Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[mzungu]

That is kinda like water water everywhere and not a drop to drink. You got millions and billions of mutations and yet you have failed to find even one benificial mutation. The mutation theory is an act of desperation if I have ever seen one. It is ALL they got, so they have no choice but to go with it.

Sickle celled anaemia in Africans is a beneficial mutation. Although it is a genetic disease it is beneficial in that the Plasmodium (malaria parasite) cannot easily infect sickle shaped blood cells and thus the one who suffers from sickle celled anaemia has better chances of surviving malaria. Sickle celled anaemia is less of a threat than malaria.

This is a classic case of a mutation that is beneficial.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sickle celled anaemia in Africans is a beneficial mutation. Although it is a genetic disease it is beneficial in that the Plasmodium (malaria parasite) cannot easily infect sickle shaped blood cells and thus the one who suffers from sickle celled anaemia has better chances of surviving malaria. Sickle celled anaemia is less of a threat than malaria.

This is a classic case of a mutation that is beneficial.

That's like saying people born without a liver are benefited because they are immune to liver disease. It's a sad sack twisting of the idea of "beneficial" mutation. It shows how low a person has to go to make a case for a good mutation.

Secondly, it may be an inherent and natural function of cells. Not a random event at all.

 

[mzungu]

That's like saying people born without a liver are benefited because they are immune to liver disease. It's a sad sack twisting of the idea of "beneficial" mutation. It shows how low a person has to go to make a case for a good mutation.

Secondly, it may be an inherent and natural function of cells. Not a random event at all.

An excellent answer from andymane:

I beg to differ, Sickle Cell Anemia *is* a beneficial mutation. Evolution and natural selection comes down to a numbers game. SCA is beneficial when there's only one copy of the gene present, and detrimental when there are two copies present. If two people with SCA had children, those children would have a 25% chance of getting two copies (which would be bad), a 25% chance of not getting a copy (no resistance to malaria), and a 50% chance of getting one copy. When you combine the chances of being immune with the chances of avoiding infection or surviving infection, it outweighs the 25% chance of getting full-blown sickle cell anemia. Thus, it is beneficial in regions where malaria and lack of treatment are problems.

There are a few others. People are being born without some or all of their wisdom teeth. Back in ancient times, an extra set of teeth later in life would have been a huge advantage. Nowadays, our jaws have shrunk and those extra teeth can become impacted. The current state of medicine allows these teeth to be extracted with little risk, so there isn't much pressure to cause the mutation to spread through the population. It's not life-saving, but it's less hassle for those born with it.

We've also found a mutation in a membrane receptor protein that confers resistance to HIV. It's thought to be a remnant from resistance to the bubonic plague or smallpox, and that it prevents HIV from binding to cells. Like the wisdom teeth, there hasn't been recent selective pressure for it to spread throughout the population, though this time because HIV hasn't been around for very long (really only one or two generations), and hasn't been widespread enough for strong selective pressure.

Why limit yourself to animals, though? We're fundamentally the same as single-celled organisms when it comes to mutations and evolution. The Lenski lab recently observed the generation of a new mutation that allowed a population of E. coli to metabolize citrate, which they were unable to use as an energy source before.
Source(s):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon…

 

[SkyWriting]

An excellent answer from andymane:

I beg to differ, Sickle Cell Anemia *is* a beneficial mutation. ...We're fundamentally the same as single-celled organisms when it comes to mutations and evolution.

You were unable to cite a peer reviewed source identifying the benefits of Sickle Cell? So was I.

My definition of "Beneficial" is "Something that parents wish that their children possessed."
If you can find one person who wishes that they had Sickle-Cell trait, please note the source. I'll even accept a scientist with the disease who is happy he has it.

We are "the same as single-celled organisms"? Source please.

And you failed to show any randomness was involved. Sickle Cell is a minority, yet common variation.
Assuming that humans were originally perfect as designed by God, most mutations would be harmful to the original design.
Assuming that humans are not perfectly designed, you should be able to produce a list of beneficial mutations that are the mirror image of this list in function and importance. Of the 23 chromosomes, here are problems with one of them.
Please provide the opposite beneficial mutation for each.

