Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 3:05 PM
126 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 123 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 91 of 166 (580479)
09-09-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Taq
09-08-2010 11:39 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
If it was present in the single bacterium that was the founder of the entire population then nearly the entire population (more than 99.999%) would be resistant. They weren't. Only one in 10 billion were antibiotic resistant after the culture had increased in number over time.

Also, using negative plating, you can specifically choose a founder population that you know, for a fact, is not resistant. Doing it this was you can be quite sure that any resistant bacteria found later must have emerged by mutation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Taq, posted 09-08-2010 11:39 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 92 of 166 (580552)
09-09-2010 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Taq
09-08-2010 11:32 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
As the Lederberg's put it, they were pre-adapted and that adaptation occured in the absence of antibiotics.

Oh I see. Thanks for posting it. You are saying that ABR is not always a response to a hazardous environment, and mutation of this sort occurs randomly?

quote:
And at the same time, some adapation requires mutations in the DNA.

That is true.

quote:
So it may be part of God's plan to give children horrific genetic diseases that kills them before they ever reach adulthood? Yikes.

First, saying that God gave it to them would mean that they contracted the virus through no explainable way, a sort of opposite miracle. All children get diseases due to environmental conditions, from their parents, etc. Though God may or may not DO anything about it, is all in his plan. Since neither you or I do anything to help these children, we are just as much to blame for their death as anyone else (though I have done many missions trips, but not nearly enough). Blaming a God for problems that could be solved is a blame-shift, a mutation in the human brain that feels they are not responsible for helping other people because 'God' could easily do it, and does not.

quote:
You can't call it "genetic breakdown" when it does something bad and "intelligent design" when it does something good.

You are right. I am simply using the Biblical explanation of the beginning of life for this particular topic, since it is very religious orientated. But the mechanisms that cause either mutation are the same (though it is still under debate if new functional genetic sequences can arise this way, theoretically, they are the same).

quote:
If Santa Claus did not have flying reindeer would he be able to deliver presents to all the children across the world?

Ohhh, so you are not interested in being civil, even though my question is actually one that I am interested in. Considering all your evolution stories sound like the books my dad used to read me when I was a kid,

"A long time ago, in a land far, far away."

Give me a break. The fossil record is a joke, a 30 pieces to a million piece puzzle, a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true. Radiocarbon dating methods that constantly contradict each other. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions, and an even worse explanation for the first living organism (abiogenesis) that would require a complexity that you couldn't devise if you spent your entire life on it, but it happened by chance. You are no more believer than I, other than your beliefs are naturalistic. If evolution were 100% true, then there would not be HUNDREDS of books published to the contrary, and this forum would be dead fuckin quiet.

You never hear people argue gravity. Next time you feel like taking a shot, rent a gun and lay on the towels so you don't get blood on the carpet. Just because I'm a christian, doesn't mean I HAVE to like you. God may love you, but I'm pretty sure your just a fuckin idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 09-08-2010 11:32 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2010 12:21 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 6:34 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 11:38 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2010 12:28 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 93 of 166 (580554)
09-10-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by greyseal
09-08-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
quote:
if your are suggesting that "instinctive behaviour" can change genetic code deliberately to produce a specific outcome, then you are still wrong.

So bacteria do not respond to their environments? Because even Crashfrog proved you wrong.

quote:
That's not evolution

Darn tootin.

quote:
it's an adaptation like any other that came about through chance and mutation.

I like your word choice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2010 11:55 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by greyseal, posted 09-10-2010 3:01 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 09-10-2010 7:30 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 94 of 166 (580556)
09-10-2010 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by dennis780
09-09-2010 11:57 PM


Creation "science" on display
The fossil record is a joke, a 30 pieces to a million piece puzzle, a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true.

Undisputed? By who? Creationists?

The "teach the controversy" nonsense we get from creationists means nothing in terms of science. It is pure religious apologetics. Means nothing in the real world, where evidence matters.

