Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

Boersun, i would argue with your mutations statistics. genetic diseases such as diabetes,

multiple sclerosis, Huntington's chorea, blindness, multiple appendages, Crohn's disease, etc. are disfiguring and frequently fatal. you'll have to do a lot better in defending mutations. you may want to list a few beneficial mutations if you can think of them.

Posted
Boersun, i would argue with your mutations statistics. genetic diseases such as diabetes,

multiple sclerosis, Huntington's chorea, blindness, multiple appendages, Crohn's disease, etc. are disfiguring and frequently fatal. you'll have to do a lot better in defending mutations. you may want to list a few beneficial mutations if you can think of them.

 

The problem is that if they are successful, then they aren't likely to be identified, because we don't notice them. They happen in such small steps that they may not be noticed. But among them, and known to scientists, are immunities to certain diseases. It is widely held that no pandemic could wipe out the entire human race, because there would always be some people who somehow posses a natural immunity to the disease.

 

Viruses mutate all the time. When they do, they can either mutate into a form that makes them more or less viral, or transferable, or ... You see my point. The AIDS virus, the bird flu, the common flu, all are constantly mutating. This just goes to show that mutations happen more rapidly among unicellular organisms (probably because of the prolific rate of reproduction).

 

Your saying that the theory of evolution is so far out there that it can't possibly be true is the same as someone saying that ID is so far out there that it can't possibly be true.

 

Of course then there are the rest of us that see some truth in both, but freely criticize both for their flaws. Both are flawed, and that's what makes them theories.

Posted

oh and one more thing, as you noted in the above quote, they are frequently fatal. This is where the theories for evolution step in. If just one survives, then there is a chance that it will pass on the gene necessary to keep the mutation in the pool. If several begin surviving, and having offspring that also continue to mutate and survive, eventually you would get a new species, or so the theory goes.

Posted
So, it would appear then, that evolutionists only invoke natural selection when it benefits them… that is, when it is convenient. They pretend there is no natural selection whenever that natural selection would eliminate the feature upon which they need to build future mutations.

 

And they call that "science"? What a joke.

 

You are twisting natural selection. Natural selection kills off those mutations that produce a DISADVANTAGE. Many mutations offer neither advantage or disadvantage, and hence natural selection would not work on them. You insist that all mutations be an advantage or a disadvantage (i.e. what doesn't help must harm) which ignores the large area of mutations that are neutral. I'm not throwing out natural selection, I'm applying it properly.

-Will

Posted
In fact, 99% of mutations are neutral, .99% fatal, and .01% beneficial. But the .01% beneficial mutations do improve the organisms' chances for procreation, and will therefore be passed on. A couple of generations later, and that 0.01% would be spread to the biggest part of the population. And voila; there you go. Evolution.

 

It appears that what's at issue here is this: Alleged mutations which are supposedly responsible for evolution on the macro scale, that is, evolution which creates new species and "novel" structures and features in organisms such as the bacterial flagellum would need to be mutations which increase the genetic information.

 

New features and additional complexity require greater volumes of information… anyone care to deny this? All other things being equal, houseplans for a house with 4 bedrooms contain more information than houseplans for a house with two bedrooms. That's logical, right?

 

Speaking of chromosomal mutations generally, of which my son was a victim, it's self-evident that a mutation of this sort does generate "additional" information. And it would appear that my son's extra digits would attest to that. Extra digits, extra information… that makes sense. However, the interesting thing to observe about a mutation such as this is that a) the new information arose randomly in an undirected and haphazard manner; an accident. And :confused: the results were most certainly not survivable. From that it is rather easy to see that a harmful mutation is far more likely than a "neutral" or especially "beneficial" mutation.

Posted

New features and additional complexity require greater volumes of information… anyone care to deny this? All other things being equal, houseplans for a house with 4 bedrooms contain more information than houseplans for a house with two bedrooms. That's logical, right?

It is a logical fallacy, yes. I so deny it. The information required to generate a Julia Set for example is minmal compared to the complexity of the set itself. The smallest change in initial conditions & you get a different complexity. It isn't a matter of more information, but rather what is done with the information at hand.

Posted

I'm just not sure we're all talking about the same thing when we say "mutation".

 

There is normal genetic variation, in which genetic information is "changed" by virtue of the fact that information from one parent is blended with that from another parent, and this continues down through generations resulting in observable "changes" in the appearance of the species as a whole even though no "new" information is introduced.

 

And then there are actual "mutations" which take place during mitosis and an error occurs in the copying process.

 

Since "mutation" can either mean "change" in the most general sense, or it can mean a specific biological event which involves an error in copying genetic information, there's a huge opportunity here for miscommunicating.