Chromosome 22 disease list
At least 27 human disorders are known to involve chromosome 22. Other genes may also be associated with some of these disorders.

Amyotrophic lateral schlerosis, susceptibility to

Breast cancer, t(11:22) associated

Cat-eye syndrome

Cataract, cerulean, type 2

Bernard-Soulier syndrome, type B

Breakpoint cluster region (CML)

Colon cancer (deletions)

Deafness, autosomal dominant 17

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans

DiGeorge syndrome...

Chromosome 22 disease list

 

[The Engineer]

That's like saying people born without a liver are benefited because they are immune to liver disease. It's a sad sack twisting of the idea of "beneficial" mutation. It shows how low a person has to go to make a case for a good mutation.

If the liver diseases killed more people than the lack of a liver dead, then yes, that would be a beneficial mutation.

You were unable to cite a peer reviewed source identifying the benefits of Sickle Cell? So was I.

How Malaria Has Affected the Human Genome and What Human Genetics Can Teach Us about Malaria
This one links to a lot of peer reviewed sources. Have fun.

We are "the same as single-celled organisms"? Source please.

You do realize that you left out all the context, right? Mzungu didn't say we were the same as them, only that we were the same as them when it comes to mutations and evolution. Not only this, you didn't comment on the Lenski-experiments at all.

And you failed to show any randomness was involved. Sickle Cell is a minority, yet common variation.

How does this make it not-random?

Assuming that humans were originally perfect as designed by God, most mutations would be harmful to the original design.

Good thing we don't assume this.

Assuming that humans are not perfectly designed, you should be able to produce a list of beneficial mutations that are the mirror image of this list in function and importance. Of the 23 chromosomes, here are problems with one of them.
Please provide the opposite beneficial mutation for each.

So you're saying that beneficial mutations do not exist because not all mutations are beneficial? This makes no sense.

 

[SkyWriting]

If the liver diseases killed more people than the lack of a liver dead, then yes, that would be a beneficial mutation.

In the context of two piles of dead people, one being a lighter pile, then you win the argument, I loose.

How Malaria Has Affected the Human Genome and What Human Genetics Can Teach Us about Malaria
This one links to a lot of peer reviewed sources. Have fun.

I did find the lighter pile example I mentioned above.

"A study of Kenyan children found that the protective effect of HbAS against malaria increased from 20% to 56% between the ages of 2 and 10 years, which implies that it enhances or acts in synergy with the acquired immune response (Williams et al. 2005a). The trade-off between risks and benefits acts to maintain the HbS polymorphism at allele frequencies of ∼10% in many parts of Africa, despite the lethal consequences for homozygotes,"

You do realize that you left out all the context, right? Mzungu didn't say we were the same as them, only that we were the same as them when it comes to mutations and evolution.

Support for the original claim perfectly in its context would be just fine.
I would rather cut some words out the context than rephrase what they say and ask them to respond to my re-phrasing.

Not only this, you didn't comment on the Lenski-experiments at all.

Because I already challenged the premise? I bet that's why.

I don't expect people to follow all my links and comment on them.
It's not their job.
They don't have time.
It's not important to them.
I don't control their lives.
Etc.

One time I challenged a guy to ask his (scientist) co-workers if they believed in God.
He refused to do it. Nothing I can do but plant the seed.

So you're saying that beneficial mutations do not exist because not all mutations are beneficial? This makes no sense.

I'm not sure what your reading but I say beneficial mutations don't exist that mirror our documented detrimental mutations and no one has explained why that is. Why can't their be something called a "beneficial mutation" that doesn't include weighing up two piles of dead people to see which is smaller? How about a "beneficial mutation" that actually brings humanity to an "above average" level? Stop playing numbers games with the dead people and show ONE documented beneficial mutation that people would be happy to have. I'd be happier with one to correspond with each of these though.

One would do for the moment. Unless there is no such thing.

 

[mzungu]

My definition of "Beneficial" is "Something that parents wish that their children possessed."

Moving the goal posts are we now
You asked for one beneficial mutation and I gave you one; now you are doing what all creationists love to do and that is throw in a red herring and move the goal posts while at the same time misinterpreting the answers given to your question.

