How about the fact that organisms with negative mutations, oh, I dunno... die???

Organisms with positive mutations will survive better than the status quo organisms. Organisms with negative mutations will die and not be able to pass on their genes. Natural selection. You don't need a source for that because it's kind of common sense. It's not that negative mutations aren't inherited, it's that the organisms die before they can pass on the trait.

So you hi-lighted pieces of my post because you think it proves a statistical probability?


I suppose in hindsight this is my fault for posting that. This is what Cimber was talking about, to understand how multicellularity arose you have to have some understanding of group selection, again the bridge that links this conversation remains barred by knowledge.

I don't have time right now to delve into multicellularity and group selection. My only advice for you Karlis would be to read up on group selection, kin selection, Symbiotic Theory, Colonial Theory and some examples like Volvox and slime molds. Maybe then you will understand why and how specialization of colony life occurs.


My apologies if anyone felt the post was inappropriate, I had initially told Walkingwith I would not delve into cancer with him, as it seemed we couldn't get past basic biology. Cancer happens to be one of my research interests however so I could not resist the chance, I guess the post was more intended for those with a grasp on evolutionary biology that had not heard the evolutionary spin on it.

Again, my apologies if I left anyone with that distinct head scratching feeling.

Of course there are some positive mutations, but they occur less frequently than deleterious mutations.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/bbcdrugs.htm

"Scientists in the US have confirmed that children born to HIV positive mothers, exposed to treatment in the womb have an increased frequency of genetic mutations."

http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf

US in 2007 1,444,920 new cancer cases.

Cancer is caused by both external factors (tobacco, chemicals, radiation, and infectious organisms) and internal factors (inherited mutations, hormones, immune conditions, and mutations that occur from metabolism).

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=emerydrei...sculardystrophy

Mutations in the EMD and LMNA genes cause Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy.

The EMD and LMNA genes provide instructions for making proteins that are components of the nuclear envelope, which surrounds the nucleus in cells. The nuclear envelope regulates the movement of molecules into and out of the nucleus, and researchers believe it may play a role in regulating the activity of certain genes.

Most cases of Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy are caused by mutations in the EMD gene. This gene provides instructions for making a protein called emerin, which appears to be essential for the normal function of skeletal and cardiac muscle. Most EMD mutations prevent the production of any functional emerin. It remains unclear how a lack of this protein results in the signs and symptoms of Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy.

Less commonly, Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy results from mutations in the LMNA gene. This gene provides instructions for making two very similar proteins, lamin A and lamin C. Most of the LMNA mutations that cause this condition result in the production of an altered version of these proteins. Researchers are investigating how the altered versions of lamins A and C lead to muscle wasting and heart problems in people with Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy.

http://www.cysticfibrosis.com/

What is Cystic Fibrosis?
An inherited life-threatening disease involving a genetic mutation that disrupts the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR) protein, resulting in poorly hydrated, thickened mucous secretions in the lungs.

http://www.luminexcorp.com/applications/cystic_fibrosis.html

Cystic Fibrosis affects approximately 30,000 adults and children in North America. The American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recommends that individuals be tested for 23 different mutations in the Cystic Fibrosis gene.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/5/456

Our results indicate that heterozygous activating mutations in ABCC8, encoding the SUR1 regulatory subunit of the ATP-sensitive potassium channels found in beta cells, cause both permanent and transient neonatal diabetes.

Permanent neonatal diabetes requires lifelong therapy; transient neonatal diabetes remits early, with a possible relapse during adolescence.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70910173758.htm

ScienceDaily (Sep. 11, 2007) — Mutations in the insulin gene can cause permanent neonatal diabetes, an unusual form of diabetes that affects very young children and results in lifelong dependence on insulin injections, report researchers from the University of Chicago and Peninsula University (Exeter, UK) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Yes, WWF, we all know that negative mutations occur more frequently than positive ones. No one is trying to disprove that. But, if humans lived in the wild with no technology, people with those disorders would die the quickest because of their mutations, and humans with more positive mutations would survive more easily. However, because humans create their OWN environments, mutations, whether they be positive or negative, are treated in the same way. If someone is born with one of those mutations you pointed out they are cared for and encouraged to live their life to its fullest and to even start a family (thusly passing down the mutation) if the mutation is not severe. Therefore, the mutations are passed down more frequently and commonly in humans because we don't die as easily as if we were in the wild. If we lived in the wild we would be at the mercy of natural selection, but since we create our own environments, the natural form of natural selection no longer pertains. We help those who are disabled, whereas in the wild those who are mutated die off very quickly.

