PDA

View Full Version : Beneficial Mutations and Evolution



bob b
March 2nd, 2006, 09:51 AM
This article may help to explain why beneficial mutations have little to do with explaining macroevolution.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

ThePhy
March 2nd, 2006, 11:50 AM
Bob b, do you not agree with Jobeth in her original absolute statement that there are no beneficial mutations?

In other words, you are willing to state that in fact there are beneficial mutations?

bob b
March 2nd, 2006, 12:02 PM
Bob b, do you not agree with Jobeth in her original absolute statement that there are no beneficial mutations?

In other words, you are willing to state that in fact there are beneficial mutations?

Depends on how one defines "beneficial".

This is the way Jobeth put it: "All mutations are bad for the organism that has them. You may have been told otherwise, but people with sickle-cell anemia are very sick people."

I tend to agree with what she said.

However, if aharvey would put it differently, I might tend to agree with him as well.

Isn't the English language wonderful? :dizzy:

BTW do you think that people failed to notice that you are were afraid to comment on the article I posted? (the old "when in trouble change the subject" tactic)

Johnny
March 2nd, 2006, 12:22 PM
So you agree with this statement: "All mutations are bad for the organism that has them."? Last chance.

p.s. it's ok to disagree with a fellow creationist.


BTW do you think that people failed to notice that you are were afraid to comment on the article I posted? (the old "when in trouble change the subject" tactic)I simply cannot find the words to express how ironic this is. You mentioned this in another thread. I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

ThePhy
March 2nd, 2006, 12:26 PM
From bob b:
This is the way Jobeth put it: "All mutations are bad for the organism that has them. You may have been told otherwise, but people with sickle-cell anemia are very sick people."

I tend to agree with what she said. You agree with which part of what she said? Her first sentence was an absolute declaration, with no provisions. Her second is a specific case. Do you support her first sentence or not?
BTW do you think that people failed to notice that you are were afraid to comment on the article I posted? (the old "when in trouble change the subject" tactic) Before posting my response to your OP, I did a bit of checking on the web to confirm something that I felt I already knew. There are a substantial number of Christian creationists who take Jobeth’s initial absolutist stance – denying that mutations are ever truly beneficial. If that was your stance, then the article you linked to would be superfluous – discussing something you don’t even believe exists. I now take it that your recommending that article to us implicitly admits that beneficial mutations are a fact. That’s a good start.

bob b
March 2nd, 2006, 01:41 PM
You agree with which part of what she said? Her first sentence was an absolute declaration, with no provisions. Her second is a specific case. Do you support her first sentence or not? Before posting my response to your OP, I did a bit of checking on the web to confirm something that I felt I already knew. There are a substantial number of Christian creationists who take Jobeth’s initial absolutist stance – denying that mutations are ever truly beneficial. If that was your stance, then the article you linked to would be superfluous – discussing something you don’t even believe exists. I now take it that your recommending that article to us implicitly admits that beneficial mutations are a fact. That’s a good start.

I said I tended to agree that all mutations are bad for the organism.

I have also said that some mutations may benefit the organism.

Your problem seems to be that you think these two statements are in conflict.

I then mentioned the same case that Jobeth did: sickle cell anemia, which benefits the person who has it in the sense of the alternative, death, but is bad for the organism in the sense that it is a deterioration in its genome.

What this means in practice is that mutations are not a mechanism that can transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being regardless of how much time is available. Going "downhill" (deterioration) can never get one higher up.

The bottom line is that the simplistic "beneficial" argument is quite as deceptive as the "random mutations plus natural selection" argument.

Both sound simple and inevitable, but upon closer examination can be seen to be fatally flawed as far as real organisms are concerned..

ThePhy
March 2nd, 2006, 03:00 PM
From bob b:
I said I tended to agree that all mutations are bad for the organism.

I have also said that some mutations may benefit the organism.
Are you this wishy-washy in your theological teachings? How can you “tend to agree that ALL mutations are bad …” and then in the next sentence say without qualification that “some mutations may benefit the organism”?