Have you ever studied the fossil record? I did, all the way through my Ph.D. exams. You are trying to peddle creationist nonsense to those who know the field, and know you're peddling nonsense. You should be embarassed!

And you should realize that those creation "science" websites are lying to you.

Radiocarbon dating methods that constantly contradict each other. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions...

The dating methods are based on assumptions that are consistent with the evidence, unlike the arguments put forward by creationists who don't know the difference between radiocarbon dating (used for once-living things within the past 50,000 years) and other forms of radiometric dating that can be applied to rocks. If you don't even know this very basic fact, why should we consider anything else you say to be worth anything? And if you are this ignorant of the details of radiometric dating, how do you know the assumptions that you find so repugnant really are unfounded? You only know because some creation "science" website told you so (and they are lying to you).

...and an even worse explanation for the first living organism (abiogenesis) that would require a complexity that you couldn't devise if you spent your entire life on it, but it happened by chance.

That is what your religious belief teaches you. (What else that they teach you is false?)

You are no more believer than I, other than your beliefs are naturalistic. If evolution were 100% true, then there would not be HUNDREDS of books published to the contrary, and this forum would be dead fuckin quiet.

The HUNDREDS of books mean nothing if they are not based on evidence. We are back to that "teach the controversy" nonsense that creation "scientists" tried for a while. Just because there are two sides doesn't mean both sides are of equal merit. How do you feel about a flat earth? There are books supporting that nonsense. How about the "faked" moon landings? There are books supporting that also. There are books on hollow earth, Atlantis, the Velikovski nonsense, and no telling what else.

Means nothing.

How about returning to the topic now? Remember, beneficial mutations?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 11:57 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by greyseal, posted 09-10-2010 3:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 164 by dennis780, posted 09-21-2010 5:54 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1935 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 95 of 166 (580564)
09-10-2010 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by dennis780
09-10-2010 12:03 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
dennis780 writes:

quote:
if your are suggesting that "instinctive behaviour" can change genetic code deliberately to produce a specific outcome, then you are still wrong.

So bacteria do not respond to their environments? Because even Crashfrog proved you wrong.

they "respond" by random mutation, death of less-fit and continued life of more-fit. This is in no way the same thing as saying that bacteria (for example) can deliberately modify the genetic code of their offspring to deal with a specific issue.

In the nylon-eating example, it didn't go that generation one said "oh noes! nylon! quick! to the genetics lab!" and out popped generation two, willing and able to eat nylon. It was a series of steps wherein the surviving bacteria were, thanks to random mutation, slightly better and slightly better and slightly better than each preceeding generation until they were so much slightly better that they were good at it.

the ones that didnt have such a good mutation either died, or did not flourish quite so well.

Take the human race and aids - europeans suffered through "the plague" and it killed millions. Those that survived, in general, had a mutation which meant that they were already immune to the black death. Since this subset survived and flourished, in general, many more europeans have this mutation than would otherwise be.

Fast-forward to now, and it turns out that this mutation - which was beneficial during the black death era and meant that those with it survived and those that didnt died in far greater numbers - also confers immunity to aids. Africa, on the other hand, did not suffer the black death, nor anything like it, and the mutation (which does exist) is not so common. As a whole, then, Africans are far more likely to die of aids than europeans (it's something like 15% in europe versus less than 2% in Africa).

If we didn't have anti-retrovirals or barrier methods, then eventually aids would propagate into the general population at large.This would mean people immune would, in general, stand a far better chance of surviving to adulthood to bear children, who would in turn have the mutation.

Pretty soon, aids would be history - it would still be prevalent because it's a virus, but it would no longer kill.

Bacteria do the same thing, they just evolve quicker because their generation time is so much shorter.

Want to know where aids comes from? Well, it's prevalent in monkeys and apes, in several different strains. How come they don't die of it? it's because what I just described has already happened for them. They are immune.

The ability to eat nylon or live in stranger conditions is based in the same mechanisms. Given enough of a chance, or a lucky break, life will come up with a way.

