Caretaker genes, or why genes don't just mutate

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I've made this huge discovery: caretaker genes, and they basically explain what I've been saying all along about systems in the body preventing mutations from taking over. This is the crux of the Evolutionist argument, that mutations creep in unawares and the whole body changes as a result. Well, it's fiction and I get the feeling from the literature that they are desperately embarassed about it. But what is a caretaker gene?

A caretaker gene is a gene that steps in to make sure that genetic code is going ok, is healthy, is strong. Say a part of your DNA mutates so that it is out of keeping with the rest of your body, the caretaker gene will step in and clear up the mistake, as if it was never there. Wikipedia describes caretaker genes as having the following functions:

operations encoded by caretaker genes include nucleotide excision repair, base excision repair, non-homologous end joining recombination pathways, mismatch repair pathways, and telomere metabolism

So basically, to the Evolutionists way of thinking, once caretaker genes "evolve" the organism is basically locked into its particular way of competing for survival with other organisms. This accords with the research done that shows variation is much more limited than Evolutionists would have you believe, Sign in to read: Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits - opinion - 03 February 2010 - New Scientist (Darwinism's limits). What this means is that Evolutionists are fighting a brick wall. If mutation is going to lead to radical differences in specie forms, it has to happen right at the outset, before organisms are multicellular.

And do you know what? I have no problem with Evolution at a single cell level; for one thing, it means that we did not come from monkeys, for another thing, it means we will always be human. Makes sense right? I mean its a continuum of Creation that is controlled by the influence of God on a process that has micro-Evolution variations and macro-Evolutionary revolutions in how organisms that develop from cells define themselves as multi-cellular organisms. So essentially, definition is key.

Definition, is what makes you enjoy one day and not another; definition is what causes you to pursue one goal and not another; defintion is what gives you a sense of purpose in one context and not another - it is basically the building block of a life in eternity. Finally, I think we can move the conversation on, to a point where moral commands are a valid point of discussion and the debate is no longer how radically mankind will diverge from what Jesus came to save.

What I can't understand is how it got to this point with no one saying anything; I mean I could have saved myself a lot of argument if I had just jumped straight to the impossibilty of mutating into something radical. I guess that is the wonderous will of God, that we experience the difficulties of having faith personally before He reveals His answer. The fact is that if you want Evolution to work, you literally have to lock all your caretaker genes into accepting the mutation, it just doesn't happen. This is where we learn that although all things are possible, not all things are probable.

Praise be to God, the Most Probable!

 

[sfs]

Sorry, but caretaker genes don't eliminate all mutations; they simply keep the number manageably low. In healthy humans with functioning caretaker genes, new germline mutations still occur at a rate of ~75 per birth.

 

[Gottservant]

Sorry, but caretaker genes don't eliminate all mutations; they simply keep the number manageably low. In healthy humans with functioning caretaker genes, new germline mutations still occur at a rate of ~75 per birth.

Yes, only you are talking about a level of mutation that is much greater than ~75 per birth.

I can't tell you what the rate should be (as I have not undertaken a study of what is necessary) but in principle I can tell you that if whatever gets through was simply a low number to be enough, it would still not be coherent over a number of generations because of the work that caretaker genes, which are different in every individual, do. You are over-simplifying very complex processes that have more than enough redundancy to render dormant or weed out the activation of even the ~75 you propose.

Bear in mind that what isn't fully manifest in a single individual by procreation, is not passed on. That's the kind of redundancy I am talking about, again, largely facilitated by care-taker genes.

 

[gluadys]

Hi there,

Hi, hope you are doing well.

When it comes to evolutionary theory, you are not. There are many phrases in your post which indicate a misperception of how evolution happens.

So I've made this huge discovery: caretaker genes, and they basically explain what I've been saying all along about systems in the body preventing mutations from taking over.

"Mutations taking over"?

Taking over what? A genome, a cell, a body or a population? Makes a big difference.

What is the criterion for "taking over". 90% of genes changed? 60%? 30%?
In what time frame?

Compared to the number of base nucleotides in the human genome (about 6 billion) even the 100 or so changes per birth is minute. Hardly enough to take over anything. Besides, many of these either disappear regularly through genetic drift or are removed by purifying selection.