Your problem seems to be that you think these two statements are in conflict. Yeah, that is for sure. Please massacre logic for us again and reconcile them. Remember, you need to not violate what you tend to agree on, but you also need to without hesitation support the some mutations are the good kind.

What this means in practice is that mutations are not a mechanism that can transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being regardless of how much time is available. Going "downhill" (deterioration) can never get one higher up. You know that the scientists’ answer to abiogenesis is “We don’t know”. That admission seems to give you some kind of pathological satisfaction, so that just like a perverted sex addict you go for it every time you see the smallest opening. Well I’m sorry, but you will have to show that you have the integrity to discuss just evolution as a subject by itself, or you can find someone else to satisfy your perversions on.

bob b
March 2nd, 2006, 03:55 PM
From bob b:
Are you this wishy-washy in your theological teachings? How can you “tend to agree that ALL mutations are bad …” and then in the next sentence say without qualification that “some mutations may benefit the organism”?
Yeah, that is for sure. Please massacre logic for us again and reconcile them. Remember, you need to not violate what you tend to agree on, but you also need to without hesitation support the some mutations are the good kind.
You know that the scientists’ answer to abiogenesis is “We don’t know”. That admission seems to give you some kind of pathological satisfaction, so that just like a perverted sex addict you go for it every time you see the smallest opening. Well I’m sorry, but you will have to show that you have the integrity to discuss just evolution as a subject by itself, or you can find someone else to satisfy your perversions on.

Oh, had enough, eh?

ThePhy
March 2nd, 2006, 04:26 PM
From bob b:
Oh, had enough, eh? Naw, just wonder why there isn’t a single Creationist on this board with both a reasonable knowledge of the science espoused by Creationists and the integrity to discuss it honestly. I know you enjoy pushing your Creationist fecal material at us incessantly, but believe it or not, some Christians actually give more than lip service to “Thou shalt not lie.”

We converse with you, because you are by far the most active defender of the creationist side. That in no way implies you are knowledgeable, honest, or much of an example of Christian ideals. Quite the opposite.

I really have to wonder what percentage there is in many of these exchanges. I routinely have conversations with Christians, sometimes on non-science ideas that we differ significantly on, but at the end I never come away with the pervasive feeling that I have been trying to handle deceit like I do after trying to converse honestly with you.

I don’t agree with much of what you say. But if I ever feel that I routinely have to resort to the methods you like to employ daily, then I will know that I have lost, and it will be time for me to walk away and let someone who still honors truth to take over.

I am aware this is not a technical post, but I saw exactly zero responsiveness to the points I made in my last post from you.

And your feelings towards me?

noguru
March 2nd, 2006, 04:29 PM
Bob, one question.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that an human has the genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Then further along down the line a mutation comes that allows the individual to have two distinct forms of red blood cells. Some of the red blood cells are sickle shaped, the others are normal disc shaped. Would this then still be a deleterious mutation?

bob b
March 2nd, 2006, 04:49 PM
From bob b: Naw, just wonder why there isn’t a single Creationist on this board with both a reasonable knowledge of the science espoused by Creationists and the integrity to discuss it honestly. I know you enjoy pushing your Creationist fecal material at us incessantly, but believe it or not, some Christians actually give more than lip service to “Thou shalt not lie.”

We converse with you, because you are by far the most active defender of the creationist side. That in no way implies you are knowledgeable, honest, or much of an example of Christian ideals. Quite the opposite.

I really have to wonder what percentage there is in many of these exchanges. I routinely have conversations with Christians, sometimes on non-science ideas that we differ significantly on, but at the end I never come away with the pervasive feeling that I have been trying to handle deceit like I do after trying to converse honestly with you.

I don’t agree with much of what you say. But if I ever feel that I routinely have to resort to the methods you like to employ daily, then I will know that I have lost, and it will be time for me to walk away and let someone who still honors truth to take over.

I am aware this is not a technical post, but I saw exactly zero responsiveness to the points I made in my last post from you.

And your feelings towards me?

Pretty much the same as my feelings toward Harvey: an intelligent and knowledgable person who has been totally deceived by some of the simplistic concepts and clever ploys used by evolutionists (probably without them being aware that they are ploys).