When it doesn't...well, extinction. Most forms of life which have ever been on this planet are extinct.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by dennis780, posted 09-10-2010 12:03 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2010 8:01 AM greyseal has responded
 Message 109 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2010 9:06 AM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1935 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 96 of 166 (580565)
09-10-2010 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Coyote
09-10-2010 12:21 AM


Re: Creation "science" on display
The fossil record is a joke, a 30 pieces to a million piece puzzle, a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true.

Undisputed? By who? Creationists?

The "teach the controversy" nonsense we get from creationists means nothing in terms of science. It is pure religious apologetics. Means nothing in the real world, where evidence matters.

Have you ever studied the fossil record? I did, all the way through my Ph.D. exams. You are trying to peddle creationist nonsense to those who know the field, and know you're peddling nonsense. You should be embarassed!

And you should realize that those creation "science" websites are lying to you.

Speaking of which, the first five minutes of the futurama episode a few weeks back speaks volumes. The monkey proclaims there is no link between modern man and ancient apes, which Farnsworth points out is wrong, and so the monkey said "ahha! but now you are missing a link between these two!", so the professor brings out another hominid which is the link, and the monkey goes "ahha! but now you are missing a link between these two, and the professor brings out another hoiminid...

goto 10, repeat for every hominid down the line until the link between ancient apes and darwinius massili

sadly, this is entirely accurate, as dennis is proving.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2010 12:21 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 97 of 166 (580575)
09-10-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by dennis780
09-09-2010 11:57 PM


The Argument From Argument
The fossil record is a joke, a 30 pieces to a million piece puzzle, a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true.

And there is a total lack of undisputed examples of the evidence required for the Holocaust to be true.

This is because it is all disputed. By Holocaust deniers.

Anything can be disputed, all it takes is one crank with a soapbox.

If evolution were 100% true, then there would not be HUNDREDS of books published to the contrary, and this forum would be dead fuckin quiet.

And there you go again.

How many books have been published on Holocaust denial? On "crystal healing"? On homeopathy? On Flat-Earthism?

You never hear people argue gravity.

Yes I do. I've even debated with them.

If your line of reasoning was correct, then the very fact that they exist would cast doubt on gravity.

But it doesn't, does it?

---

If I do not presently reply to the congealed mess of nonsense in the rest of your post (BTW, do you really not know the difference between viral and genetic diseases?) this does not imply that it isn't all equally stupid, just that right now I have better things to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 11:57 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 98 of 166 (580584)
09-10-2010 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by dennis780
09-10-2010 12:03 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
dennis780 writes:

quote:
if your are suggesting that "instinctive behaviour" can change genetic code deliberately to produce a specific outcome, then you are still wrong.

So bacteria do not respond to their environments? Because even Crashfrog proved you wrong.

You misunderstood both Greyseal and Crashfrog. While living bacteria do, of course, respond to their environment, specific mutations are not part of that response. Mutations occur randomly, usually during reproduction, binary fission in the case of bacteria. Random mutations can also occur during the lifetime of a bacterium, though this is less frequent.

Environmental conditions can cause an increase in the mutation rate of some types of genes of bacteria, but cannot direct specific mutations, and certainly have no specific outcome in mind.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by dennis780, posted 09-10-2010 12:03 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-10-2010 7:41 AM Percy has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 99 of 166 (580586)
09-10-2010 7:37 AM


Topic Reminder
Please do not respond further to Dennis780 in this thread about radiocarbon dating, transitional fossils, origin of life and gravity. They are not the topic.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1773
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 100 of 166 (580587)
09-10-2010 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Percy
09-10-2010 7:30 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
I find it truly astounding how successful organisms are at randomly producing a particular mutation that lends them immunity to a particular randomly appearing pathogen. The odds seem to be so incredibly high.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 09-10-2010 7:30 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Huntard, posted 09-10-2010 7:46 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 09-10-2010 8:08 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 101 of 166 (580589)
09-10-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by ProtoTypical
09-10-2010 7:41 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
Dogmafood writes:

I find it truly astounding how successful organisms are at randomly producing a particular mutation that lends them immunity to a particular randomly appearing pathogen. The odds seem to be so incredibly high.


