The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

So far, despite many assurances to the contrary, nobody has really got what I'm trying to say but you so far. Percy gets some of it, Bluejay got some of it. That's about it. How I'm being misunderstood is hard for me to understand, but at least if one person could get it then I know I can't be getting things all that wrong. Yes. Sounds reasonable enough. Yes they can. I agree, for most circumstances we'd be discussing. Yes. Yes, but in terms of what gets expressed, for example it's possible to have many homozygous dominants for a given gene due to previous selection events and then the recessives will be decidedly in a minority and rarely or even never expressed if there are so few of them they pair up only extremely rarely. It can even happen that the recessives exist in greater numbers than the dominants for similar reasons, and if not in the parent population, then in a subsquent population where only homozygous recessive alleles for a particular trait were selected or randomly selected by drift or migration etc. Now you are sounding like you don't get what I'm saying all that well either, if you feel the need to explain this. I've never said or implied any of that. Yes for standard Mendelian genetis (though I read somewhere of circumstances where doms and recs seem to blend, so that you get a medium grey fur with the heterozygous combination -- but I'll leave it at the standard Mendelian foursome you spelled out.) Why are you saying this? I've never said one word to imply I think any of this has to do with desirability. OK. Yes, and I mentioned that I expect it to appear from time to time, in my first post to RAZD today. Yes. Yes, and then there is the scenario I sketched out somewhere higher in this post, of circumstances where you can have more of either dominants or recessives where there is strong selection (even random selection) pressure for or against one of them. Yes. However, the frequencies WILL change, not just "might." Or just fewer if the black fur frequency has been simply very reduced. Yes. Or random selection has affected the frequency as I say above. Yes, which is pretty much what I said above a ways where I talk about the effect of selection on dominance and recessiveness. You must think you're talking to a kid or something. Where did I say anything that suggests I need this explained to me? Good. Yes. But I hardly ever talk about natural selection alone; I usually include the random ways changes can occur, genetic drift and migration and geographic isolation and so on. If that is really the case then all that's left IS to show that mutations don't occur (although I still think that even if mutations do occur at anything like the rate expected by evolutionists, the processes that reduce will even cut them down in the end). So somebody has to do some research to determine if any of the assumed mutations ever produce a viable allele. Some points I've noted where you seem to be explaining something you must think I don't understand though I see no reason why you would think that. Otherwise there's really nothing new in this post that I can see. Very basic stuff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And the fact that your "conclusion" is known to be completely untrue not only vitiates your argument but also sheds an interesting light on your thought processes.A "conclusion" is meant to be something one draws from the evidence, not something one makes up because one's other fantasies depend on it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Heh. Good luck with that. Why don't you work up to it gradually by proving that pigs have silvery wings? Not "expected". Measured. Evolutionists, you see, get their facts from the real world. Observation proves that your fantasy is wrong. And these people are called "scientists" and they have done the research, and the answer is yes.If you can't be bothered to look at reality yourself, you could at least look at the results of the people who have looked at reality.---And could I suggest again --- until you've taken the trouble to find out the most basic things about genetics, you shouldn't be humiliating yourself by discussing it in public.

But mutations do occur both somatically and gametically. As long as mutations occur and are passed down through the gametes than evolution occurs.Even if mutations occur once every hundred years in generations (which it occurs much, much more frequently), evolution would occur, albeit very slow, but it would occur.You cannot deny it.Studies show that the estimated average germline mutation rate (from generation to generation in humans is 401 for males and 31 in females per generation (generation=30 years). Biological basis of germline mutation: comparisons of spontaneous germline mutation rates among drosophila, mouse, and human.It is also interesting to note that the mutation rate for mtDNA (mitochondrial) is 50 times that of nucleic DNA (mainly because mtDNA are simpler and easier to change). And yes there are mitochondria in gametes. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans What constitutes a viable allele? Viable in what way? As long as the organism lives until it can reproduce and pass its genetics to preceding generations, evolutionary speaking, that allele is viable. Genetic viability has nothing to do whether that organism is strong, weak, etc. Though a stronger, more intelligent and socially adept (in some circumstances) organism is usually more likely to be able to propogate than a weak, less intelligent one (though not in all cases).(Warning: Stupid Analogy Alert In other words, evolution continues whether the organism is superman or a supernerd. If the supernerd gets the girl and has offspring with her and superman doesn't, than in the end the supernerd is the evolutionary hero not superman.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Maybe Faith should just re-read her Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation? thread, which was the consequence of almost the exact same set of arguments in her five year old thread she mentioned in the OP.If she wants to go round it again I'd be happy to discuss the existence or otherwise of beneficial mutations in a Great Debate, I'll even ignore bacteria if she insists, I can tie one hand behind my back as well if it helps .TTFN,WK

