How do you recognise a beneficial mutation?

quote:

---

i) Whether based upon an MPG or simply evidence of genetic diversity
the visible result is that some people get wisdom teeth some don't.
There is no indication in this example that an MPG is required.

PB: it clearly indicates that these info is already present in the genome.

---

Rather it is a sign that the genes/alleles for wisdom tooth
development are varied within the CURRENT human genome. It says
nothing whatsoever about where that gene/allele orginated.

quote:

---

ii) Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within
a population over time. So evolution is the correct scientific
term to use when we can see such a change (even if we do not agree
on the mechanism).

PB: Let's make this clear for once and for all:

​

Evolutionist define it like this since now they are able to compare two unequal phenomena (apples and oranges). However, what
evo's take as the definition for evolutionism is simply the definition of population genetics, and has NOTHING in common with
evolution from microbe to man. Polpulation genetics is the biological disciplin that studies the change in allele frequency within a
population over time.

​

Get your definitions right.

---

I have got my definition correct. Check any text or paper on
evolution that cites a definition and there it is.Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean it's not
the correct definition of evolution.Microbe to man is not a necessary concept in evolution. Evolution
is directionless ... it just happens that the evidence to date
suggests that this has happened.

quote:

---

iii) In evolutionary terms you are closely related to both your hair-
dresser and her son

PB: It is known for 2000 years that we are all brothers and sisters (connected through the MPG).

---

If you are a creationist we have been brothers and sisters for
around 6000 years (literal biblical time-frame).If you are an 'evolutionist' we are all related by virtue of
being part of one species.

quote:

---

iv) You do not need to have suffered the mutation personally to
exhibit the trait.

PB: Exactly. That's what it is all about. It is non-Mendelian genetics and it demonsstrates that traits can be activated
independent of each other. Mediated by DNA elemenst preexisting in the genome, and probably activated through recombination.
This is what Darwin observed, and all evo-biologists study and confuse with the big word: evolutionism from microbe-to-man.

---

Actually I meant the trait is more likely to be inherited from ones
parents. The mixing of the genes of the parents causing varying
expression amongst the offspring.
...which is Mendalian ... isn't it?

quote:

---

With co-dominant traits they can exist quite happily in the genome for generations ... and if there is no selective pressure then ... well ... natural selection will not cause a bias toward any one particular expression.

PB: And all elemenst to repress and activate these traits are already present in the genome. Or did they drop out of the sky somewhere?

---

Traits, on the whole, are not repressed or activated in the genome,
they are 'different' from individual to individual.One person has no-wisdom-tooth another has all-wisdom-teeth and
yet others have mixtures that cause one-or-more-missing-wisdom-teeth.There is no need for anything more than that.

quote:

---

I more and more get the conviction that evolutionists don't understand their own theory.

---

Could it be, rather, that what you understand the theory to be is
not what the theory is intended to represent.[This message has been edited by Peter, 04-01-2003]

Nope I came in much earlier and set up a PCR for part of a data set which will be published chock full of evolutionary reality with supporting data just to tick you off And since NRM is your private dementia..it is up to you to do the experiments to support it...have fun

Hi M,M: Nope I came in much earlier and set up a PCR for part of a data set which will be published chock full of evolutionary reality with supporting data just to tick you offPB: How can you be sure that the mutations you study are not influences by a wobbly enzyme? I hope you're using a polymerase with proofreading capacity. Furthermore, it should be noted that change is not in dispute here. You'll like to call it evolutionary reality. You infer microbe to man from it. I infer from all biological data: GUToB. I purposely named it so, since it explains all biological data, not only what you will see today, but also what you will see tomorrow, next year etc. At last we have an explanatory theory of biology.Seeya,
PB

Then how come it cannot explain where mutations will occur before they happen?..seems to be running on empty

