Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 141 of 223 (343309)
08-25-2006 11:43 AM


I believe Jazzns should be suspended for a day for his abusive posts.
But since that isn't going to happen I recommend that this thread be shut down. And since that isn't going to happen I'll try to ignore it. Have a good day.
Oh and by the way, evolution theory is not falsifiable. Fat chance that's going to be acknowledged either.

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 11:52 AM Faith has replied
 Message 148 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 12:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 161 of 223 (343388)
08-25-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by crashfrog
08-25-2006 11:46 AM


Re: No such list
It's a basically settled issue, so no one bothers to keep track anymore. Anyway, as Percy said in the other thread, every gene in every organism, every cellular function, every protein, every regulatory structure, everything, all started out as beneficial mutations.
According to the ToE. All based on the theory, no actual evidence.
Creationism says most of our genetic package was given in the beginning. You simply define our theory out of existence by your theory. There is no actual evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 08-25-2006 11:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 5:46 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 223 (343389)
08-25-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Jazzns
08-25-2006 11:52 AM


I'll get to the CCR5 gene in my own good time, thanks. Schraf originally brought it up and I have not been reading her posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 11:52 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 5:44 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 163 of 223 (343390)
08-25-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
08-25-2006 11:56 AM


Re: Trade-offs
When specific technical arguments are made then you need to address them, not dismiss them as "wild imaginative hypotheses". In a prehistoric context, the wisdom tooth mutations that cause some or all wisdom teeth to never appear are beneficial because wisdom teeth cause several different types of problems. A common one is infections, usually due to one of the types of impaction. The infections can easily spread to the cheek and neck. Untreated, such infections can eventually lead to death. Short of death, the infections can cause disabilities, such as loss of flexibility in the neck, important for survival in prehistoric times.
Decay is another risk, since impacted teeth frequently create skin pockets where material gathers. Those infections that don't directly lead to death can leave the individual weakened and less able to fight off other diseases and infections, leading to disability and/or death.
Cysts can form that cause bone destruction and displacement and damage to nearby teeth, making eating difficult.
During periods when the individual is weakened due to wisdom teeth problems, either pain or infection or both, he is less capable of competing for survival, and is also less capable of providing for his family, important since his children carry his genes.
Those with sufficiently severe wisdom tooth infections to cause disfigurement have more difficulty attracting a mate.
A technical rebuttal to these points would address the specifics of them. It would not be a dismissal such as the one I recall you making last time this came up, something about just not being able to believe that a mistake could cause something good to happen.
I find this a truly laughable example of a "technical argument" you are demanding that I answer, this list of imaginative hypotheses. Oh I'm not saying it's not plausible. Much of ToE thinking is plausible. It's just a bunch of plausibilities with SO little actual evidence to back up the "technical argument."
Being browbeaten for this sort of "failure" is just too depressing for words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 11:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 5:49 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 223 (343392)
08-25-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
08-25-2006 11:56 AM


Re: Trade-offs
How could I guess the probable role of wisdom teeth in our ancestry? Just because losing them is no felt loss now, and in some cases (how many? Nobody has said) may be a relief from crowded teeth and other ills, doesn't mean it isn't REALLY a deleterious mutation, perhaps accommodating to who-knows-how-many previous losses by mutation.
This argument is just speculation.
Of course it is. It is on the same level as the "technical argument" you put forward. It is my theory answering your theory.
You speculate about an unknown positive role for wisdom teeth in our ancestors, and then you speculate about unknown deleterious effects from not having wisdom teeth. And your speculations have hard evidence against them. Our evolutionary ancestors had larger jaws.
Well, imagine that, Percy. Doesn't that sort of go with my theory? How is that an objection?
As brain size increased the jaw shrunk, so in most people there's now not enough room in our jaw for all the teeth. Our evolutionary ancestors did not suffer from their wisdom teeth because their larger jaws more easily accommodated them.
Oh THAT's clever. One thing evolutionists do VERY well is come up with plausible hypotheses and scenarios. Calling that a "technical argument" is really a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 11:56 AM Percy has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 167 of 223 (343394)
08-25-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Archer Opteryx
08-25-2006 12:01 PM


It is not treating your opponent with respect to speculate about the opponent's motivations or assume why she does anything or comment on the opponent at all. I ignore such posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 12:01 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 5:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 184 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 9:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 223 (343398)
08-25-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
08-25-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Trade-offs
I don't see what any of these arguments in the last two paragraphs have to do with beneficial mutations. The improvements you're talking about aren't genetic but cultural, like IQ, or technical, like modern medicine. I agree with Faith's earlier argument that the genome of the human race is over time becoming less and less robust (I know that's very non-specific, but I think the meaning is clear) because our civilization and technology protect us from the traditional forces of selection. I don't think Faith understands this reason for accepting her position, but that's another matter.
I understand it fine and it makes your agreement meaningless. It says nothing whatever about the OVERALL millennia-long deterioration of ALL living genetic material. It's theory. I don't claim genetic evidence for it, any more than you have evidence for evo claims of evolution by mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 12:18 PM Percy has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 171 of 223 (343399)
08-25-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Jazzns
08-25-2006 5:44 PM


