Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
68 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,076 Year: 4,188/6,534 Month: 402/900 Week: 108/150 Day: 1/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 223 (342855)
08-23-2006 9:07 PM


On the thread Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes, discussion came up at the end about the nature of mutations and I would like this thread to be all about mutations.

In trying to write this PNT I think I've figured out that there are two main areas of questions I have.

    What is a "beneficial" mutation REALLY, and

    Is it possible that at least one form of "mutation" is not a "mistake" but a normal predictable method of producing variations in the normal processes of reproduction, just as the process of mixing of alleles is?

I hope the questions are clear. I will discuss them a bit below.

Since I always get in trouble on science threads and there is no place for this topic to be BUT a science thread I hope I can keep my participation to the role of asking questions.

For starters:

The definition of Mutation at Wikipedia

Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of either the species or the individuals who make up the species. These can accumulate over time. The overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is able to revert most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells.

This definition is clear: Mutations are the DRIVING FORCE OF EVOLUTION.

Here is another definition:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair.

Mutations are a failure of some sort, or a mistake.

So, mutations are both the driving force of evolution AND mistakes.

A number of posts on the old thread Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes might be relevant or at least give context from the earlier discussion:

======================================

Percy's 295 and some earlier ones of his I didn't track down, around the 180s. In this post he is mainly complaining about my failure to grasp certain things, and I suppose that will come up here too. I would only like to answer one point: I KNOW that there are no proteins in DNA; the proteins are "coded for" by the sequences of chemicals on the DNA, and I don't know how I gave a different impression but I suppose my language was ambiguous.

======================================

Crash's 296 in which he explains what a gene is. In the process he confirms that pseudogenes are formerly functioning genes, and I think I at least should refer back to this post for orientation from time to time, and maybe his #170 too. He is very good at giving homely analogies to make a point. His 170 got a deserved POTM for its clarity, another one to check out.

======================================

Wounded's 279 about the Solid Gold mutant ram, in which he is showing me that I'm wrong about my guess that this may merely be a variation thrown up from low-frequency alleles in the population. He describes its mosaicism, or the fact that the mutation only shows up in some of the somatic cells. This is a whole area I have hardly any understanding of, and Crash also said, I think in his post #170, that all of us get both our parents' alleles in different cells throughout our bodies -- if I got that right. I thought all our cells were some kind of package of both that defines us. But maybe I have this wrong and I'm not sure how relevant it is to this PNT anyway, but the mutant ram is certainly an interesting case of an apparently beneficial mutation.

======================================

Nosy's 277 He says:

But this is exactly what mutations are. They are changes that produce novel sequences. One may label them mistakes if we think that the gene reproducing process MUST produce perfect copies. It is clear that this would be a VERY BAD thing. These "mistakes" are what makes it possible for ongoing populations of organisms to deal with environmental changes (of all types).

And I'll take off from Nosy's comments into my main concerns about mutations for the purposes of this thread:

BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS?

From the point of view of the ToE, which is that mutations are its driving force, the origin of everything living, of course it must be true that these mistakes are essential, and perfect replication would be a disaster, as Nosy says.

But if the ToE is NOT true, then mutations really probably are mistakes, whose supposed benefits are an illusion, and really simply evidence of the gradual deterioration of all life since the Fall. In this case the fact that most of them have no effect at all just underscores the gradualness of the deterioration process, and the occasional apparently beneficial mutation is a mere anomaly that occurs in the nature of the chemistry involved.

The examples so far given on that thread of supposedly beneficial mutations are to my mind highly questionable.

    Always there are examples of bacteria, their development of resistance to antibiotics, and the capacity to digest nylon, both of which seem highly beneficial from the bacteria's point of view, but not very helpful for understanding why there are so many human genetic diseases and so little real evidence of anything beneficial in humans.

    In humans the examples of beneficial mutations seem to me to be highly ambiguous, such as the loss of wisdom teeth which may be a boon for preventing wisdom tooth problems, although it is a loss; or such as the trade-offs, a positive for a negative, as in protection from malaria by Sickle Cell disease, and I think this is also the case in the example of the HIV-protective gene, but I didn't get into that example.

    And then there is this mutant ram. And perhaps others will be offered on this thread.

But of course I was taken to task for my definition of "beneficial" which is too strict apparently as I can't accept most of the examples given as beneficial.

