Mutations destroy organisms they do not hurl them up the ladder of taxonomy

[BobRyan]

. You do realize that even in clones . mutations happen in somatic cells that cause permanent changes to the subsequent organisms

The argument for this thread is not "mutation cannot happen".

Somatic cells are a regular type of body cell that is not involved in any way in sexual reproduction.
damaging/changing somatic cells does not do anything to the offspring and will either be neutral or cause damage to the organism. It will not "give it a brain" or "eyes" or "feathers" etc, and it cannot be "passed on".

Some animals have cloned fetuses, one fertilized egg become more than one fetus.

So then the same thing as identical twins but we still reproduce normally. the banana defect is that it was manipulated to the seedless point - it can no longer reproduce and does not engage in gene recombination. An example of damaging the organism via "change".

The reason "cloning" came up is that in the case of the banana that is its only option - asexual cloning.

 

[BobRyan]

The tomato and dog are simple examples involving non sterile descent with mutations.

You are carelessly calling "mutation" any change in gene expression due to normal gene recombination in simple homologous genetic reproduction -- in your new redefinition for the term all your children would be mutants.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are carelessly calling "mutation" any change in gene expression due to normal gene recombination in simple homologous genetic reproduction -- in your new redefinition for the term all your children would be mutants.

And it's not just genetic recombination. Species accumulate all sorts of mutations, point mutations duplications, frameshift mutations, etc. It also isn't merely gene expression that changes, but genes themselves that change.

Dogs for example, have had countless mutations that make them genetically unique and independent from wolves. It isn't just recombination or shuffling of pre existing genes. Rather it involves mutations and the formation of genes that did not previously exist.

See the following video for examples of mutations:

 

[Brightmoon]

The argument for this thread is not "mutation cannot happen".

Somatic cells are a regular type of body cell that is not involved in any way in sexual reproduction.
damaging/changing somatic cells does not do anything to the offspring and will either be neutral or cause damage to the organism. It will not "give it a brain" or "eyes" or "feathers" etc, and it cannot be "passed on".



So then the same thing as identical twins but we still reproduce normally. the banana defect is that it was manipulated to the seedless point - it can no longer reproduce and does not engage in gene recombination. An example of damaging the organism via "change".

The reason "cloning" came up is that in the case of the banana that is its only option - asexual cloning.

those plants I showed you are very common houseplants that are reproduced by stem cuttings aka cloning . With the Brazil philodendron it was a spontaneous mutation in a clone that caused the permanent yellowish streaking . It’s a pet peeve of mine if creationists misuse scientific terminology.

 

[Brightmoon]

You are carelessly calling "mutation" any change in gene expression due to normal gene recombination in simple homologous genetic reproduction -- in your new redefinition for the term all your children would be mutants.

. Funny you should say that .... because it’s accurate! All offspring of sexual recombinations are mutants

 

[Gottservant]

for the sake of the discussion - variation in gene expression within non-mutant genes is not "mutation".

I am still thinking about what you said here, its just brilliant.

It inspired me actually: in order for an evolution to progress, from one species to another, the preceding specie must be suppressed (so that the one following not be distorted) - the net result being that at least temporarily, the hybrid specie fails, both at being the former and being the latter.

Butterflies only escape this by building a cocoon. But then no one is saying that butterflies and caterpillars are different species!

Think about it!

 

[BobRyan]

I am still thinking about what you said here, its just brilliant.

It inspired me actually: in order for an evolution to progress, from one species to another, the preceding specie must be suppressed (so that the one following not be distorted) - the net result being that at least temporarily, the hybrid specie fails, both at being the former and being the latter.

Butterflies only escape this by building a cocoon. But then no one is saying that butterflies and caterpillars are different species!

Think about it!

Butterflies and caterpillars have the same DNA.

The genome (entire DNA sequence) of the butterfly would be identical to that of the caterpillar in all somatic cells. A caterpillar has the genes to produce wings, for example, however at that stage in it's development they are not 'switched on' to make the necessary proteins.

This is not a case of one species accumulating DNA to pass on to create another species higher up the chain with novel innovation in DNA.