I have not had the opportunity to address Aegist's posts, and since they are of a different nature from the rest of the stuff I'm having to deal with I may never get to them. I am no longer taking this thread seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 5:44 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 6:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 172 of 223 (343400)
08-25-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Archer Opteryx
08-25-2006 5:46 PM


Re: No such list
You've been given specific examples of beneficial mutations as you requested. Please address them.
I'm sorry. This thread is too far gone for any serious business any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 5:46 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 6:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 174 of 223 (343402)
08-25-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Percy
08-25-2006 5:49 PM


Re: Trade-offs
What is it that makes hypothetical scenarios a "technical argument" for the sake of THIS forum? Yes they ARE TOO hypothetical scenarios when offered as supposed evidence for a past situation you can't know anything about for sure. This game I do not want to play. What a joke. And your refrain about a denial machine is a violation of your own forum guidelines. I've been addressing the arguments whether you like my responses or not. I am not addressing your motives or anybody else's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 5:49 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 9:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 223 (343403)
08-25-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Jazzns
08-25-2006 6:06 PM


There is no point in addressing anything seriously when I get the kind of nonsense answers to anything I say that I am now dealing with. Good grief what a joke. How can I discuss my view of the so-called beneficial mutations when I get the kind of nonsense Percy has been dishing out about wisdom teeth as a supposed rebuttal? Or Crash's bland insistence that all traits are the result of beneficial mutations when that simply cancels out the creationist view on the basis of definition without evidence. Same with the definition of beneficial mutations in terms of being absorbed into the population. Just a definitional elimination of the opponent's point of view as I previously explained. The deck is stacked. This whole thing is a monstrously ridiculous pathetic exercise in futility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 6:06 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 6:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 179 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 7:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 223 (343424)
08-25-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
08-25-2006 8:22 PM


Visual deterioration
Is a gene for visual acuity identifiable? Are different alleles for same identifiable? Can the particular degrees and kinds of visual problems be located on the gene?
I find it odd, from my creationist point of view, that an inferior condition such as deficient visual acuity and focal ability could be called "diversity." To my mind it can only be properly called genetic deterioration.
I understand that according to the principles of the ToE it's properly called diversity, but my job here is to challenge the ToE and this is where I would begin to do that.
{At least that is the case when explanations are offered. Now, if the thread just sticks to known genetic facts, such as what the gene or genes for vision look like and how you may or may not know whether they have undergone mutation, and what the variojs alleles involved look like and all that, then we can avoid discussion the clashes of theory.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 8:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 08-26-2006 5:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 206 by Omnivorous, posted 08-26-2006 12:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 223 (343428)
08-25-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Aegist
08-25-2006 10:58 AM


Re: Trade-offs
I put up the Wikipedia article on Mutation myself in my OP.
When you understand exactly what mutations are, you can see it is simply a changing of genetic material. Changing a base pair, inverting a sequence, moving a sequence, deleting a sequence, adding a sequence, copying a sequence.... Shuffling DNA in one form or another. Since DNA is directly translated into proteins, and proteins tend to have functions in cells and directly or inadvertantrly affect phenotypes, it is obviously possible for mutations to have beneficial outcomes.
I don't know that this is the case from these facts. Science apparently treats it as a normal process. But if in fact mutations are a disease process, or at least some of them perhaps, a break-down in the normal genetic system, I see no guarantees that any of it can produce a beneficial outcome. Perhaps some can, perhaps not. How would it be possible to know? I don't see how. I gather you assume the normality of the changes and go from there. If so, I see no basis for the assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 10:58 AM Aegist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 9:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 223 (343442)
08-25-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Aegist
08-25-2006 10:30 AM


