Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)

Thank you, that makes more sense.

Some interesting technical points in that post, raising questions in my mind that along with some points raised by Crash might make a good thread alone -- one on which I could only observe or ask questions I suppose.But for purposes of this discussion it may be unnecessarily technical. The point can maybe be stated more roughly. It is only that every time I claim the incidence of disease in the population has implications for the viability of the ToE, I am answered that evolution couldn't care less about such things, it only "cares" about reproducibility.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do not see what this has to do with the idea that it is MUTATIONS that are the great agent of beneficial change. Population genetics can be discussed without reference to mutations it seems to me, and was a few decades ago, mutation being treated as a much more occasional event than it appears to be now, when it is regarded just about as the entire fuel source of evolution. I suppose it was inevitable that it should develop in this direction though, to be more consistent with the ToE. In the "olden days" it seems to me it was taken for granted that the basic genetic stuff, the genome, was just "there" and there was no problem talking about how it was reorganized in various ways through the concepts of population genetics even then, change in the frequency of alleles in a population and all that being the formula for evolution in any case. Now it seems to be taken for granted that it all GOT there by mutation, though this is purely theoretical (I'll get to the few supposed exceptions). And it has been answered. Many times.Is it true or not that the observed errors in gene replication that are called mutations are associated either with a disease process or not associated with anything in particular, rather than with anything beneficial, except for these extremely few exceptions? You gave a completely hypothetical example of an increase in muscle strength due to an identifiable alteration in a gene -- I think that was it -- but this was totally hypothetical, not observed. I'd have to regard it as a beneficial mutation if such a thing ever occurred, but nothing that beneficial, at least in human genetics, has been demonstrated to occur at the genetic level.All the beneficial factors appear to be pre-existing, built into the genome. At least, again, this is the creationist assumption and it is a perfectly reasonable assumption, there being nothing to show it wrong. This includes the greater visual acuity of the Patagonians you mentioned, for instance, which my version of creationism would explain as simply one genetic expression in the total human gene pool that got sorted out by migration of the people to Patagonia and spread through the population in subsequent generations. There is nothing to show that at any point a mutation for great visual acuity developed in a Patagonian that was selected because it was particularly beneficial in the Patagonian environment. That is all theory.The wisdom tooth example cannot possibly be taken seriously as a beneficial mutation, or even a neutral mutation since it has a definite effect in eliminating wisdom teeth. It gets all philosophically confused to try to figure out how the absence of such teeth MIGHT conceivably confer a benefit. It seems to me that if it involves the destruction of a gene, that ought to be the defining factor, and I can't see such destruction as a positive in any sense whatever.The fact that it happens to have no negative effect should simply be cause for gratitude or a sense of relief, but when more and more genes for the development of more and more teeth get broken, then its disease tendency might become more apparent. In other words, what can possibly be good about the loss of any physical capacity whatever? You can't judge this as a good thing only on present functional ability.But then, being a creationist, I'm geared to seeing destruction and disease as the trend in life as a result of the Fall. While there is certainly room in this view for God's provision of all kinds of healing and compensating and rebuilding factors in the design of our genetic makeup, including the possible benefit of fewer teeth in a smaller jaw or whatever, it would be a mistake to regard any of this as a positive in the big picture.The same with sickle cell. How anybody can possibly consider it a beneficial development that a mutation that kills people happens also to protect against a disease that kills people is beyond me.And those two are the only human examples of a supposed beneficial mutation so far offered, as opposed to a very long list of known disease-causing mutations as well as the "neutral" kind that remove perfectly normal functions. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics shouldn't even be considered in this context, and that leaves TWO supposed beneficial mutations that aren't beneficial by any meaningful use of the term.At the very least, I think this has to be regarded as a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for such phenomena than that given by the ToE.A beneficial mutation, it seems to me, would have to produce a new protein for that gene with a completely new positive function that involves the destruction of nothing whatever. Sorry if my visualization of this process leaves something to be desired. I hope it's in the ballpark. It seems to me that if evolution had a prayer of being true, a LOT of this sort of thing would be seen, but in fact it appears that what is actually seen is all negative or "neutral" with the supposed exception of these very few examples that really aren't exceptions. Yes, but the point is that it hasn't been shown that there is any other kind of mutation than those that are harmful to one degree or another, including the ones that cause no appreciable disease process or functional loss as discussed above. I've answered all this before and I answered it again above, and I guess I'll answer some of it again now too. Considering that there is an incredibly long list of known human genetic diseases, the claim that these few supposed exceptions amount to evidence of beneficial mutations is pretty paltry. I have no problem with the idea that there could be some beneficial mutations, but as a matter of fact all anybody has come up with is these sorry examples.About the HIV protection gene, I answered it before and I'll answer it again. This is like the Patagonian visual acuity example. There is no evidence that it is a result of mutation, that is merely assumed. Unlike gene destruction or change that causes various diseases that can be pinpointed in the DNA, nobody has shown that kind of evidence for any such positive. There is no reason not to assume that it is simply part of the normal human genetic package that happened to survive in a few people, while in the rest of the population mutations destroyed it. This is a perfectly reasonable explanation.As for bacteria, although in the context of human genetics I'd rather ignore it, somebody successfully argued somewhere at EvC that the development of resistance to antibiotics HAD to be a mutation and not built in because of the nature of asexual genetics, but I don't remember the argument. Seems to me that there is still no problem assuming that some bacteria are different from others in the same population, just by nature, and that such differences can be selected for. Whether this is true or not, I think the principle applies just fine to the plague/HIV protective gene and the visual acuity gene of the Patagonians. Not just declaring, arguing it from the information given me here. A hypothetical example of a beneficial mutation against multiple known observed factual examples of destructive mutations is useless. Ha ha, considering that Schraf has said she wants no children. Anyway, that's a totally hypothetical possible benefit that borders on teleology, which is a no-no. Evos certainly have a lot of imagination. The vulnerability to wisdom tooth infections and impaction and all that is probably all the result of previous destructive mutations anyway. This is all a downward trend. And the actual evidence in hand supports this idea, whereas all you have is wild hypotheticals to support the evolutionist scheme. But there is no evidence that the HIV protection gene was a mutation at all, as opposed to a built-in design factor, the lack of it being the result of mutation. It's plausible, but just barely, and since the whole edifice is hypothetical, simply not convincing. All such positives are far more easily explained in terms of pre-existing built-in conditions, rather than mutation, which, again, has only been OBSERVED in its relation to destructive processes. Very poor ones, which I totally demolished above.