If the storytelling in evolutionism required that the previous species die -- then they would need all the lower species to be extinct and only the top of the food chain would even exist. All the land dwellers with no eyes would be destroyed so as to promote the new ones that finally came up with an eye.

 

[BobRyan]

"A gene mutation is a change in an organism's genetic material. Gene mutations can occur for a variety of reasons, and have a range of effects, from benign to malignant. Benign mutations in genetic material explain why people look very different, for example, while cancer is caused by malignant genetic mutations. Using genetic testing, doctors and researchers can identify individual points in an organism's DNA where a gene mutation has occurred, and learn more about the process of mutations."

"Hereditary or germline mutations occur when eggs or sperm develop mutations which are passed on to the baby. These mutations often occur because of errors in the generation of eggs and sperm, although they can also be errors which have been passed down over generations. If a gene mutation occurs after fertilization, as might occur when some of the rapidly dividing cells in a developing fetus mutate, it is a new or de novo mutation. Both types of mutation can lead to congenital disabilities, or they may be so minimal that they are not evident."

"People can also acquire gene mutations during their lifetimes, in response to random errors in cell division, environmental pressures, or exposure to substances which interact with DNA. These types of acquired mutations tend to cause mosaicism, in which a gene mutation is only present in some of an organism's cells, rather than in the whole body. Cancer is a classic example of an acquired gene mutation."

What is a Gene Mutation? (with pictures)

===================================

Which is not "how we got dogs"

Mutation or polymorphism: BY RICHARD TWYMAN

"DNA sequence variations are sometimes described as mutations and sometimes as polymorphisms.

"There is a difference between these terms and how are they applied to the human genome.

"A mutation is defined as any change in a DNA sequence away from normal. This implies there is a normal allele that is prevalent in the population and that the mutation changes this to a rare and abnormal variant.

"In contrast, a polymorphismis a DNA sequence variation that is common in the population. In this case no single allele is regarded as the standard sequence. Instead there are two or more equally acceptable alternatives"

. Funny you should say that .... because it’s accurate! All offspring of sexual recombinations are mutants

At this point it is difficult to tell if you are reading the posts or not.

 

[BobRyan]

those plants I showed you are very common houseplants that are reproduced by stem cuttings aka cloning . With the Brazil philodendron it was a spontaneous mutation in a clone that caused the permanent yellowish streaking . It’s a pet peeve of mine if creationists misuse scientific terminology.

sadly that misses the point entirely - since we are talking about a sterile plant and the fact that sterility does not "serve to promote the propagation of the organism". you keep missing that key detail ... this is not the hard part.

taking your side-trail - if you take a house plant that is defective to the point of being sterile ... its ability to "survive" is reduced no matter if you are engaged in stem cuttings or not. The organism itself has reduced capacity to propagate.

you don't "help the plant" by damaging its ability to reproduce, it is not 'more capable' than a predecessor that was not subject to that damaging mutation/event.

 

[Job 33:6]

Mutation or polymorphism: BY RICHARD TWYMAN

"DNA sequence variations are sometimes described as mutations and sometimes as polymorphisms.

"There is a difference between these terms and how are they applied to the human genome.

"A mutation is defined as any change in a DNA sequence away from normal. This implies there is a normal allele that is prevalent in the population and that the mutation changes this to a rare and abnormal variant.

"In contrast, a polymorphismis a DNA sequence variation that is common in the population. In this case no single allele is regarded as the standard sequence. Instead there are two or more equally acceptable alternatives"




At this point it is difficult to tell if you are reading the posts or not.

If you read further, the article suggests an "arbitrary" cutoff of 1% in frequency between language usage of polymorphism and mutation.

The truth is that all polymorphisms are themselves mutations before they become fixated on a population. Which is why in scientific literature, you can find the word mutation used in either case. There is no rigid separation between the words because they both involve things like point mutations, frame shift mutations, duplication mutations etc.

