Jump to content


Photo

Comparing Helpful Vs. Disadvantageous Mutations


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 lightbo

lightbo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Oregon

Posted 24 April 2009 - 08:29 AM

Disadvantageous vs. "Beneficial" Mutations

Evolution's last desperate stand to explain speciation of the Earth is random genetic mutation.
A serious problem with that is, the odds that a 'mutation' ( = 'change' ) will be deleterious far exceed the odds they could be beneficial.

To begin, it must be pointed out that the massive number of mutations to non-reproductive cells are of no relevance.
These are not passed down through S@xual reproduction.

Disturbing Integral Complexity
Give a wrench and hammer to your average eight year old and let him 'randomly' mutate a finely tuned race car engine. Odds are statistically overwhelming that his random 'mechanic-mutations' aren't going to make it run better.

Take a highly integrated microchip and make random micro-splices.
Mr. Computer isn't likely going to work better because its circuit logic was randomly violated.

Evolution is a faith based belief system which is completely dependent upon plausibilities and probabilities. Evos can't even begin to claim, from a statistical standpoint, that tampering with the complex DNA system wouldn't disturb any or all of the other pre-existing functions. Just how catastrophic can one little teeny tiny change be? The proportions could be staggering with respect to S@xual reproduction.

Chromosome Degradations
Evos themselves propose that the Y chromosome resulted from a genetic degradation, reduction of the X chromosome.
<whispers> "You can't get from organic slop to complex life forms be reducing chromosomes."

Now. Big question. Why is it important to compare deleterious mutations with beneficial ones? The planet couldn't have populated with all the species if fatal genetic mutations outstripped beneficial ones.

With all the mechanistic hazards and degradations, Evos don't have a statistical leg to stand on, claiming that 'beneficial' mutations can even come close to disadvantageous ones. And since the evo card house is founded exclusively upon probabilities, evolution falls upon its own statistical sword.

---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Followup

Evidence against evolutionist claims about "good" mutations

Our new term, Genetic Entropy, encompasses a growing list of scientific mechanisms which would work against a theorized evolutionary process.

Under the category of Genetic Degradation, we have mounting evidence that deterioration far exceeds "beneficial" mutations. Beneficial mutations are what evos claim drive progression of species. Humans, however, present a big problem for them.

It has long been established that older mothers have higher risks in birth defects.
Now, studies assert, "...older fathers have been linked to a range of health problems, including an increased risk of birth deformities, autism and neuropsychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder."

The article quotes, "Genetic factors are likely to be key, as there is evidence that genetic mutations become more widespread in a man's sperm as he ages."
The University of Queensland study appears in the journal PLoS Medicine.
Here is the BBC article link referencing it:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/7931982.stm

Evolutionists who claim that beneficial mutations are not overwhelmed by disadvantageous or deteriorating mutations have a biiiig problem on their hands, when it comes to humans.

Note that the deterioration mentioned in the article applies to ALL humans at ALL times.
Ask the evos to specify just what "beneficial" mutations can possibly compare to this.
Just how exactly are humans randomly mutating into something "better"?

Summary: You can't evolve organic slop or Mamma Firstcell into complex life forms if deterioration significantly surpasses progress.

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 April 2009 - 12:34 PM

Hi Lightbo,welcome aboard and great informitive stuff.



Thanks.

#3 lightbo

lightbo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Oregon

Posted 28 April 2009 - 05:02 AM

Hi Lightbo,welcome aboard and great informitive stuff.
Thanks.

View Post

Thanks, Jason.

The ideas keep flooding in.
More big ones are waiting on the runway.

Springdale? Grew up in Rogers. Small world. B)

#4 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2009 - 10:12 AM

Disadvantageous vs. "Beneficial" Mutations

Evolution's last desperate stand to explain speciation of the Earth is random genetic mutation.
A serious problem with that is, the odds that a 'mutation' ( = 'change' ) will be deleterious far exceed the odds they could be beneficial.

Why is that a problem? If the environment is such that it punishes deleterious changes, and rewards and keeps beneficial ones, then it doesn't seem to be a problem. If 999 of every 1,000 mutations are either deleterious or neutral, they won't be selected for, but that one beneficial one will be (statistically). If it is selected for, then it can quickly overcome those other 999, which just drop out of the active picture. In a few generations, that single beneficial change can dwarf the large numbers of harmful or neutral changes that do not get selected for.

I realize that really learning this stuff is likely not the goal, given what you write, and the way you write, but if you do want to get this concept, think about investing 1 dollar, and burning the other 999 $1 bills you have, given a stack of 1,000. How can you make money, if only $1 gets invested??? Well, the other 999 are gone, burned to ashes, realized costs, with no return. But if that $1 pays a 50% return, how many years will it take you to realize $1,000 in capital gains?

In less than 20 years, you have blown by your $1000 initial stake, and are realizing overall gains.

What you are failing to comprehend is the "returns" gained by the beneficial changes, rare as they are. What they lack in frequency vs. deleterious or neutral changes is made up for in the dividends they yield.

To begin, it must be pointed out that the massive number of mutations to non-reproductive cells are of no relevance.
These are not passed down through S@xual reproduction.

OK, somatic mutations. Why is this important to point out?