I dunno. We're talking about THE supposed "driving force" of evolution, the system that brought us the eye and the hand and the human brain and in fact the whole stupefyingly elegant system of genetic coding -- it makes your jaw drop to begin to appreciate the mathematical precision involved in the coding process that creates proteins that actually do things in the cells of living things that make all functions possible -- except for those "mistakes" of course. So I have a hard time accepting that whatever produced the incredible coordinated functions and variations of living things has to resort to such trade-offs in dealing with disease, or explaining how so many genetic diseases keep occurring, if the ToE is correct, and evolution really is the amazing system that brought about all the amazing perfections that are obvious despite the errors.

OK, that's my view of the examples of supposed beneficial mutations.

POSSIBLE NON-MISTAKE MUTATION? (as per YEC assumptions as opposed to ToE assumptions I mean)

But there is this other question about mutations for a creationist who believes in the Biblical Flood. What sort of genetic situation could conceivably account for the development of all the observed variation in living things from the few individuals of each Kind that were on the Ark?

    Is it possible that there was an enormously bigger genome at that time?

    Is it possible that the great proportion of nonfunctioning DNA in the genomes of (I think) every living thing was once functioning? Crash has confirmed that pseudogenes are just that, once functioning genes.

    Or, is it possible too that there is a kind of "mutation" that IS beneficial, that is in fact normal or natural or part of the normal way things reproduce, that is predictable?

ON the old thread I think it was Percy but I may be misremembering, maybe it was Wounded, who said that even if mutations are predictable they are still random the way the six sides of a die come up randomly and yet there are only those six possibilities. My answer to that is that genetic variation is random in THAT sense anyway, as in the linking up of various possible alleles from a large array in the population, and from the options in the combining of germ cells from two parents.

So it is still a possibility in my mind that there is a method to the madness of SOME so-called "mutations" that is really part of the normal reproductive system rather than merely a mistake and could somehow be part of the explanation for (micro) evolution since the ark.

All this could easily get bogged down in context because of the different basic assumptions, the ToE vs YEC, or simply because genetics is too complex and the varieties of mutations complex enough to choke a dinosaur let alone get digested by the likes of me.

So, I hope it is possible to make a thread out of this stuff.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : Various organizational changes, titles, lists etc.

Edited by Faith, : Made another list


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2006 10:42 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 4 by ReverendDG, posted 08-23-2006 11:06 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 5 by Hawks, posted 08-24-2006 12:06 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 08-24-2006 3:54 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 08-24-2006 7:17 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 92 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 12:57 AM Faith has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 223 (342861)
08-23-2006 9:59 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 696 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 223 (342870)
08-23-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
08-23-2006 9:07 PM


Is it possible that at least one form of "mutation" is not a "mistake" but a normal predictable method of producing variations in the normal processes of reproduction, just as the process of mixing of alleles is?

Well, all evolutionists would argue that mutations are one of the normal methods of producing variant individuals during reproduction, in addition to sexual recombination (what you've referred to as "allele mixing.")

I think it's important not to get hung up on the idea that mutations are "mistakes." Mutations are unpredictable changes in DNA that occur because DNA replication processes in cells are not perfectly faithful; they sometimes introduce sequences in the copy that were not present in the original, or delete sequences.

The majority of those changes have no effect on the phenotype of the resulting individual. Many cause effects that hamper the individual's success in reproduction. A select few have the opposite effect - the affected individual reproduces more offspring than non-affected individuals.

What is a "beneficial" mutation REALLY, and

REALLY, it's a mutation that is statistically connoted with an increase in reproductive success in individuals that carry the allele.

If you think that's a definition that's fairly hard to test in most cases, well, you'd be right. That's why it's difficult, most of the time, to point to a really good example of a beneficial mutation - one that "feels" beneficial.

A lot of the time, a beneficial mutation is the deactivation of a gene that was beneficial in an old environment, but detrimental in a new environment. One such mutation would be lactose tolerance - the ability of some adults to consume dairy products containing lactose long after childhood. In an environment like Africa, maturity-onset intolerance is weaning aid that gets a child on adult food as soon as possible. We see the same behavior in almost all mammals.

But in an environment with domesticated mammals that can be milked, lactose intolerance becomes a barrier to accessing an readily avaliable, nutritious food source. That's why we see lactose tolerance largely among only the decendants of people from dairy cultures - India, Northern Europe, etc - and intolerance among decendants of people whose cultures had no such milkable domestic animals.

