Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are all Mutations harmful because creatures were designed?
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 3 of 39 (57505)
09-24-2003 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DC85
09-23-2003 11:17 PM


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'".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DC85, posted 09-23-2003 11:17 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by DC85, posted 09-24-2003 8:08 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 09-25-2003 4:08 AM Fred Williams has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 6 of 39 (57869)
09-25-2003 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
09-25-2003 4:08 AM


Strawman
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!).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 09-25-2003 4:08 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rei, posted 09-25-2003 9:07 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 09-26-2003 4:09 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 13 by sfs, posted 09-26-2003 5:15 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 18 by ramoss, posted 03-02-2006 10:46 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 22 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-05-2006 10:00 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 10 of 39 (58023)
09-26-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mammuthus
09-26-2003 4:09 AM


Re: Strawman
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 09-26-2003 4:09 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by vik, posted 09-26-2003 2:42 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 12 by Rei, posted 09-26-2003 4:36 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 09-26-2003 6:30 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 14 of 39 (58067)
09-26-2003 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by vik
09-26-2003 2:42 PM


Chihuahua owner?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by vik, posted 09-26-2003 2:42 PM vik has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rei, posted 09-26-2003 6:34 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024