Design and the Brain

[UncleHermit]

You seem to be fearful of the implications of my question. But my definition doesn't veer from everyone else's. Where do you think you got your definition? How do you know it is not your definitions which are different? I have no desire to play around with word definitions, clearly your trying to avoid my questions by appealing to semantics.

Clearly the beneficial mutations you need to promote your molecules-to-man nonsense are much more creative than simple point mutations and frame-shifts, why would you think these simple mutations were the only ones beneficial?

And what could possibly make you think that these were all that were necessary? layman or not, its a gross oversimplification.

A beneficial mutation = a mutation that increases the fitness of an organism. Do you agree, or not?

 

[MrBoo]

A beneficial mutation = a mutation that increases the fitness of an organism. Do you agree, or not?

Apparently Im going to have to hold your hand. Yes I agree. Now please, by all means, make your point, if you ever actually had a point.

 

[UncleHermit]

Apparently Im going to have to hold your hand. Yes I agree. Now please, by all means, make your point, if you ever actually had a point.

I didn't really have a point, except that you seem to be contradicting yourself.

If you agree with my definition, then I can't for the life of me make any sense of this:

When a beneficial mutation arises in the gene pool of a population it arises in an individual, but unless that beneficial mutation is effecting the fitness or a fitness component of that individual, then it will die with that individual, it will not exist in that population's gene pool any longer, it will be shielded, and it will thus be temporary.

Hence my question:

I don't understand. If the mutation doesn't affect the fitness of the individual, how can it be considered a beneficial or even a detrimental mutation?

I'm just confused about what you said, and am seeking clarification. You don't even have to hold my hand, or nothing

 

[MrBoo]

Well thanks for wasting my time Uncle Hermit, but I already made it clear what I considered a beneficial mutation. While I agree with your definition as any mutation which helps an organism survive, I made it abundantly clear that I did not believe that that was all a beneficial mutation was, and that for your lie of macroevolution to be true that you would need much more than simple point mutations and frame shift mutations to cause evolution to occur. To see a higher new taxa emerge, to see large scale evolution to occur, you need a lot of mutations, all of them would be considered beneficial mutations by my definition. Beneficial in the sense that they contributed to evolution of a new species, not just beneficial as in making the creature live longer.

Do you get it now? Can I answer any more questions for you? Do you need any more clarification? Apparently you were wrong in your major point about me contradicting myself weren't you? Now that I have taken the time to prove that to you maybe you can think of a new point to come up with. However may I suggest that instead of trying to prove people wrong that perhaps you come up with some original ideas of you own, or do some research of your own, and therefore get some of your own opinions.

Oh yeah, and feel free to answer any of the questions that I asked you a few posts ago, since I have answered all of your questions don't you think you should extend the same courtesy to me? How about you start by answering this one:

Surely you don't think that such mutations are responsible for the evolution of new species? You actually think that a series of point mutations and frame shift mutations are what caused all the diversity of life on earth?

You seem to be confusing types of mutations with effects of mutations.

Oh Im confused alright, very confused about the effects of mutations which can cause the evolution of a higher taxa of organism. Could you walk me through both the specific mutation types AND the specific mutation effects needed to effectuate the various stages of horse evolution, or even one stage of horse evolution? (BTW anyone can jump in and answer that question for me)

 

[FishFace]

Obviously evo and company are misunderstanding again. Who has time to explain it?
So many errors, so little time.

Tell us, how can a mutation be beneficial if it has no effect?

 

[MrBoo]

Tell us, how can a mutation be beneficial if it has no effect?

It will be very beneficial to your theory if it was one part of a large protein which coded some new functionality wouldn't it? You have to have many such mutations, which are of no effect in themselves in order to build such a protein.

But noone said it had no effect. Only that it didn't effect survivability, perhaps this is where you messed up.

Its beneficial in the sense that it builds up new sequences for evolution, for evolution it is beneficial. It does nothing for the organism in the immediate sense.

Do you get it now?

Now since I answered your question, please answer mine in the previous post. I think that would be fair.

 

[FishFace]

It will be very beneficial to your theory if it was one part of a large protein which coded some new functionality wouldn't it? You have to have many such mutations, which are of no effect in themselves in order to build such a protein.

Ah, I see. You're driving for some directed evolution, irreducible complexity. No - evolution works usually in incremental steps, only very occasionally are there giant leaps - although they do exist, such as in the case of Nylon Bug.

