The Nature of Mutations II

This thread was targetted at getting at what a mutation is
all about.It seemed to be getting confused, and over complicating the
matter.The reason, as far as I could see, was that people wanted
a 1:1 correlation between mutation and heritable change
that doesn't (necessarily) exist.If offspring can inherit both genome differences and methylation
states then both are heritable variation ... that doesn't
mean that they both have to be mutations.I suggested that a mutation (of any type) is just a DNA copy error
that goes uncorrected.Copy error because to copy means to create an identicle 'likeness'
and that doesn't happen.If we add a whole chromosome it's a copy error (two got copied
instead of one by mistake).I'm not arguing anything, and the differentiation between
a heritable change and a mutation in the sense of their not
necessarily being a 1:1 relaitonship is not semantic ... it's
simply descriptive.If not all mutations are heritable then there is not a 1:1
mapping between mutation and heritable variation.There seem to be multiple instances of heritable variations
and not all of them are mutations.What's wrong with that?

S, if you never heard of the people I cite, there is absolutely no reason to respond to you. You can lead a person to the literature but you cannot make him read. I am not a hypocrite as I believe every solitary word that I have published. Where have you commited yourself in hard copy? salty

S, if you never heard of the people I cite, there is absolutely no reason to respond to you. You can lead a person to the literature but you cannot make him read. I am not a hypocrite as I believe every solitary word that I have published. Where have you commited yourself in hard copy? salty

quote:

---

S, if you never heard of the people I cite, there is absolutely no reason to respond to you.

---

Gosh, and here I thought you wanted MORE people to believe you.Strange that you would seem to convey this desire, yet refuse to answer my reasonable questions.How do we tell the difference between an intelligently designed system and a natural one which we don't understand currently or that we do not have the intelligence to ever understand?I mean, surely you don't think this is unreasonable to ask. It is a natural question, no?

quote:

---

You can lead a person to the literature but you cannot make him read.

---

Perhaps. Just for fun, though, maybe you could answer my simple, straightforward question as stated above.I am aware that I am not worthy of an answer, but I do seek one, nonetheless.

quote:

---

I am not a hypocrite as I believe every solitary word that I have published.

---

You ARE a hypocrite.I have explaind this to you already.I will do so again presently.You complain about being insulted at EvC forum.You then proceed to use insulting language at EvC forum.This makes you hypocritical.

quote:

---

Where have you commited yourself in hard copy?

---

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't an expert?I look to people like you, who are experts, to explain things to me.So, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and one that we do not currently understand or one that we do not have the intelligence to ever understand?

quote:

---

You can lead a person to the literature but you cannot make him read.

---

No kidding...Well, at least the literature from 1982 on...

Dear S and others who are inclined to call another one a hypocrite. There are no experts in evolution. Scott imagines himself to be one but he is not. I have insulted no one, only Darwinism which is a monumental joke. If you want to believe in a myth, that is your choice. Evcforum continues to be THE forum which thrives on insult and deprecation of any challenge to the atheist darwinian foolishness. You could never get away with some of the language I see here at Brainstorms or Terry's Creation versus Evolution or Both forum. If you want to find out where my papers are published I am sure Scott Page will tell you all about why they are of no consequence I have another coming out in September. Don't ask me any questions as Scott and others here already have all they answers. In a nutshell - mutation and natural selection. salty

On the other hand, you could and do get away with that language - just like every other creationist - at Terry's forum. I've been lurking there, and might consider joining, if there was any indication he applied his so-called "civility rule" to everyone, not just to the evolutionists. Instead he uses it as a tool to quash anyone who dares present contradictory evidence.You might ask Terry for a Bible reference - something about "the beam in thine own eye"?

Salty, you have failed to respond to Schrafinator's question:

quote:

---

So, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and one that we do not currently understand or one that we do not have the intelligence to ever understand?

---

The question is fundamental to your assertion that "I do not understand Intelligent Design but that it exists is beyond any doubt." You need to provide evidence such as examples of intelligent design and why intelligent design is a better explanation for the example than the conventional scientific explanation.

quote:

---

Dear S and others who are inclined to call another one a hypocrite. There are no experts in evolution. Scott imagines himself to be one but he is not. I have insulted no one, only Darwinism which is a monumental joke. If you want to believe in a myth, that is your choice. Evcforum continues to be THE forum which thrives on insult and deprecation of any challenge to the atheist darwinian foolishness. You could never get away with some of the language I see here at Brainstorms or Terry's Creation versus Evolution or Both forum. If you want to find out where my papers are published I am sure Scott Page will tell you all about why they are of no consequence I have another coming out in September. Don't ask me any questions as Scott and others here already have all they answers. In a nutshell - mutation and natural selection.