Discussion of GUToB is limited to the threads designated for that purpose: Dr Page's best example of common descent explained from the GUToB and Defining GUToB.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Peter,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i) Whether based upon an MPG or simply evidence of genetic diversity
the visible result is that some people get wisdom teeth some don't.
There is no indication in this example that an MPG is required.PB: it clearly indicates that these info is already present in the genome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter: Rather it is a sign that the genes/alleles for wisdom tooth
development are varied within the CURRENT human genome. It says
nothing whatsoever about where that gene/allele orginated.PB: Make a proposition about the origin of the genes/genetic programs involved. Regulated expression of the gene is as important as having the gene.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii) Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within
a population over time. So evolution is the correct scientific
term to use when we can see such a change (even if we do not agree
on the mechanism).PB: Let's make this clear for once and for all:
Evolutionist define it like this since now they are able to compare two unequal phenomena (apples and oranges). However, what
evo's take as the definition for evolutionism is simply the definition of population genetics, and has NOTHING in common with
evolution from microbe to man. Polpulation genetics is the biological disciplin that studies the change in allele frequency within a
population over time.Get your definitions right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter: I have got my definition correct. Check any text or paper on
evolution that cites a definition and there it is.PB: Like I said evo's take the definition from population genetics: the change in allele frequency within a population over time. If this is the definition for evolution, than you leave out all changes in regulatory sequences, that are at least as important as alleles. You also don't include gene shuffling, promoter shuffling, position effects, etcetera, etcetera. So, your definition for population genetics does not equal the definition for evolution.Peter: Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean it's not
the correct definition of evolution.PB: As demonstrated the definitions can not be interchanged.Peter: Microbe to man is not a necessary concept in evolution. Evolution is directionlessPB: Please don't let me laugh. If evolutionism (= evolution from microbe to man by an utter naturalistic mechanism) exists at all, than it is determined by laws that has lead from simple to complex.Peter: ... it just happens that the evidence to date suggests that this has happened.PB: It is time that you reanalyse the data. Nothing in these data demonstrate evolutionism. We are being fooled by the highly biased data provided by atheistic scientist.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii) In evolutionary terms you are closely related to both your hair-dresser and her sonPB: It is known for 2000 years that we are all brothers and sisters (connected through the MPG).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter: If you are a creationist we have been brothers and sisters for
around 6000 years (literal biblical time-frame).PB: We have been brothers and sisters as long as we are on this planet. We are all 'clones' from each other.Peter: If you are an 'evolutionist' we are all related by virtue of
being part of one species.PB: MPG's you mean.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv) You do not need to have suffered the mutation personally to
exhibit the trait.PB: Exactly. That's what it is all about. It is non-Mendelian genetics and it demonsstrates that traits can be activated
independent of each other. Mediated by DNA elemenst preexisting in the genome, and probably activated through recombination.
This is what Darwin observed, and all evo-biologists study and confuse with the big word: evolutionism from microbe-to-man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter: Actually I meant the trait is more likely to be inherited from ones parents. The mixing of the genes of the parents causing varying
expression amongst the offspring. ...which is Mendalian ... isn't it?PB: Your genome is partly inherited from your mam and partly from you dad. Which traits are expressed is not only determined by dominance or recessiveness of genes, but also by jumping elements in the genome that regulate gene expression. These are distinct in all humans. It contributes to the variation we see within the human MPG.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With co-dominant traits they can exist quite happily in the genome for generations ... and if there is no selective pressure then ... well ... natural selection will not cause a bias toward any one particular expression.PB: And all elemenst to repress and activate these traits are already present in the genome. Or did they drop out of the sky somewhere?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter: Traits, on the whole, are not repressed or activated in the genome, they are 'different' from individual to individual.PB: Yep, and how do you think this works? Not because the alleles are so distinct, but because of differential regulation of the same/similar alleles.Peter: One person has no-wisdom-tooth another has all-wisdom-teeth and
yet others have mixtures that cause one-or-more-missing-wisdom-teeth.
There is no need for anything more than that.PB: Once a NRM has occured it depends whether or not it behaves Mendelian. Certainly, it involves more than you think. The independent occurence of the same trait involves shuffling of DNA elemenst that affect the same genes/genetic programs. The differences are than on the level of gene expression. It is not an yes/no phenomenon. It is about a balance of a miriad of different factors that determine the outcome.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I more and more get the conviction that evolutionists don't understand their own theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter: Could it be, rather, that what you understand the theory to be is not what the theory is intended to represent.PB: If you have the feeling that I don't understand the ToE, please explain where I go wrong.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Peter: Rather it is a sign that the genes/alleles for wisdom tooth
development are varied within the CURRENT human genome. It says nothing whatsoever about where that gene/allele orginated.

PB: Make a proposition about the origin of the genes/genetic programs involved. Regulated expression of the gene is as important as having the gene.

---

Why? It is not relevent to the point raised. You claim that
simple variation in current human populations is evidence for
a MPG ... it's just variation, and indicative of little more
than that there is variation within a population.

quote:

---

Peter: I have got my definition correct. Check any text or paper on
evolution that cites a definition and there it is.

PB: Like I said evo's take the definition from population genetics: the change in allele frequency
within a population over time. If this is the definition for evolution, than you leave out all changes in
regulatory sequences, that are at least as important as alleles. You also don't include gene
shuffling, promoter shuffling, position effects, etcetera, etcetera. So, your definition for population
genetics does not equal the definition for evolution.

Peter: Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean it's not
the correct definition of evolution.

PB: As demonstrated the definitions can not be interchanged.

