Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
80 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,345 Year: 4,457/6,534 Month: 671/900 Week: 195/182 Day: 28/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 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 taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 11:42 AM nator has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 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 taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 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 taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 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 taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 223 (343223)
08-25-2006 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
08-24-2006 10:40 PM


quote:
You are all repeating yourselves, saying nothing I don't already know.

If you already know what we've said, why won't you explain why you don't accept what we've said?

Gene CCR5, Faith. You've simply pretended, over 400 posts now, that nobody has mentioned it.

Also, which is more "viable" as a population;

One that all of the individuals have been killed by malaria, or one in which a percentage of the population, which nubers in the millions and spreads across several continents, has SCD?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 10:40 PM Faith has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 223 (343224)
08-25-2006 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
08-25-2006 1:33 AM


quote:
The "overwhelming evidence" is an illusion. But there is no point in arguing this with a dozen people who are only going to use their numbers and their being on the side of the "right" opinion, plus ridicule, to win their point, instead of arguments, and who just can't bear it when we aren't persuaded.

Welcome to the rigors of scientific inquiry.

And nobody has used ridicule to win their point.

You handed all of us our points on a silver platter because you haven't addressed most of them with anything other than personal incredulity, and the rest you haven't addressed at all.

Gene CCR5, for example.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 1:33 AM Faith has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 223 (343226)
08-25-2006 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
08-25-2006 6:28 AM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
but the trade-offs I had in mind weren't adaptations, they were active diseases vs. active diseases.

Why are you so focused on those? What is the difference, anyway, WRT survivability in a species?

Remember, evolution doesn't care that individuals live long, healthy lives. That's you anthropomorphizing evolution.

I addressed this already in the last thread, and in this one
here


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 7:16 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 223 (343259)
08-25-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
08-25-2006 7:16 AM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
But it is not anthropomorphizing anything to suspect that what is observed of what IS healthy could not possibly have come about by a system that pits disease against disease, and that calling that "beneficial" flies in the face of reason. Such a system is not a viable system even for survival let alone evolution.

Which is a more viable population;

One which is wiped out by malaria, or one that spans several continents and numbers in the millions?

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 7:16 AM Faith has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 223 (343262)
08-25-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
08-25-2006 9:59 AM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
However, my intention was not to understand how evolution views anything, but what science has to say about mutations.

Here's what science says about the CCR5 mutation.

What do you have to say about what science says about it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 9:59 AM Faith has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 137 of 223 (343295)
08-25-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
08-25-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
Science is phenomena, is facts. Evolution is theory, is interpretation.

Science is phenomena, is facts. The Theory of a Heiocentric Solar Syatem is theory, is interpretation.

Science is phenomena, is facts. The Atomic Theory of Matter is theory, is interpretation.

Science is phenomena, is facts. The Germ Theory of Disease is theory, is interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 10:24 AM Faith has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 184 of 223 (343435)
08-25-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
08-25-2006 5:49 PM


quote:
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.

Might I point out that it is also ot treating your opponent with respect to simply dismiss their arguments, which your opponent has usually spent time researching, finding links for, and constructing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:49 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 9:50 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 185 of 223 (343436)
08-25-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
08-25-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
Yes they ARE TOO hypothetical scenarios when offered as supposed evidence for a past situation you can't know anything about for sure.

Can you please explain why it is unreasonable to consider it likely that ancient humans got impacted teeth when their jaws became smaller?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:07 PM Faith has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 186 of 223 (343437)
08-25-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
08-25-2006 8:55 PM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
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.

1) Mutations are the normal genetic process.

2) Gene CCR5


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 8:55 PM Faith has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 223 (343445)
08-25-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Admin
08-25-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Topic Drift Alert
My apologies to Admin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 9:50 PM Admin has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 202 of 223 (343531)
08-26-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
08-26-2006 3:23 AM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
Why this demand for workable definitions?

Because if we don't work from a definition of "beneficial" before we attempt to give you examples, you can dismiss all of them as not meeting your idea of what "beneficial" means.

quote:
It's fine for it to be recognized, and for the various mutations to be explored in its light, but when you impose it on me, require that I accept it, and treat my objections as simply a refusal to be scientific, you don't seem to recognize that all you are doing is absolutely pre-empting any possibility of having a different point of view about the very question we are discussing.

You can absolutely have a different point of view.

But this is a science thread.

All points of view need to be scientific here.

All claims and rebuttals need to have evidence-based backing.

All your terms need to be defined before you claim that they do not meet your definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 3:23 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022