Caretaker genes are certainly interesting and there is a lot of repair work done by them to keep the genome stable. But they are not the only line of defense against mutational meltdown either.

It is not a scientific argument that evolution needs mutations to take over a body.

This is the crux of the Evolutionist argument, that mutations creep in unawares and the whole body changes as a result.

No, it is not. In fact, what the evolutionary view presents is modification, not wholesale bodily changes. Even with as drastic a bodily change as we see between a whale and its terrestrial ancestors, there is a lot of the body that stays the same. That is why anatomists and taxonomists and geneticists can relate it to terrestrial animals. To list a few obvious points: a whale still has most of the characteristics of a terrestrial mammal including a vertebrate skeleton, a tetrapod body-plan (though modified considerably in the hind limbs which have disappeared), lungs, dependency on breathing air, constant body temperature, live birth and mammary glands.

In his book, Your Inner Fish, Neil Shubin talks about human bodily characteristics that are not that different from those of our fish ancestor. So, no, the whole body does not change. It is a modified, sometimes highly modified, but still recognizable modification of the ancestral body.

So basically, to the Evolutionists way of thinking, once caretaker genes "evolve" the organism is basically locked into its particular way of competing for survival with other organisms. This accords with the research done that shows variation is much more limited than Evolutionists would have you believe, Sign in to read: Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits - opinion - 03 February 2010 - New Scientist (Darwinism's limits). What this means is that Evolutionists are fighting a brick wall.

It's good to see someone with doubts about evolution actually reading the literature. Keep reading, and make a point of checking out Hox genes and tool box genes and regulatory genes.

One thing that has become evident in recent decades is that changes in protein-coding genes is not as central to variation as was originally thought. This may be what lies behind your statement that "variation is much more limited than Evolutionists [sic] would have you believe". What has been learned is that many variations are not variations genes themselves as variations in the regulatory system that sets when, where and for how long a gene is expressed. The same gene expressed under difference conditions can produce a lot of variation even though there has been no mutation in the gene.

One thing this means is that the same gene can be used differently in different parts of the same body to make different structures.

If mutation is going to lead to radical differences in specie forms, it has to happen right at the outset, before organisms are multicellular.

Well, here is another misnomer. Scientists don't claim a mutation is going to lead to a radical difference. Most mutations lead to fairly minor differences. Some to no difference at all. So, you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Big differences don't happen suddenly, through one mutation. Evolutionary theory has always claimed the opposition--gradual, small changes, adding up over time.

What I can't understand is how it got to this point with no one saying anything; I mean I could have saved myself a lot of argument if I had just jumped straight to the impossibilty of mutating into something radical.

Actually, you wouldn't because that was never what evolution argued for anyway. You would have saved yourself a lot of argument if you had understood that from the beginning. Caretaker genes, no doubt, are one reason evolutionary change is never radical and takes many generations to make a difference. But they don't change a scientific view of evolution; they just mean we have a better understanding of the process.



And, as always, remember that in evolution, it is the population that is changing, not the individuals.

 

[Gottservant]

I read what you wrote.
You basically said "it's radical but not radical (because its gradual)".
Again, this is not coherent.

Not only do you need massive amounts of time the more gradual you make it, but as you fail to point out, the less likely anything substantial will be passed on.
What you pass on has to be reinforced, after all, you cannot simply mutate a little bit and guarantee its success.

Thanks for challenging me to buff up my argument, but try to be a little more objective or constructive or something, telling me the nerve I have that perceives ratio is bogus because populations exist is some kind of twisted lie that you fail to recognize.

 

[gluadys]

I read what you wrote.
You basically said "it's radical but not radical (because its gradual)".
Again, this is not coherent.

Not only do you need massive amounts of time the more gradual you make it, but as you fail to point out, the less likely anything substantial will be passed on.
What you pass on has to be reinforced, after all, you cannot simply mutate a little bit and guarantee its success.

You are correct in saying that you cannot just expect a mutation to be passed on in wider and wider circles though a population--or even to the 2nd generation. It has to be reinforced.

And it is reinforced---by natural selection.

Sometimes by founder's effect.

Do you understand these processes? Are you taking them into account?

