The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

No, I never said this. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. If you read through the example I presented in Message 691 you'll see that I present the odds of a specific beneficial mutation as less than one in a billion. That's pretty small odds, and yet with billions of bacteria reproducing every hour or so the odds of that specific mutation occurring approach 1.--Percy

An error in copying is just a change from that which was copied. I don't really see how that can be disputed? The overall effect of that change is what you seem to be most concerned with. Is that correct? You seem to be denying that there is ever any beneficial change at all. Is that the case? I think we can be more specific than that. Which part of Percy's probability calculation do you actually dispute? You consider there to be no examples of any observed beneficial genetic changes (outside of bacteria). Is that the case?Do things like genetic lactose tolerance not qualify as beneficial in your eyes?

Its not deception at all. Replication "errors" ARE just changes resulting in imperfect copies. It is merely human point of view that could consider them an error. The beneficiality, neutrality or harmfulness of these changes is only partially due to the previous state of the DNA. The result of the change has more to do with the environment of the organism than its previous state.You seem to be under the delirious impression that DNA has a set perfect state for each organism and that any change from this perfect state is automatically deleterious.

and how did I misunderstand you? What does a mistake have to do with odds. I am talkig about odds which you claim makes it vituslly impossible for beneficial mutation to occur. What I am saying is that even if odds were 70 trillion to 1 against a beneficial mutation, it still can happen, and has numerous times in the last 3.8 million years.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This is addressed to no one in particular.One of the things brought to light by the difference of opinion about the relevance of bacterial studies to sexual organisms is the better way that sexual reproduction takes advantage of mutations. Bacteria accumulate favorable mutations serially while sexual organisms acquire them in parallel. Let me explain.If bacteria A acquires advantageous mutation α while bacteria B acquires advantageous mutation β, it isn't possible for descendants of bacteria A to acquire mutation β. Bacteria do not mate and so there's no sexual sharing of genes between different bacterial lines. Of course descendants of bacteria A can acquire mutation β by experiencing it as a mutation, but not by mating with descendants of bacteria B.But in sexual organisms if organism A acquires advantageous mutation α while organism B acquires advantageous mutation β, descendants of organims A can possibly acquire mutation β when they mate with descendants of organism B. The mutations acquired all at the same time by one generation have the potential to eventually be shared by many organisms generations into the future.Of course bacteria have the ability to share mutations through conjugation, transformation and transduction, but sexual reproduction inherently incorporates this mutation sharing capability, while bacteria can only do it through processes that are peripheral to reproduction.Just posting this because it's sort of related and I found it very interesting.--Percy

Faith's objections seem to be based on the following thinking:1) A copying error = BAD because "errors" are obviously synonomous with "badness".2) All the evidence verifies this because genetic errors result in genetic illnesses.I think talking about this with Faith in terms of imperfect replicators, probabilities and all the rest of it will result in nothing but head banging frustration for all concerned.Instead I think the only thing that might convince her of anything are examples of genetic traits that have arisen and which she would terms as "beneficial". I would suggest HIV resistance and lactose tolerance as examples of beneficial changes that have occurred in the sort of timescales Faith might accept.Does that make sense?

Hi Straggler,Given the history I can't be both honest and encouraging, but if you'd like to pursue your idea then I think you should give it a try.--Percy

1) It's pathetic how LITTLE you can come up with as evidence for your claim.2) Go ahead, prove that HIV resistance and lactose tolerance are CHANGES, are NEW, are MUTATIONS. Let's see it.If we didn't have lactose tolerance for the last six millennia how would we ever have depended as much as the human race has on milk products over all that time?If anything HIV is more likely to have been the result of removal of natural resistance by mutation.Lactose INtolerance too, same thing, come to think of it.But let's see your evidence, bring it on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Errors are synonymous with badness."Something so bizarre about the idea that an error can be a good thing. Just wacko.In any other context, such as if you get the wrong answer to a math problem, or don't believe in evolution !!!!!!!! -- your error is "bad" - it's never "good" it's never right.But somehow in genetics an error can be good.There is something wrong with a mind that can accept such an idea.

I think some people are confusing the term error with different.A genetic difference would only qualify as an error if it hindered reproduction.A genetic difference would qualify as an advantage if it aided in reproduction.Understand? (no of course not)

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Of course, because it could lead to an advantageous outcome.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Can't they acquire it via lateral transfer? Isn't this in fact pretty common in studies of things like immune resistance?Admittedly it's not a reliable standard procedure but I think you are neglecting this aspect of bacterial evolution. Don't hesitate to correct me if I have got it wrong somehow.

Hi Faith,I've sent you a couple PM's over the past couple days that you haven't responded to and that haven't had any noticeable effect on the manner of your participation, so I'm posting a note here to make to make sure you have seen them. Allow me to repeat something I said in an earlier post: The goal is productive, constructive discussion. I hope we all want to learn what is actually true about the universe we live in, and that we wouldn't let our inner need to be right get in the way. The threads in which you participate all descend into tendentious bickering, and I'm hopeful that this can be brought to an end without direct moderator action.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No, no correction coming, you're perfectly correct. I mentioned these processes later in the message, they're the terms with links to their Wikipedia pages.--Percy

Hi, Straggler. This has already been done.I don't know if you knew about or kept up with the Great Debate between Faith and I (Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)), but I presented a bullet-proof example of a beneficial mutation that was studied from start to finish (here is where I provided an explanation of it, along with a link to the publication itself).Faith finally accepted that this was a beneficial mutation, but decided that this information cannot be applied to multicellular organisms, choosing instead to believe that bacteria have some special ability to alter their genome to adapt (an ability that advanced organisms have lost due to the post-diluvian genetic deterioration).She is aware that beneficial mutations have been demonstrated to happen, but is still denying them on the basis of non-intuitivity. Lactose tolerance and HIV are not going to convince her, because we didn't actually record the moment of occurrence, which means we can't prove that mutation was the cause in these cases.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.