Both lactose tolerance and lactose intolerance are beneficial under the right conditions. That's what makes it so hard to make blanket pronouncements about what is a beneficial or detrimental mutation. It's always relative to environment.

In this case the fact that most of them have no effect at all just underscores the gradualness of the deterioration process, and the occasional apparently beneficial mutation is a mere anomaly that occurs in the nature of the chemistry involved.

This doesn't seem to me to represnt a fundamental difference about the existence of beneficial mutations. You seem to be agreeing that they occur; they just don't occur all that often, so they can be ignored as a source of evolutionary change.

But it seems to me that evolution's selective mechanisms make even rare beneficial mutations unignorable. Even if they happen just a little bit that's enough for selection to weed out degeneration and promote adaptation.

We're talking about THE supposed "driving force" of evolution, the system that brought us the eye and the hand and the human brain and in fact the whole stupefyingly elegant system of genetic coding -- it makes your jaw drop to begin to appreciate the mathematical precision involved in the coding process that creates proteins that actually do things in the cells of living things that make all functions possible -- except for those "mistakes" of course.

Well, sure. The eye with its inefficient, backwards retina that operates so poorly in low-light; the hand with its system of tendons that are responsible for carpal tunnel syndrome and its fingers with their restricted range of independant movement; the brain with its redundant, even contradictory subsections and famous inability to effectively heal.

And honestly? There's not that much precision in the genetic code. The reason so many mutations are neutral is because you can typically alter a considerable portion of the protein without altering its active site. And molecules are springy, flexible. The tolerances don't have to be so tight.

It turns out that the more you look at the natural world, the less you see finely tuned living machines, and the more you see bodies that almost don't work. That are mismatched, backwards, clumsy. Systems that are twice as complicated as they need to be. "Unintelligent design", in other words.

The half-assed functioning of the natural world? Easily within the reach of random mutation and natural selection, in my view.

So it is still a possibility in my mind that there is a method to the madness of SOME so-called "mutations" that is really part of the normal reproductive system rather than merely a mistake and could somehow be part of the explanation for (micro) evolution since the ark.

We've done studies to try to see if adaptive mutations are actually driven by environmental pressures, rather than being just random advantages. The studies pretty uniformly show that environment doesn't drive advantageous mutations. They just happen at random. For instance, a statistically random number of bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics (for instance) even in an environment where antibiotics aren't present.

I hope some of that helps. Honestly I think you've got the basics, but a little more familiarity with the material would help, and (I hate to get confrontational like this) it would help still further if you were looking at this material with an eye towards what it could tell you about the natural world all by itself rather than looking for ammunition to use against evolutionists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 08-23-2006 9:07 PM Faith has taken no action

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 4 of 223 (342875)
08-23-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
08-23-2006 9:07 PM


What is a "beneficial" mutation REALLY,

thats a good question, but from your posts you don't seem to think the examples people give as they think of beneficial mutations are, so really you need to define it as you see it not us.

Is it possible that at least one form of "mutation" is not a "mistake" but a normal predictable method of producing variations in the normal processes of reproduction, just as the process of mixing of alleles is?

from my understanding mutations tend to not be part of the system until they happen so unless its already found in the system its not part of the system

Mutations are a failure of some sort, or a mistake.

i would say they are errors in copying not mistakes, how is this bad?
it would be like a boat getting a side breach and people patching it

So, mutations are both the driving force of evolution AND mistakes.

i don't see this as a problem, other than showing that you need to read more about evolution :P, mutations are mostly like a break in a chain that may or may not get repaired

From the point of view of the ToE, which is that mutations are its driving force, the origin of everything living, of course it must be true that these mistakes are essential, and perfect replication would be a disaster, as Nosy says.

nosy is right, ever read about the difference between pure bred dogs and mutts? they say mutts are better because they arn't perfect.