Thanks for challenging me to buff up my argument, but try to be a little more objective or constructive or something, telling me the nerve I have that perceives ratio is bogus because populations exist is some kind of twisted lie that you fail to recognize.

Populations exist. By definition, evolution is a change in populations.

Changes below the level of population produce additional variety in one population, but they do not change the population itself. They do not create a new species. Additional variety is pre-evolutionary change. Necessary, but not sufficient, for evolutionary change.

 

[Gottservant]

There is no evolution but what there is the potential for, correct?

So there is no potential that doesn't have higher authority than evolution for further potentiation, correct?

So there is no potentiation that won't seek to eliminate evolution in every instance where it disagrees with potentiated design, right? Correct?

Ok, so what are you on about?

Once mutation crumbles to potentiation, the whole theory of evolution goes nowhere.
Potentiation can be mantained, it does not have to divert around selection pressures it knows nothing about for reasons that people refuse to specify. Am I a [bless and do not curse] or are you trying to convince me of [bless and do not curse]?

 

[gluadys]

There is no evolution but what there is the potential for, correct?

That is correct. There must be standing variation in a population in order for natural selection to differentiate between better adapted and not so well adapted forms. So variation sets up the potential for evolution. Without it, no evolution is possible.

So there is no potential that doesn't have higher authority than evolution for further potentiation, correct?

I don't understand this question. Can you rephrase it?

So there is no potentiation that won't seek to eliminate evolution in every instance where it disagrees with potentiated design, right? Correct?

I don't know. Again, I don't understand your terminology re potential/potentiation.

Ok, so what are you on about?

About accepting or rejecting evolution for the right reasons i.e. based on a correct understanding of the process of evolution.

Most people who reject evolution do so for the wrong reasons; they claim evolution means things that it doesn't or calls for events that it does not call for. Some even hold up things that would contradict evolution as the only thing that would convince them evolution happens.

Some of the things you have said suggest that you have some incorrect ideas about evolution, and that your rejection of evolution is based on these incorrect ideas.

I don't mind if people choose to reject evolution once they understand it; some people have what they consider valid religious reasons to reject it. But I don't like seeing evolution rejected on the basis of misinformation and misunderstanding.

Once mutation crumbles to potentiation, the whole theory of evolution goes nowhere.

I don't understand "mutation crumbles to potentiation". Do you mean that some mutations are harmful and would cause the embryo to abort? Or, if not in the egg/womb, that the individual would not thrive and die prematurely?

If this is not what you mean, please explain what you do mean. What would indicate a mutation crumbling to potentiation?

Potentiation can be mantained, it does not have to divert around selection pressures it knows nothing about for reasons that people refuse to specify.

Perhaps. I don't know because I don't yet know what potentiation is or how it functions.

If I am not going to be fumbling in the dark, you really need to give some examples of potentiation that I can understand. I guess what I am asking is "How does potentiation manifest itself?"

Am I a [bless and do not curse] or are you trying to convince me of [bless and do not curse]?

LOL With the automatic editing, I don't even know what you asked.

I am not really trying to convince you of anything. Just trying to clarify what evolution is and what it isn't.

 

[Gottservant]

Potentiation covers a number of systems and basically incorporates every constructive thing you body does (of which caretaker genes are central) into a holistic whole.

It is the reason children have instincts about what they will wear, what they will eat and what they will do.

It incorporates everything from life experience to perspective to belief and activates that potential in your young from the moment they become a seed in your body.

Saying this is all up to chance is like riding in a lead zepellin and calling a crash landing "freakish".

I don't want to say you have no credibility, the systems you are working with to explain the drift of populations are entirely imaginary.

The imagination is a double edged sword, yes it can create drift, but there are some things, as I have said, that are just not probable in the extreme.

 

[gluadys]

Potentiation covers a number of systems and basically incorporates every constructive thing you body does (of which caretaker genes are central) into a holistic whole.

It is the reason children have instincts about what they will wear, what they will eat and what they will do.

It incorporates everything from life experience to perspective to belief and activates that potential in your young from the moment they become a seed in your body.

OK, this tells me that potentiation is not just a mechanism of evolution, like selection or speciation. Potentiation has a much broader application than evolution. Evolution has to function within that much broader application.

Also, potentiation is itself a spiritual rather than a physical reality. Again, the physical reality of one's being, (including evolutionary precursors such as mutation and variation) have to function within that spiritual reality.

