Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis

Wall Of Sleep wrote:
SRNissen wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:

SRNissen wrote:

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? 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".



Random mutation is a part of "normal sexual reproductive process." Specifically, it is the part that makes two children from the same parents different. Kain was not Abel. Why? Mutation. If there was no mutation involved, all children of Adam and Eve would have been exactly alike in physical properties. That's what's to "get" in explanation.


I think not. I think the variation from parents (note the term is *plural*) to child is the result of *normal* sexual reproductive genetic combination - *not* random mutation. Variation is built into the process of sexual reproduction. It's not a "mutation". A mutation is a copying error - a mistake in genetic transfer, something that varies from normal genetic combination during sexual reproduction. If you are going to argue that the normal sexual reproductive process is the basis for the development of new features in sexually reproducing animals, you're arguing that these features are pre-existing - since all sexual reproduction does is combine the genetic makeup of two individuals into one unique individual.

Saying that that's "mutation" is a real watering down of the term mutation.


No, that is exactly what mutation means in the context of the theory of evolution. "normal sexual reproductive genetic combination" as you call it, is not a perfect process, and introduces mutations every time it is done.






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. It's the cause of disease and genetic *defects*. I've always understood it to be an *unintended* consequence. 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?



That is only commonly stated by people who are attempting to refute the theory of evolution. Mutations average to a fitness-neutral survival advantage.


"Mutation:
Any heritable change in genetic material. This may be a chemical transformation of an individual gene (a gene or point mutation), which alters its function. On the other hand, this change may involve a rearrangement, or a gain or loss of part of a chromosome, which may be microscopically visible. This is designated a chromosomal mutation. Most mutations are harmful."
http://www.bio.hw.ac.uk/edintox/glossall.htm


Read for comprehension. You've quoted a glossary of effects of toxic chemicals. Yes, mutations caused by toxic chemicals are harmful, that's why we call them toxic chemicals. If you're exposed to enough mutagenic material to cause harmful mutation, you've caused a lot more mutations than are usually present during normal reproduction.

This is not some crazy idea, this is testable. Children have genes their parents don't. That's how it is.


"Mutation: Abrupt change in the genotype of an organism that is not the result of recombination.
Recombination: Formation in offspring of genetic combinations not present in parents."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/99/1.28.99/genomics/Glossary.html


Yes? That's exactly what I said.

No, it's not.

Notice the "not":
"Mutation: Abrupt change in the genotype of an organism that is *not* the result of recombination"

This is why I also included the definition for "Recombination".

You're still not reading for comprehension.

You wrote:

>>>>> 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?

_I_ wrote:

>>>> That is only commonly stated by people who are attempting to refute
>>>> the theory of evolution. Mutations average to a fitness-neutral
>>>> survival advantage.

and then _you_ quoted:

>>> "Mutation: Abrupt change in the genotype of an organism that is not
>>> the result of recombination.
>>> Recombination: Formation in offspring of genetic combinations not
>>> present in parents."
>>> http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/99/1.28.99/genomics/Glossary.html

Which says absolutely nothing about whether mutations are dangerous. You quoted two other sites, one which said that mutations could be harmful, neutral or beneficial, which gives an average of fitness-neutral, and a site that said mutations were mostly harmful, but was using the "exposed to toxic chemicals" definition of mutation.

In conclusion, mutations are, on average, fitness-neutral.




"Mutation:
Any change in the DNA of a cell. Mutations may be caused by mistakes during cell division, or they may be caused by exposure to DNA-damaging agents in the environment. Mutations can be harmful, beneficial, or have no effect. If they occur in cells that make eggs or sperm, they can be inherited; if mutations occur in other types of cells, they are not inherited. Certain mutations may lead to cancer or other diseases."
http://www.stjude.org/glossary?searchTerm=M


Yes? That's exactly what I said.

No, you said that every instance of sexual reproduction introduces mutations. This says that only those mutations that occur in cells that make eggs or sperm are inherited.

.... Those are not mutually contradictory statements.

Mutations must be in cells that make eggs or sperm to be carried on to the next generation.Mutations in cells that make eggs or sperm are very common. Thus, every instance of sexual reproduction introduces mutations. It really shouldn't be that hard to get.

Here, allow me:

"The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation." - Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans, M W Nachman and S L Crowell, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, PMID 10978293

That's really where this debate should end. There are, on average, 175 mutations per diploid genome between each generation. You can whine about harmful mutations as much as you like, it's not going to change the fact that science pretty obviously shows that humans mutate. All the time.

This entire debate started when you said

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

"Normal variation" is caused by mutations.

Then for some reason, you claimed that mutations weren't the cause of variation.

Now I have a question for you. It should be simple to answer, so here goes:

Which of the following three statements do you reject?

(A) Changing the DNA code in an area that isn't considered Junk DNA will change the way the child develops.
(B) Mutations change the inherited DNA every generation
(C) These two, combined, means that mutations can cause variation.

Do you not agree with A? Do you not agree with B? Or do you not agree that A+B implies C?


- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC




AFAIK, these sites are not "attempting to refute the theory of evolution".


None of them do, so that's very lucky, isn't it?



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.



That's not an ever-shifting definition. That's how it has been defined for years.


See above.


Not an ever-shifting definition. See above.



It's very confusing trying to follow your logic!

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



There are no shifting-sand definitions involved. Your inability to understand them do not prove the ToE unfalsifiable.


I think you might be the one who fails to understand the concept of mutation.


I'm in agreement with more than 95% of all biologists on the surface of the planet. You are not. This leaves you in no position to throw stones regarding who understands currently accepted theories.


As my mother would say "If 95% of the scientists on this planet said to jump off the bridge, would you jump?".



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... Normal variation is the range of different alleles present in the gene ... If there were no mutation there would be no variation in the gene pool, ... Is all sexual reproduction classified as "random mutation"? ... "normal sexual reproductive genetic combination" as you call it, is not a perfect process, and introduces mutations every time it is done. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Limited Evolutionary Potential? - for Marc
    ... occuring at our level of complexity. ... would no variation at all, ... Every individual does have quite a number of mutations that his or her ... No -- As I said elsewhere, the survivability of hypothetical genotypes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genomic Instability?
    ... How can random mutations come up with a linear progression from four toes ... where all the variation comes from that natural selection operates ... is only one source of genetic variation. ... But even that is only part of the story since each chromosome ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Question: How to recognize mutations
    ... variation from most of its pals in its population. ... recombination of existing genetic material, transposons, or gene ... We now have the ability to sequence the DNA and check it out. ... No one denies that mutations happen. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-claims
    ... >>>within species is different in kind from variation between species. ... >>>mutations can work a major change in phenotype instantly, ... >>>is important in evolution. ... I don't like punk eek anyway. ...
    (talk.origins)