But if the ToE is NOT true, then mutations really probably are mistakes, whose supposed benefits are an illusion, and really simply evidence of the gradual deterioration of all life since the Fall. In this case the fact that most of them have no effect at all just underscores the gradualness of the deterioration process, and the occasional apparently beneficial mutation is a mere anomaly that occurs in the nature of the chemistry involved.

how is this relevent really? this is a false dilemma, there are more options than your so called "Fall", like.. i don't know...god made us to do this?

you see this is why you get in trouble faith :(

The examples so far given on that thread of supposedly beneficial mutations are to my mind highly questionable.

because your definition is not what science defines beneficial as

But of course I was taken to task for my definition of "beneficial" which is too strict apparently as I can't accept most of the examples given as beneficial

you don't think a mutation that causes immunity to black plague in the 1200s and decendents to be immuned to HIV not beneficial?
i would..
beneficial mutations allow the population to survive to procreate, so if sickle cell aenima allows the population to survive without dying out it is a beneficial mutation by the definition

as to the wisdom tooth, the envirment selected that the teeth were not useful anymore, i think mainly due to how flat the human face became and being omnivorus too

I dunno. We're talking about THE supposed "driving force" of evolution, the system that brought us the eye and the hand and the human brain and in fact the whole stupefyingly elegant system of genetic coding -- it makes your jaw drop to begin to appreciate the mathematical precision involved in the coding process that creates proteins that actually do things in the cells of living things that make all functions possible -- except for those "mistakes" of course. So I have a hard time accepting that whatever produced the incredible coordinated functions and variations of living things has to resort to such trade-offs in dealing with disease, or explaining how so many genetic diseases keep occurring, if the ToE is correct, and evolution really is the amazing system that brought about all the amazing perfections that are obvious despite the errors.

they arn't mistakes at all its suppost to do that, see thats just it this sounds like you just don't know enough about evolution, its not that amazing, unless you believe that a billion years wouldn't be enough time, i'm sorry but what perfections do you mean? the system works because laws of nature and physics effect life and so does envirment

OK, that's my view of the examples of supposed beneficial mutations.

faith this is just handwaving this isn't even an arguement this is just more of "its too much for me to imagin any other senarios for the forms of life we have, other than god, so its not possible!"

But there is this other question about mutations for a creationist who believes in the Biblical Flood. What sort of genetic situation could conceivably account for the development of all the observed variation in living things from the few individuals of each Kind that were on the Ark?

false dilemma, there could be other reasons, like aliens

Is it possible that there was an enormously bigger genome at that time?

we would have evidence of this

Is it possible that the great proportion of nonfunctioning DNA in the genomes of (I think) every living thing was once functioning? Crash has confirmed that pseudogenes are just that, once functioning genes.

yes but they found turning on those genes turn on things from eariar evolution like genes that turn chicken feathers to scales

Or, is it possible too that there is a kind of "mutation" that IS beneficial, that is in fact normal or natural or part of the normal way things reproduce, that is predictable?

as i said if its part of the genome its already there, or do you know what a mutation does? it adds something to the system, that is adaptiblity and is part of the ToE but is not mutation

ON the old thread I think it was Percy but I may be misremembering, maybe it was Wounded, who said that even if mutations are predictable they are still random the way the six sides of a die come up randomly and yet there are only those six possibilities. My answer to that is that genetic variation is random in THAT sense anyway, as in the linking up of various possible alleles from a large array in the population, and from the options in the combining of germ cells from two parents.

yes its random, in the sense that we don't know what mutation will come out, but NS filters the bad ones that would be like the dice, if 6 is what it takes to survive then all that don't come up 6 will be rerolled, or dead if its life and the 6 might be say anything

So it is still a possibility in my mind that there is a method to the madness of SOME so-called "mutations" that is really part of the normal reproductive system rather than merely a mistake and could somehow be part of the explanation for (micro) evolution since the ark.

but you see this would not be a mutation this would be part of the genome, i wouldn't call them merely anything, they are quite important to the theory and how it works

All this could easily get bogged down in context because of the different basic assumptions, the ToE vs YEC, or simply because genetics is too complex and the varieties of mutations complex enough to choke a dinosaur let alone get digested by the likes of me.

i'm sorry faith but this is the reason people call you on so much, you really don't understand it, its not assumptions its basic understanding of mutation, it doesn't help that you bring up the ark, the ark story is not science it has no evidence, its all pure ad hoc reasoning to box in something that doesn't fit the evidence - i mean hyper-evolution? wheres the evidence why doesn't it happen now? animals losing genetic information? were is the evidence? why does this happen? the fall?

if you can't answer this stuff people won't really take it serously

So, I hope it is possible to make a thread out of this stuff.

maybe, not sure

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 08-23-2006 9:07 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 08-24-2006 7:29 AM ReverendDG has replied

  
Hawks
Member (Idle past 5376 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 5 of 223 (342880)
08-24-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
08-23-2006 9:07 PM


So I have a hard time accepting that whatever produced the incredible coordinated functions and variations of living things has to resort to such trade-offs in dealing with disease, or explaining how so many genetic diseases keep occurring, if the ToE is correct, and evolution really is the amazing system that brought about all the amazing perfections that are obvious despite the errors.

