Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9057 total)
63 online now:
AZPaul3, Dm14174, PaulK, Theodoric, vimesey (4 members, 1 guest login, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,717 Year: 829/6,534 Month: 829/682 Week: 64/445 Day: 10/10 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 136 of 223 (343294)
08-25-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
08-25-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Trade-offs
Faith writes:

The same old canard about how the theory of evolution IS science. Fine, it's science the way any working interpretation of the data is science in some sense.

I think you must be using an incorrect definition of science. You seem offended when evolution is called science, as if calling it science conferred upon it some kind of imunity from questioning. This is not the case. No scientific field is immune from questioning.

Evolution is science because it satisfies the definition of science (falsifiability, replicability, predictive power) and because its theories developed under the auspices of the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, observation, assessment, theory). I think everyone on the evolution side is committed to supporting its theories by providing the evidence behind them.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 10:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 137 of 223 (343295)
08-25-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
08-25-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
Science is phenomena, is facts. Evolution is theory, is interpretation.

Science is phenomena, is facts. The Theory of a Heiocentric Solar Syatem is theory, is interpretation.

Science is phenomena, is facts. The Atomic Theory of Matter is theory, is interpretation.

Science is phenomena, is facts. The Germ Theory of Disease is theory, is interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 10:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3022 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 138 of 223 (343296)
08-25-2006 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
08-25-2006 7:16 AM


Re: Trade-offs
But it is not anthropomorphizing anything to suspect that what is observed of what IS healthy could not possibly have come about by a system that pits disease against disease

What about all of the examples given that DONT pit disease against disease?

What about Hemoglobin C?

There have been others upthread. What about those? You seem to be so focused on the SCD vs malaria example.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 7:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3022 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 139 of 223 (343307)
08-25-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
08-25-2006 7:36 AM


Basic Faith Tactics appear when failure is inevitable
I know you think the short list of beneficial mutations so far discussed on the other thread is sufficient evidence that this could be the cause of all traits, but I simply despair of anyone's seeing how obviously it can't possibly be so.

When all else fails, simply declare your position to be "obviously" true and abandon any and all rational discussion on the issue.

Build a misrepresentation of sedimentology and call it "obviously" absurd to occur over millions of years.

Build a misrepresentation of mutation and call it "obviously" impossible to drive evolution.

As long as this is your mode of discussion Faith, how do you expect anybody to take you seriously. The thigns you think are "obvious" first, are not based on a complete understanding of the mechanisms and second, are not "obvious" to anyone else but you.

And I know you despair of my seeing how it is.

I would replace dispar with pity. I don't think anyone here likes to see ignorance.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 7:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 140 of 223 (343308)
08-25-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by nator
08-24-2006 8:00 PM


Gene CCR5
schrafinator asked Faith:

What is your opinion of the known mutation in gene CCR5 which confers either partial or total immunity to the HIV virus?

I missed Faith's comment about this. I'm still reading, though.


Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 08-24-2006 8:00 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 141 of 223 (343309)
08-25-2006 11:43 AM


I believe Jazzns should be suspended for a day for his abusive posts.

But since that isn't going to happen I recommend that this thread be shut down. And since that isn't going to happen I'll try to ignore it. Have a good day.

Oh and by the way, evolution theory is not falsifiable. Fat chance that's going to be acknowledged either.


Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 11:52 AM Faith has responded
 Message 148 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 12:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 577 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 142 of 223 (343311)
08-25-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
08-25-2006 2:21 AM


No such list
Instead of a continuation of the back and forth about the creo interpretation vs the evo interpretation, maybe you could launch this thread in the direction of a discussion of the actual particulars of some of the mutations known as beneficial. Perhaps a list of all known ones at some point. Or maybe Crash could offer that.

They happen so often that there's not really a list. Beneficial mutations aren't really a significant thing to evolutionists, because we know they happen all the time; to the extent that we can count on them to be happening.

It's a basically settled issue, so no one bothers to keep track anymore. Anyway, as Percy said in the other thread, every gene in every organism, every cellular function, every protein, every regulatory structure, everything, all started out as beneficial mutations.

It's like you're asking me "show me a list of all the atoms that have ever been observed." I mean, we're way beyond that point. Maybe in the early days of particle acceleration and bubble chambers it would have been relevant to keep a list, keep track, but that was almost a century ago. Nowadays, physics undergrads look at atoms and play with accelerators. Nowadays, biology undergrads observe beneficial mutations in petri dishes and bioreactors.

