Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then you've gone from the scientific definition to your own...
Yup. That's the nature of this discussion.
So you don't think that escaping from certain death so that you can live to reproduce is beneficial? If that is not beneficial what the heck is?Well, I say it does. Because delaying the doomed from certain death is not a good enough argument for a "beneficial mutation."
Inheritance variation? How do you think "inheritance variation" arises if not through mutations? Where do you think genetic diversity comes from?Yup. That's the nature of this discussion.
But don't lie about a "scientific definition" unless your going to produce one that is in conflict with the one I proposed.
Mutations are destroyed by gene repair processes. Inheritance variation has no enemies.
Sure it is. That's all that's required for natural selection to work its magic: 'delaying the doomed from certain death' is exactly how a mutation would become the norm. By ensuring the survival of the host, the host has a greater chance of reproducing. Thus, the mutation has a greater chance of being spread into the next generation.Well, I say it does. Because delaying the doomed from certain death is not a good enough argument for a "beneficial mutation."
Don't be silly. We couldn't give two hoots about what you define as a beneficial mutation. If you reject evolution because you define it in an absurd way, that's your business. Don't come here and complain that evolution makes no sense, when you define your terms to be nonsensical.Yup. That's the nature of this discussion.
I just did. A beneficial mutation, according to actual scientists, is one which improves the host's chances of survival and reproduction. According to you, a beneficial mutation must already be in over 50% of the population.But don't lie about a "scientific definition" unless your going to produce one that is in conflict with the one I proposed.
Source?Mutations are destroyed by gene repair processes.
Source?Inheritance variation has no enemies.
Well, I say it does. Because delaying the doomed from certain death is not a good enough argument for a "beneficial mutation."
...
I think this statement tells us all we need to know about your knowledge of genetics...
You demonstrated a complete lack of understanding as to why we call those types of mutations 'beneficial', instead preferring your own, arbitrarily restrictive definition. Credentials or not, that you come up with such nonsense demonstrates your lack of understanding on the topic at hand.Such a lazy cop-out. I always get a kick out of these phony "Us" and "We" comments.
But your prerequisites as to my credentials were missing on this topic. You should have been more clear.
This is the statement in question originally posted by SkyWritingSuch a lazy cop-out. I always get a kick out of these phony "Us" and "We" comments.
But your prerequisites as to my credentials were missing on this topic. You should have been more clear.
Natural variation in DNA is due to mutation as anyone who has studied the subject knows. I suppose I could have said this statement shows that you know virtually nothing about DNA and genetic variation or that the statement makes it obvious that you completely misunderstand a subject you are trying to discuss. It is astonishing to me that someone who proports to discuss genetics and evolution could make such a statement. It is such a rudimentary error that it shows those of us who know even the fundamentals of genetics that you don't.Natural Variation in DNA is not due to mutation.
You demonstrated a complete lack of understanding as to why we call those types of mutations 'beneficial', instead preferring your own, arbitrarily restrictive definition. Credentials or not, that you come up with such nonsense demonstrates your lack of understanding on the topic at hand.
Not at all. I am simply limiting the discussion to "clearly beneficial" or "Highly Beneficial" or "Obviously Beneficial" or even "Beneficial" mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
As there is no such thing.
First, since you have claimed that natural variation in DNA is not due to mutations, tell us what it is due to. In your myth the human race started with at most 4 alleles of each gene a few thousand years ago (maybe only 2, was Eve a sort of clone of Adam since she was made from his rib?) Now there are literally thousands of polymorphisms in the human genome. One example from one of my fields of research is a polymorphism (Ala111Thr) in the SLC24A5 gene that encodes the NCKX5 protein that is a sodium calcium exchange pump on pigment granules called melanosomes that are responsible for human skin, hair and eye color. This mutation is nearly fixed in European populations and is part of what leads to lighter skin color. There are dozens of known polymorphisms in the MC1R receptor that controls the type of melanin produced by cells. Since there are more non synomous than synonomous mutations in the MC1R gene is clear that some of these mutations have been under positive selection pressure.Not at all. I am simply limiting the discussion to "clearly beneficial" or "Highly Beneficial" or "Obviously Beneficial" or even "Beneficial" mutations.
Perhaps a list that would be a counter to this one.
Or this one: genetic disorders
As there is no such thing, you are both getting mad and attempting to discredit the idea before it reaches the discussion phase. This is because while there are mutations that kill, mame, disable, allow disease, are disease, and generally screw up an organism royally until the day it dies, there are no such positive counterparts.