Since there are billions of bacteria, all of them mutating (well, not they themselves of course), the odds don't seem that high to me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-10-2010 7:41 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Annafan, posted 09-10-2010 7:59 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Annafan
Member (Idle past 2653 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 102 of 166 (580594)
09-10-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Huntard
09-10-2010 7:46 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
Dogmafood writes:

I find it truly astounding how successful organisms are at randomly producing a particular mutation that lends them immunity to a particular randomly appearing pathogen. The odds seem to be so incredibly high.


Since there are billions of bacteria, all of them mutating (well, not they themselves of course), the odds don't seem that high to me.

Let's also not forget that there might be multiple (many?) different mutations that result in immunity, and that there might be a range of degrees of immunity. It's typically not like one particular mutation is needed. An attack mechanism can likely be crippled in several different ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Huntard, posted 09-10-2010 7:46 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-10-2010 8:12 AM Annafan has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1041 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 103 of 166 (580596)
09-10-2010 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by greyseal
09-10-2010 3:01 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
Hi, greyseal.

Africa, on the other hand, did not suffer the black death, nor anything like it, and the mutation (which does exist) is not so common. As a whole, then, Africans are far more likely to die of aids than europeans (it's something like 15% in europe versus less than 2% in Africa).

Do those numbers represent the incidence of the AIDS-resistant mutation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by greyseal, posted 09-10-2010 3:01 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by greyseal, posted 09-10-2010 8:16 AM Omnivorous has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 104 of 166 (580598)
09-10-2010 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by ProtoTypical
09-10-2010 7:41 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
Dogmafood writes:

I find it truly astounding how successful organisms are at randomly producing a particular mutation that lends them immunity to a particular randomly appearing pathogen. The odds seem to be so incredibly high.

Here's a description of a simple experiment that illustrates what happens. A scientist places a billion bacteria in a petri dish with a growth medium containing a nutrient the bacteria cannot metabolize. Bacteria that could metabolize this nutrient would have a great competitive advantage over bacteria that did not. The bacterial genome has a billion nucleotide pairs.

As it happens, a single mutation in one gene would allow the bacteria to metabolize the nutrient, but the odds of this mutation occurring are a billion to one.

But there are a billion bacteria. If each bacterium divides once, what are the odds that one of them will experience the precise necessary mutation. By making some simplifying assumptions it becomes a simple calculation that only takes a half minute on a calculator, so I went ahead and did this, and the odds are 63% that at least one of the billion bacteria will experience that exact mutation. In reality the odds will be affected by factors I ignored, like how many of the other three nucleotides cause the desired effect, but the odds would still be pretty good. We'll be pessimistic and say the real odds are 10% that the needed mutation would occur in a single generation.

So what are the odds that the mutation would arise within 10 generations, which with a 20 minute generation time would only take around 3 hours? We'll assume that the bacterial population size remains at a billion. The odds are 65%.

And what are the odds that the mutation would arise within 100 generations, which would only take a little over a day? The odds are 99.99%.

How about that? If you're willing to wait a single day, it's a virtual certainty that that 1-in-a-billion mutation will occur.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-10-2010 7:41 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1773
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 105 of 166 (580599)
09-10-2010 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Annafan
09-10-2010 7:59 AM


Re: Cause of mutation?
Let's also not forget that there might be multiple (many?) different mutations that result in immunity, and that there might be a range of degrees of immunity. It's typically not like one particular mutation is needed. An attack mechanism can likely be crippled in several different ways.

I suppose that they fail more often than not. Is that true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Annafan, posted 09-10-2010 7:59 AM Annafan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-10-2010 8:14 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019