On your list of supposed beneficial mutations, you are speaking purely hypothetically, purely from evolutionary theory. There is no actual factual physical evidence that any of that was brought about by mutations, it's simply assumed because it's what the ToE assumes. Of course, since I don't believe in the ToE, I assume on the contrary that all the basic substance and the useful adaptations of life were built into the genetic material at the creation of the living thing.The harmful mutations on the other hand, or most of them perhaps, and maybe I have this wrong but this is my impression, can be identified AS mutations by looking at the genetic material itself. That is, many genetic diseases can be located on the DNA and studied there in terms of whether the gene is "broken" or not, produces a protein or not, or produces a wrong protein.

I've done this Percy, over and over again, and I don't understand your repeating YOUR refrain. I've clearly disagreed that the evidence presented for the three supposed beneficial mutations is evidence for beneficial mutations, and I've clearly explained why it isn't -- they are obviously not beneficial, but destructive mutations. Except for the bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That's the only one. I've also offered the "other interpretation" you claim I have not offered, that they are simply further examples of the deterioration of life a creationist expects to see.If you continue to have your same objection that I have not answered the claims to evidence, please let's end the discussion because there is nowhere for it to go and I refuse to take the rap for that. Then these are not novel, but the usual pattern of inheritance, by which differences that are already potential simply come to the fore on the genetic roulette wheel as it were, the way one gets eye color. Mendelian principles. Fine, this is what I would expect is the case rather than mutation. And such benefits may in fact be naturally selected. How do you "see" this? You have the DNA of ancient ancestors handy? You "see" this for all genes? I don't know what you are saying. How do you know this? Yes, if they are truly created new, this would have to be the case. How do you know they are created new rather than simply built in alternative possibilities? It is simply the ToE that DICTATES that this is what is going on, that new genes are being created. There is, again, sorry to repeat myself, NO EVIDENCE for this, it's all theoretical. OK. I wouldn't express doubt about that. Where are you getting that? Anything truly beneficial is likely to spread. I've been doubting that there even IS such a thing as a beneficial MUTATION, or at least anywhere near enough of them to counter the negative mutations. Fine. Good. How do you tell the difference? So far I haven't seen one example of a beneficial HUMAN mutation, nothing that can't be explained by allele mixing. Crash has a link to one he claims is but I haven't got to that yet. Maybe it is an example. In which we would now have ONE, just ONE, solid example of a beneficial mutation in human beings, as against a LONG list of genetic diseases all presumably brought about by mutations. Percy, just don't talk to me. That will solve all your problems. If you can't explain something to me in terms that really deal with my views, give up. Just stop criticizing me for what I'm saying if you can't give a clear answer to it. OBSERVED errors. OBSERVED. Stuff you can point to in the DNA. Haven't seen this yet. All anybody has offered is a bunch of ASSUMED beneficial mutations, like Parasomnium's list, and your hypotheticals. And two known mutations that can hardly be called beneficial, the sickle cell and the missing wisdom teeth. I understand the PRINCIPLE. There are no ACTUAL EXAMPLES of the principle actually happening. I have no idea what you are saying, what you think I'm saying, what you think you are answering or anything. Obviously the miscommunication is so extreme that there is no point in continuing this. I don't think I grasped this at the time if you were actually agreeing with me. I'd be interested in checking that out except that by now I have lost interest in this whole frustrating exchange. I'm tired of repeating myself too, probably a lot tireder than you are. I have lost interest in this discussion. Obviously it is going nowhere. No, I am repeating myself because you are acting like you don't get it. I'm tired of having to repeat myself too, VERY Tired. Your answers don't answer anything. "The specifics of your explanation" were hypothetical. Many explanations for why it MIGHT BE beneficial, all wildly hypothetical, have been given. I am SPECIFICALLY rejecting wild hypotheticals. So I'm saying simply that the LOSS of something just doesn't suggest anything beneficial at all, even if because of other losses and defects in a very roundabout way it ends up at least not a bad thing. The part that tries to claim that something that causes pain and suffering and often kills people is a benefit.No, I am not incredulous about anything here. I understand the principle. I can't regard it as a benefit. To call it a benefit requires something like a black sense of humor, low expectations -- but I think that's what the ToE does to one. Yes, I'm driven to repeat myself. I've answered everything you said. I have exactly the same experience of feeling you are ignoring my explanations. Obviously we are at an impasse and I don't want to continue at this point. As science. God did what? I'm talking about built-in genetic material. We don't have to discuss origins at this point. I am proposing this as an alternative explanation. yes without evidence, as an exact parallel with the evo explanation that also has no evidence. It is just as reasonable an explanation for the known phenomena. I've answered the arguments quite thoroughly over and over again. It isn't evidence. The supposed benefits aren't benefits, and the rest of the evidence isn't evidence, it's all hypotheticals that have no evidence for them but merely follow from the ToE. That's an answer, Percy, that's an answer. I am tired of repeating it.END OF DISCUSSION, OK? No point in dragging this mess on.

Wounded answered you that this is not known, and you responded: Yes, BASED ON THE TOE. If everything that exists is the result of mutations over the billennia, then of course since a great diversity of elaborately constituted things are living and functioning rather admirably in many ways, there must have been an enormous row of beneficial mutations. MUST HAVE BEEN. If the ToE is true. Percy had already pointed this out, by giving a hypothetical example of how a beneficial mutation might arise and be spread in a population. Same idea as yours, based on the assumption that what is seen to exist had to have come about by mutation. All hypothetical, following from the ToE.Your footnote is interesting to think about. Yes, the ToE does seem to breed low expectations, as in calling a disease (Sickle Cell) a benefit because it happens to ward off another disease. Black humor. In response to this I may seem to be contradicting my own argument that everything is winding down if I point out the extravagant complexities of what exists, the fine tuning, the elegant design, the beauty of living things. Whatever brought all this about wasn't merely "just good enough" or "mediocre." I may misremember C.S. Lewis on this point, but I like my mismemory because it seems true: Nature appears to be something immensely good gone wrong. Fantastic variety and adaptability in living things marred by disease and death.But the bottom line on this particular subject, again, to repeat myself AGAIN, is whether or not a beneficial mutation can actually be identified in reality, seen in the DNA, as opposed to being assumed to happen, at whatever rate. Again, Crash has given a link to a candidate for this, which I hope to get to soon.

