Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 76 of 223 (343117)
08-24-2006 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
08-24-2006 7:18 PM


Re: Trying to steer the past sub-thread back on topic
This is ridiculous. In other words you are saying we have to accept evolution, period.
It isn't that you have to accept evolution per se but that you should accept evolutionary theories own estimations as to what could reasonably be expected to be experimentally observed arising in terms of mutation in line with that theory. This is in contrast to just picking your own arbitrary standard for what constitutes a beneficial mutation and insisting that evolutionary theory toes the line if it is to be credible.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 7:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 7:47 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 77 of 223 (343119)
08-24-2006 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
08-24-2006 7:18 PM


Re: Trying to steer the past sub-thread back on topic
This is ridiculous. In other words you are saying we have to accept evolution, period.
Faith, please do not jump to conclusions. Please take what I said in context. It is silly to attempt to discredit a beneficial mutation by referencing the oft straw-man character of evolution based on the hopeful monster. That is all I am saying.
No one is saying that you have to accept evolution. What I am simply pointing out is that you shouldn't use a false characture of evolution to define what is and is not considered beneficial or the mechanism for change within evolution.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 7:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 7:42 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 223 (343120)
08-24-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Jazzns
08-24-2006 7:37 PM


Re: Trying to steer the past sub-thread back on topic
Faith, please do not jump to conclusions. Please take what I said in context. It is silly to attempt to discredit a beneficial mutation by referencing the oft straw-man character of evolution based on the hopeful monster. That is all I am saying.
But your accusation that we are discrediting beneficial mutation by this hopeful monster idea is false. I am not doing that and I haven't seen anyone else doing that. I believe this is a misreading on your part, and it amounts to a very confusing straw man misrepresentation of our argument.
No one is saying that you have to accept evolution. What I am simply pointing out is that you shouldn't use a false characture of evolution to define what is and is not considered beneficial or the mechanism for change within evolution.
Again this is your misreading. I absolutely do not recognize it and do not know where you are getting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Jazzns, posted 08-24-2006 7:37 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 11:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 79 of 223 (343124)
08-24-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
08-24-2006 7:18 PM


What is possible...
And I for one am responding to that when I question that what science says is possible could actually produce the changes over billennia that evolved everything living, or in other words question the evolutionist idea of a beneficial mutation.
Then perhaps you should point out just what changes are too great to have arisen this way.
We can look at the differences between H. sapiens and our nearer relatives and see that we only need a small number of maintained beneficial differences a year to account for what we see.
ABE
What you miss is the nature of the real differences. You see the external form of life but it is driven by chemical changes that are what mutations are. We have found out how some, comparitively, very small chemical changes can produce large external changes.
Untill you understand all of that you will remain incredulous. It is astonishing! It is also real.
We look at larger differences and see that there seems to be no greater rate of conserved differences. The changes we see seem to be individually rather small. Differences in the chemistry of specific parts of our bodies that can produce large differences in things like our structure and our brains. These chemical differences are no where so great that the evolutionary explanation can not account for them.
Perhaps you have a specific case? Maybe you should put that forward?
The 6 million years that we have been diverging from our surviving relatives seems like a long time. When you divide the differences between us by that amount of time it takes only a small number of changes at each generation to accumulate them.
What we all have trouble grasping is that 6 million years is a very short amount of time. The 60+ million years we have been diverging from "rat-like" animals is also lots when you look at the relatively (to the time given) small changes from them.
You balk at our being related to unicellular life. How far are we from "rats" and how far are they from a worm?
From rats to worms was 10 times a long as from rats to us. From rats to us was 10 times as long as from our common ape ancestor to us.
And the changes, chemically from worms to rats to primates to us are not so great over those times. We share a lot.
ABE
You suffer from a focus on the external forms that you see. The real changes that mutations introduce are chemical. We have learned how small, comparitively small, changes there can produce profound changes in the body of an animal.
Until you understand all this you will remain incredulous. It is astonishing! It is also real.
Edited by NosyNed, : Add a bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 7:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 8:14 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 223 (343126)
08-24-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Wounded King
08-24-2006 7:35 PM


Re: Trying to steer the past sub-thread back on topic
It isn't that you have to accept evolution per se but that you should accept evolutionary theories own estimations as to what could reasonably be expected to be experimentally observed arising in terms of mutation in line with that theory. This is in contrast to just picking your own arbitrary standard for what constitutes a beneficial mutation and insisting that evolutionary theory toes the line if it is to be credible.
I know my OP invited this discussion but now I'm rather regretting it because I think we need to cover a lot more examples of supposed beneficial mutations first.
However, nobody is picking some arbitary standard. I am actually THINKING ABOUT "what could reasonably be expected to be experimentally observed arising in terms of mutation in line with that theory" and finding it very questionable that such phenomena could be the driving force of evolution. If most mutations are of this form of compromises or tradeoffs between something useful in the prevention of disease with some other form of disease, that's like saying you ought to be able to run a car on gasoline mixed with water.
I think it's a logical train of thought.
But I also would rather drop it at this point if that is possible, and try to focus down on the particulars of what beneficial mutations are claimed to be.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Wounded King, posted 08-24-2006 7:35 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 08-24-2006 8:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 88 by Hawks, posted 08-24-2006 9:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 81 of 223 (343127)
08-24-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
08-24-2006 7:18 PM