---

In part I agree ... but only in so far as the 'correct' definition
is somewhat simplified. Personally I prefer to talk about
changes in trait frequency, but you would no doubt call this
population genetics too.I thought pop.gen. was about frequencies in existing populations
though, rather than changes over time ... could someone enlighten
me?

quote:

---

Peter: Microbe to man is not a necessary concept in evolution. Evolution is directionless

PB: Please don't let me laugh. If evolutionism (= evolution from microbe to man by an utter naturalistic mechanism) exists at all, than it is determined by laws that has lead from simple to
complex.

Peter: ... it just happens that the evidence to date suggests that this has happened.

PB: It is time that you reanalyse the data. Nothing in these data demonstrate evolutionism. We are being fooled by the highly biased data provided by atheistic scientist.

---

But that's the whole point ... evolutionism (as you call it)
does not say that microbe to man MUST happen. It is a theory
that fits the data, and suggests that over time changes occur in
the traits observed within any population. With sufficient time
these changes can appear to be quite radical.

quote:

---

Peter: If you are an 'evolutionist' we are all related by virtue of
being part of one species.

PB: MPG's you mean

---

I don't, no. I cannot see a precedent for your belief in MPG's.The remainder of your post really sums up my problem with your ideas
in general.None of your supposed support for MPG's has any relevence to the
question you are trying to answer (i.e. where did the 'information'
come from).You point to variation in modern populations and say it's MPG,
even though the difference are largely about different variants
of genes. Some may have different regulators too, but that's again
a differenc in DNA sequence in the genome.Now if ALL creatures had the same, identicle gene set, but had different regulators that made them distinct I'd say you had a point.As to your misunderstanding of ToE all I have to say at present
is::PB says that evolution = microbe to man.I think that sums it up nicely.

Hi Peter,first this:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter: Rather it is a sign that the genes/alleles for wisdom tooth
development are varied within the CURRENT human genome. It says nothing whatsoever about where that gene/allele orginated.PB: Make a proposition about the origin of the genes/genetic programs involved. Regulated expression of the gene is as important as having the gene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Why? It is not relevent to the point raised.PB: The origin of the gene is not imporatnt? That's suppposed to be the main and only topic of the theory of evolution. The origin of species, you know, included the origin of genes.Peter: You claim that simple variation in current human populations is evidence for a MPG ... it's just variation, and indicative of little more than that there is variation within a population.PB: As soon as you care able to address the origin of species/genes we can continue this discussion. It is not in Darwin's famous book "The Origin". He only described te origin of variation, and nothing beyond that. That he was very good in making an unwarranted extrapolation is known. He discovered the MPG and if you had read his book than you would have know that the he postulates at least "one or a few" original MPGs. Most likely it is more than a few.best wishes,
Peter

PB: The origin of the gene is not imporatnt? That's suppposed to be the main and only topic of the theory of evolution. The origin of species, you know, included the origin of genes.M: According to who? You? You really don't even know what evolution is do you? "That's suppposed to be the main and only topic of the theory of evolution. "..Imagine if you actually had the balls to debate what evolution actually is rather than your cartoonish nonsense that you try to claim everyone with more than a gram of grey matter is actually claiming...but then of course your unsupported religion would collapse even further.PB: As soon as you care able to address the origin of species/genes we can continue this discussion.M: As soon as you actually learn what evolution is instead of you pinhead definition you might actually be able to finally engage in discussion.PB:
It is not in Darwin's famous book "The Origin".M: Is this not yet another thing you have not read and have no clue about?PB:
He only described te origin of variation, and nothing beyond that.M: Actually, he also described natural selection...but I can see how that would be easy to miss IF YOU NEVER CRACKED OPEN THE BOOK.PB:
That he was very good in making an unwarranted extrapolation is known. He discovered the MPG and if you had read his book than you would have know that the he postulates at least "one or a few" original MPGs. Most likely it is more than a few.M: Hmmm I have read the book and never saw him postulate MPG's...perhaps you are confusing it with one of the children's bedtime story books you appear to be so fond of?

The point to which I was referring was simply about
current variation. The origin of that variation is another
issue. I didn't say it wasn't important ... I said it was
not relevent in this dicsussion.It's not got anything to do with the issue of recognising
beneficial mutations, either.If we can have beneficial mutations (a mutation that tends to
increase an individual's chance of surviving to reproduce), then
surely we can, over time, introduce modified function into a population.