In the Bible. An assumption is an a priori for which no evidence is required, and I offered mine as my counter to the assumption given by the evos, which also has no evidence for it, merely hypothetical guesses.

Well, it's not quite that black and white. I'm aware of the long list of genetic diseases, and the oddness of being given only two strange contenders for beneficial mutations on the other side, this wisdom tooth thing and this sickle cell thing, both of which I have trouble categorizing as anything but negative no matter what secondary benefits they may also confer. So it's not as if I'm operating only from my presupposition. Then there's also the discussion of beneficial mutations in purly hypothetical terms, plus the fact that even on the genetic level the word "mutation" is used to describe the occasional appearance of anything whatever. Such as in Crash's example of the muscular baby. They ASSUME the mutation part of the story. Otherwise it reads as the usual Mendelian situation, about how the genes pair up to produce the condition or not produce it. The actual fact of a mutation I guess just can't be shown at this point, it CAN only be assumed.All this is coming back down to the question of what a mutation really is, and I don't have the knowledge to follow far on this topic. When one talks of a "frequent" mutation as in your quote, it raises this same question in my mind whether it was already in the population to begin with. This all has to do with genetic mechanisms like replication of genes about which I have only the most rudimentary understanding. In other words, in a certain sense mutation is ALWAYS happening to genes, with every sexual combination, but in this case mutation is the normal way genes are shuffled, rather than the introduction of something novel. They make proteins, different combinations of the four bases make different proteins. There are quite a lot of different combinations possible. When something novel actually happens, it appears to be a malfunction rather than genetic business as usual. That is the impression I get from almost all the discussion that goes on about this but I can't follow too far into the genetic specifics.Evolutionists must ALWAYS start from the assumption that the basic stuff of life was brought into being by complex genetic processes happening frequently all along the way, so that mutations are just assumed to be the original cause of any trait whatever -- and Mendelian genetics simply operates to shuffle these traits once mutation has brought them into being, or something roughly like that. Percy said I'm wrong about this, but what else can you all be thinking?On the other hand, I ALWAYS start with the creationist view that the basic stuff of life is just There, a given, and that changes are either built-in genetic variations along Mendelian lines, such as shufflings of dominant-recessive genes and no doubt many others I don't know much about, OR they are these mistakes called mutations, which alter some "normal" pattern of protein-making functions of genes, and it's hard for me to think of these as anything but a bad thing. Some of them seem to be simply normal potentials that are already in the population left over from the original gene pool, rather than mutations, but I don't know what criterion could be applied to tell the difference.But once the conversation has gotten to the level of asking what a mutation really is, I think it has to end because I can't follow if it gets too technical and the fact that we operate from completely different basic assumptions just adds to the difficulty.