If ToE is true and genetic variation is created (more or less) randomly, then we would expect to see “trade-offs” such as genetic diseases. Coupled with our knowledge of how genetic material is inherited, a total absense of negative mutations would actually be evidence AGAINST evolution.

Or, is it possible too that there is a kind of "mutation" that IS beneficial, that is in fact normal or natural or part of the normal way things reproduce, that is predictable?

Anything's possible. But if you want to show this scientifically, you will have to offer some positive evidence that this is actually the case – mere speculation is not enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 08-23-2006 9:07 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 6 of 223 (342902)
08-24-2006 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
08-23-2006 9:07 PM


A mistake is only a mistake in context.
Great opening post, Faith!

You end with:

I hope it is possible to make a thread out of this stuff.

and ReverendDG replies with:

maybe, not sure

He's wrong of course. This thing has all the marks of a great thread, one way or another. Here's my little contribution:

Faith is trundling along behind a yellow lorry, driving home after a long day's debate about mutations. While thinking about all that has been said, she inadvertently takes a wrong turn. A bit further along, she realizes her mistake and turns the car, muttering at herself for being so absent-minded. A short while later, when she's on the right track again, traffic slows because of an accident ahead. Slowly moving past the site of the accident, she sees that the yellow lorry, the one she had been driving behind originally, has had to brake very hard for some reason. The car directly behind the lorry hasn't been able to brake soon enough and has run into it.

With a shock Faith realizes that if she hadn't made her mistake, she might have been the one to run into that yellow lorry, instead of the other car. Where she first rebuked herself, she now thanks her luck - or more probably God - for the mistake she made. After all, it possibly saved her life.

Then she realizes another thing, namely that the mistake that saved her life is a metaphor for a beneficial mutation. At the moment she made her mistake, it was just that: a mistake. The context in which the mistake became a good thing did not exist yet. It's the same with mutations in DNA: at the moment they happen, they're just mistakes in the copying process. Whether they turn out to be beneficial mutations or not, depends for a large part on the context in which they manifest themselves. In one set of circumstances, a mutation may have consequences that are very different from the consequences of the same mutation in another set of circumstances. For example, your fur colour mutating from grey to white may be a good thing if your environment is a snowy landscape, but somewhere else you may stand out too much to be able to hide from predators.

Another important thing to realize is that whether you call a mutation a mistake or not, depends also on the level at which you are looking at it. At the level of the copying process, a mutation is definitely a mistake. But at the level of the molecular physico-chemistry, it's just the laws of nature that are being followed.

I know, it's wishful thinking: "Faith thinks this, Faith realizes that, ..."

Anyway, I hope it helps.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 08-23-2006 9:07 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 7 of 223 (342918)
08-24-2006 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
08-23-2006 9:07 PM


I don't think your 'definition' from Wikipedia really cuts the mustard. In the first place that article starts off...

In biology, mutations are changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals (mutagens), or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.

This is a much better definition of mutation as well as an explanation of some of the origins of mutation. The article only then goes on to describe mutations as the driving force of evolution on the second paragraph.

In biological terms saying that mutation is 'the driving force of evolution' really tells us nothing unless we understand what a mutation actually is.

This is a whole area I have hardly any understanding of, and Crash also said, I think in his post #170, that all of us get both our parents' alleles in different cells throughout our bodies -- if I got that right. I thought all our cells were some kind of package of both that defines us.

I think you misunderstood this, Crash explained several different things in that post and you seem to have got them mixed up.

1st- We do normally inherit an allele for each gene from each parent for all autosomal chromosomes (those that aren't sex chromosomes) and this genetic complement should be the same in every cell barring somatic mutation.