Does that come nearer what you are getting at?

Saying this is all up to chance is like riding in a lead zepellin and calling a crash landing "freakish".

Indeed. And saying that evolution is all up to chance is just as incorrect. Darwin saw evolution as a natural law, part of the natural order, like gravity, the hydrological cycle, the laws followed by an embryo as it develops into a mature adult.

When we take a correct view of evolution as law-like not sheer chance, I don't see a problem connecting it to potentiation, which I think I am beginning to understand.

 

[Gottservant]

When I say "potentiation is spiritually justified" I am not saying "only", I am just saying that "if caretaker genes exist at all, it is reasonable to believe on the basis of spiritual completeness, that things like validation and legitimation must also exist and if there is a process that is greater than these parts (caretaking, etc), then there is potential that must be realized above and beyond these individual processes."

I am glad you don't have a problem with connecting evolution with potentiation, because frankly I think it would clear a lot of things up. So let me give you the fundamental question that drives my understanding of potentiation: if there is a variation of some kind, what determines how that variation applies to reality? In other words, where do instincts come from, covering beliefs, perspectives and experience? Why do choices matter? How do you stick to a decision?

I think you will see that if you ask these questions that there is clearly something higher than corporeal processes at work. Evolution at the moment does not say this, evolution says "because you must vary your results to match your environment, I therefore know what the holistic conclusion of your life approach is without you having to say anything" which is utter, utter rubbish. Science itself will validate what I have said, in due time, since the natural observations are very easy to make and it in no way takes an Evolutionist to conclude that there is order behind design.

I should thank you, really, for pushing me to think about this, as it clearly reveals there is something about the human organism God has created that we all clearly know nothing about. It is as if the laws of physics allow an organism to transition between ignorant and knowledgable as a simple function of energy potential, perhaps in some way to do with facilitating greater levels of entanglement at the subatomic level. In any case, it does not happen by chance, though granted chance is a sufficient condition.

How much of what I'm saying do you grasp?

 

[gluadys]

When I say "potentiation is spiritually justified" I am not saying "only", I am just saying that "if caretaker genes exist at all, it is reasonable to believe on the basis of spiritual completeness, that things like validation and legitimation must also exist and if there is a process that is greater than these parts (caretaking, etc), then there is potential that must be realized above and beyond these individual processes."

Well, there is no "if" about caretaker genes. Genes which correct and repair genomes certainly do exist.

I am glad you don't have a problem with connecting evolution with potentiation, because frankly I think it would clear a lot of things up. So let me give you the fundamental question that drives my understanding of potentiation: if there is a variation of some kind, what determines how that variation applies to reality?

Successful reproduction. A variation which interferes with reproduction by any of the following means (not an exhaustive list) is "out of tune" with reality and cannot survive long:

spontaneous abortion of embryo prior to birth
inviability of infant/juvenile
sterility or reduced fertility of organism
inability to mate and/or attract a mate
reduced ability to resist infection/parasites
reduced ability to evade predators

In other words, where do instincts come from, covering beliefs, perspectives and experience? Why do choices matter? How do you stick to a decision?

Most of these apply so far as we know, only to humans. I don't know, for example, that even highly intelligent animals "stick to a decision". And I don't see trees having instincts, beliefs, or perspectives. Perhaps you are most interested in the evolution of human intelligence and spirituality. And that is a very new and not well understood area of evolutionary science, fraught with all sorts of controversies. IOW, I don't have any idea what answers there are or will be to these sorts of questions.

But they are fairly peripheral to the overall theory of evolution which applies to all species in all domains and kingdoms of life: bacterial, amoeba, algae, plants, fungi and animals. In most of these species, the questions you raise are not applicable.

Science itself will validate what I have said, in due time, since the natural observations are very easy to make and it in no way takes an Evolutionist to conclude that there is order behind design.

Perhaps; time will tell. But I would dispute that natural observations are very easy. Some, in fact, are quite difficult.

I should thank you, really, for pushing me to think about this, as it clearly reveals there is something about the human organism God has created that we all clearly know nothing about.

That could well be. But it is not a basis for rejecting what we already know. Whatever we have yet to learn, it will be consistent with anything we know that is real and true.