 

So, let's make sure we're all on the same page, shall we?

Posted
It is a logical fallacy, yes. I so deny it. The information required to generate a Julia Set for example is minmal compared to the complexity of the set itself. The smallest change in initial conditions & you get a different complexity. It isn't a matter of more information, but rather what is done with the information at hand.

 

Nope, you're swerving into the wrong informational context here. Let's keep the language straight, okay? Information meaning actual instructions, as this is what DNA is… "instructions". More complex, greater volume of instructions. Constructing a simple cube requires very little instructions. Constructing a space shuttle requires volumes and volumes of instructions.

 

Obfuscating the issue with irrelevant trivia is not constructive in the least, I'm afraid.

Posted

 

Obfuscating the issue with irrelevant trivia is not constructive in the least, I'm afraid.

Irrelevant trivia in who's eyes TRoutMac?? I'm a little concerned about your behavior and apparent lack of consideration for the views of others. I'm instructing you to read our FAQ page if you haven't already done so, and if you have, I would recommend that you make an effort to modify your condescending attitude.
Posted
Nope, you're swerving into the wrong informational context here. Let's keep the language straight, okay? Information meaning actual instructions, as this is what DNA is… "instructions". More complex, greater volume of instructions. Constructing a simple cube requires very little instructions. Constructing a space shuttle requires volumes and volumes of instructions.

 

Obfuscating the issue with irrelevant trivia is not constructive in the least, I'm afraid.

Again, more complex structure does not necessarily mean more instructions or even more complex instructions. Information is information, whether you have knowledge of it or not. I have attempted to elucidate the issue with non-destructive non-trivial information; chose to ignore it at your leisure. :confused:

Posted
Boersun, i would argue with your mutations statistics...

No worries, mate - that's why I put the disclaimer in my post.

...you'll have to do a lot better in defending mutations. you may want to list a few beneficial mutations if you can think of them.

Certainly.

 

Amongst Africans, sickle-cell disease is quite common. What happens, is that red blood-cells are built in a sickle form, that impedes on its ability to carry oxygen. Its symptoms are much the same as anemia, and they run out of breath quicker than normal, etc. It's not deadly, but it does affect the carriers. It's also not contagious, but is an inherited trait, the result of a faulty gene.

 

Why use this as an example? Because sickle-cell disease sufferers spit in the eye of a malaria-carrying mosquito. Malaria can't infect and breed in sickle-shaped red blood-cells. Therefore, in the face of a potentially terminal disease such as malaria, the sickle-cell is a definite advantage, although the organism suffering from it does have to pay certain penalties, such as always being short of breath and such. There are places here in Africa where up to 90% of individuals from a specific tribe suffers from sickle-cell disease, but they have the advantage of being able to live in malaria-infested regions where you and I will die without proper and continuous medical care (which, by the way, is kinda scarce in the deepest heart of darkest Africa). Why 90%? Because those that didn't get it, died and didn't get to pass their non-sickle cell genes on. In a hundred years from today, we're probably looking at a 100%.

 

That being a current example of how a mutation that looks on the face of it to be a disadvantage can actually be an advantage when seen in the light of the environment the organism finds itself in. Small-scale evolution, but evolution, nonetheless.

 

Me being a Western-oriented European finding himself in Africa after more than 350 years of taming this continent, have also inherited a trait regarding mosquitoes. Mozzies can bite me as much as they want, but I simply don't itch from them. It doesn't even leave a welt. At night, when they buzz overhead, I just pull a pillow over my head so as I don't have to listen to their buzzing. So they suck my blood to their heart's content, and I get to sleep. Same with my dad. Where in the last 350 years we picked it up, I don't know. But it sure helps. Luckily I don't live in a malaria-zone, 'cause I don't have sickle-shaped cells. Matter of fact - I've almost died of malaria once, from visiting the coast on the border of Mozambique.

Posted
Me being a Western-oriented European finding himself in Africa after more than 350 years of taming this continent, have also inherited a trait regarding mosquitoes. Mozzies can bite me as much as they want, but I simply don't itch from them. It doesn't even leave a welt. At night, when they buzz overhead, I just pull a pillow over my head so as I don't have to listen to their buzzing. So they suck my blood to their heart's content, and I get to sleep. Same with my dad. Where in the last 350 years we picked it up, I don't know. But it sure helps. Luckily I don't live in a malaria-zone, 'cause I don't have sickle-shaped cells. Matter of fact - I've almost died of malaria once, from visiting the coast on the border of Mozambique.

I really wonder how this works.

