The Nature of Mutations

I described population genetics as a "smokescreen" in the Manifesto, a position I still hold. All genetic changes originate in single cells in single organisms. Get used to it!. salty

I described population genetics as a "smokescreen" in the Manifesto, a position I still hold. All genetic changes originate in single cells in single organisms. Get used to it!. saltyM....and mutations in the germ cells of individuals who reproduce are spread in the population i.e. population genetics (unless you believe you are unrelated to your parents) and all mutations in an individuals somatic cells are irrelevant as they will not be passed on...selection acts on mutations that confer a benefit or decrease fitness...learn about it!..it's called genetics...oh yeah, forgot that you claim you don't read....your entire Manifesto is a "smokescreen" for your incredible ignorance...By the way salty, you now hold the record for the most posts with no content I have ever seen on any forum on any subject...do you actually have anything to say or are you just addicted to seeing your words in type?cheers,
M

This is the best you can do? I provided (over the course of several posts) four references specifically refuting various assertions of yours. All you are capable of is picking one out-of-context, off-the-cuff remark from a post that wasn't even addressed to you? For someone who makes the remark: you have made a very poor showing. After all, you have been given substantive rebuttals to your assertions, but are completely unwilling to even acknowledge them. Whether or not you are more than the average creationist, your tactics to date have been quintissentially typical, run-of-the-mill creationist: to wit, unable to counter or even discuss the evidence brought forward counter to your position, you fall back on insult and denigration followed by a change of subject or a re-assertion of your original point. This is NOT the attitude of someone who is not "playing games".Would you care to try again, or are you merely bluffing?

I will be deleting non-substantive posts in this thread from now on.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Could you two take it to a different topic? We're trying to argue with PPG, here, and your respective fireworks don't augur well for topic continuity.
Although if three posts a week is the best we can get from PPG it's not going to be a fruitful debate, I fear...

---

I just made an observation. You may have noticed that I asked PGL a few questions and made some pertinent comments, unlike the vacuous back-patting from the resident crackpot.You want to complain, complain to him.added in edit:
I just read the rest of the thread thus far. Looks like I am right... again...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 05-13-2003]

Hi Admin
Please feel absolutely free to delete all my posts to salty in this thread...but please leave my replies to Phospho as I would like to continue the debate with him. Thanks.cheers,
M

[Non-substantive post deleted. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 05-13-2003]

[Non-substantive post deleted. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 05-13-2003]

Ok, Duly noted. Thanks for the cordiality.

Though this thread has ground to a halt..here is a spanking new article on the nature of some mutations:Published online before print April 25, 2003, 10.1073/pnas.0931463100;
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 100, Issue 10, 5873-5878, May 13, 2003
Evolution
Adaptive evolution of cytochrome c oxidase subunit VIII in anthropoid primates
Allon Goldberg*,, Derek E. Wildman*, Timothy R. Schmidt*, Maik Httemann*, Morris Goodman*,, Mark L. Weiss, and Lawrence I. Grossman*,
* Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics and Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201; Department of Anthropology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202; and National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230Contributed by Morris Goodman, March 12, 2003Cytochrome c oxidase (COX) is a 13-subunit protein complex that catalyzes the last step in mitochondrial electron transfer in mammals. Of the 10 subunits encoded by nuclear DNA (three are mtDNA products), some are expressed as tissue- and/or development-specific isoforms. For COX subunit VIII, previous work showed that expression of the contractile muscle-specific isoform gene, COX8H, is absent in humans and Old World monkeys, and the other isoform gene, COX8L, is expressed ubiquitously. Here, we show that COX8H is transcribed in most primate clades, but its expression is absent in catarrhines, that is, in Old World monkeys and hominids (apes, including humans), having become a pseudogene in the stem of the catarrhines. The ubiquitously expressed isoform, COX8L, underwent nonsynonymous rate acceleration and elevation in the ratio of nonsynonymous/synonymous changes in the stem of anthropoid primates (New World monkeys and catarrhines), possibly setting the stage for loss of the heart-type (H) isoform. The most rapidly evolving region of VIII-L is one that interacts with COX I, suggesting that the changes are functionally coadaptive. Because accelerated rates of nonsynonymous substitutions in anthropoids such as observed for COX8L are also shown by genes for at least 13 other electron transport chain components, these encoded amino acid replacements may be viewed as part of a series of coadaptive changes that optimized the anthropoid biochemical machinery for aerobic energy metabolism. We argue that these changes were linked to the evolution of an expanded neocortex in anthropoid primates.

Who would have thought...

Didnt you work with Goodman i.e. you published with him?I predict (if he comes back) PLG will say that none of this indicates beneficial mutations or evolution.

Yes and I agree...

I think I can suss out what the abstract is saying. But could you translate it a bit just to be sure? Thanks.

Before my recent hip replacement surgery I was keeping score on this thread on the points raised by PhospholipidGen in Message 52. Trying to resume now, I add to my previous comments and rescore the discussion:

• The Milano mutation: Strong and detailed rebuttal from cjhs in Message 66 and by Fedmahn Kassad in Message 59.
  ​
  PhospholipidGen responds in Message 108, but crashfrog and Fedmahn Kassad provide more than adequate rebuttal in Mesasge 109 and Message 122. Crashfrog pointed out that Phospho has so far not supported his contention that mutations must be deleterious because they "diminish the original purpose." FK reiterated this point ("...you certainly have an odd way of looking at mutations."), and for now it still appears that Phospho's position is mere semantics, particularly where he says, "I did not deny that it has a beneficial side-effect," since this is something he apparently would like to ignore when determining whether a mutation is beneficial.
  ​
  Point for evolutionists.
  ​
• Culex Pipiens Mosquito: The definitions of mutation proposed so far would decide this point in favor of the evolutionists.
  ​
  No new points raised other than to say, "See the previous posts on transposons and adaptational variants."
  ​
  Point for evolutionists.
  ​
• RNASE1 AND RNASE1B genes: Solid rebuttal by Fedmahn Kassad in Message 59.
  ​
  No new points raised other than to say, "See the previous posts on transposons and adaptational variants."
  ​
  Point for evolutionists.
  ​
• Nylon eating bacteria: Solid rebuttal.
  ​
  No new points raised other than to say, "See the previous posts on transposons and adaptational variants."
  ​
  Point to evolutionists.

Phospho has a paragraph of general argument at the end of Message 108, and while it bears generally on the topic of mutations, I could not see how to apply it to the specifics of the above mutations.Score: Phospho 0, evolutionists 4--Percy