Its beneficial in the sense that it builds up new sequences for evolution, for evolution it is beneficial. It does nothing for the organism in the immediate sense.

Do you get it now?

Yes I get it, but that's not a beneficial mutation. Those, by definition, are mutations which are beneficial in the here-and-now because otherwise they would have no effect. And would not become fixed.
That's just how the words are used.

Now since I answered your question, please answer mine in the previous post. I think that would be fair.

What? About building up so-called "higher" taxa? (Higher is an entirely subjective description)
Well, as I say, usually change occurs through incremental mutation but occasionally sudden changes can occur. They don't happen very often because they're so unlikely, but with that much time, it's bound to happen once in a while.

 

[UncleHermit]

Well thanks for wasting my time Uncle Hermit, but I already made it clear what I considered a beneficial mutation.

I guess it wasn't clear enough to me, hence my question. But thanks for being hostile about it!

While I agree with your definition as any mutation which helps an organism survive, I made it abundantly clear that I did not believe that that was all a beneficial mutation was,

I must have missed that part.

and that for your lie of macroevolution to be true that you would need much more than simple point mutations and frame shift mutations to cause evolution to occur.

Sure, selection is necessary as well.

To see a higher new taxa emerge, to see large scale evolution to occur, you need a lot of mutations, all of them would be considered beneficial mutations by my definition. Beneficial in the sense that they contributed to evolution of a new species, not just beneficial as in making the creature live longer.

Sure, it doesn't have to live longer, just have more opportunities to reproduce.

Do you get it now? Can I answer any more questions for you? Do you need any more clarification? Apparently you were wrong in your major point about me contradicting myself weren't you?

No, you still haven't even addressed that.

Now that I have taken the time to prove that to you maybe you can think of a new point to come up with. However may I suggest that instead of trying to prove people wrong that perhaps you come up with some original ideas of you own, or do some research of your own, and therefore get some of your own opinions.

Wow, who would've thought that asking someone a few questions would involve so much research? And I wasn't even trying to prove you wrong, in the first place.

Oh yeah, and feel free to answer any of the questions that I asked you a few posts ago, since I have answered all of your questions don't you think you should extend the same courtesy to me? How about you start by answering this one:

Those questions were never adressed to me. You must be thinking of someone else?

Oh Im confused alright, very confused about the effects of mutations which can cause the evolution of a higher taxa of organism. Could you walk me through both the specific mutation types AND the specific mutation effects needed to effectuate the various stages of horse evolution, or even one stage of horse evolution? (BTW anyone can jump in and answer that question for me)

Again, that wasn't me. I was really just trying to understand what you were talking about. But I'll try to go back and answer those questions anyway.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

To see a higher new taxa emerge, to see large scale evolution to occur, you need a lot of mutations, all of them would be considered beneficial mutations by my definition. Beneficial in the sense that they contributed to evolution of a new species, not just beneficial as in making the creature live longer.

You are basically using your own private definition of "beneficial mutation" then. And in that case, the majority of mutations would be considered beneficial and they wouldn't be rare at all.

What you really seem to be doing is co-opting neutral evolution and labeling it beneficial. Odd, but whatever.

Oh Im confused alright, very confused about the effects of mutations which can cause the evolution of a higher taxa of organism.

It's the same process we observe today, just on a larger scale. There's nothing mysterious about it.

Could you walk me through both the specific mutation types AND the specific mutation effects needed to effectuate the various stages of horse evolution, or even one stage of horse evolution? (BTW anyone can jump in and answer that question for me)

Of course I can't and no one else can. You would need a team of immortal time-traveling biologists to spend millions of years sequencing horse genomes. It's a silly request and one you know can't be met. I consider that very disingenuous.

At any rate, it's besides the point. Just because we may not know in precise detail how such-and-such evolved, it does not invalididate what we do know of evolution and the evidence that suggests things did evolve.

 

[Split Rock]

So that is your definition of a beneficial mutation? One that increases the fitness of an individual?

It's not mine, its what everyone uses (except you, apparently).

Surely you don't think that such mutations are responsible for the evolution of new species?

They are certainly an important part of the process.

You actually think that a series of point mutations and frame shift mutations are what caused all the diversity of life on earth?

No. Gene duplication, translocations, viral/retroviral insertions, and genetic recombination also played their roles.