No, Copasetic, I highlighted and emphasised the phrases that you used , not because of probability, but because of statistical impossibility.

"Symbiotic Theory, Colonial Theory and ..." and many more "theories based on more theories", right? The fact that there is evolution on a basic level does not seem to be convincing evidence that the theories in evolution prove development of consciousness and higher life forms.

Please, do not apologise -- I thank you again for helping me to see the flawed ides that theories prove evolution of intelligence.

So -- is cancer proof of evolution, or is it indication of regression?

With thanks,
Karlis

I applaud your efforts, but a closed mind is like a house with its windows and its doors barred and guarded. I think for you guys to communicate what you are trying to communicate to him you have to back pedal through so much biology that the task would daunting.


Also, I would like to point something out for those with a basic grasp on this stuff, but maybe slightly confused on the prorogation of negative mutations.

We saw with the example cystic fibrosis that the increase to frequency in the population was due to resistance to tuberculosis. So this is a case of a "bad" mutation, that once had a "good" benefit to individuals (the fact of how wide spread carriers are attests to the success of genotype).

But how are other "negative" mutations maintained in a population which seemingly incur no benefit?

As we have been talking about the beneficialness of a mutation is contextual. To not only the environment in which it arises, but the specific genome in which it arises. Let's use a hypothetical example to illustrate this. Let's pretend we have some make-believe organism, which have sequenced its entire genome. We find that it has a mutation that we consider negative for some reason or another. But amazingly the frequency of this "bad" gene is extremely high in the population. How could such a thing occur?

We need to not be so narrow in our view (as some would like to have it regarding mutations). Since we have the genome sequenced of our make-believe organism, lets say we started looking at other genes. And we find, a gene close by that has, low and behold, a great benefit to the organisms fitness, Much greater than the damage done by our "bad" mutation! Because the location of the "bad" gene and the genome in which it exists, it gets a "free ride" to higher frequency in the population.

This is important in evolution. Now we have a gene that in the current environment may seem "negative" -but what happens when the environment changes?


Remember, Selection works on various levels. We can think of selection working on the molecular, gene, genome, cell, organism, family group, community, population and species level.

Karlis,

We seem at a crossroad here. You saying "theories based on more theories" leads me to the likely conclusion that you do not understand how science works. I am sure the word "theory" is giving you problems here. Furthermore you say "the fact that there is evolution on a basic level.....", again leads me to the conclusion you have no idea what you are talking about. What is a basic level? Knowledge, Karlis, it is imperative in this discussion. We can't actively talk about evolution if you think there are "basic levels", make up your own terminology, and think immune responses are an example of biological evolution.

Again my apologies, I have undoubtedly left you worse off then when we started -evident by "So -- is cancer proof of evolution, or is it indication of regression?". Maybe, and I do not mean this in any kind of ill manner, you should reread what has been posted about cancer and do some side reading on cancer, evolution and mutations, Then you could answer the question for yourself.

Yes, close minded to bogus information. I'll stick to reality. Most significant mutations are deleterious as I've shown with numerous references. If you don't understand this by now, then I'm afraid this topic is most likely over your head.

You can generate whatever make-believe organism you want. However, many people are suffering with REAL conditions due to REAL mutations that aren't friendly to the body.

Again, please show me a reference to a positive mutation that occurs FREQUENTLY and offers a SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE in fitness.