That would be a neat trick.--Percy

Hi WK!BlueJay has decided to conclude his participation in the Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only) thread. Since you've expressed an interest in a Great Debate concerning the existence of beneficial mutations, and since Faith's position is dependent on their non-existence, could you please take over for him?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

LOL, sorry, sometimes my brain and my typing hands don't communicate so well, of course I meant "proceeding" not "preceding".Also, just a caveat and some clarification. As most of you know, and hopefully Faith as well. Most mutations are neutral in their affect on the human population due to the massive amount of redundancy and 'junk' DNA in the genome built up over hundreds of millions of years of genetic evolution. However, it only takes one or a sequence of mutations (frameshift, point, etc) in an allele(s) to possibly make phenotypic changes. A build up of these mutations will result in evolution of the genome over time. 'Beneficial' and 'harmful' mutations are really a misnomer and are subjective depending on what you are referencing to. As long as the mutation occurs in the gamete cells and that organism reproduces it will result in genomic evolution in a population of organism.I know this has probably already been said over and over but it seems this is something Faith still blatantly ignores. Just my thoughts on this subject.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I'd rather not have Wounded King on the other thread. Aside from his generally hostile attitude to my topic, I'm not interested in rehashing mutations. The few examples of supposedly beneficial mutations don't answer to the thousands of disease-producing mutations, AND the fact that you assume that they make normal alleles although you cannot demonstrate them, talking about a mere hypothesis as a fact, as if you had proved it, has done it for me. You can't prove your hypothetical and I can't prove my objection. It's a standoff to my mind.Zen Monkey has conceded that my model is correct if there are no mutations. I'd like to see where he goes next.I also want to see if I can come up with a diagram that does a better job with the model of how evolutionary processes come to an end -- with or without mutations.Also, I do some time want to go back over this thread and answer some earlier posts.If no polite Bluejay shows up for the other thread I'm for leaving it for now.

Hi WK!Looks like I have to withdraw the invitation, Faith objects. Sorry.

Hi ZenMonkey,Would you like to continue the discussion with Faith in a one-on-one over at Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

What is a normal allelle?

RAZD for one has shown that he hasn't a clue. Even with mutations, the selecting-reducing-isolating processes will still lead in the direction of genetic depletion as speciation is approached. You can't help me "understand a reality" that you can't demonstrate IN reality but only assume based on some highly questionable oddball examples. Right, so you can get away with not having to prove any of it, simply declare it a FACT based only on your assumption-- that is really fraudulent! Evolution NEEDS mutations -- you can't just declare they are there with no evidence. Found how? By assumption simply because the whippet turned out to have the genetic stuff for increased speed? Yes, I'll go read your references after I write this. Yes, but for reasons I've given I'm not accepting anything about bacteria. They are too different in ways I've specified from the rest of creation. A lot of speculative assumptive stuff going on in all these things.If evolution depends on such an iffy process as mutation, that alone ought to doom evolution.

If Faith is happy discussing beneficial mutations then I will, but I know it is a slight deviation from the original topic of the OP.I agree with you that their existence or non-existence is one of the cruxes of her argument, but I don't know if she does since she seemed to indicate to Bluejay that she doesn't even accept that mutations can give rise to novel alleles.TTFN,WK

One that produces a normal trait, not a disease and not a dead gene.