Beneficial Mutations and Evolution

[bob b]

This article may help to explain why beneficial mutations have little to do with explaining macroevolution.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

 

[ThePhy]

Bob b, do you not agree with Jobeth in her original absolute statement that there are no beneficial mutations?

In other words, you are willing to state that in fact there are beneficial mutations?

 

[bob b]

Bob b, do you not agree with Jobeth in her original absolute statement that there are no beneficial mutations?

In other words, you are willing to state that in fact there are beneficial mutations?

Depends on how one defines "beneficial".

This is the way Jobeth put it: "All mutations are bad for the organism that has them. You may have been told otherwise, but people with sickle-cell anemia are very sick people."

I tend to agree with what she said.

However, if aharvey would put it differently, I might tend to agree with him as well.

Isn't the English language wonderful? :dizzy:

BTW do you think that people failed to notice that you are were afraid to comment on the article I posted? (the old "when in trouble change the subject" tactic)

 

[Johnny]

So you agree with this statement: "All mutations are bad for the organism that has them."? Last chance.

p.s. it's ok to disagree with a fellow creationist.

BTW do you think that people failed to notice that you are were afraid to comment on the article I posted? (the old "when in trouble change the subject" tactic)

I simply cannot find the words to express how ironic this is. You mentioned this in another thread. I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

This is the way Jobeth put it: "All mutations are bad for the organism that has them. You may have been told otherwise, but people with sickle-cell anemia are very sick people."

I tend to agree with what she said.

You agree with which part of what she said? Her first sentence was an absolute declaration, with no provisions. Her second is a specific case. Do you support her first sentence or not?

BTW do you think that people failed to notice that you are were afraid to comment on the article I posted? (the old "when in trouble change the subject" tactic)

Before posting my response to your OP, I did a bit of checking on the web to confirm something that I felt I already knew. There are a substantial number of Christian creationists who take Jobeth’s initial absolutist stance – denying that mutations are ever truly beneficial. If that was your stance, then the article you linked to would be superfluous – discussing something you don’t even believe exists. I now take it that your recommending that article to us implicitly admits that beneficial mutations are a fact. That’s a good start.

 

[bob b]

You agree with which part of what she said? Her first sentence was an absolute declaration, with no provisions. Her second is a specific case. Do you support her first sentence or not? Before posting my response to your OP, I did a bit of checking on the web to confirm something that I felt I already knew. There are a substantial number of Christian creationists who take Jobeth’s initial absolutist stance – denying that mutations are ever truly beneficial. If that was your stance, then the article you linked to would be superfluous – discussing something you don’t even believe exists. I now take it that your recommending that article to us implicitly admits that beneficial mutations are a fact. That’s a good start.

I said I tended to agree that all mutations are bad for the organism.

I have also said that some mutations may benefit the organism.

Your problem seems to be that you think these two statements are in conflict.

I then mentioned the same case that Jobeth did: sickle cell anemia, which benefits the person who has it in the sense of the alternative, death, but is bad for the organism in the sense that it is a deterioration in its genome.

What this means in practice is that mutations are not a mechanism that can transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being regardless of how much time is available. Going "downhill" (deterioration) can never get one higher up.

The bottom line is that the simplistic "beneficial" argument is quite as deceptive as the "random mutations plus natural selection" argument.

Both sound simple and inevitable, but upon closer examination can be seen to be fatally flawed as far as real organisms are concerned..

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

I said I tended to agree that all mutations are bad for the organism.

I have also said that some mutations may benefit the organism.

Are you this wishy-washy in your theological teachings? How can you “tend to agree that ALL mutations are bad …” and then in the next sentence say without qualification that “some mutations may benefit the organism”?

Your problem seems to be that you think these two statements are in conflict.

Yeah, that is for sure. Please massacre logic for us again and reconcile them. Remember, you need to not violate what you tend to agree on, but you also need to without hesitation support the some mutations are the good kind.

What this means in practice is that mutations are not a mechanism that can transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being regardless of how much time is available. Going "downhill" (deterioration) can never get one higher up.