So I am human like anyone else and get frustrated at the "invincible ignorance" displayed by evolutionists about the concepts I am trying to get across, and sometimes resort to humor or other things as an outlet or "safety valve".

And I sometimes ignore points that I have covered so many times that it is maddening to me to have to go over and over things which should be readily apparent.

bob b
March 4th, 2006, 10:12 AM
From: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

"Summary
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”). Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated. Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion. The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities. Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change."

KINGOFKNGS
May 8th, 2008, 11:06 PM
Sorry to rehash something that is apparently an ancient thread... but as I have just joined this site and was looking through some old posts, I have to say that Bob B's statement makes perfect sense, yet he is mocked for it.


From bob b:
Quote:
I said I tended to agree that all mutations are bad for the organism.

I have also said that some mutations may benefit the organism.
Are you this wishy-washy in your theological teachings? How can you “tend to agree that ALL mutations are bad …” and then in the next sentence say without qualification that “some mutations may benefit the organism”?

Because a mutation will at some point be bad for an organism does not mean that it cannot also provide a benefit for the said organism. A given mutation can eventually cause death to an organism (and therefore be bad), but at the same time, it may provide resistance to a disease (malaria in the case of sickle cell anemia) and therefore prolong the life of a given organism, a life that, without the mutation, had the potential of being much shorter. Thus, the mutation can, at some point, be bad for the individual, but at the same time, can provide a benefit for the individual. It's interesting that those individuals that are heterozygous for SCA have similar resistive properties to malaria as homozygotes... and it all has to deal with the mechanism by which sickle cell anemia provides resistance to Plasmodium falciparum and the other Plasmodium species that cause malaria.

mighty_duck
May 9th, 2008, 01:50 AM
Because a mutation will at some point be bad for an organism does not mean that it cannot also provide a benefit for the said organism. A given mutation can eventually cause death to an organism (and therefore be bad), but at the same time, it may provide resistance to a disease (malaria in the case of sickle cell anemia) and therefore prolong the life of a given organism, a life that, without the mutation, had the potential of being much shorter.

I don't think you're making much sense. If because of a mutation, a given individual lives longer than they would without the mutation (and in that time reproduces more), in what sense is it not beneficial?

Suppose I find a way to mutate humans so that they avoid all medical conditions until they are 200, but at age 200 they die of complications from the mutation. Is this still a "partially" negative mutation on your view?

Sealeaf
May 9th, 2008, 02:15 AM
Sickel cell anemia is a crippling painful disease. It will kill an affected individual by their 40th year. Milaria is a fatal infectious disease that kills at all ages. individuals that have SCA can live to their 30's in relatively good health in areas where milaria is endemic. They are immune to the rapid killing infection but have a genetic disorder that will kill them in middle age. SCA is a benificial mutation if one lives in milaria country.

Mr Jack
May 9th, 2008, 02:35 AM
Sickel cell anemia is a crippling painful disease. It will kill an affected individual by their 40th year. Milaria is a fatal infectious disease that kills at all ages. individuals that have SCA can live to their 30's in relatively good health in areas where milaria is endemic. They are immune to the rapid killing infection but have a genetic disorder that will kill them in middle age. SCA is a benificial mutation if one lives in milaria country.
More importantly, I think, it protects those that are heterozygous for the SCA gene.

Johnny
May 9th, 2008, 07:26 AM
Sickel cell anemia is a crippling painful disease. It will kill an affected individual by their 40th year. Milaria is a fatal infectious disease that kills at all ages. individuals that have SCA can live to their 30's in relatively good health in areas where milaria is endemic. They are immune to the rapid killing infection but have a genetic disorder that will kill them in middle age. SCA is a benificial mutation if one lives in milaria country.As Mr Jack noted, sickle cell confers a heterozygote advantage to the population. Many untreated sickle cell patients will actually die early in the course of the disease.

chair
May 9th, 2008, 07:57 AM
...

I then mentioned the same case that Jobeth did: sickle cell anemia, which benefits the person who has it in the sense of the alternative, death, but is bad for the organism in the sense that it is a deterioration in its genome.
...

