Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:17 PM
99 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,588 Year: 3,625/19,786 Month: 620/1,087 Week: 210/212 Day: 25/27 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Are all Mutations harmful because creatures were designed?
Rei
Member (Idle past 5090 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 16 of 39 (58070)
09-26-2003 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Fred Williams
09-26-2003 6:15 PM


Re: Chihuahua owner?
Average Chihuahua lifespan: 15 years. Average wolf lifespan in captivity: 15 years (depending on subspecies, they average 4-15 years in the wild)

The adaptation discussed malaria is A) *not* serious, and only rarely causes problems, and B) malaria, even on a YEC timeline, has been - throughout most of its history - a very deadly disease. Only in recent history has it it become less deadly. I challenge you to agree to the following: "If I had to live in western Africa, without modern medicine or prevention options, I would rather risk being infected by a disease which even with modern controls infects 300-500 million people per year, and which used to be fatal to the majority of people who got it, than to have a gene which has a possibility of giving minor kidney problems.". Will you actually say that? "Goofy" is the only word I can use to describe someone who would choose that.

quote:
quote:

Adding a'new' and different allele to a population's gene pool can only increase the amount of information in that gene pool.

Not true. If you know of any scientist in the field of information theory who believes this, please let me know so I can add his name to my black book of quacks.


Fred: Would you consider that duplicating a gene could *reduce* the amount of information in the genome? No? Then it can only have the *same* or *more* amount of information. If you're arguing that ending up with "more" information is impossible, that's a topic for another thread.

quote:
In fact I would say molecular biologists constitute about 30% of our voting members (which is now 650+ strong just for our YEC organization alone)

Yes. But how many steves do you have??

http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Fred Williams, posted 09-26-2003 6:15 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4159 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 17 of 39 (291637)
03-02-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DC85
09-23-2003 11:17 PM


No, it does not.
By the way, where are the useful mutations?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DC85, posted 09-23-2003 11:17 PM DC85 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ramoss, posted 03-02-2006 10:55 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 31 by nator, posted 03-06-2006 7:39 AM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 18 of 39 (291643)
03-02-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fred Williams
09-25-2003 8:46 PM


Re: Strawman
Most mutations are neutral..

Some mutations are beneficial, although they might not show up as beneficial until they are in the right environment.

For example, people with a mutation for called 'delta 26' are resistant to aids. People with a double dose of it appear to be immune to the aids virus.

Mind you, it's a rare mutation, and before HIV started being spread in the population, it was totally neutral.. it neither helped nor hindered someone's survival chances.

Now, particularly in africa, this particular gene mutation has a benefit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 09-25-2003 8:46 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by inkorrekt, posted 03-03-2006 6:34 PM ramoss has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 19 of 39 (291647)
03-02-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 9:53 PM


Re: No, it does not.
Delta 26... which aids for resistance against the HIV virus.

There is a mutation in an Italian family that has a particularly dense High density Cholesteral. This particular mutation casuses the HDL to be particuarly effective against scraping plaque away from aterial walls. Individuals with this mutatition do not get hardening of the arteries, no matter poor their diet is. (google Apolipoprotein AI)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 9:53 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4159 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 20 of 39 (291904)
03-03-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ramoss
03-02-2006 10:46 PM


Re: Strawman
Very interesting post. Do you have information on resistance to AIDS and the genetic basis?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ramoss, posted 03-02-2006 10:46 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ramoss, posted 03-03-2006 7:22 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 21 of 39 (291920)
03-03-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by inkorrekt
03-03-2006 6:34 PM


Re: Strawman
I couldn't find any articles on the Delta 26.. but I found plenty of articles on the Delta 32 gene

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030339\

http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/slatkin/novembre/GalvaniNovembreMicInf2005.pdf

http://jmg.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/42/3/205


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by inkorrekt, posted 03-03-2006 6:34 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
Dubious Drewski
Member (Idle past 608 days)
Posts: 73
From: Alberta
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 22 of 39 (292544)
03-05-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fred Williams
09-25-2003 8:46 PM


This argument baffles me
I don't understand it. It's like denying you have a nose on your face. You can argue all you like about the origins of life, but you cannot deny that evolution exists.

It can even be proven "a priori":

1) Children can receive traits from their parents. (or even their grandparents)

2) Asthma can be passed from a parent to a child through birth. If one of your parents has it, you may or may not be born with it.

3) A child may die of asthma.

4) If someone dies as a child, there was never a chance to pass on traits to another generation.

Therefore: The children who are born without asthma are more likely to survive long enough to have children of their own.

Fred, how can you continue to deny the truth of such a logical thing? Please refer us to someone who has tried to shoot down the argument I just gave.

[edit]
I have more:
What is selective breeding? Is it not artificial evolution?

Why must you always take an entire prescription of antibiotics?

Please, try to discount these arguments. I'm almost certain it can't be done.

This message has been edited by Drewsky, 03-05-2006 10:05 PM

This message has been edited by Drewsky, 03-05-2006 10:11 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 09-25-2003 8:46 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminJar, posted 03-05-2006 10:27 PM Dubious Drewski has not yet responded
 Message 24 by rgb, posted 03-05-2006 10:39 PM Dubious Drewski has responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 39 (292546)
03-05-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dubious Drewski
03-05-2006 10:00 PM


check the date of the post you are responding to
Drewsky. It might be a while before Fred responds. I think it's been almost two years since Fred posted here.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-05-2006 10:00 PM Dubious Drewski has not yet responded

      
    rgb
    Inactive Member


    Message 24 of 39 (292547)
    03-05-2006 10:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 22 by Dubious Drewski
    03-05-2006 10:00 PM


    Re: This argument baffles me
    Drewsky
    quote:
    It can even be proven "a priori":

    No, it can not! It required the work and experiments of the brilliant scientist Mendel to show us that blacksmiths don't past on their blacksmith "gene" to their children.

    quote:
    1) Children can receive traits from their parents. (or even their grandparents)

    Where else would they get their traits from?

    quote:
    2) Asthma can be passed from a parent to a child through birth. If one of your parents has it, you may or may not be born with it.

    Asthma is not passed on to the next generation through birth. It is passed on through genetic inheritence.

    quote:
    3) A child may die of asthma.

    And he may not.

    quote:
    4) If someone dies as a child, there was never a chance to pass on traits to another generation.

    Therefore: The children who are born without asthma are more likely to survive long enough to have children of their own.



    Not if the trait is recessive and gives the host with a single recessive an advantage over the people without the allele, like sickle hemoglobin.

    quote:
    What is selective breeding? Is it not artificial evolution?

    No.

    quote:
    Why must you always take an entire prescription of antibiotics?

    Common sense?

    quote:
    Please, try to discount these arguments. I'm almost certain it can't be done.

    If there is one thing I have learned over the years about this debate is to never underestimate the creationist.

    This message has been edited by rgb, 03-05-2006 10:41 PM

    This message has been edited by rgb, 03-05-2006 10:42 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-05-2006 10:00 PM Dubious Drewski has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-05-2006 11:29 PM rgb has not yet responded
     Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2006 12:23 AM rgb has not yet responded

      
    Dubious Drewski
    Member (Idle past 608 days)
    Posts: 73
    From: Alberta
    Joined: 02-04-2006


    Message 25 of 39 (292563)
    03-05-2006 11:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by rgb
    03-05-2006 10:39 PM


    Re: This argument baffles me
    Hahaha.

    You got me.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by rgb, posted 03-05-2006 10:39 PM rgb has not yet responded

      
    crashfrog
    Inactive Member


    Message 26 of 39 (292579)
    03-06-2006 12:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 24 by rgb
    03-05-2006 10:39 PM


    Re: This argument baffles me
    Common sense?

    What's common sensical about continuing to take a treatment after the sickness has been cured? I mean if there was sense to that we'd give antibiotics to everyone, even those who had never been sick.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by rgb, posted 03-05-2006 10:39 PM rgb has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by DBlevins, posted 03-06-2006 12:44 AM crashfrog has responded

      
    DBlevins
    Member (Idle past 1853 days)
    Posts: 652
    From: Puyallup, WA.
    Joined: 02-04-2003


    Message 27 of 39 (292588)
    03-06-2006 12:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
    03-06-2006 12:23 AM


    Re: This argument baffles me
    What's common sensical about continuing to take a treatment after the sickness has been cured?

    rgb was replying to Drewsky's statement:

    Why must you always take an entire prescription of antibiotics?

    I take that to mean Drewsky was questioning following the doctors prescription advice? As i understand it: the problem confronting many doctors is the mutation of many treatable diseases to more dangerous types because of people not finishing their prescriptions fully. They feel well and so believe they are cured, when in fact the disease is not fully eradicated.

    This message has been edited by DBlevins, 03-06-2006 12:45 AM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2006 12:23 AM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2006 12:54 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

      
    crashfrog
    Inactive Member


    Message 28 of 39 (292589)
    03-06-2006 12:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 27 by DBlevins
    03-06-2006 12:44 AM


    Re: This argument baffles me
    No, I get it. I know why you take the entire course of antibiotics.

    I don't understand the argument that it's "common sense" to do so, outside of the theory of evolution. Always doing what doctors say? Common sense dictates the opposite; doctors have been known to kill people.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by DBlevins, posted 03-06-2006 12:44 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-06-2006 2:11 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
     Message 30 by rgb, posted 03-06-2006 5:48 AM crashfrog has responded

      
    Dubious Drewski
    Member (Idle past 608 days)
    Posts: 73
    From: Alberta
    Joined: 02-04-2006


    Message 29 of 39 (292592)
    03-06-2006 2:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
    03-06-2006 12:54 AM


    Re: This argument baffles me
    I was under the impression that rgb had his toungue in his cheek. No one really tries to reason like that. It's too over-the-top.

    ...Am I wrong?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2006 12:54 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

      
    rgb
    Inactive Member


    Message 30 of 39 (292606)
    03-06-2006 5:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
    03-06-2006 12:54 AM


    Re: This argument baffles me
    crashfrog
    quote:
    I don't understand the argument that it's "common sense" to do so, outside of the theory of evolution.

    Because most people don't have an adequate grasp of the theory, and it is impractical to go around shaking each person telling him the real reason.

    quote:
    Always doing what doctors say? Common sense dictates the opposite; doctors have been known to kill people.

    Actually, to realize that doctors have been known to kill people when thinking about whether to take the whole course of antibiotics require a little bit of thinking outside the box for most people. For me personally, I'd rather people listen to their doctors (and sue them later if something goes wrong) then the other way around.

    But for the sake of argument that it is indeed common sense to not listen to your doctor, would you be willing to place a bet with me that you could with ease convince people like randman and faith to take the entire course of antibiotics for evolutionary reasons? I currently have 5 whole dollars in cash. How much do you have?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2006 12:54 AM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2006 5:31 PM rgb has not yet responded

      
    Prev1
    2
    3Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019