The examples we've provided aren't exhaustive; they're just spectacular. They're the really compelling, interesting examples that are easy to communicate to laypeople because the effects are very obvious and much easier to explain than something like "epigenetic silencing of MGMT by promoter hypermethylation may lead to a particular genetic change in human cancer, specifically G to A transitions in the K-ras oncogene."

We've got quite a few beneficial mutations on the table already. Why don't you pick one and we'll cover how it works, how we know it's a mutation and not a result of sexual recombination, and why we believe it to be beneficial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 2:21 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:33 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3022 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 143 of 223 (343312)
08-25-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
08-25-2006 11:43 AM


Just because you don't like someone pointing out where you are basing your discussion on ignorance all of a sudden becomes abusive?

I am not calling you supid. I am pointing out that your position is based on ignorance.

You are also dodging all of the good examples that claimed you wanted to discuss. How many times has schraf or someone else asked you about the CCR5 gene? How many times has the Hemo C mutation been brought up. Or all the examples in crashfrogs post awhile back?

What is wrong with these examples? Why are they not good enough for you? You can't just run in here and say that they are "obviously" not good enough and expect your position to be respected at all.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 11:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:36 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 144 of 223 (343313)
08-25-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
08-25-2006 11:07 AM


Re: Trade-offs
Faith writes:

For crying out loud, Percy, do you regard the explanations of its supposed benefits that have been put forward here as being on a TECHNICAL level?

Yes, Faith, those explanations were on a technical level appropriate for this forum. They addressed the issue directly and specifically. They were not general dismissals such as you do in your next sentence:

You mean those wild imaginative hypotheses about how it is good for small jaws, and because they get impacted a lot and so on?

When specific technical arguments are made then you need to address them, not dismiss them as "wild imaginative hypotheses". In a prehistoric context, the wisdom tooth mutations that cause some or all wisdom teeth to never appear are beneficial because wisdom teeth cause several different types of problems. A common one is infections, usually due to one of the types of impaction. The infections can easily spread to the cheek and neck. Untreated, such infections can eventually lead to death. Short of death, the infections can cause disabilities, such as loss of flexibility in the neck, important for survival in prehistoric times.

Decay is another risk, since impacted teeth frequently create skin pockets where material gathers. Those infections that don't directly lead to death can leave the individual weakened and less able to fight off other diseases and infections, leading to disability and/or death.

Cysts can form that cause bone destruction and displacement and damage to nearby teeth, making eating difficult.

During periods when the individual is weakened due to wisdom teeth problems, either pain or infection or both, he is less capable of competing for survival, and is also less capable of providing for his family, important since his children carry his genes.

Those with sufficiently severe wisdom tooth infections to cause disfigurement have more difficulty attracting a mate.

A technical rebuttal to these points would address the specifics of them. It would not be a dismissal such as the one I recall you making last time this came up, something about just not being able to believe that a mistake could cause something good to happen.

Finally, let me address your technical response:

How could I guess the probable role of wisdom teeth in our ancestry? Just because losing them is no felt loss now, and in some cases (how many? Nobody has said) may be a relief from crowded teeth and other ills, doesn't mean it isn't REALLY a deleterious mutation, perhaps accommodating to who-knows-how-many previous losses by mutation.

This argument is just speculation. You speculate about an unknown positive role for wisdom teeth in our ancestors, and then you speculate about unknown deleterious effects from not having wisdom teeth. And your speculations have hard evidence against them. Our evolutionary ancestors had larger jaws. As brain size increased the jaw shrunk, so in most people there's now not enough room in our jaw for all the teeth. Our evolutionary ancestors did not suffer from their wisdom teeth because their larger jaws more easily accommodated them.

As for deleterious effects from not having wisdom teeth, none have been identified so far. Aside from the risks associated with the extraction itself that are part of any medical procedure to varying degrees, wisdom tooth extraction has no downside, no deleterious health effects, and only long-term benefits in the form of freedom from the associated pain, infection and decay problems.

So please address the specific points I made about the benefits of the wisdom tooth gene and not having wisdom teeth.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Wisdom truth => wisdom tooth


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 11:07 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:40 PM Percy has responded
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:45 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 145 of 223 (343317)
08-25-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
08-25-2006 1:13 AM


Faith writes:

You are determined to tar me as stupid. What's the thrill? Give it up. The whole lot of you.

