Are all Mutations harmful because creatures were designed?

Do you think the reason Creationist say "all mutations are harmful" is Because they believe everything was designed already adapted well and anything outside it would be harmful? However if this is the case it kind of destroys the "kind" idea (dog "kind" etc...) Does it not?

I think they say it because 1. it makes them feel like they know something about genetics when they don't 2. they think it somehow disproves evolution so it has to be repeated as often as possible since every good creationist knows if you repeat something that is wrong often enough it becomes a fact 3. Despite being contradicted by the actual evidence, it appeals to their concept of poof bang creation ex nihilo of fully formed organisms which then proceed to degrade because of the fall.

Mams did not answer your question (instead replying with the usual ad homenims).You need to be more clear as to why you believe random mutation = harmful would "destroy the 'kind' idea'".

it does Because you claim that changes in an animal would be harmful.... but isn't that what your "kind" idea depends on? If you say its adaptation not Mutation.... your wrong, however yes it is adaptation. If something is different about a creature it is considered to be a mutation. Also I am still not sure exactly what "kind" is Because the only answer I get is "cat kind" "dog kind" etc... Although I get what you are saying there many creatures do not fit into a nice box like that.

If there were dog kinds and every allele/mutation that were novel was harmful then rather than being able to breed new dog breeds one should only get spontaneous abortion since all change is harmful...same with novle plant species that arise by hybridization, or cichlids...if everything is purely degenerate why is there increase in diversity?

Mammuthus, I never said all change is harmful. I said random change (specifically copy mistakes in the DNA) is virtually always harmful to some degree (from slightly to lethal).Most new dog breeds have lost genetic information from their parent breed. It's man-made bottlenecking, which will have this effect. I thought you knew that. I have to run. Let me add that some portion of the variation may be due to non-random mutations, such as transosons. I was reading something recently that most genes seem to have areas available to tranposon mutation. THis fits quite well within a creation model. Evolution on the other hand has a difficult time accounting for them (as evolution does for everything, like convergence!).

Um, Fred, transposition is part of the evolutionary model. Transposons are simply genes which do this at a higher rate of speed. For your proposed model to be correct, dogs would all need to have all of the genes for all of the other breeds, and have transposons deactivating them. This isn't remotely the case. Are you unaware of the progress from North Carolina State University and MIT's collaborative project to sequence the canine genome?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Mammuthus, I never said all change is harmful. I said random change (specifically copy mistakes in the DNA) is virtually always harmful to some degree (from slightly to lethal).

---

Acutally, most random mutation is neutral or slightly deleterious. Then come the harmful and lethal mutations followed by beneficial mutations in terms of incidence. To complicate matters some mutations are beneficial when present as heterozygous...to complicate it further there are epistatsis effects....so such a black and white assessment does an injustice to the over 100 years of genetics research that has been done...even my listing is only the tip of the iceberg

quote:

---

Most new dog breeds have lost genetic information from their parent breed. It's man-made bottlenecking, which will have this effect. I thought you knew that.

---

How have dog breeds "lost" genetic information? The only decrease is at the population level i.e. a bottleneck reduces variation among individuals. A chihuahua has just as many base pairs in its genome as a wolf...given the reduction in wolf populations due to overhunting I would not be surprised if your average group of mutts has more genetic variation than their "parent kind"...I guess they are accumulating genetic information....ooops there goes creationism...poof bang!

quote:

---

I have to run. Let me add that some portion of the variation may be due to non-random mutations, such as transosons. I was reading something recently that most genes seem to have areas available to tranposon mutation.

---

Actually they are called transposons and are proviral like sequences that code for viral genes like gag, pol, and env. The parts of genes they typically insert into are the same as exogenous viruses i.e. areas that are transcriptionally active where strand breaks occur and the transposons can integrate via retrotransposition....they are a marvelous example of evolution and are extremely useful in reconstructing phylogenies particularly SINEs.

quote:

---

THis fits quite well within a creation model.