Re: Trade-offs
I just want to take a moment to show my respect to Fatih. Never before have I seen someone who clearly doesn't believe in Evolution seriously trying to come to understand the science around it.
Honestly, I am impressed with your efforts, and I will do my best to understand where you are coming from and sort out the differences.
Thank you. I am trying and it's not easy. But you have to understand I have a solid creationist set of assumptions that contradict the evolutionist assumptions and I have to guess that your appreciation won't last. Nevertheless it's nice for the moment.
Faith said:
Traits are simply the selected product of the variety of alleles already present in a population, which were designed into the creature, not created by mutation.
So I was not talking about traits, but only about the supposedly beneficial mutations that are currently claimed to have been observed, more than one of which is like the Sickle Cell genetic disease which is strongly selected because of its protection against malaria.
OK, I am trying to work from your point of view, and hopefully I understand what you are trying to establish. We are assuming that all species have been created as they are. Lets suppose for the sake of argument that the Earth was created by the Magratheans 1000 years ago ala Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy. They created humans and all other species with a degree of variety there so that sexual reproduction could continue to mix alleles and continue to maintain variety in the species.
Yes.
Have any mutations created new improvements in humans since that time?
I have no idea. I dno't yet understand mutations well enough. I grasp the basic variety and the various ways they come about but the idea that they produce anything beneficial is very much in question, despite the various examples given. This doubt comes from my creationist assumptions, by which I can't call beneficial something that produces disease even if it also protects against another disease. It's a definitional matter, and one problem in these discussions is that the evolutionists announce their definitions as if they were some kind of proof of something, or as if such a definition can't be challenged as to whether it fairly reflects reality. This harping on the evolutionist definition of "beneficial" as anything that spreads in a population for whatever reason simply pre-empts the creationist definition.
Would this premise and question be somewhat in line with what you are trying to understand?
Guess I should have read on before answering. OK, yes, that is a fair represenation.
I need to understand exactly what you want to be shown. I am from a Molecular Biology background, so the mechanisms of mutation and the affects on the DNA -> Protein -> Phenotype process arising from a mutation is rather familiar to me. However it is very difficutl for me to name a "Beneficial Mutation" to you which is 1. In humans, 2. Not related to a disease 3. Not only beneficial given specific circumstances. If you want those criteria then the only beneficial mutations possible are ones which we simply can't detect and ones which you can easily argue as "Pre-existing traits" and hence not mutations.
(My bolding.)
OK, thanks. That does seem to fit what I've been encountering. Then why not treat my point of view as simply an alternative point of view that may or may not be viable since there is no way to prove it one way or the other yet? Why the insistence on beating it down every time I bring it up? Not that you are doing that. Yet. But I know why. Evolution is SUCH a strongly held position nobody wants to give the slightest ground to the opposition, even of this tentative sort.
This last point is really the catch 22. Anything which has happened could be argued as a pre-existing trait which has been repressed or ressesive until now. And anything which hasn't happened we can't assume will happen. And thus, we have no examples of beneficial mutations in humans.
Exactly. Why can't that simply be acknowledged by everybody?
Of course it's not an easy thing to prove. By the same token you can't prove that an alternative view of mutations as nonbeneficial is false.
I hope you can see how restrictive this criteria would be, and I hope you don't intentionally impose it. Particularly since this thread was supposed to be about whether any mutation could be beneficial.
But of course the criteria are restrictive. I have a completely other explanatory framework that *suspects* that beneficial mutations are probably nonexistent or flukes, and the kind of ambiguity you are acknowledging is support for my explanatory framework. But if this is acknowledged, as you are doing, then go ahead and discuss what is taken to be beneficial by your criteria and maybe a different angle on this picture could emerge. But this constant dismissing of my view is very hard to take when in fact it is perfectly reasonable given the facts under discussion.
Also, this article looked to be of interest
When more is less: Study into Human Genome vs Chimpanzee genome. Loss of function = improvement
(Link made active by me.)
Well, the article shows that this is becoming a popular idea, and it makes use of a lot of concepts I've barely digested, concepts that could in fact be the meat of a thread on mutations, and in fact should have been the objetive of this thread if I hadn't taken it back to the questions that keep the interpretational systems under constant dispute.
======================================================
To posters on the thread in general: It took me over an hour to put together this post, including reading that link. It took over three hours to put together the OP for this thread, and the posts on it hardly encourage the feeling that it's worth it. I am usually up against a dozen or more opponents, most of whom delight in saying insulting things in one form or another. The logistics are simply impossible. And if I don't respond to everybody they complain that I am mistreating them or dodging the argument or make other insulting insinations. Some I have simply resolved not to deal with. And if I mock the argument, that is not the same thing as accusing someone of such motives. The arguments I'm up against are as good as mocking my arguments anyway.
I am not going to respond to some posts, and if I treat arguments as stupid that are mocking mine, deal with it. That's the way it is.
======================================================
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 10:30 AM Aegist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 11:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 08-26-2006 6:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 200 by Aegist, posted 08-26-2006 6:44 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 223 (343483)
08-26-2006 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Aegist
08-25-2006 11:19 PM


Re: Trade-offs
This is why I went on to my second post on outright mutations. I got caught up in the discussion with everyone else and thought this was about Mutations being beneficial in evolution, but it seems you want to discuss whether mutations, as a concept can be beneficial. So, I will use my assumption above, pretend evolution is non-existent and discuss mutation with you.
Excellent. A ray of light penetrates the murk. The fact that something that merely spreads in a population is by that artificial definition beneficial is just one of those irritating evolutionist mind games, but it is used as the standard from which to call my alternative concerns "a denial machine" or "willful ignorance" etc etc etc, thereby effectively snuffing out any possibility of any geniuine objection to the ToE. One expects this of course, but the degree of it, the total blackout of it, is astonishing.
And I'm not sure you are REALLY saying anything different yet. But it sure sounded good.
No rush with the post by the way. I'll be getting off line for the night soon anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 11:19 PM Aegist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Wounded King, posted 08-26-2006 3:13 AM Faith 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