2nd- Because the sex chromosome, X and Y, have different genes on them mutations affecting those genes can have different effect. Crash gave the example of sex linked mutations which are common in men but rare in women due to women having 2 copies of the gene and both needing to be mutated for the disease to occur whereas men only have one copy on the single X chromosome they inherited from their mother. One obvious example would be the case of haemophilia.

3rd- This is what I think confused you the most. In women where there are 2 copies of the X chromosome one of these copies becomes largely inactivated. this inactivation occurs early in development but at a stage where there are still many distinct cells. Which X chromosome is inactivated in each cell is random so the resulting organism will be mosaic for which X chromosome is active in different cell lineages from those cells at the arly developmental stage, all of those early cells daughters will have maintained the same X chromosome in an inactive state. This gives rise in cats to calico patterning, where there are patches of light and dark fur, as there are pigmentation genes on the X chromosome.

But of course I was taken to task for my definition of "beneficial" which is too strict apparently as I can't accept most of the examples given as beneficial.

Your 'definition', which I never really saw defined, is not too strict if anythin it is too vague, it is also A)wrong and B) highly subjective.

All your definition seems to consist of is whether you personally think that the mutation confers a benefit in the colloquial sense of being 'good' for the organism. Whereas in evolutionary terms the only benefit that matters is that a particular allele is passed on more frequently than an alternative allele or that organisms posessing a gene reproduce more frequently than those lacking that gene.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 08-23-2006 9:07 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 08-24-2006 8:58 AM Wounded King has taken no action

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 223 (342921)
08-24-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ReverendDG
08-23-2006 11:06 PM


yes but they found turning on those genes turn on things from eariar evolution like genes that turn chicken feathers to scales

I'm pretty sure the experiments that turn scutes into feathers and so on have had nothing to do with pseudogenes. Have any references to back this up?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ReverendDG, posted 08-23-2006 11:06 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ReverendDG, posted 08-24-2006 2:25 PM Wounded King has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4262 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 223 (342927)
08-24-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
08-24-2006 7:17 AM


50s or 60s?, double tooth picks if I knew
Although representing biological change as motoring along through mutations is not extremely descriptive while explanatory it was the final means used by my Grandfather while teaching evolution in 50s prior to the creationist revival.

Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

quote:
Willard F. Stanley Lecture Notes at SUNY Fredonia

By the 60s this and perhaps due to an emphasis from Russia or Christian (probably both) biologists began to fall in love more along the lines WK is advocating as the words “usually DNA or RNA” in the definition above is made clear by Bruce Wallace by this time.


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

The ‘rub’ comes from deciding where phenotypically-genotypically the “pre-existing” PIECE is. In my Grandfather’s intuition from the 30s this would be NAMED – sport , and indeed that is HOW I saw it at Cornell. Gould’s work tries to correct this slightly deviate vision that holds a bit more German influence than French for and English but that is no reason to go all the way and feel offended for my grandfather linked his notion of “feeling” with Linneaus rather than on the hand I do with Kant. I have always assumed that Pope JPauls’ use of term “pre-existing” translated into American comes from a signal related to Wallaces’ disuse here(p66) above. The part exists and it really is only demonstrable as the “/” figure in Mendel. This is why evos in an end stick with statistics.

quote:
reference to non-familial material


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was supposed to work with Adrian Srb at Cornell in the 80s but I never did. Srb is no longer with us on Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 08-24-2006 7:17 AM Wounded King has taken no action

  
Frog
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 223 (342936)
08-24-2006 10:00 AM


Hi Faith and others I am new to this and a bit slow at the key board. I hope to learn fast.

Yes there are benificial mutations. But thats not the issue. What is, is how a net gain of genetic information come about?

The wrong type of change

Are there ‘good’ mutations? Evolutionists can point to a small handful of cases in which a mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. Actually, they need to take a closer look. Such ‘good’ mistakes are still the wrong types of changes to turn a fish into a philosopher—they are headed in precisely the wrong direction. Rather than adding information, they destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).

For example, beetles losing their wings. A particular winged beetle type lives on large continental areas; the same beetle type on a small windy island has no wings.

What happened is easy to imagine. Every now and then in beetle populations, there might be a mutational defect which prevents wings from forming. That is, the ‘wing-making’ information is lost or scrambled in some way.

The damaged gene (a gene is like a long ‘sentence’ carrying one part of the total instructions recorded on the DNA) will then be passed to all that beetle’s offspring, and to theirs, as it is copied over and over. All these descendant beetles will be wingless.