---

What creation model would that be...the I don't know what a transposon is so therefore goddidit?..lots of things are apparently consistent with this "model"

quote:

---

Evolution on the other hand has a difficult time accounting for them (as evolution does for everything, like convergence!).

---

Funny that if we have so much trouble accounting for transposons that even I have published a paper on the evolution of retroelements...yeah a real problem for evolution...tell it to these guys to..1: Vershinin AV, Allnutt TR, Knox MR, Ambrose MJ, Ellis TH. Related Articles, Links
Transposable Elements Reveal the Impact of Introgression, Rather than Transposition, in Pisum Diversity, Evolution and Domestication.
Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Aug 29 [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 12949152 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
2: Fedorova L, Fedorov A. Related Articles, Links
Introns in gene evolution.
Genetica. 2003 Jul;118(2-3):123-31. Review.
PMID: 12868603 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Fischer SE, Wienholds E, Plasterk RH. Related Articles, Links
Continuous Exchange of Sequence Information Between Dispersed Tc1 Transposons in the Caenorhabditis elegans Genome.
Genetics. 2003 May;164(1):127-34.
PMID: 12750326 [PubMed - in process]
4: Neafsey DE, Palumbi SR. Related Articles, Links
Genome size evolution in pufferfish: a comparative analysis of diodontid and tetraodontid pufferfish genomes.
Genome Res. 2003 May;13(5):821-30.
PMID: 12727902 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Casals F, Caceres M, Ruiz A. Related Articles, Links
The Foldback-like Transposon Galileo Is Involved in the Generation of Two Different Natural Chromosomal Inversions of Drosophila buzzatii.
Mol Biol Evol. 2003 May;20(5):674-85. Epub 2003 Apr 02.
PMID: 12679549 [PubMed - in process]
6: Bhattacharya S, Bakre A, Bhattacharya A. Related Articles, Links
Mobile genetic elements in protozoan parasites.
J Genet. 2002 Aug;81(2):73-86. Review.
PMID: 12532039 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Wostemeyer J, Kreibich A. Related Articles, Links
Repetitive DNA elements in fungi (Mycota): impact on genomic architecture and evolution.
Curr Genet. 2002 Jul;41(4):189-98. Epub 2002 Jun 21. Review.or how about this oneJ Gen Virol. 1996 Aug;77 ( Pt 8):1631-41. Related Articles, LinksThe structure and phylogeny of a new family of human endogenous retroviruses.Widegren B, Kjellman C, Aminoff S, Sahlford LG, Sjogren HO.Department of Tumor Immunology, Wallenberg Laboratory, Solvegatan, Lund, Sweden. Bengt.Widegren@wblab.lu.seA novel endogenous retrovirus (ERV) designated XA34 was isolated from a human glioma cDNA library using low stringency hybridization with an ERV-9 env probe. Southern blot hybridizations with human genomic DNA revealed the presence of approximately 16 genomic copies closely related to XA34. Sequencing of a 2303 bp cDNA clone of XA34 showed that it belongs to a new ERV family. The XA34 ERV has recombined with an ERV-9-like retrovirus resulting in a truncated ERV-9-like env region that ends with an Alul-like 3' LTR. By using PCR, we isolated approximately 940 bp pol fragments from three additional members of this family, XA35, XA36 and XA37. A fifth member, XA38, was isolated and sequenced as a 4729 bp genomic clone. The genomic XA38 clone spans from pol towards the 3' flanking region. The XA38 virus contains a more cryptic env region. The XA38 env is truncated in the transmembrane region and the virus then ends with three Alu repeats. Southern blot studies with human, chimpanzee, orangutan and squirrel monkey DNA show the presence of the XA34 family in all these species. That both the New and Old World monkeys have this ERV family means that the integration and/or amplification in the primate germ-line of XA34 probably took place about 40-45 million years ago. The phylogeny and the closet relatives to ERV XA34 are discussed.

Not to mention that most lethal mutations would imply conception never occurring, or miscarriage shortly after conception. Only rarely would one expect a "time-delay" lethal mutation that would allow a child with such a mutation to make it to term.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Acutally, most random mutation is neutral or slightly deleterious.

