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.
Literally, maybe, but we're not really talking about the semantic opposite here. We're discussing a mutation and then a second mutation that exactly counters the first mutation.The opposite of harmful is nonharmful, not beneficial.
heheeh
Sure, the net gain is zero, but that's not the point. Some people claim that you can only lose information through a mutation. They are incorrectly using computer-based information theory (where any change is a loss of information) and applying it to mutations and saying that there can never be an increase in information.I see no net gain here. If you start at 1, go back to 0, then back to 1....you haven't gained anything. Granted I am no expert, but this seems obvious to me even though I was educated in the government school system.
You should try sending your thought experiment to AiG and see what they have to say.
(Long time lurker)
This whole thread is based on a fallacious assumption. AiG addresses this exact point in their "Arguments we think creationists should not use". To quote them:
There are no beneficial mutations.
This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage. For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Q&A: Mutations
(Long time lurker)
This whole thread is based on a fallacious assumption. AiG addresses this exact point in their "Arguments we think creationists should not use". To quote them:
There are no beneficial mutations.
This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage. For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Q&A: Mutations
(Long time lurker)
This whole thread is based on a fallacious assumption. AiG addresses this exact point in their "Arguments we think creationists should not use". To quote them:
“There are no beneficial mutations.”
This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.” For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Q&A: Mutations
Can I get some clarification?
I see some speculation in the OP. "Let's pretend the gene is mutated negatively...then pretend it is mutated positively"
Is there any evidence that this has happened. It is very easy to speculate, but science is not about speculation, science is about evidence. Obviously, if your speculated "thought experiment" does not work and is not testable, it is obvious that either your thought process or your conclusion are incorrect.
Additionally, when you say the gene "is mutated" are you referring to natural mutation or human forced mutation?
If your point is simply that mutations can reverse damage, and thereby you conclude that this would be considered a "beneficial mutation" I would concur, with stipulations.
I do agree that mutations can reverse damage and that is beneficial to them, I disagree however that this is proof for evolution.
For example, if I have a healthy body, say a 5 and I am injured, taking me back to 2, my body can repair itself, bringing it back to 5, but cannot make itself a 6 or a 10.
True, but what I am talking about, and what I assume Kerrmetric is talking about, is untampered mutations.Actually, there is no particular reason you could not bring it up to a 6 or a 10. If the consequence of your injury was to focus your attention more on caring for your body, you might end up being even more healthy than you were before the injury because you are now eating a more healthy diet, exercising more, spending more time on stress management, etc.
True, but what I am talking about, and what I assume Kerrmetric is talking about, is untampered mutations.
I, using my outside force, could cause my body to improve, based on changes that I make. But my body could not become a 10 without my purposeful intervention.
Likewise, with a mutation, it could not change from a 1 to a 0 and then to a 5 without outside intervention. But outside force is a provision made in most scientific laws.
True, but what I am talking about, and what I assume Kerrmetric is talking about, is untampered mutations.
I, using my outside force, could cause my body to improve, based on changes that I make. But my body could not become a 10 without my purposeful intervention.
Likewise, with a mutation, it could not change from a 1 to a 0 and then to a 5 without outside intervention. But outside force is a provision made in most scientific laws.
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?