For Mark Kennedy - define mutation

[SLP]

Perhaps you should specify what kind of a mutation you are refering to like, germinal, somatic, point, missense, nonsense, frameshift...or do you have another one in mind?

All of what you refer to can be or are the result of the basic definition.

I am asking this yet again because in the past in discussions with you you were operating under a fairly irrelevant definition of mutation and refused to acknowledge this.

For example, in the thread "Evidence to change a skeptics mind", I asked this and you responded:

"You may want to try Darwin's 'Origin of Species', he discusses the role of monstrosities in natural selection at great length. "


That is, you felt that 'mutations' were synonymous with 'monstrosities.'
Several exchanges made this very clear.

One cannot, logically, discuss with any authority the topic of evolution while insisting that a genetic mutation and the 'monstrosities' discussed by Darwin are one and the same.

 

[SLP]

Germinal is before the DNA replication period preceding meiosis and the somatic is before the period just prior to mitosis. In germinal the change appears in the gamete and in the somatic the change is perpetuated in the daughter cells rather then the gametes...why?

Ummm...

Not exactly.

A 'germinal' (i.e. germline) mutation occurs during meiosis. It is a change that would be present in a germ cell, i.e., sperm or egg.

A somatic mutation is one that occurs in an extant organism's cells (i.e., not a germline mutation).

Another way to look at it, a germline mutation will be present in all the cells of an organism that is the product of the germ cell possessing it; a somatic mutation will only be present in the cell line that is the product of mitotic division of the cell that experienced the mutation.

 

[SLP]

See also: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=2054473#post2054473Your tune has changed since then. I wonder when and why?

 

[SLP]

bump

 

[mark kennedy]

All of what you refer to can be or are the result of the basic definition.

I am asking this yet again because in the past in discussions with you you were operating under a fairly irrelevant definition of mutation and refused to acknowledge this.

For example, in the thread "Evidence to change a skeptics mind", I asked this and you responded:

"You may want to try Darwin's 'Origin of Species', he discusses the role of monstrosities in natural selection at great length. "


That is, you felt that 'mutations' were synonymous with 'monstrosities.'
Several exchanges made this very clear.

One cannot, logically, discuss with any authority the topic of evolution while insisting that a genetic mutation and the 'monstrosities' discussed by Darwin are one and the same.

Mendel never came up in those discussions and as a matter of fact Darwin know nothing of genetics.What does Darwinian metaphysics have to do with modern genetics?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ummm...

Not exactly.

A 'germinal' (i.e. germline) mutation occurs during meiosis. It is a change that would be present in a germ cell, i.e., sperm or egg.

No, germinal mutation occurs during the DNA repliction period preceding meiosis. The change appears in the resulting gamete and all the cells that descend from it following fertilization. You never aswered my question by the way and your obviously confused about what a germinal mutation is.

A somatic mutation is one that occurs in an extant organism's cells (i.e., not a germline mutation).

A somatic mutation occures during DNA replication and the genetic change is perpetuated in the daughter cells. It doesn't occur in the cells it is perpetuated and affects a subset of a multcellular organism's cells.

Another way to look at it, a germline mutation will be present in all the cells of an organism that is the product of the germ cell possessing it; a somatic mutation will only be present in the cell line that is the product of mitotic division of the cell that experienced the mutation.

The change appears in the resulting gamete so...ok...all the cells are affected, so what?

You do know that these mutations tend to result in things like sickle cell right?You do realize that there are some natural protections against mutation right? I ask again, what is the point of this thread?

 

[JohnR7]

I am quite capable of using Google. Apparently, you are clueless as to why I asked.

My guess is that it has something to do with the formal debate that mark is involved in.

 

[mark kennedy]

My guess is that it has something to do with the formal debate that mark is involved in.

My guess is that he is getting confused somehow but only he knows what the purpose of this thread is, and he won't say.

 

[SLP]

Mendel never came up in those discussions and as a matter of fact Darwin know nothing of genetics.What does Darwinian metaphysics have to do with modern genetics?

It is truly bizarre that you would write that, for it was YOU that brought up Darwin when I originally asked you what a mutation was!

This weird Orwellian tactic you have adopted is entertaining, to say the least...

 

[SLP]

No, germinal mutation occurs during the DNA repliction period preceding meiosis.

Well, here is what YOU wrote:

"Germinal is before the DNA replication period preceding meiosis and the somatic is before the period just prior to mitosis."

The mutation would occur, as has already been made clear, DURING replication.
This odd tendency you have to engage in historical revisionism is disturbing, especially when we consider that a mere handful of posts separate your origiinal claim and your attempt at revision.

The change appears in the resulting gamete and all the cells that descend from it following fertilization. You never aswered my question by the way and your obviously confused about what a germinal mutation is.