The bulk of the evidence weighs heavily that there are no beneficial mutations except for ones effect diseased organisms and prolong their misery.
So I understand why you're trying to avoid the discussion. It's normal & expected.
Natural variation in DNA is due to mutation as anyone who has studied the subject knows <snip>... It is such a rudimentary error that it shows those of us who know even the fundamentals of genetics that you don't.
Added in edit: Unless you have studied the subject and do know that natural variation in DNA is due to mutation and are using deliberate distortion to try to make your argument. I thought ignorance was a more charitable interpretation than duplicity.
No, you're not. You're trying to ignore examples of actual beneficial mutations, and you're doing a bad job of it. As several people have pointed out, "beneficial mutation" already has a definition (it's a mutation that makes more likely that the carrier will survive and reproduce), and under that definition, beneficial mutations are easy to find.Not at all. I am simply limiting the discussion to "clearly beneficial" or "Highly Beneficial" or "Obviously Beneficial" or even "Beneficial" mutations.
The only problem with your claims is that they are wrong. The mutation for lactase persistence in humans, for example (which is what makes Europeans lactose tolerant as adults) is clearly beneficial, was clearly a new mutation, spread to more than 50% of the population it occurred in, and has nothing to do with prolonging the life of diseased organisms. All it does is permit adults to digest milk, which became a very good thing in cultures that raised cattle.As there is no such thing, you are both getting mad and attempting to discredit the idea before it reaches the discussion phase. This is because while there are mutations that kill, mame, disable, allow disease, are disease, and generally screw up an organism royally until the day it dies, there are no such positive counterparts.
The bulk of the evidence weighs heavily that there are no beneficial mutations except for ones effect diseased organisms and prolong their misery.
There's nothing to discuss. Your facts are wrong. Until you start looking at the real world, and not some fictional world that someone made up, you're never going to be able to start a discussion about science.So I understand why you're trying to avoid the discussion. It's normal & expected.
Yes. DNA can never be proven. Evolutionists are obsessed with it because they always say ''chimps share 97% DNA with modern man'' etc. That's great, however you would then need to prove DNA is real...
I must apologize and withdraw my challenge.
Polymorphisms (genetic variation) associated with disease are termed mutations.
Natural DNA variation is termed a "genetic polymorphism."
There is no language for "positive genetic mutations" likely because no clear examples exist.
There can be no "Positive Mutations" by definition.
So to ask for such is not a fair request.
I could change the challenge to ask for "Positive DNA Variants" but since variation is a positive aspect itself, that would serve no purpose.
That's quite true. Just having a lot of DNA in common by itself is pretty weak evidence for common ancestry. What does provide strong evidence, however, are the patterns of similarities and differences. Things like broken, non-functional (but still recognizable) genes, that are broken in exactly the same places in humans and in our closest relatives, but not in any other species. Things like shared retroviral remnants in the genome, which are caused by viruses that copy themselves into our genomes; the same copies appear in exactly the same places in humans and our close relatives, but not in more distantly related species. In fact, by looking at older and older insertions, you can construct a clear family tree of species, showing which is most closely related to which.The existence of DNA is rarely in dispute. There is a large problem however, of people assuming that because the chemical combinations that result in the growth of a chimp are similar to those that result in a human, that the two must have both been the same species at one time.
The common aspects of the two do not require a joined biology. 75% of our DNA matches with worms for example.
Completely wrong. Here is a thread I started a while back clearly demonstrating a beneficial mutation leading to glyphosate resistance in goosegrass. It is now in the thread archive. http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/Not at all. I am simply limiting the discussion to "clearly beneficial" or "Highly Beneficial" or "Obviously Beneficial" or even "Beneficial" mutations.
Perhaps a list that would be a counter to this one.
Or this one: genetic disorders
As there is no such thing, you are both getting mad and attempting to discredit the idea before it reaches the discussion phase. This is because while there are mutations that kill, mame, disable, allow disease, are disease, and generally screw up an organism royally until the day it dies, there are no such positive counterparts.
The bulk of the evidence weighs heavily that there are no beneficial mutations except for ones effect diseased organisms and prolong their misery.
So I understand why you're trying to avoid the discussion. It's normal & expected.
There can be no "Positive Mutations" by definition.
Indeed, and it's not your place. You don't get to come here and decide what we believe. We made the claim, we define the terms. If you want to criticise our claim, then criticise our claim. Don't make up your own claim with your own terms and attribute it to us; that's called a strawman.Not at all. I am simply limiting the discussion to "clearly beneficial" or "Highly Beneficial" or "Obviously Beneficial" or even "Beneficial" mutations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?