---

OK, fine, salty.I hereby declare that it is my belief that salty has never once used any disparaging or insulting words against anyone here at EvC forum.I am terribly sorry to have misrepresented you and beg for your forgiveness.Now, will you please explain to me how to tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we don't currently understand or do not have the intelligence to understand?This is the fifth time I have asked you this, I believe.You DO claim that Intelligent Design has happened, so surely this must be a trivial thing for you to illustrate, no?

Two problems again with this Peter. First off, what is the chemical difference between a mutation in a somatic cell versus a germ cell? Mutation is a mutation is a mutation...to quote Scott. One is inherited because it occurs in a specific cell type (germline) the other is not inherited. That is why one is usually called somatic mutation and the other germline mutation...i.e. both are called mutation.Imprinting in itself is not a mutation. But since you have restricted mutation to DNA copy error, what about gross phenotypic abnormalities caused by errors in imprinting where the DNA sequence remains unchanged? i.e. Prader Willi syndrome? What would you call heritable errors in imprinting if not mutation?Copy error in regards to chromsomal replication errors i.e. non disjunction makes your term "coopy" vague. Is this a replication error i.e. point mutation? Failure of the chromsomes to separate but the replication itself is flawless?A broad definition of mutation like that presented by Wounded King is the best with specific mutations discussed in their detail in my opinion. Calling the same event in differnt cell types mutation in one case and not the other is uncessesarily complicated.
cheers,
M

Unfortunately, your conduct, your inability to define your position, and your absolute reluctance to substantiate your claims makes all of your publications extremely suspect. (Remember, Scott is not the only one who has read some of your work, I have, Quetzal has, Taz has) and when questioned about specific points you have resorted to evasion, indignation, and insult. Your work is also suspect because you have failed to define "Darwinian". Your apparent claim in this last post is that all who accept the theory of evolution are atheists also demonstrates a complete lack of even tangential information on the subject you claim to be so passionate about.You also in this post claim that we should not ask you questions...then what is the point of entering a DEBATE FORUM? You do understand the concept of this website? Have you bothered to read the mission statement of the site or did you just log in blindly? This is not the "pat salty on the back club"...you can get that at Terry Trainor's site where you as a member and not administrator don't know what one can or cannot get away with on Terry's site since he bans anyone who actually supports their claims.It is a pity salty that you are to afraid to actually address the questions posted to you like schrafinators regarding determining the difference between intelligent design and a system that evolved..though you yourself claim that not being able to see this makes one insane...one would think you could whip up a post in no time to enlighten the masses but instead you evade...again, salty, what are you so scared of?

That wasn't my intent.I'm not saying that somatic mutation isn't a mutation,
I am saying that imprinting isn't.Heritable variation is any change which can be passed to
offspring. Germline mutation is one such heritable change,
there may be others.I seem to recall that your stated intent was to find an
acceptable definition for mutation that non-micro-biologists
could use to grasp the concept.At a 'system' level, when cells divide they must copy their
genetic content for the nucleus of the 'new' cell. There is nothing
vague about the term 'copy'. If the 'new' cell does not
exactly match the 'old' then there has been an error during
the copying process (like someone re-typing a whole word, or
someone hitting the wring koy on the kaybeard).It's a copy error, it happens to the DNA ... that's what I call
a mutation.If the source of the 'information' for imprinting is not the
genome, then a change in such is not a mutation ... but it
is heritable variation.

quote:

---

Calling the same event in differnt cell types
mutation in one case and not the other is uncessesarily complicated.

---

There seems, amongst creationists, a group that do not understand
the relationship between heritable change and mutation. They seem
to beleive that mutations happening in somatic cells are the
driving force behind evolution ... or they simply do not think
about the cells in which a mutation occurs and the organism
level impact of same.By pointing to this distinction some of said C's may at least
go 'Oh.'

Well if we are going to draw distinctions between all the possible sources of heritable variation perhaps you would like to suggest some other terms which could cover things like DNA methylation, Histone status, cytoplasmic constituents and so on.I agree that strictly genetic mutation is what is generally referred to as mutation, the problem is that the more we find out about genetics and evolution the clearer it becomes that our terms and definitions are usually woefully narrowminded and inadequate.A gene is a similarly ephemeral thing there are half a dozen possible definitions for a gene and more and more things which have previously been considered junk DNA are being reclassified as genes, not to mention pseudogenes which turn out not to be as pseudo as previously thought.

Hi Peter,
Imprinting occurs in the genome and is heritable. The other examples provided by Wounded King are as well. An error in any of these systems that is passed from parent to offspring would be called what if not mutation?cheers,
M