that would lend to whole new species. It is rare that a single mutation will result in a speciation event (for example, a mutation that alters reproductive behavior). Speciation is generally much more gradual, the result of accumulation of many genetic differences, often in geographically isolated groups. Make sure you keep the two concepts "beneficial mutation" and "speciation" separate, since beneficial mutations are not necessarily required for speciation as you suggest in the above statement. Neutral genetic mutation can also result in speciation by producing reproductive compatibilities within a group, splitting it into two. Perhaps reading over the thread How do we define a new species? will be helpful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog says that every species is in a state of transition. If humans are are in transition then how does resistance to disease make us mutate into a different species? It doesn't. Reproductive isolation leads to new species, not mutation.
That article gives no examples of beneficial mutation that would lend to whole new species. Because that's not how new species form. New species form through reproductive isolation. When two populations are separated from each other, and are constantly changing as all populations do, the lack of gene flow between them means that genetic incompatibility develops. They change in different genetic "directions" because the genetic communication (gene flow) between them is interrupted. As a result, they lose the ability to interbreed over time. That's how new species form.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Crash, speciation is NOT the topic of this thread. Thanks. Let's not muddle something so simple up. It will be useful in the future, you KNOW it will come up a 100 more times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just trying to narrow the topic by removing the conflation between beneficial mutations and speciation events.
Point taken, tho.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daaaaaBEAR Inactive Member |
Never? How open-minded of you. I only leave room for truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I only leave room for truth. So the truth that beneficial mutations do happen is fine with you now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6022 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I only leave room for truth. hey daaaaaBEAR, Hopefully you realize that this six-word non-response is downright rude, considering I put effort into a page-long response trying to inform you. Perhaps you care to respond to anything else in my post? Is there something you would like explained differently? Specifically, do you now believe that beneficial mutations occur? That is the subject of the thread, and you have been given evidence. What do you think? Do beneficial mutations occur?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
What do you think? Do beneficial mutations occur?
Now Pink, you know that he only knows the TRUTH and the TRUTH is all he knows! Notice this argument is circular and a circle has no entrance for new information and no exit for misinformation or dogma. Obviously daaaaaBEAR is just trolling and is not interested in having a discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
There's no reason for that post. Let's try to keep such comments out when they do not further the discussion.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Well, I feel they are valid statements, but you are right that they don't further discussion, but since the originator of this topic does not seem interested in discussion I'm not sure that it matters.
I'll be good and not post such things in the future though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think you are misreading that
he could mean he leaves the room,and leaving it for truth to occupy (seeing as further responses seem to be absent ... )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gezginbekir Inactive Member |
there is no benefical mutation example.
quote:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19 Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20 Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus: Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The top picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation. It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21 Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies: Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22 The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive. A mutant fly withdeformed wings. The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations: Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23 The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation." The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened. They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded. It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grass, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grass compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grass explained this fact in this way: Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24 So for that reason, as Grass puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, gezginbekir.
quote: You must not have read the entire thread. Pink Sasquatch gave an example of a mutation that turns out to be beneficial. --
quote: There is another mutation, one that produces Hemoglobin C, whose adverse symptoms range from very mild to non-existent, which also confers protection against malaria -- this sounds like another beneficial mutation. --
quote: It appears that this is beyond the scope of this thread, which is concerned with beneficial mutations, but I want to say that this quote is correct. Mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Natural selection produces evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024