Seems unlikely. All of us have (apparently now found to be about 60) them. And yet it's quite unusual that any destroy any of us.
As you learned, the person who developed that theory, Motoo Kimura, pointed out that it's not a problem over time, because natural selection removes any that become dangerous. It is, however true that all of us carry a large load of harmful recessives, that will be a problem if we mate with someone carrying any of those recessives. Hence, the incest prohibition.
Notice that Kimura also pointed out that this affects molecular evolution, but phentotypic changes would still be under Darwinian processes. The guys who fed you this story, edited it to remove that information.
Barbarian notes the increase in useful information of the Milano mutation.
They misled you about that, too. The old lipoprotein still exists in these people. The new one, of course, performs a new function. Instead of one substance, there is now information for two, both of them useful. Do you see how they led you to a foolish conclusion?
Barbarian chuckles:
I don't think you really want to go there.
See above. They misled you about neutralist theory.
As you learned, most of them don't do much of anything. If any of them do eventually become significantly harmful, natural selection then acts on the phenotype, and they are gone, as Kimura said. That's the part your people withheld from you.
Barbarian observes:
If even a tenth of those sixty mutations were deadly, most of us would be dead. Maybe it's time to go back and learn about the way it actually works?
You claimed mutations destroy. That was your word. And yet, you have about 60. If even a small percent of them actually destroyed, most of us would be dead. You can't have it both ways.
Morgan's early work on mutations could only see those that caused major changes, and of course those were mostly harmful. So scientists earlier thought mutations were more harmful than most of them actually are, and science has shown that (as I told you earlier) most of them don't do much of anything.
As Kimura points out, if these amount to significantly harmful phenotypic change, Darwinian processes remove them. Or they are recessive, and don't do much unless you marry a close relative.
Barbarian suggests:
Show me your numbers. Anytime there's a new allele in a population, the information rises. Assume whatever frequencies you like, and show us the math.
ABSTRACT This paper discusses how Claude Shannon, the founder of information theory, came to be regarded a biologist. It was discovered that Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applied to living organisms and their products, such as communication channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities.
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...iologist_(information_theory_used_in_biology)
Barbarian observes:
For example, Barry Hall demonstrated the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria, via a series of useful mutations. Would you like to see how that happened?
That was directly observed. Hall merely placed bacteria in an environment where they would thrive only if they had a way to utilize a particular molecule. Eventually, over a series of mutations, natural selection winnowed out those that made it increasingly efficient. What Hall did not expect was that natural selection also produced a regulator, which kept the enzyme from being produced until the molecule was actually there. Now, all three elements of the system had to be in place for it to work, making it irreducibly complex.
Darwin's theory. Congratulations. You are now an evolutionist.
If you imagine God is just a "space alien", as some IDers claim. But if you think He's the Creator, then no design required.
"Specified Complexity" is a religious doctrine, the meaning of which seems to change a lot. I'm just pointing out that many mutations, as you just learned, are useful. Of course, the old lipoprotein still exists, where there was information for one, there's now information for two.
The nylon bug mutation, via a frameshift in a plasmid, gave bacteria the ability to digest nylon oligomer.
Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers (2000), Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 54, 461-466.
Not at first. But subsequent muations made it more efficient.
That's what a mutation is. I thought you knew.
Nope. It frameshifted an entire plasmid. So it didn't affect anything else on the actual bacterial genome.
I understand how important it is for you to deny these things. But at some point, you're going to have to reconcile your beliefs with reality.
No, that's wrong, too. You see, natural selection not only tends to remove the unfit, it also changes the available alleles in the next generation.
In fact, it continuously improves fitness, something even most creationists admit. They could hardly deny it, since it is directly observed.
See above. Produced a new irreducibly complex enzyme system. Pretty good work, um? God knew what He was doing, when he created the universe.
Margulis is an advocate of evolution by endosymbiosis. While I think she has some good ideas, her beliefs are generally not accepted for lack of evidence. I doubt if you have read any of her books; you probably would be surprised if you did.
No. Genesis does not say that everything reproduces after their own kind. That is another addition that creationists insert into scripture.
This is what God's Word tells us....
Genesis1:11 "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kindsand trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Nothing about "reproducing according to kind." As you just learned, that was a modification of God's word by creationists, seeking to make scripture more compatible with their new beliefs. As you see, it doesn't give the details on how God used nature to make new species. It just says that He did.
And yes, that passage also denies the creationist doctrine of "life ex nihilo." He says He used existing creation to make living things.
I know you want to believe it. But the evidence does not support your belief.
