Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis


Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:


So now you've redefined random mutation to include normal variation. No
wonder the "T"oE can't be falsified.



No he hasn't.

Normal variation is the range of different alleles present in the gene
pool of a population.

The source of this normal variation is mutation, which we know (because
we have done rather a lot of scientific research on the subject) is
random in respect of fitness.

If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool,
and we would all be clones.

Get it now?


No. I don't "get it". What evidence points to the variation in the
gene pool of 'humans' as being the result of random mutations as opposed
to the result of normal sexual reproduction?

The *ultimate* source of all variation in a population is random
mutation. If there were no mutation, we would *eventually* become
clonal in nature because variants would be systematically lost by
chance or selection and, absent mutation, variation could not be
replaced by any mechanism. Sexual reproduction merely scrambles and
reassorts this variation each generation -- the H-W equilibrium is
often a good description of what happens with reassorting the existing
variation each generation. But accurate sexual reproduction (meiosis)
rarely creates new variants (intergenic recombination or errors in
recombination that generates duplicates or chimeras are an important
exception to this rule).

Is all sexual reproduction
classified as "random mutation"? When the very first human 'couple'
mated, they produced an offspring that differed from both of them. This
was due to *normal* sexual reproductive process - not a "random mutation".

I guess if you see the world through evolutionary colored glasses, some
things seem self evident - but for those of us who are not so
indoctrinated, this needs explaining. To my mind, a random mutation is
an error - a mistake.

A random mutation is a *change* in a genome. To call it an "error" or
a "mistake" is to essentially say that all change is an error or
mistake and therefore bad. That simply is not true. Whether any
particular mutation or *change* in a genome is deleterious, beneficial,
or neutral must be independently determined, not ascribed by
definition. That is why the terms deleterious, beneficial, or neutral
are *adjectives* that describe the effect of a particular change in a
particular environment. The descriptives (beneficial, detrimental,
neutral) are not inherent features, but conditional ones that must be
determined and not ascribed.

Otherwise, all you would have to do is say that a *change* occurred,
and since *all* changes to any genome in *all* environments are
"errors" and "mistakes", there can be no such thing as a beneficial
mutation. Many creationists may actually believe this. But they
believe many, many silly things.

It's the cause of disease and genetic *defects*.

And the cause of antibiotic resistance and pesticide resistance and
disease resistance and drug resistance. Depending on the environment,
such changes can be quite beneficial to the organism that has that
mutation.

I've always understood it to be an *unintended* consequence.

But unless you *define* "unintended" to be identical to "detrimental",
I don't see a problem. "Unintended" events can be good luck, bad luck,
or neither.

If
you're going to classify the normal variation produced during sexual
reproduction as "random mutation", then why is it commonly stated that
most mutations are harmful?

Although most (actually the frequency of those that don't will be quite
small, distributed as a Poisson distribution) gametes have mutations,
most of the variation seen in sexual reproduction involves scrambling
pre-existing mutations that already exist in the population rather than
inventing new variants. But the fact that there is a continual flux of
incoming new mutation and outgo of old mutations means that there will
always be variation in any large (and most small) populations.

By your ever-shifting definitions, most mutations are beneficial or
neutral - since the normal variation produced by sexual reproduction
*usually* produces an offspring of equal or greater 'survivability' than
it's parents.

Most mutations in humans are neutral, since the odds favor thier
occurring in the so-called "junk" DNA which has little sequence
constraint. The frequency of neutral mutations will be smaller in
bacteria. As befits any already adapted organism in a typically
relatively unchanged environment, most mutations that have a phenotypic
effect have a detrimental one. Change the environment (or have a
change that allows exploitation of a different niche) and all bets are
off. such changes can dramatically affect the beneficialness or
detriment of any variant.

It's very confusing trying to follow your logic!

Try reading the population genetics chapter in any college genetics
textbook.

I stand by my statement that because of such shifting-sand definitions
as these, the "T"oE cannot *ever* be falsified.

--
"Are we to believe that mere chance can accomplish that which has proven
quite impossible for the enlightened scientist to achieve? I regard
that notion as absurd!" John A. Davison, Ph.D. - AN EVOLUTIONARY
MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The source of this normal variation is mutation, ... Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? ... This was due to *normal* sexual reproductive process - not a "random mutation". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The source of this normal variation is mutation, ... If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool, ... Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The source of this normal variation is mutation, ... If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool, ... Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... The source of this normal variation is mutation, ... If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool, ... Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An introduction
    ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ... variation, but it speaks little to the source of variation. ... and itself is a stronger force of evolution than mutation. ...
    (talk.origins)