You know that the scientists’ answer to abiogenesis is “We don’t know”. That admission seems to give you some kind of pathological satisfaction, so that just like a perverted sex addict you go for it every time you see the smallest opening. Well I’m sorry, but you will have to show that you have the integrity to discuss just evolution as a subject by itself, or you can find someone else to satisfy your perversions on.

 

[bob b]

From bob b:
Are you this wishy-washy in your theological teachings? How can you “tend to agree that ALL mutations are bad …” and then in the next sentence say without qualification that “some mutations may benefit the organism”?
Yeah, that is for sure. Please massacre logic for us again and reconcile them. Remember, you need to not violate what you tend to agree on, but you also need to without hesitation support the some mutations are the good kind.
You know that the scientists’ answer to abiogenesis is “We don’t know”. That admission seems to give you some kind of pathological satisfaction, so that just like a perverted sex addict you go for it every time you see the smallest opening. Well I’m sorry, but you will have to show that you have the integrity to discuss just evolution as a subject by itself, or you can find someone else to satisfy your perversions on.

Oh, had enough, eh?

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

Oh, had enough, eh?

Naw, just wonder why there isn’t a single Creationist on this board with both a reasonable knowledge of the science espoused by Creationists and the integrity to discuss it honestly. I know you enjoy pushing your Creationist fecal material at us incessantly, but believe it or not, some Christians actually give more than lip service to “Thou shalt not lie.”

We converse with you, because you are by far the most active defender of the creationist side. That in no way implies you are knowledgeable, honest, or much of an example of Christian ideals. Quite the opposite.

I really have to wonder what percentage there is in many of these exchanges. I routinely have conversations with Christians, sometimes on non-science ideas that we differ significantly on, but at the end I never come away with the pervasive feeling that I have been trying to handle deceit like I do after trying to converse honestly with you.

I don’t agree with much of what you say. But if I ever feel that I routinely have to resort to the methods you like to employ daily, then I will know that I have lost, and it will be time for me to walk away and let someone who still honors truth to take over.

I am aware this is not a technical post, but I saw exactly zero responsiveness to the points I made in my last post from you.

And your feelings towards me?

 

[noguru]

Bob, one question.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that an human has the genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. Then further along down the line a mutation comes that allows the individual to have two distinct forms of red blood cells. Some of the red blood cells are sickle shaped, the others are normal disc shaped. Would this then still be a deleterious mutation?

 

[bob b]

From bob b: Naw, just wonder why there isn’t a single Creationist on this board with both a reasonable knowledge of the science espoused by Creationists and the integrity to discuss it honestly. I know you enjoy pushing your Creationist fecal material at us incessantly, but believe it or not, some Christians actually give more than lip service to “Thou shalt not lie.”

We converse with you, because you are by far the most active defender of the creationist side. That in no way implies you are knowledgeable, honest, or much of an example of Christian ideals. Quite the opposite.

I really have to wonder what percentage there is in many of these exchanges. I routinely have conversations with Christians, sometimes on non-science ideas that we differ significantly on, but at the end I never come away with the pervasive feeling that I have been trying to handle deceit like I do after trying to converse honestly with you.

I don’t agree with much of what you say. But if I ever feel that I routinely have to resort to the methods you like to employ daily, then I will know that I have lost, and it will be time for me to walk away and let someone who still honors truth to take over.

I am aware this is not a technical post, but I saw exactly zero responsiveness to the points I made in my last post from you.

And your feelings towards me?

Pretty much the same as my feelings toward Harvey: an intelligent and knowledgable person who has been totally deceived by some of the simplistic concepts and clever ploys used by evolutionists (probably without them being aware that they are ploys).

So I am human like anyone else and get frustrated at the "invincible ignorance" displayed by evolutionists about the concepts I am trying to get across, and sometimes resort to humor or other things as an outlet or "safety valve".

And I sometimes ignore points that I have covered so many times that it is maddening to me to have to go over and over things which should be readily apparent.

 

[bob b]

From: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

"Summary
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”). Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated. Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion. The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities. Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change."