In any case, it does not happen by chance, though granted chance is a sufficient condition.

For evolution, chance is not a sufficient condition. Necessary, yes, but not sufficient.

How much of what I'm saying do you grasp?

Hard to estimate, but a good deal less than half I think.

 

[Gottservant]

Well, there is no "if" about caretaker genes. Genes which correct and repair genomes certainly do exist.

Right, and if genes that correct and repair exist, there must be genes that validate, guide and legitimate genomes as well. It just stands to reason. All of which will keep a genome firmly fixed in its place.

Successful reproduction. A variation which interferes with reproduction by any of the following means (not an exhaustive list) is "out of tune" with reality and cannot survive long:

spontaneous abortion of embryo prior to birth
inviability of infant/juvenile
sterility or reduced fertility of organism
inability to mate and/or attract a mate
reduced ability to resist infection/parasites
reduced ability to evade predators

Yes but reproduction as a guiding principle is highly over-simplifying what takes a lifetime to understand. Every single thing you ever believed affects how your child turns out, let alone whether you decide to have sex or not. You are simply not doing it justice.

What about warnings? If I give my child a warning about something, he is able to learn that for himself and potentiate it for his children quite easily. He doesn't have to be born believing something for it to affect his children. So reproduction is at best a sufficient condition.

Most of these apply so far as we know, only to humans. I don't know, for example, that even highly intelligent animals "stick to a decision". And I don't see trees having instincts, beliefs, or perspectives. Perhaps you are most interested in the evolution of human intelligence and spirituality. And that is a very new and not well understood area of evolutionary science, fraught with all sorts of controversies. IOW, I don't have any idea what answers there are or will be to these sorts of questions.

But they are fairly peripheral to the overall theory of evolution which applies to all species in all domains and kingdoms of life: bacterial, amoeba, algae, plants, fungi and animals. In most of these species, the questions you raise are not applicable.

You are just saying there are a lot of things you don't observe. I'm sorry but that doesn't justify the position you are trying to defend. And my observations are far more applicable than you are suggesting. IF potential can be communicated, by means other than reproduction, valid selection pressures AGAINST such learning are nil to non-existent.

How does a species of badger forget how to make a home because a forest fire kills most of his clan? Even if there is one badger left, badgers forever and a day will know how to make a home. They are not going to change that because a home is the best thing for a badger to protect itself with. A home is potentiated by a badger and the fact that it potentiates anything means it will never fundamentally change from being a badger.

Even if you mutate a badger again and again, the fact that it knows its a badger and a home will protect it, will mean that the mutations fade faster and faster. A position of ignorance is not to be desired and mutations are little more than corporeal ignorance. Far from causing you to lean one way or another, mutations cause people to retract and withdraw, they do not help survival they hinder it. Consequently mutations are routinely weeded out by the immune system of any creature. They do not survive across generations, they are not passed down with successive alterations and improvements, they do not suddenly take over the development of an organism in the womb.

There are infinitely more failures of organisms that mutate, than there are successes that succeed by diverting the complication to something productive.

What you are proposing is just completely, ludicrously improbable. Tell me something that points to God, a designer and I will happily listen.

 

[gluadys]

Right, and if genes that correct and repair exist, there must be genes that validate, guide and legitimate genomes as well. It just stands to reason. All of which will keep a genome firmly fixed in its place.



Yes but reproduction as a guiding principle is highly over-simplifying what takes a lifetime to understand. Every single thing you ever believed affects how your child turns out, let alone whether you decide to have sex or not. You are simply not doing it justice.

Oh, I agree, every thing I have ever believed, all I ever do or say, affects how my child turns out. Evolution only deals with what is physically inherited: the actual structure of the genome. There is a lot more to a person than that. Even physically, extremely similar genomes will express differently due to different nurturing conditions. How much more so when we add in trans-physical conditioning of the intellect and psyche as well.


So it would seem you are thinking of human development in a much wider context that biological evolution.

Where you run off the rails, as I see it, is that either you think biological evolution includes all these other things or you think these other things are incompatible with evolution.

I think you are right to say evolution can't account for much of what you are considering under the term "potentiation". That's true. Any organism is what it is because of evolution but also because of other conditions as well; evolution doesn't and can't account for the whole living development of an organism.