No one called you that.

Interesting that you would take this attitude just as Aegist supplied a succinct list of beneficial mutations to discuss, with links:

Evolution of Nylonase from frameshift mutation: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Evolution of 7 step pathway to degrade TNT in a bacteria

CCR5, Sickle Cell anemia.

Myostatin mutation: http://www.ultimate-exercise.com/bravenewworld.html

Instead of throwing around a lot of self-pity, tell us what you make of these examples. You did request them.


Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 1:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:49 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 3604 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 146 of 223 (343318)
08-25-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wounded King
08-25-2006 5:04 AM


lol great link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 08-25-2006 5:04 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 577 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 147 of 223 (343319)
08-25-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
08-25-2006 11:07 AM


Re: Trade-offs
But what if Biblical creationism is true instead? Then everything is deteriorating, human beings are deteriorating

But that wouldn't last for very long. Anybody who deteriorated even just a little bit would be immediately outcompeted by anybody who hadn't yet deteriorated. Natural selection would act to preserve only those individuals who just hadn't happened to deteriorate genetically, even if they were only a small portion of the individuals. They would rapidly outcompete their deteriorating peers.

And moreover - we don't see any evidence of this deterioration. IQ's go up, in every population around the world, every year. So much so that we have to renormalize the IQ scale every few years. (It's all but impossible, now, to compare contemporary IQs with historical IQs for this reason - the scales are so different. IQ 100 now is much, much smarter than IQ 100 back then.) Life expectancies go up from historical records. Diseases that once culled two thirds of Europe are now little worse than the flu for most individuals.

You claim this deterioration, but I don't see it. Human civilization marches forwards, not downwards. Diseases are conquered, problems are solved, challenges are met, and many who would would have died young in ages past enjoy long and fruitful lives today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 11:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 12:18 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12749
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 148 of 223 (343323)
08-25-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
08-25-2006 11:43 AM


Since I'm debating in this thread I will not take any action, but I will give my opinion.

Faith writes:

I believe Jazzns should be suspended for a day for his abusive posts.

There's a thread for bringing problems to the attention of moderators: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7. Please make your request there and provide supporting evidence, argument and references to specific posts.

But since that isn't going to happen I recommend that this thread be shut down. And since that isn't going to happen I'll try to ignore it. Have a good day.

I think everyone is mystified by this reaction. You appear to be looking for an excuse to run off in a huff. My opinion is that you pull this act so frequently that probably few pay it any attention.

Oh and by the way, evolution theory is not falsifiable. Fat chance that's going to be acknowledged either.

The falsifiability of evolution is not the topic. It was mentioned solely because you seemed to feel that evolution was somehow distinct from the rest of science, so I enumerated the various qualities of science that evolution satisfies.

But your assertion is a good example of your preferred approach to discussion that many have been disclaiming about. It is just an unsupported assertion barren of any argument or supporting evidence. If you'd like to discuss whether evolution is falsifiable then I suggest you propose a new thread, but be prepared to bring more to the table than mere assertion.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 11:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 08-25-2006 12:13 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 149 of 223 (343324)
08-25-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ramoss
08-25-2006 10:12 AM


Re: Beneficial mutation
ramoss writes:

The fossil evidence shows that the ear developed from the jaw bone of a dinosaur.

Here is a bit more information.
Morphological Intermediates

I'm glad you mentioned this. That's a fascinating line of evolution! More transitional creatures than you can shake a stick at. And every stage of the way shows full anatomical function.

These weren't dinosaurs, strictly speaking. You're talking about the ancestors of mammals, which would be pelycosaurs, therapsids, and the like.

What's interesting is that jawbones were always a means of sensing vibrations. But as evolving leg shapes lifted the animals bodies higher off the ground, the bones shifted to make them more efficient at the task of sensing vibrations while maintaining their function for eating. Hence--the inner ear!

Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.


Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ramoss, posted 08-25-2006 10:12 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33637
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 150 of 223 (343325)
08-25-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Admin
08-25-2006 12:09 PM


But your assertion is a good example of your preferred approach to discussion that many have been disclaiming about. It is just an unsupported assertion barren of any argument or supporting evidence. If you'd like to discuss whether evolution is falsifiable then I suggest you propose a new thread, but be prepared to bring more to the table than mere assertion.

Such a thread has been proposed. Message 1


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 12:09 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022