Hi Mammuthus,So it you who desperately tries to save what is left of evolutionism? Well, somebody has to do it.Anyway, here we go again:PB: The origin of the gene is not imporatnt? That's suppposed to be the main and only topic of the theory of evolution. The origin of species, you know, included the origin of genes.M: According to who? You? You really don't even know what evolution is do you?PB2: Evolution = population genetics?M (cont): "That's suppposed to be the main and only topic of the theory of evolution. "..Imagine if you actually had the balls to debate what evolution actually is rather than your cartoonish nonsense that you try to claim everyone with more than a gram of grey matter is actually claiming...but then of course your unsupported religion would collapse even further.PB2: Let's discuss evolutionism (evolution from microbe to man.) Start now. Make it clear and present the evidence in a new thread. I will demonstrate it all to be false. It is GUToB, not evolutionism. GUToB is THE uptodate theory concerning and explaining all aspects of biology. Including genetic redundancies and the origin of genetic information. The GUToB rules! As proven on this site.PB: As soon as you are able to address the origin of species/genes we can continue this discussion.M: As soon as you actually learn what evolution is instead of you pinhead definition you might actually be able to finally engage in discussion.PB: Evolution = population genetics? How can I know what evolution is while evolutionist don't even know what it is?PB:
It is not in Darwin's famous book "The Origin".M: Is this not yet another thing you have not read and have no clue about?PB2: challenge me and I make a new thread where I demonstrate that Darwin dicovered the MPG, not evolutionism.PB:
He only described te origin of variation, and nothing beyond that.M: Actually, he also described natural selection...but I can see how that would be easy to miss IF YOU NEVER CRACKED OPEN THE BOOK.PB: Natural selection is also part of GUToB. It's not in dispute.PB:
That he was very good in making an unwarranted extrapolation is known. He discovered the MPG and if you had read his book than you would have know that the he postulates at least "one or a few" original MPGs. Most likely it is more than a few.M: Hmmm I have read the book and never saw him postulate MPG's...perhaps you are confusing it with one of the children's bedtime story books you appear to be so fond of?PB: I can spell it out. If you like I open a new thread.Best wishes,
Peter

PB2: Let's discuss evolutionism (evolution from microbe to man.)M: Since this is not the topic of evolution except in your cartoon stupid version (since you made it clear you do not have the balls to really discuss evolution) let's discuss your mental handicaps instead..as illustrated by the rest of your post..PB: Start now. Make it clear and present the evidence in a new thread. I will demonstrate it all to be false.M: Since August of last year I have presented evidence falsifying your claims and supporting mine under the real meaning of evolution...you seem desperate to start a new thread...hoping nobody will read how often you embarrass yourself in the old ones?PB:
It is GUToB, not evolutionism. GUToB is THE uptodate theory concerning and explaining all aspects of biology. Including genetic redundancies and the origin of genetic information. The GUToB rules! As proven on this site.M: You know, I stupidly defended your right to debate in this forum when Admin suspended you for refusing to define you asinine gibberish...this puerile rant of yours shows me that I was wrong to do so.PB2: challenge me and I make a new thread where I demonstrate that Darwin dicovered the MPG, not evolutionism.M: You are mentally challenged enough...why don't you start your own thread?PB: I can spell it out. If you like I open a new thread.M: What is with you and starting new threads?..you run out of ritalin this morning?

I am truly sorry, but the continued lack of a constructive discussion developing on any of the Peter Borger topics leaves me little choice. I can't simply move the threads to Free For All, because Peter Borger posts in too many threads. And my inability to influence the discussion through requests and suggestions has already been demonstrated.Peter Borger is suspended until further notice. I'm sure Peter Borger will disagree, but the central reason is inbility to recognize and adjust his role in causing discussions to become stalemated. Specific guideline violations are (and keep in mind that the guidelines do not claim to be a complete enumeration):

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

4. Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.

Mammuthus is suspended for 24 hours for violation of rule 3:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

One thing which has never happened, to the best of my knowledge, is Peter defining, scientifically, his proposed theory. I know that there was a thread open for it but I believe it got bogged down. I would suggest that Peter refine his definitions with Admin via email and then open THAT topic to debate on a single thread, following forum guidelines of course. If Peter has areas which are non-scientific in his theory, such as primary causes, I would suggest that they be stated, but not debated and not used neither as support for nor arguement against the theory.One thing which might help, and something that I wish would be instituted in the molecular biology/biochemical aspects of the discussion in science at large, would be the use of the term probability rather than random w.r.t. mutations. The reason is that random actually contains a number of different events: equiprobable, where the mutation can occur with essentially an equal probability accross the sequence; higher probability with respect to site, where the mutation event is higher in a given region but the substitution is equal accross all four nucleotides or the other possible muutational events are just as probable; higher probability with respect to site AND mutational event /nucleotide, where the mutational event tends towards both a site and either a specific mutation or substitution (AKA Darwin in the Genome); and non-random, where the event is predetermined respect to the exact mutational site, event AND the timing; please note that the timing is not predetermined in any of the "random" events.Just a suggestion. ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Hi Mammuthus,Your posting privileges have been restored.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator