Evil-ution

[cotjones 10+ year member]

And where the fuck does it say that "MOST pheontypic mutations are negative, not neutral or positive"?

You mean this?

Here:

Actually, most mutations go unnoticed since they mostly occur in non-translated parts of the genome in the "junk" DNA). Most bad mutations are destroyed or cannot function due to structural instability in their tertiary structure. Whereas the negative mutations that are noticed maintain structural integrity and have a separate function, or no function at all (where in this case, the body would need something important from this malformed protein, ei. chaperone protein). Same goes for a positive mutation, where this new/improved protein functions better/has positive effect on the body.

Touche'
I was referring to phenotype traits, should have made that clear. Most "expressed" mutations will be negative. Non functioning eyes in cave dwellers are an example of a neutral phenotype mutation.

Here I said "EXPRESSED" Mutations are most likely negative. That means phenotype. IE: PHENOTYPE EXPRESSED MUTATIONS ARE MOST LIKELY NEGATIVE. Are they possibly positive or neutral? Sure. But the most likely outcome is negative. If you randomly change something in a car engine, is it more likely that the car will run better or worse?

Wrong again. Won't these "expressed" positive mutations have a phenotype of being able to adapt better? That's a phenotype. Also, some of the BEST positive mutations have a phenotype. People only focus on the negative phenotypic traits due to their visible abnormalities.

This is were I assumed you were confused. Because an "expressed" trait is synonymous with a "phenotypic" trait. Thus your post didn't make much sense. Actually the whole thing didn't really make sense.

No, i'm saying that most changes in the phenotype due to mutation will be negative, meaning they will hurt not help. Technically, most genotype mutation are invisible and don't change the phenotype at all. I think you are getting confused here, let me clarify.
All positive and negative mutations are both phenotypic and genotypic. It has to be expressed in the phenotype to have either a negative or positive effect.

Neutral mutations however could be EITHER only genotypic or both. The vast majority of the time these neutral mutations won't be expressed phenotype. They are also rare in nature because most traits are suited for the environment, so the selective factor on that trait has to be eliminated for the trait to evolve neutrally. IE (something with eyes being trapped in a cave.)

 

[soloXgt 10+ year member]

First, I used the term "expressed" as you did, hence the "". Second, you, in your expertise in biology say that "Most "expressed" mutations will be negative"? I was looking for proof. not some undergrad thinking he's smarter than everyone else

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

First, I used the term "expressed" as you did, hence the "". Second, you, in your expertise in biology say that "Most "expressed" mutations will be negative"? I was looking for proof. not some undergrad thinking he's smarter than everyone else

Oh OK well first lets look at it logically.

In an established system, is a random change going to improve or hurt efficiency? Think of the car engine. Pick a random part and reverse it, What's the most likely outcome?

Logically, there is not a reason that the most common mutation (Phenotype) wouldn't be negative. More so, we see it every day. Keep in mind, immune system response is NOT genetic mutation, and is NOT passed on to offspring.

I have all kinds of studies that corroborate them, but you have to be a member of a university to see them for free.

My area of interest is neuro. So let me give you a great example, I just did a study on this.

Glioblastma Multiforme is the most common type of brain tumor (about 60% of all cases.) Of these glioblastomas, over 90% of them are caused by the loss of heterozygosity in a specific gene. Most of these occur as deletions in EGFR or NFKBIA coding regions. Leading to a overactive binding of the epidermal growth factor or lack of inhibition in the EGFR pathway. These events are mutually exclusive and are first generation mutations. These events occur in about 1 per 30,000 individuals. That alone is far more common than most events that can be considered a positive brain function mutation. And that's just one source of negative mutation

 

[soloXgt 10+ year member]

Here's what you are doing. You are choosing extreme mutations (take a look at your post above about the car example), and trying to relate them to evolution. You of all people should know that evolution doesn't happen overnight. So why would you use that as an example if it doesn't fit well with your initial argument? Just shows inexperience about proving a point. I'm done trying to show your faults here. Enjoy.

 

[Sub Woofin 10+ year member]

oh man not another religion thread!

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

can we just kill all religion and political threads in car audio lol...

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Here's what you are doing. You are choosing extreme mutations (take a look at your post above about the car example), and trying to relate them to evolution. You of all people should know that evolution doesn't happen overnight. So why would you use that as an example if it doesn't fit well with your initial argument? Just shows inexperience about proving a point. I'm done trying to show your faults here. Enjoy.

Ok, well that's great and maybe true. But The only positive mutation I can think of is sickle-cell. Name 5 genetically inherited advantages that have appeared independently in the last 1000 years. I'm sure there are 5, but damned if I know many people who could name them off the top of their heads. On the other-hand, the list of first-generation emergent disorders and cancers is in the billions. I really don't understand what is so hard to grasp about this. If one out of a thousand possible changes are positive, why can't you believe random changes would be most likely negative?

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Oh I thought of another one! Lactose tolerance! That's a relatively new trait! I'm just astounded that i'm having to actually try and defend this argument.

