Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9057 total)
59 online now:
jar, PaulK, Theodoric (3 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,716 Year: 828/6,534 Month: 828/682 Week: 63/445 Day: 9/10 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 166 of 223 (343393)
08-25-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
08-25-2006 5:33 PM


Re: No such list
Faith,

You've been given specific examples of beneficial mutations as you requested. Please address them.


Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:02 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

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


Message 167 of 223 (343394)
08-25-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Archer Opteryx
08-25-2006 12:01 PM


It is not treating your opponent with respect to speculate about the opponent's motivations or assume why she does anything or comment on the opponent at all. I ignore such posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 12:01 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 5:52 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 184 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 9:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 168 of 223 (343395)
08-25-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
08-25-2006 5:40 PM


Re: Trade-offs
Faith writes:

I find this a truly laughable example of a "technical argument" you are demanding that I answer, this list of imaginative hypotheses. Oh I'm not saying it's not plausible. Much of ToE thinking is plausible. It's just a bunch of plausibilities with SO little actual evidence to back up the "technical argument."

I believe I said technical arguments appropriate for this forum. I listed a number of deleterious effects caused by the presence of wisdom teeth that are not imaginative hypotheses. Infection, decay, cysts, inability to eat, disfigurement, these are all factual risks, and if you noticed my replies to Wounded King there is also increased risk of heart disease, stroke and gastrointestinal problems. These are not hypotheses or plausibilities, they are evidence gathered through observation, studies and research.

Dismissing all this evidence is what I meant before when I referred to your denial machine. If you really don't believe wisdom teeth are deleterious, then please address my list of deleterious effects and show how they either are fictitious or not really deleterious.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:07 PM Percy has not yet responded

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


Message 169 of 223 (343397)
08-25-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
08-25-2006 5:49 PM


Data still being ignored by Faith
Here's that short list of beneficial mutations again:

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

Plus the mutation of Gene CCR5 linked to HIV resistance, which you promised to consider.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.


Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:49 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 170 of 223 (343398)
08-25-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
08-25-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Trade-offs
I don't see what any of these arguments in the last two paragraphs have to do with beneficial mutations. The improvements you're talking about aren't genetic but cultural, like IQ, or technical, like modern medicine. I agree with Faith's earlier argument that the genome of the human race is over time becoming less and less robust (I know that's very non-specific, but I think the meaning is clear) because our civilization and technology protect us from the traditional forces of selection. I don't think Faith understands this reason for accepting her position, but that's another matter.

I understand it fine and it makes your agreement meaningless. It says nothing whatever about the OVERALL millennia-long deterioration of ALL living genetic material. It's theory. I don't claim genetic evidence for it, any more than you have evidence for evo claims of evolution by mutation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 12:18 PM Percy has not yet responded

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


Message 171 of 223 (343399)
08-25-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Jazzns
08-25-2006 5:44 PM


I have not had the opportunity to address Aegist's posts, and since they are of a different nature from the rest of the stuff I'm having to deal with I may never get to them. I am no longer taking this thread seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 5:44 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 6:06 PM Faith has responded

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


Message 172 of 223 (343400)
08-25-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Archer Opteryx
08-25-2006 5:46 PM


Re: No such list
You've been given specific examples of beneficial mutations as you requested. Please address them.

I'm sorry. This thread is too far gone for any serious business any more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 5:46 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-25-2006 6:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 173 of 223 (343401)
08-25-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
08-25-2006 6:00 PM


So the piddly examples and the stuff that upset you gives you motive to completely ignore all the good stuff that was posted on this thread?

I guess I just don't understand why? How is this NOT an excuse to dodge?


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 171 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:12 PM Jazzns has responded

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


Message 174 of 223 (343402)
08-25-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Percy
08-25-2006 5:49 PM


Re: Trade-offs
What is it that makes hypothetical scenarios a "technical argument" for the sake of THIS forum? Yes they ARE TOO hypothetical scenarios when offered as supposed evidence for a past situation you can't know anything about for sure. This game I do not want to play. What a joke. And your refrain about a denial machine is a violation of your own forum guidelines. I've been addressing the arguments whether you like my responses or not. I am not addressing your motives or anybody else's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 5:49 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 9:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 175 of 223 (343403)
08-25-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Jazzns
08-25-2006 6:06 PM


There is no point in addressing anything seriously when I get the kind of nonsense answers to anything I say that I am now dealing with. Good grief what a joke. How can I discuss my view of the so-called beneficial mutations when I get the kind of nonsense Percy has been dishing out about wisdom teeth as a supposed rebuttal? Or Crash's bland insistence that all traits are the result of beneficial mutations when that simply cancels out the creationist view on the basis of definition without evidence. Same with the definition of beneficial mutations in terms of being absorbed into the population. Just a definitional elimination of the opponent's point of view as I previously explained. The deck is stacked. This whole thing is a monstrously ridiculous pathetic exercise in futility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 6:06 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2006 6:58 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 7:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 176 of 223 (343405)
08-25-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
08-25-2006 6:02 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations ignored by Faith
Faith writes:

I'm sorry. This thread is too far gone for any serious business any more.