Re: Trying to steer the past sub-thread back on topic
Faith writes:
I hope we can drop this particular line of thought for now
I can see why you'd want to.
and just focus down on the particulars of the claims about what a beneficial mutation is}
But you don't care, Faith. When you say you 'question' something you mean only that you reject it. The word 'question' is a euphemism you've picked up. It's a cosmetic touch that helps you sound, at first glance, more open to new ideas than you are.
Your purpose in this thread is to demand that people cite examples so you can reject them. You're not really curious. Your latest post states as much. You couldn't care less what science has to say about anything.
No, what you mean is not what EVOLUTION says is possible but what SCIENCE says is possible. And I for one am responding to that when I question that what science says is possible [....]
Yeah, well, whatever.
Boring.

Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 7:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 8:34 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 223 (343128)
08-24-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
08-24-2006 12:00 PM


quote:
Really, no, I simply have not seen any convincing evidence yet.
What is your opinion of the known mutation in gene CCR5 which confers eitehr partial or total immunity to the HIV virus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 12:00 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 11:42 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 223 (343129)
08-24-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
08-24-2006 12:21 PM


I'll add to crash's list.
Humans have crossover air and food pipes which enable us to have complex speech but also make the chance of choking much greater.
We also have a sharp ridge of bone on the inside of our skulls for no ther reason than it fits the contour of the brain, and it didn't used to caus problems when we were on the savannah but now that we can travel much faster on wheels of all sorts (bikes, cars), it causes a lot of damage to brains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 12:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 223 (343130)
08-24-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NosyNed
08-24-2006 7:45 PM


Re: What is possible...
Then perhaps you should point out just what changes are too great to have arisen this way.
What do you mean "too great?" I don't even see how you can get a viable population from Sickle Cell despite its protection against malaria, myself, for such a disease-ridden population to change further, let alone float the whole history of evolution. Sure if malaria leaves the environment then the sickle cell factor will become less frequent in the population. In other words you have to get rid of it to have a healthy population. How is that anything that could possibly further evolution? Shouldn't a "beneficial" mutation be something you can see being built upon by future beneficial mutations? If you have to get rid of it you're back to square one, you haven't taken one mutational step toward anything you could call evolution. Now if malaria remains and sickle cell remains you are going to have forever this population that is prone to die young. I GUESS this can go on indefinitely, but what kind of model is that for evolution that supposedly brought about all the HEALTHY stuff in living forms?
ABE
What you miss is the nature of the real differences. You see the external form of life but it is driven by chemical changes that are what mutations are. We have found out how some, comparitively, very small chemical changes can produce large external changes.
The subject is BENEFICIAL changes. Honestly, I have no problem with the principle of mutations in general. But the supposedly beneficial ones are a sad lot, at least the ones offered up for humans. Nothing could survive a million years of that kind of change. All life would have been extinct in a few millennia of such stuff.
Untill you understand all of that you will remain incredulous. It is astonishing! It is also real.
You balk at our being related to unicellular life. How far are we from "rats" and how far are they from a worm?
From rats to worms was 10 times a long as from rats to us. From rats to us was 10 times as long as from our common ape ancestor to us.
And the changes, chemically from worms to rats to primates to us are not so great over those times. We share a lot.
Honestly, none of my thinking has anything to do with objecting to being related to anything. What you explain as relatedness I explain as similar design. I think it's at least as viable an explanation. At least. There is no amount of time that is going to make evolution work by a system that produces disease in the process of curing disease.
You suffer from a focus on the external forms that you see. The real changes that mutations introduce are chemical. We have learned how small, comparitively small, changes there can produce profound changes in the body of an animal.
Until you understand all this you will remain incredulous. It is astonishing! It is also real.
You mean until I accept it. I understand it just fine.
I think what is needed here is a more comprehensive idea of what is accepted as a beneficial mutation in humans, some discussion of the beneficial mutations of the sort Crashfrog brought up, the one that prevents cholesterolemia for instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 08-24-2006 7:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nator, posted 08-24-2006 8:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 223 (343136)
08-24-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Archer Opteryx
08-24-2006 8:00 PM