---

Better stated, most random mutations are slightly deleterious, while some are neutral. Of course this calls for a whole other thread to debate this, full of presuppositions on both sides (such as the level of junk DNA, of constraint, etc). I actually believe Futuyma’s graph is pretty close to reality:

quote:

---

....so such a black and white assessment does an injustice to the over 100 years of genetics research that has been done...even my listing is only the tip of the iceberg

---

You’ve been erecting a fair share of strawmen lately. I have previously stated a range of harmful through neutral, which is not a black & white assessment. I am willing to accept Futyma’s graph, at least for debating purposes, are you?

quote:

---

How have dog breeds "lost" genetic information? The only decrease is at the population level i.e. a bottleneck reduces variation among individuals.

---

I agree completely.

quote:

---

A chihuahua has just as many base pairs in its genome as a wolf

---

So? It is also well established that Chihuahuas have a much greater range of health problems. Why? Loss of genetic information. Too many deleterious recessives pairing up because the original dominant is long gone (but still present in the dog kind, like the much superior Malamute ). FOr some of thos who may still be missing the point, here are two more clues: Think Arkansas, or think West Virginia. But I realize to you guys, this is evolution in action!The rednecks in Deliverence were well on their way to a new and improved species of human!

quote:

---

genetic variation than their "parent kind"...I guess they are accumulating genetic information

---

We have hashed this out before, so what is the point doing it again? Increased genetic variation does not = increased genetic information. The only people who think this have no training in information science (like all the goofs here who say they would rather have a lifelong, and in many cases life-threatening blood disease instead of risking malaria that is typically survivable with full recovery; I will always marvel at those daring enough to admit believing disease is an increase in genetic variation, and therefore an increase in genetic information. One PhD on Yahoo once claimed that cancer was mud-to-man evolution in action! And you guys wonder why and object when creationists state that mud-to-man evolution is a religious faith?).

quote:

---

transosons. tranposon

​

Actually they are called transposons

---

Those were typos (I was in a hurry). If you merge them (apply crossover & recombination), you get transposon.

quote:

---

THis fits quite well within a creation model.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

What creation model would that be...the I don't know what a transposon is so therefore goddidit?..lots of things are apparently consistent with this "model"

---

Another strawman? I guess with Halloween coming up you are just getting in some good practice? The point is that transposons have all the earmarkings of intelligent design. Evolution can’t explain how such an elaborate mutation system that can effectively and safely insert sequences across the entire genome arose via random DNA copy mistakes and blind selection!

quote:

---

quote:

---

A chihuahua has just as many base pairs in its genome as a wolf

---

So? It is also well established that Chihuahuas have a much greater range of health problems.

---

How was this established? Who did the establishing?

quote:

---

quote:

---

genetic variation than their "parent kind"...I guess they are accumulating genetic information

---

​

We have hashed this out before, so what is the point doing it again? Increased genetic variation does not = increased genetic information.

---

What is it called when a mutant allele arises in a population? The beneficience or lack thereof is not in issue. Adding a'new' and different allele to a population's gene pool can only increase the amount of information in that gene pool.
Can it not?

quote:

---

The only people who think this have no training in information science (like all the goofs here...

---

I am unsure why this gratuitous insult was required. Perhaps the administraters can explain it to us?
What of the folks that have no training in genetics or evolutionary biology? Like the majority (all of?) of popular creationist authors. Shall we assume that each time they make a claim that they, too, are 'goofs'? And what is YOUR training in Information Science that adorns you with the supposed expertise to evaluate such claims, in addition to your genetics training that is obviously required to apply information science TO genetics?

quote:

---

The point is that transposons have all the earmarkings of intelligent design. Evolution can’t explain how such an elaborate mutation system that can effectively and safely insert sequences across the entire genome arose via random DNA copy mistakes and blind selection!

---

So how does Intelligent Design or creation explain it? What is the mechanism(s) behind it, and how is this known/how can it be demonstrated/tested?I will say, however, that your depiction of transposition seems a bit over the top. The mechanisms are really quite simple, so perhaps an omnipotent creator could actually have come up with it...

