Something for the scientists to debate

[Not_By_Chance]

I've received an article but it doesn't mean much to me as I'm not a scientist, but I thought those among you who are might find it interesting. It's in two parts:-

Beneficial Mutations - Real or Imaginary - Part One
Beneficial Mutations - Real or Imaginary - Part Two

Enjoy.

 

[Gracchus]

I skimmed part one. I noted the author. I noted the web site.
You, Not_By_Chance, are not a scientist. Neither is the author. The author obviously does not understand evolution.
The whole article is based on a supposed distinction between "beneficial" and "functional" mutations. A mutation is only "beneficial" in the context of a specific environment. Organisms that have evolved to fit a specific, stable environment show less variability. Any variation is more likely to result in loss of function.
For instance, thicker fur might be beneficial in a cold environment but deleterious in a warmer environment.
The first reference cited is dated 1930. The second is by a philosopher, not a biologist. The third reference is to some missing papers.

There is just no substance to the first part of the essay. I didn't bother with the second part, and won't, unless someone wants to discuss the article point by point.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You, Not_By_Chance, are not a scientist

I told you that at the beginning of the thread.

didn't bother with the second part, and won't, unless someone wants to discuss the article point by point.

OK, please yourself. I don't mind if no-one finds it interesting. It hasn't cost me anything apart from a bit of my time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Instead of shotgunning all these odd ideas, why not present the one that seems most compelling to you, and we can discuss it?

 

[Murby]

Should this thread be moved to the creationism forum?

The links are not science.... just more creation propaganda.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The links are not science.... just more creation propaganda

A refreshing change from all the evolution propaganda then and its associated pseudoscience. Praise The Lord for raising up the Bible-believing scientists that work for creation.com, answersingenesis, etc. Never was there more need for such people than today.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A refreshing change from all the evolution propaganda then and its associated pseudoscience. Praise The Lord for raising up the Bible-believing scientists that work for creation.com, answersingenesis, etc. Never was there more need for such people than today.

Was that a poe?

 

[Gene2memE]

I've received an article but it doesn't mean much to me as I'm not a scientist, but I thought those among you who are might find it interesting. It's in two parts:-

Beneficial Mutations - Real or Imaginary - Part One
Beneficial Mutations - Real or Imaginary - Part Two

Enjoy.

Part 1 has such a fundamental error within the first three sentences, that it renders the entire article worthless.


Can you spot it?

 

[Derek Meyer]

Part 1 has such a fundamental error within the first three sentences, that it renders the entire article worthless. Can you spot it?

I'm no geneticist (just like the author of that article), but I spotted one huge fundamental error in the first three sentences. Maybe you spotted the same one, maybe another one. The first three sentences from that article on the anti-scientific website referred to.

Having been a student of biology for more than 50 years I have never had a problem with the concept of beneficial mutations. I was therefore shocked to discover in recent reports on the human genome that beneficial mutations have not been found. Only ‘deleterious’ and ‘functional’ mutations have been documented.

Utter nonsense.

For a mutation to be 'deleterious' that mutation also must be 'functional'. If that mutation is not 'functional', it can't be 'deleterious'.

If it's not functional, it won't be deleterious and be neutral. If it is functional, it may not be deleterious but neutral in the environment. And also will be carried on from generation to generation.

What a load of nonsense this guy wrote. The 'article' is worthless. Yet they pretend that it is 'science'.

 

[The Cadet]

Hey @Not_By_Chance, any chance you'll start vetting your articles before posting them? The errors here are blatantly obvious to even a non-scientist (seems to me to be an issue of definition, because deleterious mutations are necessarily functional), and the idea that beneficial mutations somehow don't happen is absurd on its face - we observe beneficial human mutations all the time.

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

So no, this is not "something for the scientists to debate". This is something for the non-scientists to laugh at, and for people to not waste their time on.

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm no geneticist (just like the author of that article), but I spotted one huge fundamental error in the first three sentences. Maybe you spotted the same one, maybe another one. The first three sentences from that article on the anti-scientific website referred to.

Utter nonsense.

For a mutation to be 'deleterious' that mutation also must be 'functional'. If that mutation is not 'functional', it can't be 'deleterious'.

You spotted a different one. Equally massive, I might add, but different. It's amazing that the article could be so wrong within the first 100 words.

I plunged through it (a bit of a hard slog admittedly, I'm no geneticist) and the article is even worse than I thought. I won't spoil the fun, but even with my rudimentary knowledge, a key sentence in the introductory paragraph is flatly contradicted by information presented in the 3rd last paragraph.

This man is supposed to be a biologist?

 

[Derek Meyer]

He's a botanist. He does taxonomy of grasses. He obviously is no geneticist. No training in anything related to genetics, either.

Either way, he seems to be more interested in fundie apologetics than in any form of science. Wonder if he's a SDA or a JW?

 

[Hieronymus]

A refreshing change from all the evolution propaganda then and its associated pseudoscience. Praise The Lord for raising up the Bible-believing scientists that work for creation.com, answersingenesis, etc. Never was there more need for such people than today.

It is a pity and a shame though, that they regularly seem to make the same mistake as naturalists.
That is looking for evidence in support of a presupposition and mixing it with the beliefs.
This often renders it unusable to share with truthseekers.

You see, the FACTS should point to the truth, not the people.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Yeah, like the fact that mutations can just be inherited without being beneficial nor deleterious. To be inherited by the next generation...and still be functional. And add up...

 

[Hieronymus]

Yeah, like the fact that mutations can just be inherited without being beneficial nor deleterious. To be inherited by the next generation...and still be functional.

Data corruption is "deleterious".
Sorry...

 

[Hieronymus]

He's a botanist. He does taxonomy of grasses. He obviously is no geneticist. No training in anything related to genetics, either.

Either way, he seems to be more interested in fundie apologetics than in any form of science. Wonder if he's a SDA or a JW?

Ad hominem argumentation.

 

[The Cadet]

Data corruption is "deleterious".
Sorry...

Good thing DNA isn't data, and isn't as firmly and rigidly structured as a computer program.

 

[Hieronymus]

Good thing DNA isn't data,

Denial of the obvious is not going to help you.

 

[The Cadet]

Denial of the obvious is not going to help you.

...But it isn't. There are quite a few very considerable differences between DNA and computer code, and it's not denial to point that out. There can be beneficial mutations. For example, platypus venom comes from a duplication of an existing Platypus enzyme, followed by a minor mutation, and is clearly a new tool that benefitted the species. DNA coding mechanisms are far less precise than computer code, with far more self-correction.

 

[Hieronymus]

...But it isn't. There are quite a few very considerable differences between DNA and computer code

I never mentioned computers.
But code is code, code implies stuff.
It is language with meaning.