Look at it this way, the human body is made of average 16% protein. That's the most common molecule in the body next to water, and provides most of the functional framework for cell function. The average protein is composed of around 250 amino acids. If one codon, in this sequence is randomly changed, the entire protein can lose its functionality. Occasionally, an amino acid is interchangeable with another, but think of it like code in a computer program. If you randomly jumble some data in the binary, is it possible you get a positive result? sure. Is it likely? not hardly. It's quite rare. Every living thing is coded for by combinations of the same 4 characters. (Nucleotides.) So in effect. The genome is VERY much like a computer program. So why don't computer programs act like living things? They most certainly do! In fact, computers are far less efficient at preventing data losses than cells. The fact is that a human cell must read and write MUCH more often and MUCH more information than a computer. Is is conceivable that when computers become advanced enough in the future, they will demonstrate evolution-like properties. The more data you process, the more errors you will encounter. The difference is that every cell in the human body acts like the most advanced computer imaginable so even if corruption occurs in one, there are billions to back it up. (more specifically, the stem cells), but you get the point.

 

[martiandancer31 10+ year member]

Oh I thought of another one! Lactose tolerance! That's a relatively new trait! I'm just astounded that i'm having to actually try and defend this argument.

Look at it this way, the human body is made of average 16% protein. That's the most common molecule in the body next to water, and provides most of the functional framework for cell function. The average protein is composed of around 250 amino acids. If one codon, in this sequence is randomly changed, the entire protein can lose its functionality. Occasionally, an amino acid is interchangeable with another, but think of it like code in a computer program. If you randomly jumble some data in the binary, is it possible you get a positive result? sure. Is it likely? not hardly. It's quite rare. Every living thing is coded for by combinations of the same 4 characters. (Nucleotides.) So in effect. The genome is VERY much like a computer program. So why don't computer programs act like living things? They most certainly do! In fact, computers are far less efficient at preventing data losses than cells. The fact is that a human cell must read and write MUCH more often and MUCH more information than a computer. Is is conceivable that when computers become advanced enough in the future, they will demonstrate evolution-like properties. The more data you process, the more errors you will encounter. The difference is that every cell in the human body acts like the most advanced computer imaginable so even if corruption occurs in one, there are billions to back it up. (more specifically, the stem cells), but you get the point.

so what you're saying is, a genome was programmed by some poor sap who lives in his mom's basement and will never get laid.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

so what you're saying is, a genome was programmed by some poor sap who lives in his mom's basement and will never get laid.

In all seriousness there are quite a few reasons a computer is not like a living thing too. Computers don't reproduce, and if it breaks you just get a new one

 

[martiandancer31 10+ year member]

lulz. I was just being sarcastic, I think evolution is the biggest crock of baloney ever. Everyone can argue until they're blue in the face about why it's right or wrong, but i've never heard a single satisfactory answer as to, if evolution is indeed correct, where the materials to create life came from.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

lulz. I was just being sarcastic, I think evolution is the biggest crock of baloney ever. Everyone can argue until they're blue in the face about why it's right or wrong, but i've never heard a single satisfactory answer as to, if evolution is indeed correct, where the materials to create life came from.

Always been here.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

lulz. I was just being sarcastic, I think evolution is the biggest crock of baloney ever. Everyone can argue until they're blue in the face about why it's right or wrong, but i've never heard a single satisfactory answer as to, if evolution is indeed correct, where the materials to create life came from.

Well jeeze, there are lots of theories of Abiogenesis, but they are just so far ago its near impossible to know for sure which is correct. Even if we created conditions to mimic a time when life emerged, and life emerged, that doesn't mean that's exactly how it happened. I fail to see how that would affect the validity of evolution though. Fact is that there are several viable explanations. If you don't know, do some research and try to prove one! Agnosticism is so boring and overrated.

Personally, I believe that the event referred to as "The Big Bang" was caused by "GOD" Logically, sentience is a needed ingredient, but I won't get into that now. But know that I'm a christian. And I don't believe Christianity and Evolution to be mutually exclusive.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

They have yet to actually PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt the earth has been here for millions of years. The technology simply is not accurate enough to date that far back with any certainty.

The technology exists to prove, accurately, that the earth has existed longer than the bible claims. There is MUCH more evidence of evolution than there is of the garden of eden. You claim science relies on faith because it hasnt answered every question you can imagine, but science actually relies on us questioning everything in our environment, and science only calls something a fact once it has been proven. You mock the 'theory' of evolution because its not been 100% proven, yet at least science has the intellectual honesty to call it a theory. Walk into a church, mention the 'theory of jesus' or the 'theory of heaven' or the 'theory of God' and see what response you get. Religion has plenty of angles to come at this science versus religion debate, but you attempting to argue for it based on theories and proof is a really really lousy angle to chose, as science has a leg up on religion in that regard in virtually every way possible. It is, however, not surprising. Some time back some religious person got the idea that science relies on faith, just like religion, therefor they are equals intellectually. It sounds feasible when pro-religion spin is applied, such as you have attempted to in this thread. But the reality it's only logical to people with a bias towards wanting religion to be correct, even if it means ignoring truths that would suggest otherwise (like fossils, carbon dating, etc).