You declare yourself the loser of the very game you wanted play.

Very well. I can see how you'd feel demoralized, with everyone running up the score on you and all. Enjoy your sulk.

Looks like it's Miller Time.
:D


Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 177 of 223 (343407)
08-25-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
08-25-2006 6:12 PM


It just seems like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater as an excuse not to deal with some real examples.

I personally think that the wisdom teeth example is a bad example. There are better ones upthread that are great fodder for discussion.

Crash's discussion is simply stating the obvious tenent of the ToE. There should be nothing suprising about that. Yes it was a catchall but that should not distract from the very good specific examples that were presented.

The deck is stacked. This whole thing is a monstrously ridiculous pathetic exercise in futility.

You are not required to respond to things you feel are unfair or where you feel "definitionally eliminated". You asked about beneficial mutations, canidates for beneficial mutations have been presented, you have chosen to focus on the other issues that you are now proclaiming to detest.

There are real good examples of exactly what you wanted sitting upthread. It very much seems like all this posturing is just an excuse to not to have to deal with those.


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 175 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 178 of 223 (343409)
08-25-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
08-25-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Trade-offs
I agree with Faith's earlier argument that the genome of the human race is over time becoming less and less robust

I disagree, Percy.

I do agree that technology insulates some individuals from selection pressures that would otherwise impact their reproductive success, but that is quite a different matter.

How would we measure the robustness of the human genome? I would hazard the argument that diversity, more than any other metric, indicates the robustness of any genome.

Surely robustness must reside in both current and potential reproductive fitness; thus, the greater the diversity in the genome, the more likely it is that some members of the species will survive a novel environmental challenge.

I think that the power of culture to maximize genomic diversity suggests one reason the human brain has evolved so rapidly--intelligence trumps almost every other trait when it comes to survival and reproductive success. As intelligence insulates its carriers from other selective pressures, positive feedback ramps up the evolution of intelligence. The fact that we have a greater number, or even a greater percentage, of "flawed" individuals does not impact our genomic robustness--quite the contrary, because a "flawed" individual by definition represents genetic novelty. The power of culture (technology) to mediate between the genome and the environment enlarges the potential genomic "space."

Surely the sickle cell gene existed prior to the malarial challenge, and those who carried it were "flawed." Yet, when the mosquitos began their pathogen delivery, that "flaw" spelled the difference between life and death.

I agree with you on wisdom teeth, however. Having worked many years doing IT inside cardiology departments and groups, I know the deadly potential of caries. Even patients with good teeth can die from a pericarditis seeded by something as apparently innocuous as a dental cleaning: those with leaky valves or other cardiac issues are treated with antibiotics prior to any dental work, because the mechanical removal of plaque can introduce bacteria into the bloodstream, leading to a potentially lethal infection of the pericardium. The practice is known as subacute bacterial endocarditis prophylaxis. On a likely related note, the role of inflammation in coronary artery disease has only recently come to light. On a similar note, it is easy to forget that diarrhea (dysentery) kills more children than any other factor: a mutation that killed you at 30 but resisted dysentery would spread explosively across the undeveloped world.

I'm not so sure about how vital a selective factor vision was in our evolutionary history, though. It is worth noting that our vision seems to have been shaped more by color than acuity: compared to many species, our visual acuity is, at best, mediocre. I suspect that auditory and olfactory sharpness played a greater role; as Crash has suggested, once you see the tiger, it's probably too late. Hearing or smelling a threat probably played a greater role. I agree that the importance of information exchange has increased the role of vision, but I'm not so sure that importance can be projected too far back down the hominid line--else we would have the eyes of raptors.

Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.


God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 12:18 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 8:22 PM Omnivorous has responded

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


Message 179 of 223 (343416)
08-25-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
08-25-2006 6:12 PM


Hi Faith,

Note that I'm responding as Admin.