I think you are wrong when, because of this, you say evolution doesn't happen at all or can't happen. It does and it can and scientists see it every day--the subtle changes in genomes that lead to change, speciation, adaptation and the various other aspects of evolution.

You are just saying there are a lot of things you don't observe. I'm sorry but that doesn't justify the position you are trying to defend. And my observations are far more applicable than you are suggesting. IF potential can be communicated, by means other than reproduction, valid selection pressures AGAINST such learning are nil to non-existent.

You are right and I am glad to see you are considering communication by means other than reproduction. Language is a good example of something we inherit by means other than reproduction, and consider what an impact that has on our self-development. Immense. All of our thinking depends on learning language and each language both opens up and closes off certain ways of thinking. For if we have no way to express something, we cannot think it. Whatever language(s) we learn have an immense conditioning effect on us.

Would this be another aspect of potentiation?
I am sure you can think of other examples.

How does a species of badger forget how to make a home because a forest fire kills most of his clan? Even if there is one badger left, badgers forever and a day will know how to make a home. They are not going to change that because a home is the best thing for a badger to protect itself with. A home is potentiated by a badger and the fact that it potentiates anything means it will never fundamentally change from being a badger.

This sounds a little bit like the point that all things reproduce after their kind. Many people think this is a point against evolution, but actually, the theory of evolution is very consistent with this principle. It is the fundamental argument in favour of common descent and the standard phylogenetic tree. It is why scientists tell us birds are dinosaurs. They are the dinosaurs which survived the extinction of 65 million years ago. And they are still reproducing after their dinosaur kind. Fossil studies show that even bird behaviour (sleep postures, nesting, brooding their eggs and caring for their young) are all part of their inheritance from their dinosaur ancestors.

So, even by the theory of evolution, you are right. The instincts of a badger will be in all the descendants of badgers, even if their morphology changes over time to something we might give a different name to. Genomes preserve our history back through our earliest ancestors--as Neil Shubin describes in Your Inner Fish.

Far from causing you to lean one way or another, mutations cause people to retract and withdraw, they do not help survival they hinder it.

Well, people don't see mutations. Mutations are hidden in the genome and not visible except by an analysis of DNA sequencing. So, I think you are talking about the visible consequences of mutations which we call variations.

Now some variations do hinder survival, but most do not. Most are too inconsequential to have any effect such as making people retract and withdraw. Most are received as merely ordinary. One person has a sharp nose another person a snub nose. That's the sort of thing most mutations produce--just ordinary variety.

Some are a hindrance: they cause problems of development, disease, cancer, etc.

A very, very few may be adaptive.

Consequently mutations are routinely weeded out by the immune system of any creature.

Not by the immune system; by selection--by failure to survive and/or reproduce. And this applies only to the mutations which hinder survival. It doesn't apply to the much larger class of mutations which do no harm and simply add to ordinary variation among individuals.

They do not survive across generations, they are not passed down with successive alterations and improvements, they do not suddenly take over the development of an organism in the womb.

That is partially true of the mutations which hinder survival. Where they exist (and are not eliminated by caretaker genes) they do affect the development of an organism in the womb, and beyond; but because they hinder survival and/or reproduction they are not passed on in any great number. They do not contribute to successive alterations and improvements.

The opposite is true of those mutations which enhance survival and/or reproduction. That is why evolution is a history of "success" stories. Selection only preserves the successes, not the failures. So, even though the successes are rare and far fewer than the problems, they continue to contribute to adaptation and alteration all through the subsequent generations of the population so long as it survives, even when it speciates.

There are infinitely more failures of organisms that mutate, than there are successes that succeed by diverting the complication to something productive.

That's true, but given the filter of selection, the successes are not overwhelmed by the failures. Only the successes continue to proliferate. The failures do not.

Tell me something that points to God, a designer and I will happily listen.

As I see it, evolution does.

 

[Gottservant]

Well, again I read what you wrote, you are becoming quite eloquent, so to your credit, you had me thinking.

However, the womb would simply reject anything that did not claim to be a copy of the parent. It's just that simple.

And the idea that just because things not dying is true meaning evolution is selecting, is like saying because the school has a door, the door is teaching the children.

