Evolutionary debate

[SkyWriting]

Sickle-cell anaemia. A mutation that helps fight malaria. It is more likely to occur in those of sub-Saharan descent (i.e., places where malaria is strong).
Lactose tolerance. Most humans are lactose intolerant, because we don't drink milk beyond infancy. But, some cultures do drink milk beyond infancy, because it's a good source of calcium, etc. In those places, mutations which cause lactose tolerance are beneficial, so lactose tolerance has become the norm. For example, lactose tolerance is in 95% of northern Europeans, but only ~29% of southern Europeans, only ~10% of Africans and Asians, and 0% of Native Americans.
There is a mutation that modifies a protein known as CCR5 and confers a resistance to HIV, since HIV can use CCR5 to attack cells.

I'll have to define a "beneficial mutation" as one that is beneficial to a majority of the population, or benefits the "average" member.

Rather than one that keeps diseased people alive a bit longer.

And Inherent variation of DNA in the population should not be construed as a mutation for this discussion.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And so the point is what? that man came before whales, contrary to what the Bible says?

The point is that mutations can be benifical to organisms. Whales have certainly been around longer than modern humans so I am not sure what you are getting at with this total non sequitur.

 

[Hespera]

I'll have to define a "beneficial mutation" as one that is beneficial to a majority of the population, or benefits the "average" member.

Rather than one that keeps diseased people alive a bit longer.

And Inherent variation of DNA in the population should not be construed as a mutation for this discussion.

"I have to define a....."

Yes, we see a lot of this. Its essential to all creationist arguments.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'll have to define a "beneficial mutation" as one that is beneficial to a majority of the population, or benefits the "average" member.

It doesn't have to be beneficial to the majority of the population. It has to give a survival benefit to some members of the population to either allow them to survive when others can't or to exploit new ecological niches not available to other members of the population.

Rather than one that keeps diseased people alive a bit longer.

If it keeps people alive longer than others and allows them to reproduce more than others it will be passed on preferentially

And Inherent variation of DNA in the population should not be construed as a mutation for this discussion.

What? Where do you think inherent variations came from?

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you know why your doctor tells you to finish your antibiotic even though you think you may be over your disease?

An attempt to artificially select some members from a varied population.

Do you know how hericide resistent crop strains were developed prior to genetic engineering techiniques?

An attempt to artificially select some members from a varied population.

Do you know why some people are more sensitive to drugs and toxins than others?

An attempt to help/kill some members from a varied population.

Natural Variation in DNA is not due to mutation.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

An attempt to artificially select some members from a varied population.

An attempt to artificially select some members from a varied population.

The population was not necessarily varied at the start of the treatment. The longer the population survives the higher the chance that a beneficial mutation will show up, but if it was varied where do you think those variations came from?

Posted by F.B. Do you know how hericide resistent crop strains were developed prior to genetic engineering techiniques?

An attempt to help/kill some members from a varied population.

No seeds were treated with mutagens such as radiation and then grown in the presence of the herbicide to see which ones had developed mutations that allowed them to survive.

Natural Variation in DNA is not due to mutation.

I think this statement tells us all we need to know about your knowledge of genetics.
Added in Edit

Natural Variation in DNA is not due to mutation.

Does anyone else here think this should be submitted to Fundies Say the Darndest Things?
http://www.fstdt.com/

 

[Hespera]

now for the whole sentence...

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

I'll have to define a "beneficial mutation" as one that is beneficial to a majority of the population, or benefits the "average" member. QUOTE

We note that by this "definition" a mutation becomes beneficial only when it has spread to a majority of the population. So! no benefit up thru 10 20 30%; nor still at 40, 49, 49.99999, or even 50!

Benefit kicks in at 50 plus percent. No sooner, no later. I wonder who keeps score, and knows when it becomes a benefit? And what about the average number...? Whichever comes first, 50 plus percent, or the average?


Whichever it is nobody but nobody is allowed to benefit till the majority catches up. Dont get caught trying to benefit.
If you did, that could result in selective pressure and...(gasp, shudder) natural selection might kick in leading to that most dreaded of outcomes.... evolution. Good think we have this majority police to prevent benefits.

But wait! There is more news. "natural variation in DNA is not due to mutation"

Mutations can only lead to unnatural variations. And thats intolerable. Hence the Unnatural Variation / Mutation Control Majority- Police.






​

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'll have to define a "beneficial mutation" as one that is beneficial to a majority of the population, or benefits the "average" member.

Then you've gone from the scientific definition to your own, goalpost-shifting definition. Define your words as you want, but I'm going to stick to the scientific vernacular. If you want to say "I bet no one can name a single beneficial mutation", don't you think it's a tad dishonest to turn around and come up with your own definition?