If a beetle with such a wingless defect is living on the Australian mainland, for example, it will have less chance to fly away from beetle-eaters, so it will be more likely to be eliminated by ‘survival of the fittest’ before it can leave offspring. Such so-called ‘natural selection’ can help to eliminate (or at least reduce the buildup of) such genetic mistakes.
Blown away

However, on the windy island, the beetles which can fly tend to get blown into the sea, so not having wings is an advantage. In time, the elimination of all the winged ones will ensure that only those of this new ‘wingless’ variety survive, which have therefore been ‘naturally selected.’ ‘There!’ says the evolutionist. ‘A favorable mutation—evolution in action!’ However, it fails to make his case, because though beneficial to survival, it is still a defect—a loss or corruption of information. This is the very opposite of what evolutionists need to demonstrate real evolution.


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 08-24-2006 10:09 AM Frog has taken no action
 Message 13 by ikabod, posted 08-24-2006 11:27 AM Frog has taken no action
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2006 11:55 AM Frog has taken no action

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 223 (342940)
08-24-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Frog
08-24-2006 10:00 AM


How do you measure genetic information?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Frog, posted 08-24-2006 10:00 AM Frog has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 223 (342944)
08-24-2006 10:32 AM


Sorry, I got busy for a bit
Just so you all know, I'm watching this thread and Wounded's thread on mutation, but I have other things demanding my attention right now, AND the threads are picking up quite a bit of extraneous stuff to sort through later when I have more time. These threads could take quite a bit of commitment.

Thanks to Frog, though, yes, that's the basic idea I have in mind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 3722 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 13 of 223 (342958)
08-24-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Frog
08-24-2006 10:00 AM


There!’ says the evolutionist. ‘A favorable mutation—evolution in action!’ However, it fails to make his case, because though beneficial to survival, it is still a defect—a loss or corruption of information. This is the very opposite of what evolutionists need to demonstrate real evolution.

it think you are in danger of making a classic ToE error , evolution is not about making error or defect free creatures , it is not about making perfect bettles or what ever .

If the bettle is better able to survive and produce off spring in the given enviroment, then the lose of wings is not a defect it is a advantage , the wingless bettle is a well adapted bettle ....

it is worth noting creature very very well adapted to an enviroment are very poorly able to deal with a change of enviroment ...

often its a stock pile of time accumaltaed "defect" or mutations that give the population the diversity to cope with change

evolution is mindless , heartless and does not plan for the future .. it is not about giving rise to beauty or perfection .. its about staying alive long enough to produce the next generation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Frog, posted 08-24-2006 10:00 AM Frog has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 11:34 AM ikabod has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 223 (342959)
08-24-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ikabod
08-24-2006 11:27 AM


I think we creationists understand that quite well, that is, we understand that evolution is blind, not purposeful, has no interest in WHAT survives and propagates, only that it does.

But this is precisely what we are questioning, that such a system could produce the amazing stuff of life that we see all around us, that a system which only produces degrees of disease and deformity could ever have come up with the functioning precision and elegance in so many living things, most of which functions without the compromises and trade-offs accepted as beneficial mutations.

It would help if it were understood that we don't have a problem understanding the definitions, we are questioning that any system that operated by such principles could produce any of what actually exists, let alone provide the material for future useful changes.

Yes, I get it, I get it, all of you who are giving examples of how it supposedly works. I get that mutations do happen that have a beneficial function although they also have destructive properties.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ikabod, posted 08-24-2006 11:27 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 08-24-2006 11:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 18 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-24-2006 12:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2006 12:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 101 by ikabod, posted 08-25-2006 4:59 AM Faith has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 223 (342966)
08-24-2006 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
08-24-2006 11:34 AM


I get that mutations do happen that have a beneficial function although they also have destructive properties.

This seems to suggest that any beneficial mutation must also have a downside, there is no reason this need be the case. In fact this seems to be rather jumping the gun and making what should be what you are trying to show into one of your initial assumptions.

The process of mutation can produce both beneficial and detrimental mutations, and which is which may depend on the environmental context. The concept of 'destructive properties' is not a biological one and seems wrapped up in this creationist view of organisms as having some sort of platonically ideal complement of genes from which any change can only be downhill.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 11:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-24-2006 12:00 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022