There isn't such a thing as 'deterioration of the genome' in evolution. Evolution isn't about preserving genomes. A mutation either helps an organism survive and reproduce, or it doesn't. If it helps, then it is a beneficial mutation by definition.

One Eyed Jack
May 9th, 2008, 11:24 AM
There isn't such a thing as 'deterioration of the genome' in evolution.

Bob isn't an evolutionist. This is one of the major problems when discussing things with you guys -- you can't think outside the box long enough to get what we're saying.

Jukia
May 9th, 2008, 11:39 AM
Bob isn't an evolutionist. This is one of the major problems when discussing things with you guys -- you can't think outside the box long enough to get what we're saying.

Oh no, we get it.

KINGOFKNGS
May 9th, 2008, 12:12 PM
I don't think you're making much sense. If because of a mutation, a given individual lives longer than they would without the mutation (and in that time reproduces more), in what sense is it not beneficial?

Agreed...

Suppose I find a way to mutate humans so that they avoid all medical conditions until they are 200, but at age 200 they die of complications from the mutation. Is this still a "partially" negative mutation on your view?

I guess you could say that it's negative if it results in the ending of a life. A "better" mutation would allow for the person to keep all the advantages and live to 201, from a strictly evolutionary point of view in that there is an extended period of time for more reproduction. The point of judgement of a mutation is whether or not it allows for a greater reproduction of a species' genes. This is talking on a population level.

I get the impression that some people here feel that the quality of life of an individual within a species determines whether or not the mutation is beneficial. Whether or not it causes pain to an individual is irrelevant in an evolutionary sense--if that pain, however, causes a decreased ability to reproduce, then it is not a beneficial mutation to the species.

-----

My understanding of SCA is that in times of stress, the cells sickle. When the Plasmodium enters the cell, it sickles, and it's viewed as "bad" by the immune system and is therefore destroyed before Plasmodium can reproduce. Apparently, heterozygotes have this ability as well. If the Plasmodium cannot reproduce, then there is resistance to the disease. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to remember details of a biochemistry lecture from a few years back, and I acknowledge that the details may be a little sketchy. Just wanted to share the mechanism by which SCA can provide resistance to malaria.

KINGOFKNGS
May 9th, 2008, 03:23 PM
Sickel cell anemia is a crippling painful disease. It will kill an affected individual by their 40th year. Milaria is a fatal infectious disease that kills at all ages. individuals that have SCA can live to their 30's in relatively good health in areas where milaria is endemic. They are immune to the rapid killing infection but have a genetic disorder that will kill them in middle age. SCA is a benificial mutation if one lives in milaria country.

This is the gist of the argument. Those affected by SCA (and carriers) have resistance to malaria. I think that perhaps a better way of saying it is SCA is a beneficial mutation if someone is afflicted with malaria! Perhaps that's looking at an individual level as opposed to across a population, in which case the last line of the above paragraph would be correct.

As an addendum to my last post, the benefit of a mutation can only be judged relative to the "normal" or perhaps "wild" type. Therefore, a mutation that will allow someone to live to 200 with no ill effect, yet will kill the person at 200 will be beneficial to the species, when compared to the normal phenotype. However, suppose that there were a 201 year mutation, theoretically, that would be the more beneficial mutation, assuming that it allows greater penetrance of the gene due to greater reproductive success (even if it's just one more year of reproduction).

Sealeaf
May 10th, 2008, 12:50 AM
The concept of a "benificial" mutation is off base to begin with. Mutation just happens. It is a continuous random process. Think of it as "imperfect reproduction". It is a biological example of Murphy's law. If something can go wrong it will. Many opportunities for things to go wrong exist in biological reproduction.

"Benificial" is a value judgement placed in hindsight. A thousand years ago some viking in what is now Norway had a mutation. It was not benificial, it just made he or she a bit different. Nobody noticed. The difference had no particular survival importance. The difference was passed down to the offspring of those vikings. With the advent of AIDS we now see this mutation as "benificial" because it confirs resistence to HIV infection. Something like 20% of the population of Europe has the gene.