 

[gluadys]

Well, again I read what you wrote, you are becoming quite eloquent, so to your credit, you had me thinking.

However, the womb would simply reject anything that did not claim to be a copy of the parent. It's just that simple.

Depends on what you mean by this. Clearly the genome of the child need not be an exact copy of those of either parent since it is a mix of both parents.

And in the production of any gamete, mutations that get into the genome still leave well over 99% of the genome as it was in the parent, so differences are not sufficient to cause any rejection on that basis alone.

But where a difference is beneficial to the organism, it will not only help that one organism thrive; it will also be passed on to its offspring and on through future generations. So beneficial differences can accumulate bit by bit through many generations. And no rejection at any stage, since there is never any wholesale difference from the parent.

After all, our own genomes contain genes that originated up to 600 million years ago, even before there were any vertebrates. These are the genes that establish the basic bilaterian body plan--the tube within a tube, mouth at one end, anus at the other, connected by a gut, with body awareness of front/back; left/right; top/bottom.

We still have the genes that lay our major nerve cord along the dorsal instead of the ventral plane--something that originated with the earliest chordates. And we still have the genes that produce a notochord--a stiff support for the spinal cord--although partway through embryological development, it is discarded in favour of the vertebral column.

And the idea that just because things not dying is true meaning evolution is selecting, is like saying because the school has a door, the door is teaching the children.

Yes, oversimplifying anything can make it sound silly. Just like oversimplifying evolution to say its all a matter of chance mutations.

All living things die, sooner or later. The question is do they leave a legacy in their offspring--and to what extent does their legacy outweigh those of their siblings and cousins and others in the population?

That is what makes for evolutionary change.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, but you are forgetting that a mutation in certain genes, will mean there is a holistic change that is great enough to warrant the child being rejected. You seem to want your cake and eat it too. If the child is not being rejected, then it is being forced to copy the parent.

Look, I don't want to say you are up against a brick wall, but...

...what about the fact that a mutation doesn't come with an instruction manual?

I mean a mutation could be anything, how do you know which of the dozens of ways of interpreting it, is the correct way?

 

[gluadys]

Yes, but you are forgetting that a mutation in certain genes, will mean there is a holistic change that is great enough to warrant the child being rejected.

And that is when you get a spontaneous abortion, right?

That is a form of natural selection.

You seem to want your cake and eat it too. If the child is not being rejected, then it is being forced to copy the parent.

Sure, although not 100% (except in some cloned unicellular forms or in some species that produce asexually.)

Remember that in ALL species depending on sexual reproduction, there will be differences between the genome of child and the genome of the parent. Otherwise, the child would be like an identical twin of one of its parents.

So when you say "copy the parent" you can't mean it is identical in all respects. The child may have its mother's eyes and its fathers nose. It may have a trait like red hair which is recessive and skips generations. All of these things are traceable to genetic differences between parents and children. And it means that no child of a sexual union is a strict copy of a parent. (Some have identical siblings, but none have an identical parent.)

Mutations just add a few other variations of the same sort. That is, if they have any effect at all. Many mutations cause no functional difference. Even with a different DNA sequence, even with a different amino acid sequence, the gene and its protein product do the same work as the un-mutated original.

Look, I don't want to say you are up against a brick wall, but...

...what about the fact that a mutation doesn't come with an instruction manual?

I mean a mutation could be anything, how do you know which of the dozens of ways of interpreting it, is the correct way?

The only wall here is that you do not understand exactly what a mutation is, the variety of effects or non-effects mutations can have, how to trace genes through the reproductive process, especially in meiotic division, and how to trace them over generations into the formation of new species.

Mutations don't need instruction manuals. No more than you needed, as an infant, an instruction manual on how to use your fingers to grasp something. No one has to instruct a child to put its muscles to use. It simply uses its muscles to do whatever it can.

Remember that a mutation is nothing other than a rearrangement of base nucleotides in a DNA molecule. This may or may not change the chemical outcome when other molecules interact with the changed sequence. But no instruction is needed if the chemistry is changed. Chemical reactions occur spontaneously based on the properties of the molecules and whether or not the appropriate enzyme to facilitate the reaction is present. So the mutated DNA molecule will act if it can and won't act if it can't. And the effect on the larger components of life--the cell, the organism, will be what they will be--correct or not.