I'm not saying that positive mutations never occur that help with fitness, but they're not as common and the advantages ones seem to aid in is in helping with pre-existing conditions that are harmful.

What I would like to see is a positive mutation present during conception that gives someone better eyesight or improved hearing. Isn't this what the theory of evolution proposes?

You have? You have shown that more negative mutations occur than positive ones with scientific references? I seem to recall you saying its common sense, all you have done is link some webpages that talk about well studied disease, want a cookie?

Again I have to fall back on you going back to learn your genetics
"Again, please show me a reference to a positive mutation that occurs FREQUENTLY and offers a SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE in fitness"

Do you have any idea how that sounds to someone who understand mutations in the slightest? You're just giving people who believe in god a bad name here man, come on. The least you could do is spend a couple of hours in the library. If nothing else you'll be able to make stronger arguments.

Sorry, but you show very little understanding of genetics, especially in the area of mutations. I've given examples taken directly from sources cited and provided links to websites with extensive information.

If you understood genetics reasonably then your comments might mean more, but you really haven't added much in terms of debate. You offer more in terms of flaming and personal attacks which are against forum rules.

Also, if you would read through the thread, you would see that others have agreed that deleterious mutations occur more frequently than positive mutations.


Please go back through this thread and read through the links I provided. I've provided links that highlight several diseases due to deleterious mutations. If you disagree that these diseases aren't common and that it's not really these muations causing them per the research, then please cite your source for disagreeing with what has been provided. For example, why is the American Cancer Society wrong in saying mutations have led to instances of cancer if you believe this to be true.

Most mutations are neutral. It really depends on the parents, as well as the invironment. If both parents
contain the mutant gene, then there is a good chance the child will have the genetic mutation.

Agreed. Even though neutral mutations are most common they're relatively insignificant because no change occurs. THey don't contribute and they're not detrimental to fitness.

Oh I'm sorry, I see it now. You have provided some examples from true science. Got ya. Guess I had to read that post you made on the other topic explaining true science. Thanks for clarification. Well I think we can conclude that I am a novice to true science, unlike yourself. Glad there was someone here who could clear that up. Nevermind that whole mutations are contextual argument, that clearly was not true science, ha, where was my head?

Maybe you could clear something up I am confused about, whats the point of a neutral mutation?

Please see post #853. I list several examples of conditions due to deleterious mutations with links to sources.

Again, if you disagree with these sources please explain why and provide your sources.

Point?

It's not like the mutations occurs with some "point" to make. They simply exist but do not affect the organisms fitness.

The main point of the neutral theory is simply that when we see several versions of a gene in a population, it is likely that their frequencies are simply drifting around. The data supporting and refuting the neutral theory are complicated. Figuring out how widely the neutral theory applies is still the topic of much research.

Now see here is another point of true science I am confused on. The evolutionists are always telling me about these positive mutations and here you say that they occur. Since you are so learned in genetics maybe you can tell me how often they occur. Like could you give me some kind of number like maybe 10^-7 per base pair per generation?

Ok I see now, So what happens if the environment changes and one of these so called neutral mutations becomes positive, like how often does that happen? Could you give me some kind of number?

Maybe you could add something constructive/scientific? Formulate a position with sources? Do you realize this is a debate thread?

If you're just looking for Q&A I would suggest just googling "mutations".

Well I had a position that mutations are contextual, but thankfully you have showed me true science. So, I was wondering if you would elaborate on your true science, I would think a man of science and scripture such as yourself would be kind enough to enlighten an uninformed individual such as myself.

So can you provide a number to how often these positive mutations are occurring? I'm an avid fan of your true science methods, and knowing you wouldn't post anything other than true science (which is observable right?) I'm sure it would be no big deal for you to provide me with a number.

WWF, can you say for a fact that mutations do more harm than good?

Take for example, a butterfly may develop offspring with a new mutation caused say by ultraviolet light from the sun. In most cases, this mutation could be concidered bad, since obviously there was no 'purpose' for such a change at the molecular level. However, sometimes a mutation may change, say, the butterfly's color, making it harder for predators to see it; this is an advantage and the chances of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a large percentage of the species.

Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects determine the fitness of either the species or the individuals who make up the species. These can accumulate over time due to genetic drift.

Like I said, if you're interested in Q&A I would suggest you do a google search. However, I don't think you're going to find an exact number of how many positive mutations are occurring.

Saying it's no big deal to just hand you a number isn't even a realistic request.

What you may want to try doing is look at individual studies in which different types of mutations are measured. Mutation rates are going to vary based on the specific area of study.

On the off-chance that you may have missed this post I made yesterday:

Has anyone here read the book, "What about Origins?" by Dr. A. J. Monty White?
If yes, what is your opinion of Monty White's propositions?
As I have written before -- I am not educated in science/s, but Monty White makes sense to me.

From wikipedia:
A.J. Monty White is a British Young Earth Creationist and is the Chief Executive of the UK branch of Answers in Genesis. He is a graduate of the University of Wales, having obtained a B. Sc. in Chemistry in 1967, and a Ph. D. for his research in the field of Gas Kinetics in 1970.

Regards,
Karlis

Hold on, Time out here. You said true science was observable and you said:



Now, true science dictates you should provide evidence for these so called positive mutations. You have asked others over and over for scientific research regarding their positions, don't fail me now and not provide any. All of a sudden your telling me couldn't find an exact number of positive mutations? Something smells fishy to me here, don't go gettin all evolutionist on me man.

It depends on the mutation. Obviously a mutation that causes cancer or muscular dystrophy is doing harm rather than good. However, in your example with the butterfly you could argue that it contributed towards its fitness if it helped the butterfly avoid predators. Unfortunately many predators of the butterfly rely on UV and sonar, so even with the color change it may still be a very easy target to predators such as birds and bats.

As I've mentioned previously, this is a debate thread. Positive mutations are observable and listed in individual studies, that why I recommended a google search if you're looking for Q&A. From what I've seen, and I've looked, these studies pretty much always list the numbers of neutral and deleterious mutations as well.

The problem here is you want others to post information but you don't want to add anything constructive to the discussion/debate.

If you're really interested in numbers for positive mutations you'll find them. If you need help understanding a study on mutations, I'm sure you could ask for help in this thread and someone would be willing to help you. I know scientific journals/statistics are not always easy for some individuals to discern. However, I've seen you post statisics before from journal articles, so I'm guessing you could probably thumb through them pretty well. If not, just ask.

Guess not!

What are the odds of these genetic defects, on a level where the defect is sustainable?

Yes, You have mentioned this is a debate thread. But your not supporting your position of the relative nature of mutations. Perhaps you could answer the question to provide support for your position? What number of positive mutations is occurring?



Well you got me good here. As I explained I am a novice to true science, unlike yourself. Now right above a few posts you said one needs to support their position, I don't think its asking you too much to show me some true science studies.



Wait just a minute, you just told me I wouldn't likely find them. Bah to those previous studies I have posted, obviously they were not true science. They didn't even say more negative mutations are happening then positive ones (shhh, I'll tell you a dirty secrete, they even suggest that mutations are contextual). Looks like some of those scientist missed the boat on that one!

So back to the subject at hand. Positive mutations, can you post a number for how often they are occurring?

In what type of organism? What type of genetic defect?

If they're neutral, then why wouldn't they all be sustainable?

You mean the guy who wrote:



LINK

Nah, haven't read much work from him. Read lots of creationist/ID literature though, but comments like the one above, well brain cells are a precious resource my friend.

Perhaps then, Karlis, you'd like to show us how statistically impossible it is for undirected (from the ID sense) evolution to have occurred?

And how much more likely an ID-type scenario is?

Using statistics please, not opinion.

Why are you here is you're just going to troll?

I've already referred you to works cited, but apparently you refused to read what I've already posted. There are many studies/journal articles available on the Internet that provide numbers.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to you if you're just going to troll. It's not worth my time.

