Mutations are always bad - or are they? A simple thought experiment.

[KerrMetric]

A well known Creationist canard - present on just about every Creationist website and oft repeated on message boards is that mutations are always deleterious. Even if this is relaxed they will state that mutations are never beneficial. Here is a simple thought experiment that shows this cannot possibly be the case.



Let's take a genome and apply a point mutation. Just one nucleotide is altered by this mutation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation)

Now let's imagine that this point mutation is indeed harmful - not lethal however. So this mutated genome individual goes ahead and reproduces produing an offspring that carries this mutated somewhat harmful change.

I have admitted that this mutation, as I stated above is a negative. It is harmful. No doubt about it. The new genome is now mutated again in the same manner but this time reversing the mutation and the genome is restored back to the original state. The nucleotide is back to the original one. Now - by definition, if the first change was a negative then this one has to be a positive and beneficial, right? There is no way this cannot hold to be true.

If you want to bring in a measure of information (you know, that concept creationists will dance around all day before they'll ever provide such a measure) then if the first change reduced information then the second change had to increase information.

You do not need a real world example to even show the validity of this argument. Whatever a mutation does (be it negative or positive, decrease or increase information) then the REVERSE can happen by the same process.

This creationist canard is just obviously false.

 

[KerrMetric]

Wow - no stunning rebuttals. What a shock!

 

[MrSnow]

What you posted did not counter creationism. Rather, it countered non-evolution. The two are not mutually inclusive.

 

[KerrMetric]

What you posted did not counter creationism. Rather, it countered non-evolution. The two are not mutually inclusive.

I didn't say it countered Creationism. I stated it countered a well known Creationist canard about mutations.

A canard I may add that is used not only about every Creationist website but is often seen on this and other message boards.

 

[Deamiter]

What you posted did not counter creationism. Rather, it countered non-evolution. The two are not mutually inclusive.

I think you missed the point -- he wasn't arguing against creationism directly but giving a rebuttal to two arguments that are often used by creationists -- that information cannot be increased via mutations and that mutations cannot be beneficial.

No, this is in no way evidence against creationism but it was never suggested that this was supposed to counter creationism. The silly argument many creationists USE, however, has been rather eloquently refuted.

 

[billwald]

see post evolution at work

 

[KerrMetric]

Come on Creationists - where is the refutation of this?

Or is it - you have to concede my poit is valid?

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

A well known Creationist canard - present on just about every Creationist website and oft repeated on message boards is that mutations are always deleterious.

They can be helpful, but it just very lucky thing!

Like winning lotto, it small chance, but it happening!

 

[KerrMetric]

Still no refutation. Come on Creationists - where is the error in my logic here?

 

[philadiddle]

A well known Creationist canard - present on just about every Creationist website and oft repeated on message boards is that mutations are always deleterious. Even if this is relaxed they will state that mutations are never beneficial. Here is a simple thought experiment that shows this cannot possibly be the case.

Let's take a genome and apply a point mutation. Just one nucleotide is altered by this mutation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation)

Now let's imagine that this point mutation is indeed harmful - not lethal however. So this mutated genome individual goes ahead and reproduces produing an offspring that carries this mutated somewhat harmful change.

I have admitted that this mutation, as I stated above is a negative. It is harmful. No doubt about it. The new genome is now mutated again in the same manner but this time reversing the mutation and the genome is restored back to the original state. The nucleotide is back to the original one. Now - by definition, if the first change was a negative then this one has to be a positive and beneficial, right? There is no way this cannot hold to be true.

If you want to bring in a measure of information (you know, that concept creationists will dance around all day before they'll ever provide such a measure) then if the first change reduced information then the second change had to increase information.

You do not need a real world example to even show the validity of this argument. Whatever a mutation does (be it negative or positive, decrease or increase information) then the REVERSE can happen by the same process.

This creationist canard is just obviously false.

It's not a positive gain, it's a correction. It's simply reverting back to the original state.

(just trying to stir the pot)

 

[KerrMetric]

It's not a positive gain, it's a correction. It's simply reverting back to the original state.

(just trying to stir the pot)

Which of course means that the original change had to be neither loss nor gain.

Either every change is a net zero or they come in both varieties. Now the former is obvously not true therefore they come in both positive and negative (beneficial or deleterious) (loss or gain ).

 

[KerrMetric]

I'm starting to think that the Creationist brethren don't have a refutation of this argument.

 

[KerrMetric]

Not a single quibble.

I hereby declare the argument that mutations are always deleterious dead.

I figured I wouldn't get any refutations since the argument is pretty clear and self contained.

Thanks creationists for the affirmation by silence.

 

[philadiddle]

Which of course means that the original change had to be neither loss nor gain.

So you haven't shown a change in the genome. No new genes have been produced.

Either every change is a net zero or they come in both varieties.

They don't come in both varieties, because new information isn't introduced, every change is a net zero. That is one of the options that you gave, so don't go back on it now.

 

[KerrMetric]

So you haven't shown a change in the genome. No new genes have been produced.