So when did snakes stop speaking English?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

In the context of two piles of dead people, one being a lighter pile, then you win the argument, I loose.

Actually, that does describe beneficial mutation, if looked at in a certain way. An awful lot of illnesses, cancers, genetic diseases etc start kicking in after peak reproductive age has passed. If it kills you before you've had a chance to successfully reproduce it will not be passed on to the next generation. If it doesn't kill you or is beneficial up until reproductive age is passed, it will be passed on to the next generation, even if it kills you afterwards. Nature is quite callous like that.

So, yes, you lose.

 

[TLK Valentine]

My definition of "Beneficial" is "Something that parents wish that their children possessed."

Well isn't that sweet? You want the rest of the world to comply with your definitions of things...

The definition of "beneficial" is:

ben·e·fi·cial (b

n

-f

sh

l)adj.1. Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous.

Since sickle-cell anemia is favorable to malaria, by the actual definition of beneficial, it is, in fact, a beneficial mutation.

But don't let that stop you from retreating into a fantasy world where words mean only what you want them to mean. It only goes to support my definition of "religion" as "power fantasy."


(but by all means, explain why I can't redefine words while you can)

 

[The Engineer]

In the context of two piles of dead people, one being a lighter pile, then you win the argument, I loose.

Exactly.

I did find the lighter pile example I mentioned above.

Have a problem with that? None of my concerns.

Support for the original claim perfectly in its context would be just fine. I would rather cut some words out the context than rephrase what they say and ask them to respond to my re-phrasing.

What does this have to do with rephrasing? You don't have to rephrase anything, you just have the cite the comment in its context, or at least comment on it regarding the context. The way you commented on it was very misleading.

Because I already challenged the premise? I bet that's why.

You didn't challenged the premise. Mzungu said that the way humans evolve, and the way bacteria evolve, are not substantially different. You haven't commented on that.

Why can't their be something called a "beneficial mutation" that doesn't include weighing up two piles of dead people to see which is smaller?

Do you have a problem with that?

How about a "beneficial mutation" that actually brings humanity to an "above average" level?

What do you mean by "above average level"? Above what average? Average of what?

Beneficial mutations can give you an above average survival rate. For example, sickle cell anemia can increase your survival rate in ecosystems with a lot of malaria carriers.

Stop playing numbers games with the dead people and show ONE documented beneficial mutation that people would be happy to have. I'd be happier with one to correspond with each of these though.

I'd be happy to have sickle cell anemia if I'd live in a swamp full of malaria carrying mosquitos. Does this count?

Your whole argument relies on you not liking the definition of a beneficial mutation.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

There are far more than just sickle cell mutations that result in malaria resistance.

Here's a few:
-Sickle cell trait -- the heterozygote form is generally benign (can have some complications late in life) but protects against malaria
-Glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency -- a relatively mild hemoytic anemia disorder that confers resistance to malaria
-Duffy antigen receptor deficiency -- a completely benign condition that results in resistance to Plasmodium vivax (one of four types of malaria)
-Heterozygote thalassemias -- similar situation as sickle cell; a rough disease when you are homozygotes, but as a heterozygote it is benign and confers resistance to malaria

Read on...
Genetic resistance to malaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mzungu]

I'm not sure what your reading but I say beneficial mutations don't exist that mirror our documented detrimental mutations and no one has explained why that is. Why can't their be something called a "beneficial mutation" that doesn't include weighing up two piles of dead people to see which is smaller? How about a "beneficial mutation" that actually brings humanity to an "above average" level? Stop playing numbers games with the dead people and show ONE documented beneficial mutation that people would be happy to have. I'd be happier with one to correspond with each of these though.

One would do for the moment. Unless there is no such thing.

Mutations introduce new traits in a population. It is essential for evolution. Without mutations there is no evolution.

Why do you think mutations must be bad

Definition
noun, plural: mutations
(general)
A change in or the process of changing, e.g. nature, form or quality.
(genetics)
(1) A permanent, heritable change in the nucleotide sequence in a gene or a chromosome; the process in which such a change occurs in a gene or in a chromosome.
(2) A mutant, or an individual exhibiting such a change.