 

[MrBoo]

You are basically using your own private definition of "beneficial mutation" then. And in that case, the majority of mutations would be considered beneficial and they wouldn't be rare at all.

So you think that most mutations are involved in evolution? What a bizarre religion you have. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.

What you really seem to be doing is co-opting neutral evolution and labeling it beneficial. Odd, but whatever.

speaking of introducing new terms, what is 'neutral evolution'?

Of course I can't and no one else can. You would need a team of immortal time-traveling biologists to spend millions of years sequencing horse genomes. It's a silly request and one you know can't be met. I consider that very disingenuous.

really? so are chemists disingenious when they predict compounds? If you could even give me an overview it would be nice. What sorts of mutations would you expect in horse evolution? Or maybe you coulod just relate what sorts of changes would be needed to change the bone structure of a foot? That should be easy enough, especially since you believe that evolution is science. I can predict chemical compounds based upon energy levels, shouldn't there be some natural law which allows us to predict which direction evolution proceeds in?

At any rate, it's besides the point. Just because we may not know in precise detail how such-and-such evolved, it does not invalididate what we do know of evolution and the evidence that suggests things did evolve.

knowing precise detail of how something happens is what science is, and why evolution is not science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So you think that most mutations are involved in evolution? What a bizarre religion you have. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.

What? This is a complete non-sequitur to what I was talking about.

speaking of introducing new terms, what is 'neutral evolution'?

It's not a new term at all. You can find stuff about neutral evolution in the literature.

Specifically, it refers to the idea that most evolutionary change is neutral in nature (i.e. not selectively positive or negative). In fact, from what I remember the recent human/chimp genome comparison paper touched on this.

If you could even give me an overview it would be nice. What sorts of mutations would you expect in horse evolution? Or maybe you coulod just relate what sorts of changes would be needed to change the bone structure of a foot?

Couldn't tell ya, since I've never researched it. But considering the gross structural changes that have undergone other biological species in relatively short order (i.e. canines or things like polydactylism), I can't imagine it would be that difficult for horses to evolve either.

Any particular reason you are suddenly so keen on horse evolution?

knowing precise detail of how something happens is what science is, and why evolution is not science.

You keep telling yourself that evolution is not science. Meanwhile, the scientific community disagrees with you. I think I'll defer to them.

 

[MrBoo]

You keep telling yourself that evolution is not science. Meanwhile, the scientific community disagrees with you. I think I'll defer to them.

Sorry. Im a part of the science community that has always rejected evolution, and we exist in larger numbers than you like to admit. Anyway, it doesn't matter who you have to agree with you, we have God agreeing with us. So good luck with that.

It's not a new term at all. You can find stuff about neutral evolution in the literature.

If you are referring to motoo kimura's neutral theory of evolution I find it very ironic that you would contradict your two ardent beliefs in the power of selection and your recent statement(unfounded in truth) that neutral mutation causes evolution since .....

According to Kimura, when one compares the genomes of existing species, the vast majority of molecular differences are selectively "neutral." That is, the molecular changes represented by these differences do not influence the fitness of the individual organism. As a result, the theory regards these genomic features as neither subject to, nor explicable by, natural selection

Which is my point exactly and....
Which also brings this discussion full circle around to my idea about nucleotide shielding terminology which has
existed in science since before most of use here have been born.

That is, the molecular changes represented by these differences do not influence the fitness of the individual organism

Notice that these neutral(beneficial) mutations would be shielded from natural selection. Why? Because natural selection works upon the individual organism's level, instead of the nucleotide level. As I have been saying all along.

 

[RealityCheck]

Sorry. Im a part of the science community that has always rejected evolution, and we exist in larger numbers than you like to admit. Anyway, it doesn't matter who you have to agree with you, we have God agreeing with us. So good luck with that.

It's called the scientific community, and unless you have at least a bachelor's degree in biology or a very closely related field, you have no more ability to say that evolutionary theory is "not science" than a hairdresser has to fix your plumbing.

knowing precise detail of how something happens is what science is, and why evolution is not science.

Not true. Look up quantum dynamics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Sorry. Im a part of the science community that has always rejected evolution, and we exist in larger numbers than you like to admit. Anyway, it doesn't matter who you have to agree with you, we have God agreeing with us. So good luck with that.

You're part of the scientific community and you are claiming that evolution is not science? Wild.