"
Why are some sequence variants more common than others? Sequence variants that directly and overtly cause human diseases are generally rare in the population because they reduce fitness. Such disease alleles are classed as mutations. However, not all mutations cause diseases. Any new sequence variant, even if neutral or beneficial in effect, will start off as a rare mutation." -from your own source. (Richard Twyman)

 

[Brightmoon]

Mutation or polymorphism: BY RICHARD TWYMAN

"DNA sequence variations are sometimes described as mutations and sometimes as polymorphisms.

"There is a difference between these terms and how are they applied to the human genome.

"A mutation is defined as any change in a DNA sequence away from normal. This implies there is a normal allele that is prevalent in the population and that the mutation changes this to a rare and abnormal variant.

"In contrast, a polymorphismis a DNA sequence variation that is common in the population. In this case no single allele is regarded as the standard sequence. Instead there are two or more equally acceptable alternatives"




At this point it is difficult to tell if you are reading the posts or not.

A polymorphism is a normal genetic variant that’s fairly common, for example, blue eyes in humans . Polymorphisms are derived from mutations . In blue eyed humans the melanin gene doesn’t work or doesn’t express in the iris . That’s a mutation.

I’m not sure you understand scientific terminology

 

[BobRyan]

A polymorphism is a normal genetic variant that’s fairly common, for example, blue eyes in humans

true. And that is not going to put wings on a lizard.

It is not going to turn a prokaryote into a eukaryote not even over 50,000 generations

But genetic mutant genes resulting from radiation damage and other such "mistakes" get you to the result of killing or damaging the organism... or the organism compensates for the damage... with a little creativity you could damage the organism to the point of making it sterile. (Something people here have expressed as a good example of true evolutionism seen in real life).

 

[BobRyan]

If you read further, the article suggests an "arbitrary" cutoff of 1% in frequency between language usage of polymorphism and mutation.

Agreed. It is a bit of an arbitrary swipe at it.

 

[Brightmoon]

true. And that is not going to put wings on a lizard.

It is not going to turn a prokaryote into a eukaryote not even over 50,000 generations

But genetic mutant genes resulting from radiation damage and other such "mistakes" get you to the result of killing or damaging the organism... or the organism compensates for the damage... with a little creativity you could damage the organism to the point of making it sterile. (Something people here have expressed as a good example of true evolutionism seen in real life).

. Wings on a lizard . How about Draco volans

Those are it’s ribs by the way. There’s an extinct prehistoric reptile that also has rib wings that’s not closely related to this animal.

 

[Dale]

for the sake of the discussion - variation in gene expression within non-mutant genes is not "mutation".

Some humans have blue eyes some have brown - that is not because of a mutant gene produced via an error in reproduction or stray radiation affecting reproductive cells

Mutations may not destroy the organism because the organism may compensate and survive it with no change in phenotype. But Mutations can in other cases damage its ability to survive/compete/reproduce or outright kill the organism.

Mutation outcomes (in real life):
1. no change
2. damaged organism
3. dead organism

whacking your laptop with a hammer-- possible outcomes:
1. Laptop keeps running and all is well
2. Laptop is damaged but still functions.. mostly.
3. Laptop no longer works.

Here's an example of a mutation being beneficial and even producing thousands of viable species.

It is obvious to me that snakes are lizards who lost their legs. Genesis certainly agrees with that.

Science says that snakes originated about 165 million years ago. There was a lizard that lived in muddy territory where legs were of little value. First they lost the hind legs. Then they lost the front legs as well. This might seem like a loss-of-function mutation, where something is lost. Snakes have some positive mutations as well, like increased numbers of vertebrae. That's why snakes can coil up so easily.

There are about 3400 species of snakes today, in virtually every part of the world, so the loss-of-legs mutation has been pretty sucessful.

 

[Dale]

for the sake of the discussion - variation in gene expression within non-mutant genes is not "mutation".

Some humans have blue eyes some have brown - that is not because of a mutant gene produced via an error in reproduction or stray radiation affecting reproductive cells

Mutations may not destroy the organism because the organism may compensate and survive it with no change in phenotype. But Mutations can in other cases damage its ability to survive/compete/reproduce or outright kill the organism.