 

[Gottservant]

No, now you are over the line.

I'm sorry, unless you interpret how to use a mutation it will be useless.

Everything that happens from a single point of view has to be interpreted.

That's how caretaker genes know the difference, if a cell doesn't respond to interpretation it is killed off.

You're making a fine effort pointing to different avenues of knowledge that I could pursue if I so wished, what you are not doing is engaging with me at the level of principle on the basis of a rationale, which either justifies Evolution in principle or does not. At no point have I said that this is impossible, but there are certain beliefs you have which are clearly in violation. This stems from your permissive standpoint that there are no controls for how things reproduce, it will not gain tenure, nor will it ever be thought to have gained tenure.

 

[gluadys]

No, now you are over the line.

I'm sorry, unless you interpret how to use a mutation it will be useless.

Let's remember what a mutation is: a rearrangement or alteration in the sequence of base nucleotides that form the connection of the two strands of the double-helix of the DNA molecule.

A mutation is not an alteration in morphological characters. Those may be the end result of a mutation, but they are not what a mutation is.

A mutation is not an adaptation, whether in form, function or behaviour. Those may be the end result of a mutation, but they are not what a mutation is.

A mutation is not an alteration in a protein. Again, that may be a result of a mutation, but it is not what a mutation is.

A mutation is some change in the sequence of base nucleotides in the DNA molecule.

And yes, a good many mutations are useless.

There are three reasons a mutation may be useless.
First, the place where the sequence change occurs may be in a part of the genome that has no (or no known) function. So they have no impact on how the genome is expressed in the organism.
Second, with point mutations (where one base nucleotide changes to another such as C->G or T->A) the change may be redundant. You see living organisms use only 20 amino acids to make all the proteins they need for any purpose. But the DNA (or RNA) coding system allows for 64 codons. So many amino acids are produced by 2, 4 or even 6 different codons. If the mutation is such as to produce the same amino acid as the former sequence, this is called a "synonymous mutation" for there is no change to the amino acid sequence or the protein product. Hence, the mutation is useless--except to taxonomists who use such no-effect mutations to track inheritance.
Finally, even if a mutation leads to producing a different amino acid, some amino acids are so similar chemically that it makes no difference to the functioning of the protein which is used. In such cases the protein may treat the two similar amino acids in much the same way a cook treats two similar herbs, substituting oregano for marjoram or thyme for rosemary. The soup may have a slightly different flavour, but it will still be tasty and nutritious.


Naturally, such useless mutations play no role in evolutionary change. They just sit there in the genome, getting copied and inherited until genetic drift takes them out of the gene pool.


I take it you want to focus on the minority of mutations which do play a role in evolution. You are correct in saying these cannot be useless.

Just don't forget that all the other mutations are still there, in the genome, too.

Everything that happens from a single point of view has to be interpreted.

That's how caretaker genes know the difference, if a cell doesn't respond to interpretation it is killed off.

Nope. Caretaker genes make sure a mutation is corrected before it ever gets into a cell.

Mutations that do get into a cell have already bypassed the caretaker genes and, if necessary, need to be weeded out by some other mechanism. (not the immune system though. The immune system acts against foreign invaders like bacteria and viruses. Not against one's own genes--mutated or not.)

You're making a fine effort pointing to different avenues of knowledge that I could pursue if I so wished, what you are not doing is engaging with me at the level of principle on the basis of a rationale, which either justifies Evolution in principle or does not.

This is what I was getting at earlier when I spoke of the psycho-physico unity of everything. Any principle which does not justify evolution must be a false principle, for the same reason that any principle which does not justify gravity must be a false principle.

Principles cannot declare that what happened, what is happening, what can be observed to be happening does not happen. Any so-called principle which denies the empirical facts is not a valid principle. It is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Now if you wish to look at the principles that do justify evolution, that's fine, but one cannot proceed on the basis that a rationale may either justify evolution in principle or not. Since evolution is a reality, some principle must justify it, and the point is to find that principle. If you are finding the principles you set out don't do so--then those principles are false because they fail to justify reality.

At no point have I said that this is impossible, but there are certain beliefs you have which are clearly in violation.

In violation of what?