I share your trait, B. I can sit outside and watch the lil buggers land and bite, and it doesn't even faze me. I don't get welts, I don't itch, the next morning you can't even tell. I always assumed that I wasn't allergic to whatever was in their bites.

My brother, on the other hand, gets horrible welts with every bite, as did my mom. Both of them were fair skinned, light eyed blondes. My husband, who is of Irish descent, with black hair, blue eyes, and VERY fair skin, also gets huge welts. Of my six children, 2 of them (the fairest skinned girls) get horrible welts. The other four gets welts and itches to some lesser degree, with one of the boys hardly having any effect from bites.

This little puzzle has fascnated me for years. Besides the allergy theory (I have very few, husband has more), I've also wondered about the effect of skin pigment on bug bites.

Anyhow, sorry for dragging this off topic. I just read your post and was instantly hooked!

Posted

No, I don't think you are draggin it off topic. I too in the middle of the US have a very low alergic reaction to mosquitos. While I do have a bit of a welt initially, and it itches slightly, within 5 to 10 minutes I'm no longer bothered. My father who has fairer skin is the same way. My sister who has similar traits as me, gets huge welts, as does my mother. And it seems they get bitten up to 5x as much as I do.

As for why only 90%, how do we know that the other 10% haven't 'evolved', as i do not believe in evolution, but know that mutation occurs, i would call it simple mutation, how do we know that the remaining 10% aren't vulnerable to mosquitos because they have gotten past the harmful stage of sickle cell but at the same time have some genetic mutation allowing them not to be vulnerable to malaria?

Posted
As for why only 90%, how do we know that the other 10% haven't 'evolved', as i do not believe in evolution, but know that mutation occurs, i would call it simple mutation, how do we know that the remaining 10% aren't vulnerable to mosquitos because they have gotten past the harmful stage of sickle cell but at the same time have some genetic mutation allowing them not to be vulnerable to malaria?

The remaining 10% are indeed vulnerable, and are dying at a huge rate.

The problem is that the tribal Africans don't report the disease - they've just accepted that once you contract the 'sleeping sickness', you die.

 

But in any case - the ten percent is going down - a few years from now it'll be 9%, then 8%, and so on, untill every surviving individual has got sickle cells. They are the 'fittest' for the current set of environmental variables, and serves well to illustrate the concept 'survival of the fittest'. Unless of course a new environmental variable is introduced, like, say, DDT to kill off the mosquitoes. Then the sickle-cell trait will indeed only be a disadvantage, and normal cells will slowly become the majority in the offspring.

 

Mutations happen. And mutations build up over time to create individual species, where the members of the parent species got geographically isolated. Evolution is a wonderful instrument in the game of life, where something so simple as a statistical set of advantages and disadvantages can play off against the background of environmental demands to generate the incredible complexity of life we see on Earth today. And I imagine every other habitable planet as well.

Posted
Irrelevant trivia in who's eyes TRoutMac?? I'm a little concerned about your behavior and apparent lack of consideration for the views of others. I'm instructing you to read our FAQ page if you haven't already done so, and if you have, I would recommend that you make an effort to modify your condescending attitude.

 

Sorry, but we've just been though a whole bit about the different connotations of the word "information" and it doesn't seem to me that we want to go back down that road again. Turtle appears to want to compare the "information" in fractals with the "information" in DNA, and while DNA's structure does contain information in the same sense as fractals, DNA also carries a type of information that fractals do not carry. I've already proven the basis for that claim, and it is this "extrinsic" information, information which equates to a "message", or as Buffy put it, the "colloquial" connotation of "information" that I am talking about. And in that context, fractals have no relevance because they don't contain that kind of information.

 

I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to hang on to the language and ensure that we're all talking about the same thing. That is the only way we will get clarity on the issue. If people keep using "information" to mean one thing and I keep using "information" to mean something else, then we'll never reach an understanding.

Posted
Mutations happen. And mutations build up over time to create individual species, where the members of the parent species got geographically isolated. Evolution is a wonderful instrument in the game of life, where something so simple as a statistical set of advantages and disadvantages can play off against the background of environmental demands to generate the incredible complexity of life we see on Earth today. And I imagine every other habitable planet as well.

 

Is it not bothersome to you that the mutation which causes the sickle cell trait results from a degradation, or decrease in the genetic information for that individual? Is it not bothersome to you that creating new biological structures requires an increase in the volume of genetic information?

 

And again… I'm talking about instructions here, not fractals and not Shannon. Simple organisms have short DNA strands, (small volume of genetic information) highly complex organisms have very long DNA strands (large volume of genetic information). Does the body which possesses the sickle cell trait have greater or lesser complexity than the body with no sickle cell trait?

 

Simple questions with simple answers.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...