Mutation outcomes (in real life):
1. no change
2. damaged organism
3. dead organism

whacking your laptop with a hammer-- possible outcomes:
1. Laptop keeps running and all is well
2. Laptop is damaged but still functions.. mostly.
3. Laptop no longer works.

It is obvious that flightless birds are descended from birds that can fly. There are Pacific islands with species of birds that can't get off the island, for instance. Their ancestors flew in. When they learned to live off the land, losing the ability to fly long distances simply meant that they didn't have to maintain muscles they weren't using.

Flightless birds like ostriches and emus are obviously descended from birds that could fly. By sacrificing flight, ostriches gained strength in their legs, and so became good runners. The author of the Book of Job did not think ostriches were very intelligent or even good parents, but was impressed by their ability to run.

13 “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
though they cannot compare
with the wings and feathers of the stork.
14 She lays her eggs on the ground
and lets them warm in the sand,
15 unmindful that a foot may crush them,
that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
she cares not that her labor was in vain,
17 for God did not endow her with wisdom
or give her a share of good sense.
18 Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
she laughs at horse and rider.
Job 39:13-18 NIV

 

[Dale]

Here's another example of a beneficial mutation: toadstools, or poisonous mushrooms.

Although some species of mushrooms are edible, and even good for you, many are extremely poisonous. Why is this?

We might not see a mutation that makes a mushroom poisonous to be beneficial. It isn't beneficial to us. But it can be beneficial to the mushroom.

Look at it this way. Suppose that a mushroom is edible to all animals, then there is a mutation which causes it to produce a chemical poisonous to animals. A poison that attacks the circulatory system of an animal would not harm a mushroom, which has no circulatory system. A poison that attacks the nervous system of an animal would not harm a mushroom, which has no nervous system. To the mushroom, the poison is benign. On the other hand, an animal who eats it would probably die.

While this isn't beneficial to the animal, it can be of great benefit to a mushroom. If a mushroom is poisonous, animals must "learn" to avoid it. They must evolve instincts which cause them to eat something else. So instead of being eaten, the poisonous mushroom thrives.

Fungi such as mushrooms have been known to produce chlorinated hydrocarbons. These are the same kind of chemicals we use to kill mosquitos, ants and roaches. Again, since fungi have no nervous systems, they feel no effect, but it can kill a wide variety of animals that prey on them.

 

[JackRT]

Here's an example of a mutation being beneficial and even producing thousands of viable species.

It is obvious to me that snakes are lizards who lost their legs. Genesis certainly agrees with that.

Science says that snakes originated about 165 million years ago. There was a lizard that lived in muddy territory where legs were of little value. First they lost the hind legs. Then they lost the front legs as well. This might seem like a loss-of-function mutation, where something is lost. Snakes have some positive mutations as well, like increased numbers of vertebrae. That's why snakes can coil up so easily.

There are about 3400 species of snakes today, in virtually every part of the world, so the loss-of-legs mutation has been pretty sucessful.

There are snakes with legs (rare) and lizards without legs (also rare). The major difference is in the jaw structure.

 

[Dale]

There are snakes with legs (rare) and lizards without legs (also rare). The major difference is in the jaw structure.

Yes, I am told that rattlesnakes in particular are sometimes hatched out with tiny front legs. That's one sign that they lost the hind legs before they lost the front legs. That's a throwback to their ancestors, who were lizards, or halfway between lizard and snake.

I have also read that there are lizards who have lost their legs but biologists consider them lizards and not snakes. They have the right number of vertebrae to be a lizard, and not the right number for a snake. There may be other differences.

To me, the legless lizards show that for many lizards, the loss of legs may be an improvement. If they aren't using their legs for anything, losing them just means that they aren't in the way. The animal profits from not maintaining tissue that isn't being used.

 

[loveofourlord]

Its a fact.

Tumor-Suppressor Genes and DNA Repair Genes

Oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes | American Cancer

Human DNA Repair Genes | Science
130 known human DNA repair genes are described here

and? 1 mutation ='s all mutations I guess? And mutation is anything that changes your DNA such as deletions and additions do if all mutations are bad then how do you exist with 50 of them? Gee almost like creationists sources lie or make up such things. Plus cancer mutations are AFTER your born.