But any rate, I do notice the only scientists (particularly biologists) who disagree with evolutionary theory on the whole are ones who do so for religious reasons. Meanwhile, when I look at both the academia regarding evolutionary theory as well as the application thereof, I see a perfectly successful science that is in no danger from those who disagree with it for personal reasons.

Notice that these neutral(beneficial) mutations would be shielded from natural selection. Why? Because natural selection works upon the individual organism's level, instead of the nucleotide level. As I have been saying all along.

But specific mutations still get acted on by natural selection depending on their ultimate effect on the organism. It's not an all or nothing situation, which is what you appear to be claiming, but then again, I'm not really sure.

All I have said based on my understanding of the literature on evolution:

a) most accumulated genetic diversity is the result of neutral evolution
b) natural selection can and does act on specific mutations based on whatever effect they have on an organism's fitness level relative to its population and its environment

 

[MrBoo]

Not true. Look up quantum dynamics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

I don't need to look up the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,I already know what it is and the math behind it, do you?Were you going to give me a probability distribution chart for evolution of a protein? I would accept even that. if your familiar with the heisenberg uncertainty you should at least give me some probabilities...If you were a scientist you would know how valuable statistics are in realizing models. All I ever asked for was an approximation, you can give me stats I will accept them, since I wasn't even given that I can conclude that you don't have science, you have a religion.

edit: when I look at the orbitals I am pretty impressed with what science can predict, yet even quantum theory was able to admit that we just didn't know, since there is no evolution uncertainty principle it is pretty evident that no honest scientists exist within the macro-evolutionary theorists, another strong characteristic of a scientist is to admit when he doesn't know, since I hardly think you will do that based on your belligerent nature I highly doubt you can predict waht a hairdresser and plumber can do.

Your all snobbish about my word usage but you dont need to capitalize Certainty Principle. You are a grammar hypocrite.

 

[Patashu]

It's called the scientific community, and unless you have at least a bachelor's degree in biology or a very closely related field, you have no more ability to say that evolutionary theory is "not science" than a hairdresser has to fix your plumbing.



Not true. Look up quantum dynamics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Actually, Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle is a precise description of a phenomenon. It says we can't know everything past a certain point but it does this with rigor.

 

[Split Rock]

Sorry. Im a part of the science community that has always rejected evolution, and we exist in larger numbers than you like to admit. Anyway, it doesn't matter who you have to agree with you, we have God agreeing with us. So good luck with that

So, your rejection of evolution is based on your faith, rather than any unknown details about horse evolution. Why don't you tell us precisely how your god created the modern horse and all the intermediates found in the fossil record.

By the way, have you dug up the evidence I asked for that proves population geneticists lied about what a gene pool is? Being a member of the "science community" as you are, I am sure you would never make baseless accusations about the integrity of other scientists.

 

[RealityCheck]

Actually, Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle is a precise description of a phenomenon. It says we can't know everything past a certain point but it does this with rigor.

It itself is a precise description, but says that nothing else can be a precise description.

 

[RealityCheck]

I don't need to look up the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,I already know what it is and the math behind it, do you?Were you going to give me a probability distribution chart for evolution of a protein? I would accept even that. if your familiar with the heisenberg uncertainty you should at least give me some probabilities...If you were a scientist you would know how valuable statistics are in realizing models. All I ever asked for was an approximation, you can give me stats I will accept them, since I wasn't even given that I can conclude that you don't have science, you have a religion.

I was merely pointing out that HUP (which is capitalized, by the way) says that precision is impossible. Practically applied it only has real significance at the 'quantum level' but it does give the general maxim that absolute precision in measurements is not possible. I don't even know what the rest of your post means. I can only conclude that you must not be a scientist.

edit: when I look at the orbitals I am pretty impressed with what science can predict, yet even quantum theory was able to admit that we just didn't know, since there is no evolution uncertainty principle it is pretty evident that no honest scientists exist within the macro-evolutionary theorists, another strong characteristic of a scientist is to admit when he doesn't know, since I hardly think you will do that based on your belligerent nature I highly doubt you can predict waht a hairdresser and plumber can do.

Again, it would really help if you could follow the general rules of sentence structure. You have about 3 or 4 phrases in there that could be made into complete sentences, but you smash it all together into one string of words and commas.

But as for your last point, I can most certainly predict what a hairdresser and a plumber can do. You are a very silly person.