nylon eating bacteria
True, I'm convinced of what I'm convinced of, but don't accuse me of dishonesty -- and that's against forum guidelines too.
Aren't you the one who said you think the bacteria that eat nylon is proof enough of beneficial mutations?
I'd like to see some discussion of the nature of this population of bacteria.
Question: Are they different in any OTHER ways from those they were selected from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-24-2006 8:00 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 223 (343137)
08-24-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
08-24-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Trying to steer the past sub-thread back on topic
quote:
If most mutations are of this form of compromises or tradeoffs between something useful in the prevention of disease with some other form of disease,
But nobody except you has said that most beneficial mutations are like this.
For example, the CCR5 mutation.
Or any of the many, many, many mutations that make someone a little more disease resistant, a bit more attractive to mates, able to have a little bit easier time in childbirth, produce a little more viable sperm, are just a little more able to digest the most abundant local food source, able to produce just a bit more milk tofeed their young, have just slightly better reflexes to avoid being killed by that predator, etc.
I think it might be helpful for you to remember that for most of our evolutionary history, life was a daily struggle. It was very difficult to get enough food every day, there were no tetanus shots or antibiotics or doctors to stitch your wounds or set your broken bones or help you through a difficult pregnancy and childbirth or dentists to pull bad teeth.
A very small advantage would easily mean the difference between life and death in many cases. Or at least the life or death or the very creation of your offspring.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 7:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 223 (343141)
08-24-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
08-24-2006 8:14 PM


Re: What is possible...
quote:
I don't even see how you can get a viable population from Sickle Cell despite its protection against malaria,
Maleria kills babies.
Sickle Cell keeps malaria from killing the babies.
But anyway, Faith, if we didn't have a large, thriving, "viable" transcontinetal population of people with SCD, we wouldn't be having this conversation about SCD, would we?
You are also forgetting what I have told you before which is that one can be a carrier of the SCD mutation and be immune to malaria but be virtually asymptomatic.
quote:
myself, for such a disease-ridden population to change further, let alone float the whole history of evolution. Sure if malaria leaves the environment then the sickle cell factor will become less frequent in the population. In other words you have to get rid of it to have a healthy population. How is that anything that could possibly further evolution?
As I've said before, evolution does not predict "healthy" populations.
It predicts change in response to environmental pressures.
Sometimes that means extinction. Actually, most of the time.
Let me ask you this...
Which is a "healthier" population;
One that is wiped out by maleria or one that numbers in the millions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 8:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Hawks
Member (Idle past 6147 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 88 of 223 (343149)
08-24-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
08-24-2006 7:47 PM


I think what is needed here is a more comprehensive idea of what is accepted as a beneficial mutation in humans, some discussion of the beneficial mutations of the sort Crashfrog brought up, the one that prevents cholesterolemia for instance.
The actual definition of a beneficial mutation has been given several times already. What would you actually constitute as evidence that any given mutation(s) has/have been beneficial? Would examples from the prokaryotic world suffice? Probably not as you seem to want to limit this discussion to humans - a severe constraint given how much research is being/has been conducted on organisms both prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Would comparison of genetic data from various species do it? Or is the only evidence you will accept that which at a quick glance is obvious and intuitively shows a positive effect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 7:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 223 (343158)
08-24-2006 10:40 PM


You are all repeating yourselves, saying nothing I don't already know.
Perhaps this thread is dead already.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 12:26 AM Faith has replied
 Message 107 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 6:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Aegist
Member (Idle past 3700 days)
Posts: 23
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Joined: 08-21-2006


Message 90 of 223 (343175)
08-25-2006 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
08-24-2006 10:40 PM


Seems to me that this thread is dead because your question has been answered several times over more than sufficiently. Yet every example that is given isn't the one you want to hear....
Evolution of Nylonase from frameshift mutation: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Evolution of 7 step pathway to degrade TNT in a bacteria
CCR5, Sickle Cell anemia.
Myostatin mutation: Home - ultimate-exercise dieta saludable para todos los días
I've read the past two pages and I have trouble understanding what the problem here is. It seems there are plenty of examples of beneficial mutation for the picking. Human based, bacterial based, animal based...if we tried hard enough we could probably find plant based ones too. Damn it, in research we regularly introduce beneficial mutations. By regularly I mean everyday. Think that it doesn't count because it is done by humans? Well there is nothing humans do to DNA which nature didn't do first. just because we choose to make these mutations does not mean they can't happen naturally!
So in theory I could present a millions different mutations which could then be argued as beneficial. And they would need to be argued as beneficial because that muscular cow could be seen as benficial if humans wanted muscular cows (and hence bred that cow a lot) or detrimental if humans decided that it was ugly and hence never bred it.
Beneficial is very contextual. (As a general rule...) Sometimes its obvious that having your skin inside out is never going to be beneficial. But having thicker or thinner skin would be a cost/benefits scenario, and so a mutation which caused those changes would be arguably beneficial, or arguably detrimental accordingly.
Either way, because it is conceivable of a situation in which it would be beneficial, it is therefore a fact that beneficial mutations exist.
Shane

----------------------------------
Research, Innovation, Risk Taking and Living Forever
http://www.sportsarbitrageguide.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 10:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 12:45 AM Aegist has not replied
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 08-25-2006 2:15 AM Aegist has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024