Actually, I am not, and I have already answered your question with links and quotes. You originally equated DNA mutations with phenotypic abnormalities - 'monstrosities' you called them.

A somatic mutation is one that occurs in an extant organism's cells (i.e., not a germline mutation).

A somatic mutation occures during DNA replication and the genetic change is perpetuated in the daughter cells. It doesn't occur in the cells it is perpetuated and affects a subset of a multcellular organism's cells.

Oh brother.... Well, let's not forget the penchant for the creationist to engage in semantical gymnastics...

Another way to look at it, a germline mutation will be present in all the cells of an organism that is the product of the germ cell possessing it; a somatic mutation will only be present in the cell line that is the product of mitotic division of the cell that experienced the mutation.

The change appears in the resulting gamete so...ok...all the cells are affected, so what?

Yeah, so what?

You do know that these mutations tend to result in things like sickle cell right?You do realize that there are some natural protections against mutation right? I ask again, what is the point of this thread?

Yes, Mark, I do know those things. I also know that most do nothing. The point of this thread is obvious - you made multiple posts, riddled with pontifications about mutation, and you clearly did not know what a mutation was (your 'monstrosity' gaffe), yet belittled those (such as me) that attempted repeatedly to set you striaght.

It now appears that you finally got smart and actually found out what a mutation is.

Now, months later, you actually have the nerve to try to lecture those of us that told you repeatedly months ago what a mutation actually is.

Incredible - I think your pride and arrogance quotient is pretty much used up, eh?

My purpose - pontifications from creationists pretending to be in possession of superior knowledge should be taken with a grain of salt.
See this post, for one.

 

[SLP]

Mendel never came up in those discussions and as a matter of fact Darwin know nothing of genetics.What does Darwinian metaphysics have to do with modern genetics?

That is, ironically, what I could be asking you, considering your past antics.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is, ironically, what I could be asking you, considering your past antics.

I did make a point that Darwin's mythic monstrocity by his own admission was unlikely to produce a viable ancestor. Now as far as mutations in the genetic sense there is little reason to think that they can account for macroevolution. I really have no idea what your purpose is in starting this thread and I don't think you do either.

 

[gluadys]

Mendel never came up in those discussions and as a matter of fact Darwin know nothing of genetics.What does Darwinian metaphysics have to do with modern genetics?

Everything. Darwinian mechanisms (not metaphysics) explain how genetic patterns in populations change, with consesquent changes in species characteristics. Mendelian genetics doesn't touch this. Modern genetics would not exist without both Mendel and Darwin. Just as the modern evolutionary synthesis would not exist without both Mendel and Darwin.

 

[yossarian]

Now as far as mutations in the genetic sense there is little reason to think that they can account for macroevolution.

theres every reason to believe it

take any two sequences you like, from species as distantly related as you like - and i'll show you all the mutations required to transform one into the other

 

[mark kennedy]

theres every reason to believe it

take any two sequences you like, from species as distantly related as you like - and i'll show you all the mutations required to transform one into the other
[/size][/color][/font]

Ok, dinosaures to birds, and apes to men, this should be fun.

 

[yossarian]

when you can find a dinosaur sequence, and pick some sequence from a bird i'll do it

you have to actually provide me with the sequence

sequences are available at genbank www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

considering that mutations can make a sequence longer or shorter, and that mutations can change any nucleotide into any other, its really just a matter of explicitly showing what should be obvious to anyone familiar with mutations

 

[Tomk80]

Ok, dinosaures to birds, and apes to men, this should be fun.

This, in one single sentence, shows your complete lack of understanding.

 

[USincognito]

Ok, dinosaures to birds, and apes to men, this should be fun.

Apes to men is too easy for simply "describing" the mutations.

Bipedalism or Enlarged Brain (either could come first)
Increase of sexual dimorphism from common ancestor of Chimp and human to human
Loss of body hair

Four general mutational steps to change an ape to a man... or did you mean the specific changes in DNA?

 

[SLP]

This, in one single sentence, shows your complete lack of understanding.

Considering that he used to think - and insist - that "mutation" meant the same thing as "monstrositiy" as I have documented, nothing in Mark's dearth of knowledge surprises me anymore.

 

[SLP]

I did make a point that Darwin's mythic monstrocity by his own admission was unlikely to produce a viable ancestor. Now as far as mutations in the genetic sense there is little reason to think that they can account for macroevolution.

Why is that? Because you desire it to be so? Do I really have to re-post the evidence?

I really have no idea what your purpose is in starting this thread and I don't think you do either.

Sure I do.

You are one of the more active propaganda spewing arrogant anti-evolutionists on this board.

You do not understand basic science, yet feel justified in making pronouncements in it.

I think pointing out your dearth of understanding is very relevant to those that themselves may not know any better but are on the verge of being swayed by your nonsensical rhetoric.

That is, I enjoy pointing out that the Emperor is nude.