Supplement
In genetics, mutation may be small scale (affecting the nucleotide sequence of a gene) or large scale (involving a change in the chromosome). It may arise from faulty deletions, insertions, or exchanges of nucleotides in the genetic material, as caused by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, viruses, etc. Such a change may result in the creation of a new character or trait.

Word origin: Mutatio from mutare = to change (biology) an organism that has characteristics resulting from chromosomal alteration.
Related forms: mutant (noun), mutate (verb).
Related terms: addition mutation, conditional mutation, deletion mutation, forward mutation, frameshift mutation, homeotic mutation, lethal mutation, missense mutation, mutation frequency, mutation rate, point mutation, substitution mutation.

 

[SkyWriting]

Moving the goal posts are we now
You asked for one beneficial mutation and I gave you one; now you are doing what all creationists love to do and that is throw in a red herring and move the goal posts while at the same time misinterpreting the answers given to your question.

It's the same definition I've always used. But I didn't really expect more than one anyway. The idea of a beneficial mutation is fairly ridiculous. Ask some person on the street if they would be so kind as to point one out and you'll just get laughter. Or a reference to an x-men movie as had shown up in this forum.

Comparing body counts seem to the the only solution and so religious people cling to it without any common sense input.

 

[SkyWriting]

Mutations introduce new traits in a population. It is essential for evolution. Without mutations there is no evolution.
Why do you think mutations must be bad

Only because they all are. By my definition of being identifiable by lay people unable to use a calculator to find one.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are far more than just sickle cell mutations that result in malaria resistance.Here's a few:
-Sickle cell trait -- the heterozygote form is generally benign (can have some complications late in life) but protects against malaria
-Glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency -- a relatively mild hemoytic anemia disorder that confers resistance to malaria
-Duffy antigen receptor deficiency -- a completely benign condition that results in resistance to Plasmodium vivax (one of four types of malaria)
-Heterozygote thalassemias -- similar situation as sickle cell; a rough disease when you are homozygotes, but as a heterozygote it is benign and confers resistance to malariaead on...
Genetic resistance to malaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can we get away from the
"I benefited by being born without a lungs, so I'll never have lung cancer"
definition for "beneficial"? Just for the sake of conversation.

 

[SkyWriting]

You didn't challenged the premise. Mzungu said that the way humans evolve, and the way bacteria evolve, are not substantially different. You haven't commented on that.

I said that's an unsupported premise. I'm not convinced.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well isn't that sweet? You want the rest of the world to comply with your definitions of things...

You're important, but not all that.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The idea of a beneficial mutation is fairly ridiculous.

So how do you think populations develop an immunity to a disease?

 

[mzungu]

Only because they all are. By my definition of being identifiable by lay people unable to use a calculator to find one.

You do know that PRIDE is a SIN don't you

You may call it any way you like but the definition of "mutation" will not change.

I think you would be better off spending your time learning "Ham cutting with lasers".

 

[SkyWriting]

You do know that PRIDE is a SIN don't you

Thinking differently from you is no SIN.
That's automatically one of those mirror accusations.

You may call it any way you like but the definition of "mutation" will not change. I think you would be better off spending your time learning "Ham cutting with lasers".

If an animal is born with a mutation that helps it cope with it's environment better how is that not beneficial?

So how do you think populations develop an immunity to a disease?

There are far more than just sickle cell mutations that result in malaria resistance.

What do you mean by "above average level"? Above what average? Average of what?....Your whole argument relies on you not liking the definition of a beneficial mutation.

I'm attempting to steer the answer toward something that "the rest of the whole world" would understand.
Ask the question in 1000 languages to the population of the world:

"Are you aware of any beneficial mutations you have seen that you would like to pass along to your children? "

Considering the scientists claim that such things are fairly common, why would 99% of all the human life on earth
not be able to come up with one beneficial mutation they have seen that they'd like their children to have?

The majority of the whole world would agree that they'd like their children to have more offspring and that
they'd be without illness and have no birth defects.

I don't think anybody has identified a beneficial mutation for good health or one for increased procreation.
If there are such good genes and beneficial mutations, why has nobody in the history of man found it?
Other than morticians with calculators sorting the dead into different piles, I mean.
There are three types of lies. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.