But fine, let's go with your arbitrarily restrictive definition. If we define a 'beneficial mutation' as one which benefits the majority of the population, then the mutation must have an incidence of more than 50%, after which it's questionable to call it a 'mutation'. Anyway, lactose tolerance is an allele that confers a benefit to those with it (thus, it is a beneficial in the scientific sense) and it crops up in over 50% of the population (thus, it is beneficial in your sense).

Rather than one that keeps diseased people alive a bit longer.

You don't consider that to be a benefit? The prolonged survival of the population? You don't think that a mutation that ensures its host survives in a particular environment won't cause said host to survive in said environment, thus improving said host's odds of proliferating said mutation into the future generation?

And Inherent variation of DNA in the population should not be construed as a mutation for this discussion.

First, define 'inherent variation'; how does 'inherent' variation differ from... well, what? What else is there?
Second, why are you trying to shift the goalpost? Why shouldn't we consider 'inherent variation' of DNA as a mutation? Any modification of the DNA of an organism is a mutation that natural selection can act upon. Why are you trying to excise topics of discussion that are very much germane?

 

[Nathan Poe]

And so the point is what? that man came before whales, contrary to what the Bible says?

Except that the Bible says man did come before whales. (Genesis 2)

Right after it says that man came after whales (Genesis 1).

I wouldn't be putting a whole lot of stock in the Bible's timeline(s) on this one, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that the Bible says man did come before whales. (Genesis 2)

Show me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Show me.

Gen 2:19.

And before you attempt to weasel the words by saying that sea creatures aren't explicitly mentioned, ask yourself, If God didn't make them, and Adam didn't name them, then who did?

 

[AV1611VET]

Gen 2:19.

And before you attempt to weasel the words by saying that sea creatures aren't explicitly mentioned, ask yourself, If God didn't make them, and Adam didn't name them, then who did?

Can't admit you're wrong, can you?

That's okay, though -- someone was just recently saying that was one of our trademarks.

The mirror hurts, doesn't it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Can't admit you're wrong, can you?

That's okay, though -- someone was just recently saying that was one of our trademarks.

The mirror hurts, doesn't it?

I'll admit I'm wrong as soon as I'm proven wrong.

Genesis 1 -- animals first, then man

Genesis 2 -- man first, then animals.

Got anything to refute the timeline(s)?

 

[AV1611VET]

Got anything to refute the timeline(s)?

Your Arab Phone.

Your 'whales' has suddenly become 'animals'.

 

[USincognito]

I'll have to define a "beneficial mutation" as one that is beneficial to a majority of the population, or benefits the "average" member.

Rather than one that keeps diseased people alive a bit longer.

And Inherent variation of DNA in the population should not be construed as a mutation for this discussion.

"I have to define a....."

Yes, we see a lot of this. Its essential to all creationist arguments.

Equivocation, goalpost moving, incredulity. Yep.

SW, a mutation that benefits an individual will get fixed in the population as that individual leaves more descendants generation after generation. That's how we use genetic markers to determine Last Common Ancestors.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Your Arab Phone.

You're 'whales' has suddenly become 'animals'.

"Suddenly"? You're saying that whales aren't animals? Seriously, AV -- is that the schtick you're going with?

 

[plindboe]

Good luck trying to get a response, he seems to ignore posts...

Indeed, it seems the more effort one puts into a post, the less likely one is to get a response.

Peter

 

[Hespera]

"Suddenly"? You're saying that whales aren't animals? Seriously, AV -- is that the schtick you're going with?

I've been using the ig but then these things show up in others' posts:

You're 'whales' has suddenly become 'animals'.

Let's see what we have"

1. Correct usage would be"your" not "you're" which means "you are".

2. "Has" should be "have"

3. Nothing sudden has happened. Whales have been animals all along. They are not plants, nor fungus.

4. The use of quotation marks is incorrect.

It is interesting sometimes to see how much ignorance and strange thinking a person can work into one short sentence, and without making the slightest effort.

i've gotten the story of dinosaurs leaving footprints in the coal bins of the angels, and how the water from the "flood" went to Neptune where it shines as a waring beacon for rogue angels. I will also send this sentence back to friends in China for their collection of reasons to try to prevent the spread of fundamentalism.

We have not established the relationship between cause and effect regarding this kind of utterly out to lunch mindset and fundamentalism.
Are people like this attracted to fundiedom which then exacerbates the condition, or does it do something to what could have been a normally functioning mind?

Whichever it is, the condition is a terrible misfortune that should have no place in a modern society.

 

[dad]

Ok, I belive in evolution and ive heard that many christians don't ive yet to hear any arguments. im not saying ive heard some and their invalid, no ive actually never been told why, so lemme hear some please and ill debate or agree as accodrdingly

Evolving from the pond is a load.

 

[SkyWriting]

It doesn't have to be beneficial to the majority of the population...

Well, I say it does. Because delaying the doomed from certain death is not a good enough argument for a "beneficial mutation."