[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
How do we detect mutations and calculate the 'good':'bad'
ratio ?
quote:
Originally posted by toff:
We don't have to; it's simply inevitable that mutations are predominantly good, rather than bad.
John Paul:
Is that so? Peter it just happens that
most mutations are either harmful or neutral. Very rare are the beneficial mutations. If Fred reads this maybe he can re-post the graph that shows this.
quote:
toff:
For an organism to have a mutation, it must be alive...which means it 'works'.
John Paul:
Sharp fella, this one.
quote:
toff:
Since mutations are random, and there are vastly more ways of 'breaking' something that works than there are of 'improving' it, there are vastly more bad mutations than there are good.
John Paul:
Oh the irony. Can anyone else see it?
If you are saying that copying errors, ie point mutations, are random, fine. But if you are calling mutations such as recombinations, duplications, insertions, deletions, tranposons, blah, blah, blah, random, just because we don't yet understand them, and especially since these types of mutations require special enzymes to do the trick, there would be no justification for that term.
quote:
toff:
And vastly more that are neither good nor bad.
John Paul:
ie neutral.
quote:
toff:
Imagine a complex engine. At random, you weld a piece of metal on to it somewhere. Now you turn on the engine. What are the odds that you 'broke' it, compared to that you 'improved' it?
John Paul:
Are you saying biological organisms are like engines? Recognizing the similarities between biochemical systems and machines is the first step to becoming an IDist!
Way to go toff!
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 02-26-2002]