Disturbing Integral Complexity
Give a wrench and hammer to your average eight year old and let him 'randomly' mutate a finely tuned race car engine. Odds are statistically overwhelming that his random 'mechanic-mutations' aren't going to make it run better.

Ahh, Gary Larson Biology again. A mutation is not a "dent". This is chemistry we're talking about. Nucleotides and protein folding. Epidemiologists studying the bird flu a couple years ago isolated a single mutation in the virus that enabled it to survive in the cooler environs of the upper respiratory tract of mammals. The thing about mutations is that they aren't like hammers used on a fender -- that's just an ignorant analogy. Every point mutation produces a valid nucleotide base, in terms of chemistry. There are no wrong answers at that level. That mutation may be quickly lethal to the organization -- a mammal may not even survive to birth with such a mutation -- but the chemistry doesn't care, it's just chemicals, and the process produces the proteins indicated.

That means that when a mutation occurs that *is* beneficial, it's beneficial *and* stable in terms of chemistry (at least until another mutation or transcription event changes it). That would mean it's like every so many bangs on the fender makes it a better, stronger, more resilient fender, which seems a ludicrous idea. But that just shows the inappropriateness of the analogy you've chosen. It's fun as Gary Larson Biology I'm sure, but it's not relevant to what really goes on at the cell level.

See here for more on the bird flu mutation I mentioned:

http://www.plospatho...al.ppat.0030133

Take a highly integrated microchip and make random micro-splices.
Mr. Computer isn't likely going to work better because its circuit logic was randomly violated.

No, why would we suppose it would? This isn't any better than the "hammer-fender" analogy, and fundamentally misunderstands the biology being addressed.

How about this analogy: Take a rocket and shoot down an airplane, sending crashing to the ground. How many times do we think that is going to make that airplane a better airplane???

Silly evolution!!!

Evolution is a faith based belief system which is completely dependent upon plausibilities and probabilities. Evos can't even begin to claim, from a statistical standpoint, that tampering with the complex DNA system wouldn't disturb any or all of the other pre-existing functions. Just how catastrophic can one little teeny tiny change be? The proportions could be staggering with respect to S@xual reproduction.

Staggering? A mutation can result in total non-viability of the organism, like I mentioned above, it may mean the embryo dies a quick death due to the problems induced by the mutation. Is that staggering? I guess it's pretty important if you are that individual, or maybe it's mother. But mutations happen to individuals, which seems to be a persistent point of confusion for you. If indiviudal X has a fatal mutation, it's no more harm to the population than a loss of one individual, because that individual dies and the fatal mutation along with it -- it doesn't propagate.

Chromosome Degradations
Evos themselves propose that the Y chromosome resulted from a genetic degradation, reduction of the X chromosome.
<whispers> "You can't get from organic slop to complex life forms be reducing chromosomes."

Now. Big question. Why is it important to compare deleterious mutations with beneficial ones? The planet couldn't have populated with all the species if fatal genetic mutations outstripped beneficial ones.

See my above comments on "dividends" and the relative returns of beneficial mutations vs. the costs of non-beneficial mutations. You are apparently thinking that the dividends of the $1 that is beneficial are... $1. Beneficial mutations pay big dividends, large enough to compensate for the costs of non-beneficial mutations. Think about that bird flu virus. Maybe the previous 10 million mutations that occurred to 10 million other individuals were busts, with most killing the individual. But along comes this one beneficial mutation which enables the virus to survive and thrive in a new, prosperous environment. As a result, the new version of the virus with the beneficial mutation can now survive and reproduce in a dramatically more efficient way, eventually leading to hundreds of billions of new individuals over what the population could have achieved without that beneficial mutation.

You understand the harm in harmful changes, but do not understand the benefit in beneficial changes. Theological blinders, anyone?

With all the mechanistic hazards and degradations, Evos don't have a statistical leg to stand on, claiming that 'beneficial' mutations can even come close to disadvantageous ones. And since the evo card house is founded exclusively upon probabilities, evolution falls upon its own statistical sword.

That's pretty funny. You can't smash a better fender with an eight year old and a hammer, after all!

-TS

#5 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2009 - 07:05 PM

Evolution's last desperate stand to explain speciation of the Earth is random genetic mutation.
A serious problem with that is, the odds that a 'mutation' ( = 'change' ) will be deleterious far exceed the odds they could be beneficial.


I do not think that genetic mutations are required to explain speciation.

First of, we need to think of a single species, with all individuals living under relatively similar conditions. If mating is random or nearly so, then all characteristics will be blended - as in mongrel dogs.
If there is consistent separation by some characteristic for example separate the largest 10 % and breed them together and have a second group of the smallest 10 %, and continue separating the largest and smallest each generation, including largest and smallest individuals in the descendants of the middle 80 % I think it is obvious that the two extreme groups will diverge substantially.

I realize such an experiment would not produce inability to make fertile crosses between the two extreme groups. However, there are many species in which females choose males based on some physical characteristic - eg peacock's tails. Consider now an experiment which separated the most choosy females in one group and the least discriminating in the other. At the same time selecting one group of males with the brightest tales and the other with the least impressive. continue for multiple generations mating large tails with choosy females and small dull tails with non-discriminating females. How long would it take to have two groups which would not willingly interbreed?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users