How so? By the definition of the problem I stated the genome CHANGED. The genome now has a modified gene.

(This is exactly the change that occurs in the beta haemoglobin gene for sickle cell.)

I then said in our thought experiment that the change occurred again restoring the original genome - i.e. the gene is now back to it's original state.


The claim is that a mutation is always a negative. If a mutation is a negative then the reverse occurring must be a positive.

They don't come in both varieties, because new information isn't introduced, every change is a net zero. That is one of the options that you gave, so don't go back on it now.

Go back on what? Did you even read the post? The only way to avoid MY thought experiment conclusion is to state that all changes must never be beneficial or harmful and never change information content.

It's simple:

Point mutation occurs. It is harmful. A creationist would often claim there is a loss of information.

Point mutation occurs again RESTORING to the original state. It is obviously beneficial this time. Now if there was a loss of information the first time as the creationist would claim then there had to be a gain this time.

 

[philadiddle]

How so? By the definition of the problem I stated the genome CHANGED. The genome now has a modified gene.

Although it hasn't been observed to change back. If so, quote a source. If it hasn't been observed to have changed back, then that means that every change that actually has happened in reality, not in your thoughts, has had a negative effect.

I then said in our thought experiment that the change occurred again restoring the original genome - i.e. the gene is now back to it's original state.

Again, just in your thoughts, it hasn't been observed.

The claim is that a mutation is always a negative. If a mutation is a negative then the reverse occurring must be a positive.

The claim is that mutations have negative effects, even if they have a positive one. Since your mutation is only happening in your head, then there's no way to tell if there is a negative side effect.

Go back on what? Did you even read the post? The only way to avoid MY thought experiment conclusion is to state that all changes must never be beneficial or harmful and never change information content.

I read it with a certain bias that only a YEC could have. That means you haven't actually proven anything in your post.

It's simple:

Point mutation occurs. It is harmful. A creationist would often claim there is a loss of information.

Point mutation occurs again RESTORING to the original state. It is obviously beneficial this time. Now if there was a loss of information the first time as the creationist would claim then there had to be a gain this time.

A change doesn't mean there has to be a loss, just that it's different with positive/negative effects. Likewise, changing back to the original state isn't a gain in information, it is error correction. No new positive information has been made, it was there before, just the way God intended.

And I'd also like to point out that you said in your post that "The claim is that a mutation is always a negative" and you also said "A creationist would often claim there is a loss of information". It's really hard to discuss something with you when you jump back and forth about what issue you are talking about. All of this prancing around with semantics makes it sound like you are making a point, but you are only imagining a scenario, with no actual evidence.

 

[KerrMetric]

Although it hasn't been observed to change back. If so, quote a source. If it hasn't been observed to have changed back, then that means that every change that actually has happened in reality, not in your thoughts, has had a negative effect.

Again, just in your thoughts, it hasn't been observed.


The claim is that mutations have negative effects, even if they have a positive one. Since your mutation is only happening in your head, then there's no way to tell if there is a negative side effect.


I read it with a certain bias that only a YEC could have. That means you haven't actually proven anything in your post.

A change doesn't mean there has to be a loss, just that it's different with positive/negative effects. Likewise, changing back to the original state isn't a gain in information, it is error correction. No new positive information has been made, it was there before, just the way God intended.

And I'd also like to point out that you said in your post that "The claim is that a mutation is always a negative" and you also said "A creationist would often claim there is a loss of information". It's really hard to discuss something with you when you jump back and forth about what issue you are talking about. All of this prancing around with semantics makes it sound like you are making a point, but you are only imagining a scenario, with no actual evidence.

You should have used the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags.

I'm still waiting for one of the boards creationists to refute the point however. Thanks for confusing them.

 

[philadiddle]

You should have used the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags.

I'm still waiting for one of the boards creationists to refute the point however. Thanks for confusing them.

ROFL, it was more fun without the sarcasm tags. I'm hoping to get them going.

Sometimes I read YEC posts that ignore the obvious and seem to continually move the goal posts and I think "How can they think that way?" But when I try to do it, I find it's really not hard to argue that way. In fact, if I honestly believed that you are wrong, then I'm sure I could convince myself beyond doubt that you are wrong if I continued talking like I had.

Of course, I think you have a great point and agree with you so talking like that won't convince me otherwise, it just makes me chuckle, I was hoping to keep you going a little longer.

 

[KerrMetric]

I actually thought from the beginning you were being facetious - I always remembered you as a non-Creationist - but your third post sealed the deal.

It is funny though that the several creationist regulars around here will argue fuzzy points all day long but anything very clear cut and specific in a technical sense is ignored like the plague.

 

[philadiddle]

It is funny though that the several creationist regulars around here will argue fuzzy points all day long but anything very clear cut and specific in a technical sense is ignored like the plague.

Yes, and I've just proven that clear cut and specific points can be argued with fuzzy logic.

I'm also continuing to post in thread so it stays at the top, I'm sure you appreciate that.