|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Any gene that has collected a huge number of "alleles," most of which of course don't do anything, is one of those parts of the genetic code that is especially prone to mutations. So such mutated "alleles" that get passed on are going to easily accumulate more mutations until finally they do something decidedly unbeneficial to the host. It's inevitable since mutations are inherently destructive. So when you say that neutral mutations can become deleterious, what you mean is that other completely different mutations in the same locus could be deleterious. So it's like saying: "This President could become bad for America, because an election could take place in which he could be replaced by a different President who is".
Your job is to repeat your case. Oh Faith, no. It is not my job to act as a substitute for your memory. When you are shown something that proves you are wrong, it is your "job" to remember it, not to remember your error and forget the evidence. Otherwise we are doomed to have the same conversation over and over again. In which case I would remind you that the conversations we have are not a job. I am not paid. This is a hobby. It is no fun for me to have the same conversations with you over and over again. So this time, please make a note of what I'm saying. Once again, there are at least five alleles of the E series in dogs, which determine the pattern of the coat, and which therefore affect "the variety we see". Please try to remember this. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, what I'm saying is that the accumulation of mutations in one sequence is what leads to destructive effects.
I'm sorry but it has been an instruction by Admin that you are to repeat your points. I know you prefer to create confusion and obstruction of the discussion, but it's really not permitted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You are missing the point. The existence of many neutral variations would be evidence that the gene can tolerate variation. That is the point - selection is NOT eliminating variation. And the final sentence is completely wrong - accumulating changes, especially those that affect function, would be creating new variations, not making existing variations harmful.
quote: As I explained only a short while ago, in the immune system. The existence of variants mean that the species is less vulnerable to being wiped out by a single disease.
quote: That is just nonsense. Accumulating variations make new alleles - and there is no reason that the presumed originals should be any less vulnerable (by definition all the other alleles must be mutated forms of the originals anyway so there is no distinction to be made)
quote: It is hardly an assumption. Do you really think that "an immune deficiency muscle wasting disease" is harmless ? That it will suddenly become harmful for some reason ? Because that is what it would mean for an allele to become harmful. What you actually seem to be saying is not that much better. If a gene is tolerant of change then it is obviously less likely to suffer harmful mutations - that is practically a tautology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Not if they are predominantly the "neutral" kind that are unaffected by selection. They'll just stay in the system without effect until more changes accumulate to become destructive. Or until conditions (natural selection) changes and they become advantageous. Or until additional mutations happen and they become advantageous. Or they just hang around and have no effect at all. Sheesh Faith. Stop being willfully ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are missing the point. The existence of many neutral variations would be evidence that the gene can tolerate variation. That is the point - selection is NOT eliminating variation. And the final sentence is completely wrong - accumulating changes, especially those that affect function, would be creating new variations, not making existing variations harmful. The more mutations the more chance of something harmful developing because mutations are inherently destructive. Neutral changes are just ticking time bombs. They destroy some part of the sequence but the function survives. If more mutations destroy more of the sequence what can it do but lead ultimately to something harmful.
As I explained only a short while ago, in the immune system. The existence of variants mean that the species is less vulnerable to being wiped out by a single disease. But not by a series of diseases that occur down the generations.
That is just nonsense. Accumulating variations make new alleles - and there is no reason that the presumed originals should be any less vulnerable (by definition all the other alleles must be mutated forms of the originals anyway so there is no distinction to be made) Well, here what you are doing is asserting your different theory of mutations. I would think the proliferation of genetic diseases in the population would eventually disabuse you of your theory but I guess we haven't arrived at that point yet. My theory is that all mutations are destructive, that the genome was originally created to vary through four alternative gene forms and no more, and that all changes to those forms/alleles are inherently destructive even if there is enough flexibility to allow most of them to make no changes at all in the function. But if more accumulated along one sequence there is no way that sequence could become anything other than destructive in one way or another because all mutations distort the original healthy allele.
This is an overworked assumption that is no doubt not true where it counts: most genetic diseases are going to get you no matter what your "environment." It's all in the changes to the gene itself, not the environment. There's no way an immune-deficiency muscle wasting disease could possibly be beneficial no matter what the environment. It is hardly an assumption. Do you really think that "an immune deficiency muscle wasting disease" is harmless ? What?
That it will suddenly become harmful for some reason ? Because that is what it would mean for an allele to become harmful. What? I'm talking about a "neutral" mutation/allele that accumulates more mutations. \Enough such changes and the result is most likely to be harmful because of the destructive nature of mutations.
What you actually seem to be saying is not that much better. If a gene is tolerant of change then it is obviously less likely to suffer harmful mutations - that is practically a tautology. What you are calling "tolerant of change" describes what is otherwise called "prone to mutations." There are different parts of the genome that are more or less vulnerable to mutation. A gene that has collected a huge number of "alleles" or mutations is one of the segments that is prone to mutations. That most of them are neutral is good for as long as it lasts, but further mutations run the risk of changing the allele into a disease-producer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, what I'm saying is that the accumulation of mutations in one sequence is what leads to destructive effects. That may have been what you meant, but it is not what you said.