You're accusing me of trolling for asking for you to provide a little true scientific evidence? Yes you have posted websites about some diseases with an underlying genetic basis. You have not posted any support for your claim that:


Now an easy solution to this problem would be to simply provide a number of positive mutations that are occurring. Again you made this claim, so it shouldn't be too much of a burden for one as knowledgeable as yourself

Edit: You know you should also really provide some scientific support for that last part there as well. Maybe you could link us a website where a mutation is reinserting the retinoblastoma protein pathway to get rid of the pre-existing condition of cancer.

You were just talking about cancer and muscular dystrophy WWF! I presumed you were talking about this defect
happening in humans. (Sorry if I was wrong).

If these genetic defects occur once maybe twice in a generation, then yes, the defective gene is there.
There is always the possibilty that a child could be born with the defect through genetic drift.

One has to look through inheritance, and how it works.

X-linked genes are found on the sex X chromosome. X-linked genes just like autosomal genes have both dominant and recessive types. Recessive X-linked disorders are rarely seen in females and usually only affect males. This is because males inherit their X chromosome and all X-linked genes will be inherited from the maternal side. Fathers only pass on their Y chromosome to their sons, so no x-linked traits will be inherited from father to son. Females express X-linked disorders when they are homozygous for the disorder and become carriers when they are heterozygous.

Looking at it this way there is a good chance the defective genes may not even reach the child.

Whoops! -- I guess I phrased my words badly.

When I think of ID "Intelligent Design", I assume a conscious, intelligent and aware Creator God creating the universe and life.

As to what methods God used, and what statistical "probabilities" are or were involved in God creating creation -- I have not the faintest idea.

Thus, as far as I'm concerned, God may have used aspects of evolution in the process of bringing all life, animals and intelligent consciousness into existence. On the other hand, God may well have created "aspects of evolution" for reasons I can not fathom.

Be as it may -- it seems to me that for life to have evolved by chance; and then to have progressively grown more and more complex, is an impossibility, due to the astronomically mind-boggling, impossible statistical chances required for it all to come to pass.

Thus, evolutionists seem to have more faith than people who have faith in God as Creator.

Just more musings and unscientifically-based thoughts on my part,
Karlis

Agreed. However, there are some abnormalities with chromosomes when you see things like XXY, ***Y, and ***XY. Of course these cases are still male due to the Y chromosome.

http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/a/aa110504a.htm

"Sex chromosome abnormalities occur as a result of chromosome mutations brought on by mutagens (like radiation) or problems that occur during meiosis."

I am not a young-earth creationist, and I do acknowledge God could have used evolution to create the world. So I don't necessarily agree with White's assertions. But to say "brain cells are a precious resource" (and presumably imply that he needs some, or that Karlis should use his) when Monty White is a member of the Royal Society for Chemistry, as well as (at one time) Academic Registrar of Cardiff University (as well as other senior positions within the Institution), as well as a PhD graduate in Chemistry, it is not "Brain cells" that are missing here. He is clearly an intelligent man with many brain cells, and knows more about science than probably you and I combined (not difficult considering I admit to not knowing a great deal).

I don't see a contradiction in evolution and creationism, so for me and my Faith, it's a non-issue. In my worldview, if evolution happened, God was the one behind it. If the world was created in six days, God was the one behind it. I'm not going to argue and bicker over it, when clearly the outcome is the same regardless of which is true. There is no reason for science not to be accurate though - it is logical to me that if God did create the world, then there would be a natural order to it that could be explained with enough knowledge.

Sorry, I'm going off the original point I was trying to make. We may disagree with Monty White, but we cannot accuse him for a lack of brain cells. Just a thought,

No one knows how to show, statistically, how probable it is that complex life has evolved. I'd wager there are variables we have not yet discovered (and I'm talking science - not God ). It could be argued, with some validity, that since complex life is here then it is a statistical certainty that its' evolution will occur once life has begun.