There is no point in addressing anything seriously when I get the kind of nonsense answers to anything I say that I am now dealing with. Good grief what a joke. How can I discuss my view of the so-called beneficial mutations when I get the kind of nonsense Percy has been dishing out about wisdom teeth as a supposed rebuttal? Or Crash's bland insistence that all traits are the result of beneficial mutations when that simply cancels out the creationist view on the basis of definition without evidence. Same with the definition of beneficial mutations in terms of being absorbed into the population. Just a definitional elimination of the opponent's point of view as I previously explained. The deck is stacked. This whole thing is a monstrously ridiculous pathetic exercise in futility.

Please cease your participation in this thread until you're prepared to constructively discuss the issues.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 180 of 223 (343423)
08-25-2006 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Omnivorous
08-25-2006 7:06 PM


Re: Trade-offs
Omnivorous writes:

How would we measure the robustness of the human genome? I would hazard the argument that diversity, more than any other metric, indicates the robustness of any genome.

I'm not so sure it's as simple as this. If we use the example of vision and accept, merely for the sake of argument, that the vision of civilized peoples has declined in terms of visual acuity (i.e., resolution) and the ability to focus, then genomic diversity for vision was less in the distant past than it is today. In other words, a lesser percentage of people had bad vision in the past than today. Would a greater diversity in visual acuity and focal ability be a sign of robustness? In other words, is the fact that more people are born today with bad vision a sign of robustness?

Again, I'm not trying to sneak in my stance on vision, it's just for the sake of argument.

I think that the power of culture to maximize genomic diversity suggests one reason the human brain has evolved so rapidly--...

Rapidly, as in up until we became Homo sapiens sapiens? Or are you implying that our intelligence continued to evolve after the emergence of our species. If the latter, I grant the possibility, but I don't think there is any evidence supporting it.

...intelligence trumps almost every other trait when it comes to survival and reproductive success. As intelligence insulates its carriers from other selective pressures, positive feedback ramps up the evolution of intelligence. The fact that we have a greater number, or even a greater percentage, of "flawed" individuals does not impact our genomic robustness--quite the contrary, because a "flawed" individual by definition represents genetic novelty. The power of culture (technology) to mediate between the genome and the environment enlarges the potential genomic "space."

Unless you're arguing that modern man is more intelligent than ancient man of, say, 30,000 years ago, I would say that infant children of ancient men raised in the modern world would be more fit and more competitive, in the aggregate, than modern men.

You need a standard measure if you want to measure the relative competitiveness of ancient and modern man, and I don't know what that would be. If we had a time machine, you couldn't take an ancient man into today and have him compete against modern men, he wouldn't have the necessary background and the results wouldn't be meaningful. But if he'd actually been from the ancient world but raised in the modern world I think he'd have an advantage.

In the exact same way, you couldn't transport a modern man back to the ancient past and have him be competitive, either. He'd probably end up as something's dinner in a very short while. But if he'd been raised in the ancient world he'd probably do okay, but not as well as average.

If I were to guess, I'd say that you and Crash see our modern technology as an indication that we're superior to ancient man. I don't see it that way. Our modern technology is just an inevitable development of thousands of years of gradually accumulating knowledge and expertise made possible through language and writing.

I'm not so sure about how vital a selective factor vision was in our evolutionary history, though.

I don't think I used the word vital, but vision *is* a selection factor, and it can be vital when considered across the broad spectrum of possibilities for vision. Clearly as vision approaches and reaches blindness it is a strong selection factor, but what you're saying is that when vision is not too far from normal that it isn't a selection factor, and that vision beyond a certain goodness level just doesn't affect selection one way or the other.

This makes sense, but we haven't established whether current average visual ability among civilized people is above that point. Aside from Darwin's mention of the vision of Patagonians (I think in both Origins and in The Descent of Man, but I might be wrong about that, perhaps it was only mentioned in the latter) I haven't been able to find any on-line evidence that primitive peoples have better vision, on average, than civilized people, but neither have I found evidence to the contrary, though there's a 1930 paper by a Russian taking this contrary position but arguing only rhetorically without evidence. If such studies have been done or are done in the future, I think they'd back me up, but even if they didn't my original point is still valid. Modern technology insulates us from the many selection pressures, and if that technology were removed we would quickly find that civilized man really isn't as "robust", regardless of any claims of diversity, as those to whom primitive conditions are home.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Omnivorous, posted 08-25-2006 7:06 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 8:37 PM Percy has responded
 Message 190 by Omnivorous, posted 08-25-2006 11:09 PM Percy has 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