I'm sorry but it has been an instruction by Admin that you are to repeat your points. Where did he say that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You are still talking nonsense. Mutations are not "inherently destructive", neutral changes need not be "ticking time bombs" (and since loss of function can be beneficial even if neutral changes did lose unneeded function there is no way to say that that function would ever be necessary again)
quote: If you are saying that it only improves the odds of survival - significantly - that is still a very good thing.
quote: In fact I was not.
quote: How could it do that ? (And isn't it more likely that any "proliferation" is due to our help and support to the sufferers?). An existing neutral allele won't suddenly produce a genetic disease unless something changes to make it do so.
quote: If the change makes no difference in the function at all it can hardly be considered destructive, or a "ticking time bomb". That should be obvious.
quote: Alleles don't suddenly become harmful for no reason.
quote: Which would be a deleterious mutation - or series of deleterious mutations - generating a new allele (or a series of new alleles). Not an existing allele becoming harmful. The two really are quite distinct scenarios.
quote: Not really. The existence of variant alleles is more dependent on selection failing to eliminate them than mutation creating them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr. Adequate: "And would CRR and Dredge like to tell us what the right word for evolution is - if not evolution?"
Instead of calling natural selection. "evolution", why not call it, "natural selection"? Instead of calling antibiotic resistance, "evolution", why not call it "antibiotic resistance"? ------------------------------ How about, "the bacteria have ... developed ... resistance to the antibiotic"? Or better still, come up with a term that reflects what has actually happened - ie, that a minority of the original population that were always resistance have multiplied and taken over the joint. -------------------------------Dr. Adequate: "... creationists ... should find another word for it." Maybe replacing "microevolution" with "applied biology" would work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I don't know what your job entails, but I am sure that if I could somehow remove the theory that all life shares a common ancestor from your consciousness, its absence wouldn't make a scrap of difference to the efficaciousness your work ... because I am sure all the biological principles you rely on would still be applicable. Think of it this way, a Bible-bashing fundamentalist creationist who thoroughly rejects the aforementioned theory, on rhe other hand, rejects nothing that has proved useful in applied biology.
As I've said before, if no one had ever heard of Charles Darwin and his theory, applied biology would be none the poorer and just as advanced as it is now. herebedragons: "No amount of definition shifting, mathematical ciphering or personal credulity will be capable of convincing scientists to abandon ToE. The reason: because it works." I would agree that applied biology works. Perhaps it's the case what you call ToE, I call applied biology. But what doesn't work is the theory that all life shares a common ancestor - a theory that cannot be put to the test nor has any practical application cannot be said to "work".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Creationists don't reject anything that is useful in applied biology, so your claim that "creationists are ... inherently anti-science" is baseless.
Name one creationist belief that would prevent a creationist from becoming a competent professional in the field of applied biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Davidjay: "Desperate Evolutionists will twist anything."
Well said; you hit the nail on the head, imo. You can't trust them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You think the ToE is essential to your work. I understand the need for a theoretical framework but I have strong doubts that anything essential to the ToE could be useful in such work, so I consider it likely that you are confusing incidentals with the ToE.
In any case, let me offer you a working model as I see it:
Depends on what you want to do in your job of course, but I would think something along these lines should be a sufficient guide. Cheers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : Change paragraph about Second Law of Thermodynamics Edited by Faith, : capitalize "Entropy"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one also is funny.
Dredge writes: Well, I'm not a biologist, but from the rocks I studied it was clear that the first forms of life, as we know life, were unicellular. Those fossils I personally found in those rocks. Very, very old rocks. From my work I concluded that the the first forms of life (as we know life) were unicellular. No fish were dropped in there. I don't know what your job entails, but I am sure that if I could somehow remove the theory that all life shares a common ancestor from your consciousness,... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Sometimes an evolving line of animals, or I suppose also plants, will reach a point where it can no longer breed with other members of its species. This usually describes a condition of genetic mismatch due to decreased genetic diversity in an inbreeding population. This belief would obviously affect biological inquiry. It also happens to be that pet theory that you have spent countless hours failing to convince anyone of, and for which there is no biological evidence. At a minimum, if there is no evidence for this, ca-ca, then it cannot be taken as a postulate.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a result of the Fall, an expression of the Death that came to all creation. What do you think that the second law of thermodynamics says, Faith? How do you think digestion worked prior to the Fall? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Hey, a lot of creationists claim that scientific laws only came to effect after the so-called Fall. Basically, according to them, scientific laws and explanations only started operating after Eve had a bite of that fruit. Then all of it temporarily got suspended again during some Magic Flood later.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024