However, that science cannot answer the question of probability with any degree of certainty is no reason for assuming improbability (or probability). That something is difficult or impossible to show, statistically, to occur, does not mean its occurrence is statistically improbable or impossible.

You say there is an "astronomically mind-boggling, impossible statistical chances required for it all to come to pass", yet you do not know the figures or variables in question, so how can you be certain you are correct in stating this? Because it is complex? Complexity is also no barrier to probability - if all the variables in the statistical equation are known.

The argument you are proposing here is an argument from incredulity, but it is false.

Are you going to provide this evidence and number for positive mutations Walkingwith, I am beginning to think you don't understand your own bass ackwards science.

I hope I am adequate for this...... There exists in this universe of ours a balance so complete and far reaching yet so subtle as to almost appear invisible or undetectable to most. From the extreme micro, the world of sub-atomic particles; to the extreme macro - this balance of perfection. For every thing there exists its opposite. For every whole number, the opposite whole number; and what is their sum? For every action, an equal and opposite reaction. For every force, there is an opposing force. In the small space between 0 and 1 on a number line exist an infinite number of numbers each with its opposite.

Consider the rational mind. Only a few are truly its master. Some may get close but many, may I say the vast, vast, majority of people on this planet never even pause to consider. Think of the most brilliant. I like to think of research physicists for this example. They are the intellectually "gifted." Yet it takes many years for them to reach their full potential. Years of schooling, training, the language of math and science; many years of study and much effort. Many receive the reward for their efforts. These brilliant minds understand complex equations and interactions that many of us stand in awe of. As I watched a film of one of Einstein's lectures I marvelled at his ability to flow through the most complex equations with the ease of a child creating a simple picture with a crayon. So many people walk their entire lives void of even the most basic rational knowledge. Many people can't even balance a checkbook and some have never tried.

What is the opposite of the physical? What is the opposite of the rational? Don't say irrational (I got that pun myself) or to many maybe it is irrational. There are things that are not understood with the rational mind. The answer is the spiritual. And just as there is much training, and effort, and devotion required to achieve the highest levels of intellectual success; so it is with spiritual things. I'm not free to discuss everything here but I know that someone is listening. To most people the scriptures are just words on a page and many, many are in doubt. But for those who truly seek there is something marvelous behind those words that is invisible, subtle, and almost undetectable - yet profound and powerful. There is for those who would seek wisdom, and truth the reward of attainment. Those that seek will find. Science is great; but there are some things that it just can't tackle. Regards.

Please stop trolling.

Yeti,

I think most people have that sense of wonder and mystery about the world. I wouldn't say it is intrinsically linked to the 'spiritual' as you have it defined. Making that mystery the sole domain of the religious does it a disservice. I suppose we let them have that part as science has rendered their view of the world slowly but surely more redundant. Me, I would personally like to see them have the mystery part ripped away also, but I suppose they need a job like everybody else lol.

LMAO at the part in bold. It sounds very paranoid - like a secret message slipped into your post! Sure it wasn't intended that way.

You mention how spirituality is the opposite of rationality. Is there anything rational about your spirituality?

Come now, Surely asking someone for evidence for their claims is not trolling, Or are you guilty of trolling as well? All you have to do is provide some kind of mathematical description for how often these positive mutations are occurring. So just give me some kind of number and some true scientific evidence to support this number and the matter can be settled or you could claim that no such true scientific evidence exists or your incapable of describing it (though I doubt the latter here as you are a man of true science).

WWF likes to use this tactic. He'll argue with deliberate misquotation and unbacked points till he runs of out of ground then he'll accuse of trolling or flame baiting as his defence and he has also used being in the army as a reason you should not debate with him.

I'm giving him the benefit of doubt that he has this evidence. Surely a man of scripture such as him would not risk the ire of God and eternal suffering by presenting himself in such a dishonest manner

Lets stick to the topic please and avoid making disaparaging personal remarks or accusations about other members, can we keep the responses civil and constructive.

Thank you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I LOVE IT!

Except God itself hahahahahaha