Of course, that would be the evolutionally correct term, nice and neutral, implying neither good not bad. Which is all your whole post is about, promoting evolutionally correct thinking.However, Crash used the term "malady" and "broken" in Message 170, and the concept that certain conditions of a gene "should" or "shouldn't" be the case with respect to "maladies," so I'm not on my own with this terminology. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, as I said. I was characterizing evolution thinking correctly. Yes, that's what I said, again correctly characterizing evolution thinking about origins. That was acknowledged in the remark about Mendelian shuffling. Of course, once the genes are in place then they are sorted and dispensed and often a "new" one appears to show up when it was merely one of those with a very low frequency in the population.Again you are claiming evidence without showing evidence, just apparently enjoying saying I'm denying it, when in fact I've answered it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, sure, all that is orthodox interpretation of the Gospel According to the ToE, and I'm afraid all I can do is repeat my same old objections, which only gets me accused of repeating myself and ignoring the "evidence."About your discussion of the relativity of good and bad "mutations," sure, but I don't have a problem understanding the selection processes. The question is how do you know they are mutations, rather than simply allelic possibilities naturally in the human population that got selected under the different situations? Again, I have no problem with natural selection, I assume it. It's the origin of the stuff selected or selected-out that is in question. You automatically call them "mutations" but that's exactly what needs to be demonstrated, that they are mutations rather than built in genetic possibilities.Thanks for the description of the various forms of mutations. I've had a vague idea of all that and I guess it's still vague, because it's complex and I'd need to study it more, and maybe even then wouldn't get the whole thing digested. But now they need to be connected up with actual genetic stuff.And I still have the question, are these changes regarded as normal, as mistakes, or something like normal mistakes or what? How do you decide? I would assume that the ToE simply accepts anything that happens as, well, to be expected. There can't really be a mistake REALLY, because the whole system is a sort of trial and error system. Something like that.The tails in babies example requires evidence. The only evidence I've ever seen is of a baby with a long piece of flesh that doesn't really act like a tail.So are there hind legs in living whales or only in fossil whales?The "beautiful buttocks" gene sounds to me like a gene that was probably predominant in wild sheep -- for strength in climbing steep mountains as you say -- gradually lost in domesticity but still lurking in very low frequencies in populations of domestic sheep. This gene simply found expression in one population after years of dormancy in domestic populations. It's merely assumed, as per the ToE, that it was originally a mutation.Antibiotic resistance IS a beneficial mutation IF it is a mutation and not just a naturally occurring option that got selected. But it's about bacteria and I'm looking for something to contrast with the genetic diseases caused by destructive mutations in HUMANS, so I want human examples, and these appear to be just about nonexistent.No, sickle cell does not stand. This just can't be an example of a beneficial mutation in a system which supposes that all the adaptations of life arose by mutations. You can't claim that all life has been made up of diseases combating diseases or life would never have existed. There's more true vigor in ANY population than that, despite my creationist view that everything is winding down. We need a pure example of a truly purely positive beneficial mutation.Nor does the wisdom teeth mutation qualify. I've said why many times.Nylon-digesting bacteria is interesting. So far the only truly positive examples are of bacteria. But again, how do you know it's a mutation and not just a built-in genetic option of low frequency in the population, a natural option that comes to the fore under heavy selection pressure or some accidental circumstances?Yes I know it reproduces asexually. I'm assuming an analogous situation to the array of allelic options in some genes in sexual reproduction.Ditto monkyflower. Yes, and again, assuming that evolution is true, you have to explain all this as normal, rather than wonder why there is so much unnecessary stuff. But a creationist wonders and suspects that it's not normal.Same with the pseudo-genes, or "copies of working genes that are non-functional due to mutations," although it's nice they're there to absorb some otherwise negative mutations, and same with the redundancy of the genetic code. This all looks to me like something that has gone wrong, something that started out functional, in fact perfect, and got messed up. But evolutionists just treat it all as business as usual. Yes. A disaster. And yes I know, evolution couldn't care less, just let it suffer or struggle through or die. Then what is that long list of genetic diseases that don't look like they're going away any time soon? Not to mention all the minor little genetic glitches so many of us live with such as myopia, flat feet and so on. OK, that's the Evo Gospel. For which the evidence you gave, that everyone else has given too, is awfully pathetic, face it. But sure, logically, based on the Evo Gospel, it makes some kind of sense. I just think the creationist theory of devolution explains it better.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

duplicateEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think I'll wait until someone else gives me the information, if you don't mind, as I simply don't enjoy our exchanges.

Well I guess I'm just dense. Maybe you could explain it again just in case maybe it will get through this time?

OK. Thank you. Now would you please bear with me while I ask what is no doubt another very annoying question? Because this other possibility also frequently comes to mind.How do you know that the novel sequence is not somehow a predictable if rare possibility in the process of reproduction? That is, how do you distinguish a real mutation, a "mistake," a "broken" sequence, etc., from a mathematically rare but nevertheless chemically potential sequence, which would be normal chemically and mathematically speaking, though very rare? If it happened to be the only one that survived a certain selection pressure, then it would proliferate.I mean, this whole genetic thing happens on a string of chemicals which in different combinations have different effects. Some of the changes along these sequences I would think would simply be predictable given the nature of the chemical bases and their possible combinations. I hope this question makes sense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.