 

[KINGOFKNGS]

Sorry to rehash something that is apparently an ancient thread... but as I have just joined this site and was looking through some old posts, I have to say that Bob B's statement makes perfect sense, yet he is mocked for it.

From bob b:
Quote:
I said I tended to agree that all mutations are bad for the organism.

I have also said that some mutations may benefit the organism.
Are you this wishy-washy in your theological teachings? How can you “tend to agree that ALL mutations are bad …” and then in the next sentence say without qualification that “some mutations may benefit the organism”?

Because a mutation will at some point be bad for an organism does not mean that it cannot also provide a benefit for the said organism. A given mutation can eventually cause death to an organism (and therefore be bad), but at the same time, it may provide resistance to a disease (malaria in the case of sickle cell anemia) and therefore prolong the life of a given organism, a life that, without the mutation, had the potential of being much shorter. Thus, the mutation can, at some point, be bad for the individual, but at the same time, can provide a benefit for the individual. It's interesting that those individuals that are heterozygous for SCA have similar resistive properties to malaria as homozygotes... and it all has to deal with the mechanism by which sickle cell anemia provides resistance to Plasmodium falciparum and the other Plasmodium species that cause malaria.

 

[mighty_duck]

Because a mutation will at some point be bad for an organism does not mean that it cannot also provide a benefit for the said organism. A given mutation can eventually cause death to an organism (and therefore be bad), but at the same time, it may provide resistance to a disease (malaria in the case of sickle cell anemia) and therefore prolong the life of a given organism, a life that, without the mutation, had the potential of being much shorter.

I don't think you're making much sense. If because of a mutation, a given individual lives longer than they would without the mutation (and in that time reproduces more), in what sense is it not beneficial?

Suppose I find a way to mutate humans so that they avoid all medical conditions until they are 200, but at age 200 they die of complications from the mutation. Is this still a "partially" negative mutation on your view?

 

[Sealeaf]

Sickel cell anemia is a crippling painful disease. It will kill an affected individual by their 40th year. Milaria is a fatal infectious disease that kills at all ages. individuals that have SCA can live to their 30's in relatively good health in areas where milaria is endemic. They are immune to the rapid killing infection but have a genetic disorder that will kill them in middle age. SCA is a benificial mutation if one lives in milaria country.

 

[Mr Jack]

Sickel cell anemia is a crippling painful disease. It will kill an affected individual by their 40th year. Milaria is a fatal infectious disease that kills at all ages. individuals that have SCA can live to their 30's in relatively good health in areas where milaria is endemic. They are immune to the rapid killing infection but have a genetic disorder that will kill them in middle age. SCA is a benificial mutation if one lives in milaria country.

More importantly, I think, it protects those that are heterozygous for the SCA gene.

 

[Johnny]

Sickel cell anemia is a crippling painful disease. It will kill an affected individual by their 40th year. Milaria is a fatal infectious disease that kills at all ages. individuals that have SCA can live to their 30's in relatively good health in areas where milaria is endemic. They are immune to the rapid killing infection but have a genetic disorder that will kill them in middle age. SCA is a benificial mutation if one lives in milaria country.

As Mr Jack noted, sickle cell confers a heterozygote advantage to the population. Many untreated sickle cell patients will actually die early in the course of the disease.

 

[chair]

...

I then mentioned the same case that Jobeth did: sickle cell anemia, which benefits the person who has it in the sense of the alternative, death, but is bad for the organism in the sense that it is a deterioration in its genome.
...

There isn't such a thing as 'deterioration of the genome' in evolution. Evolution isn't about preserving genomes. A mutation either helps an organism survive and reproduce, or it doesn't. If it helps, then it is a beneficial mutation by definition.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

There isn't such a thing as 'deterioration of the genome' in evolution.

Bob isn't an evolutionist. This is one of the major problems when discussing things with you guys -- you can't think outside the box long enough to get what we're saying.

 

[Jukia]

Bob isn't an evolutionist. This is one of the major problems when discussing things with you guys -- you can't think outside the box long enough to get what we're saying.

Oh no, we get it.