Although fatal/sterile is a bit ambiguous (at what age? How consistently?), let it be know that I accept your graph for purposes of debate.

quote:

---

typically survival

---

In modern times. Not through the vast majority of human history, even by a YEC timeline.BTW, Fred, here's a prediction of evolution, would you care to make a wager on it? Since AIDS is so prevalent in many parts of Africa (as much as 1/3 of the population), and assuming that there are no successful abstinance/protection campaigns in the area, evolution would predict that these people will end up with a mechanism to either A) be resistant to contracting the disease, or B) be able to fight the disease in such a way as to either get rid of it or be able to live with it.What does Fred and creation predict?BTW, everyone - notice how Fred seems to have dropped his argument that mutations can't improve the efficiency of a reaction, after I showed him how easy it was to find examples of improved reaction by mutations? Or have you not dropped it, Fred?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-26-2003]

quote:

---

I have to run. Let me add that some portion of the variation may be due to non-random mutations, such as transosons. I was reading something recently that most genes seem to have areas available to tranposon mutation. THis fits quite well within a creation model.

---

There's a creationist model of genetics? Great! I've been looking for one for years. Where can I find it?

quote:

---

It is also well established that Chihuahuas have a much greater range of health problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

How was this established? Who did the establishing?

---

Chihuahuas are unhealthy critters. They are chalked full of problems. A quick search of the internet will show this. Doing a similar search on wolves doesn’t yield anything. If you think wolves have a similar number of health issues, I’m all ears.

quote:

---

Adding a'new' and different allele to a population's gene pool can only increase the amount of information in that gene pool.

---

Not true. If you know of any scientist in the field of information theory who believes this, please let me know so I can add his name to my black book of quacks. Seriously, why don’t you contact evolutionist Dr Tom Schnieder of NCI? While I dispute much of what Dr Tom believes, his knowledge of Shannon information is impeccable. Even at the Shannon level of information, he will tell you straight out that a new allele does not automatically represent an increase in information. If this were true, duplicating a dictionary and distorting words into typos would be adding information according to your viewpoint.

quote:

---

The only people who think this have no training in information science (like all the goofs here...

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I am unsure why this gratuitous insult was required. Perhaps the administraters can explain it to us? What of the folks that have no training in genetics or evolutionary biology? Like the majority (all of?) of popular creationist authors.

---

Yes, I think it is goofy for someone to claim they would allow a life-long serious disease to be imposed on them to avoid malaria if forced to live in West Africa. I thought I was being kind, because to be honest I don’t believe them when they say they would choose this route, and so I could have used a word other than "goofy", if you know what I mean.I wonder why you left out the context? Your quote makes it appear that I am attributing goofiness to The only people who think this have no training in information science. But this line is really attributed to Increased genetic variation does not = increased genetic information., not to goofiness. It is not goofy to make this mistake. It is common among those who have not educated themselves of information science and how it works. You have made this mistake, but I don’t consider you goofy (yet). Finally, you then, hypocritically I have to add, insult creationists by implying they have no training in genetics and evolutionary biology. As webmaster and internet membership secretary of CRS I can assure you that there are plenty of PhD biologists in the creationist camp. In fact I would say molecular biologists constitute about 30% of our voting members (which is now 650+ strong just for our YEC organization alone). Our site is here:Creation Research Society

1) people seldom, if ever, get to choose whether or not to have hemoglobin C
2) even being homozygous for hemoglobin C is usually asymptomatic - the folks with it usually never know they have it unless they happen to be tested for its presence
3) malaria is probably the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among children in West Africa
4) homozygotes for HbC have 7% of the incidence of clinical malaria as AA homozygotes
5) a population that has bone marrow that knows how to make both HbA and HbC contains more "information" than an identical population that can only do HbA
6) you still haven't told us why West Africa is an "abnormal" environment as opposed to, say, Gotebo, Oklahoma.[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 09-26-2003]