Age and Down Syndrome?

What kind of argument is it to tell me what you 'have said'? You are no authority on the use of the English language.Yes you did say that and it's wrong. In fact you've already been provided with examples of damage resulting without the action of a human agent. Does the term 'brain damage' imply that someone hit you with a hammer? Does UV radiation not cause damage to your skin?And in fact, others have quoted you technical usage of the term damage in connection with the genome.Those are examples of how the term is used, and not merely me saying how I wish it were used. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Tis so. But what I was seeing was: I find it misleading to call any and all mutations "damage" until the effect on the phenotype can be determined. Then, and only then, can we say the "change" was beneficial or deleterious. Who cares? The point is that "damage", as used by CS above, does not necessarily equate to deleterious - just change. He was not using "damage" to refer to (only) deleterious.

Of course. In particular CS found his rock speeds up car example problematic for exactly that reason.But if a mutation is responsible for Down's Syndrome, I think the judgment on whether the result is deleterious has already been passed.

My bad. I was addressing only the one point, not the general OP.

I never said it had to be a human agent. Where'd that idea come from? I was simply reminding you that we had covered this ground before. And please quote me freely, because you seem to be lacking that. I mean, the least you could do is give examples!Anyway, all this argument is is terminology, and I'm frankly bored with it, so I probably won't respond much more, but just to clear this up: the way we usually use the term "damage" (as a verb, of course) implies a subject (e.g. I damaged that, the plane damaged the building, etc.). That isn't the case with genomes. There is no "I" damaging the genes and no plane crashing into them. I never said it had to be human!And I am fairly certain that UV radiation damages your skin CELLS. We are strictly talking about the genetic information.

The idea that a human agent is needed came from your posts. Did you not say the following: Is there some kind of 'someone' that is not a human?But if you want to relax the requirement for damage to not require humans then you have no point at all. Mutations are often caused by chemicals like benzene or cigarette tar, ionizing radiation, or even physical trauma. So there is a subject for your future sentences. Your skin cells contain genetic information that can be affected by UV radiation. You don't have a clue what you are talking about do you?

I've provided an argument, and that argument was "using 'damage' to apply to genetic mutations is not a great thing to do, because 'damage' has connotations that shouldn't be applied". Somehow its been blown into this whole new thing, though. You still can't even tell me how damage is an okay word to use, other than the textbook definition which, if we know anything about language and humanity, is pointless because there are many words which we use differently than what the dictionary says.

'First, that wasn't your argument. It's a twisting of what AZPaul said.Secondly, all you have done here is simply restating your position that damage is the wrong word. The term damage applies perfectly well to deleterious mutations. Not only does it fit, it is used to talk about harmful changes in the genome. Even if you want to let the word damage apply only to caused events, many mutations are caused by the environment. It may well be that the majority of mutations, beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, are not spontaneous.lAs a rebuttal to Faith's position, your argument also fails. Whatever the label you will accept for bad mutations turns out to be, Faith position is that bad mutations accumulate and over time produce a bad genome. Everyone here knows why she is wrong, and the reason has nothing to do with the dictionary.

No, no, I'm pretty sure I said this: Where is the study saying this? Who has ever asserted this? Where is your evidence, your statistics?I'm starting to think this is really stupid. We're arguing over a word that isn't even used in this thread's topic.

I actually misread your post. You said that "many" mutations were caused by the enviornment, not "most". That's my bad. I still have a problem with this, however:

Are you prepared to argue against it or otherwise demonstrate that it is wrong? Or is it that you just don't like it?

I don't have to argue against it. You have to prove it to me. You made the claim, now back it up. I'm open to having my mind changed.

quote:

---

claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

​

-Hitchens (paraphrased)

---

My statement was that it may be that most mutations are not spontaneous. What is there me to prove? Nothing, since I did not make a positive statement that mutations are mostly caused. It is enough to know that common, ever present agents do frequently cause mutations. Here is some support for that statement:

quote:

---

Four classes of mutations are (1) spontaneous mutations (molecular decay), (2) mutations due to error prone replication by-pass of naturally occurring DNA damage (also called error prone translesion synthesis), (3) errors introduced during DNA repair, and (4) induced mutations caused by mutagens. Scientists may also deliberately introduce mutant sequences through DNA manipulation for the sake of scientific experimentation.

---

If you have a problem with my statement about something that 'may' be true, then you must have some reason to believe otherwise. That reason seems to be inexplicably tied to the conclusion you cannot support. In other words, your argument is circular. Mutations cannot be caused because if they were we could call those changes damage, but you don't like the word damage.I don't see any evidence or support that you have provided for any of your positions in this thread. You claim the dictionary is wrong without citing any source. You claim that terminology is wrong without citing any examples of the terminology being used in the way you suggest. And then you don't see to recall the silly stuff you've posted and insist that I point quote back your folly to you.You are dismissed. Go finish your high school project.

"You claim the dictionary is wrong without citing any source. You claim that terminology is wrong without citing any examples of the terminology being used in the way you suggest. And then you don't see to recall the silly stuff you've posted and insist that I point quote back your folly to you."Firstly, I never said that the dictionary was wrong, I said that the dictionary form is somewhat, well, useless because people commonly use words almost oppositely than what they actually are supposed to mean (and yes, I did provide an example). Secondly, a perfect example of how 'damage' could be incorrect when talking about genetic mutations is that the word 'damage' as it is commonly used implies tampering, often times active and intentional tampering. Thirdly, I posted those quotes to remind you of things I have said, such as when you said that I was a re-hashing of someone else.I've never insisted that you quote me back! If I have, it was an accident, but I'd like it if you'd provide me with a quote of me doing so. (That was a postitve statement, so I'd like some backup)

If there is a meaningful distinction between your rejecting the dictionary definition and saying that it is wrong, that distinction is not readily apparent to me.I've pointed out several times some support for using damage to refer to some mutations, and I've not once referred you to a dictionary. You have yet to provide any thing other than your own say so for the opposite proposition. Nonsense. At best damage implies causation when used as a transitive verb in a sentence and even then, intent is not required to cause damage. Accidents and negligence are enough. Inanimate objects as well as events can cause damage including mutations. And yes I did provide support for that.But more importantly, we are using damage as a noun to identify a result. No causation required.As a side note, your inability to see the inconsistency in your statements astounds me. You require intent but when I pin you down on the requirement for human involvement you back off. If you are not talking about a human having intent or doing the tampering, then what are you talking about? What does 'someone' mean if not a human. You've just pegged the irony meter. Even your denial requests a quote. That notwithstanding, here are a two more of your 'accidents'.From Message 60A request I granted, but one you never acknowledged.From Message 65. It does not ask directly for a quote, but it asks me to prove that you said what I attributed to some poster without identifying you. From you, Stan. It came from you. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.