Punctuated Equilibria theories

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: But most mutations aren't fatal, they're deleterious...

Biochemist: Reference?

...

"Since most mutations are deleterious, these statistics are anything but cheerful. Fortunately, most mutant genes are recessive and are not expressed in heterozygotes." (Integrated Principles of Zoology: 10th Edition, Hickman, Roberts, & Larson, McGraw Hill, 1996, p146)

[Biochemist]

Gentlemen-

(speaking as moderator)

This thread has become egregiously long, and it is unlikely that any new participant can acquire the background already posted in this thread to join in.

I suggest that we start new threads to continue the narrow points that have surfaced and remain open.

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: The notion that these bahaviors are mutations is a postulate. It is a syllogism to assume that all genome changes are mutations, and then to note that some of the changes are positive/beneficial, and hence, advanced the species through mutation. We never proved they were mutations. We assumed it.

So you're saying "God did it"? Or maybe magical space aliens?

Or are you using your own personal, non-scientific definition of the term "mutation"? In case you need a refresher... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutatio...s_of_mutations




Oh, and as to what I said about neutral mutations, here's an interesting statement from Wikipedia ...

”Neutral mutations do not affect the organism's chances of survival in its natural environment and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as punctuated equilibrium, the modern interpretation of classic evolutionary theory. “ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation)

[bumab]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

Oh, and as to what I said about neutral mutations, here's an interesting statement from Wikipedia ...

”Neutral mutations do not affect the organism's chances of survival in its natural environment and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as punctuated equilibrium, the modern interpretation of classic evolutionary theory. “ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation)

Key word being "might." The problem is all those mutations have not been selected for, so the VAST majority will be deleterious, as you said. All at once doesn't help if they are all bad...

[TeleMad]

bumab: Nobodies trying to replace gradulism as a speciation method ...

Biochemist: To be fair, I am. I think the evidence suggests that speciation MAY have occurred via mutation, but the general mechanism is not mutative. That is, the majority of higher taxa were not generated through mutation.

Reference?

[Biochemist]

These reference are all just standard recitations of standard dogma. They are not proving anything except that most folks believe in mutation. There is minimal evidence that "most" mutations are "deleterious" (versus "all") because these references all presume mutation-driven speciation. These are still circuitous arguments, not evidentiary support.

[TeleMad]

bumab: Key word being "might." The problem is all those mutations have not been selected for, so the VAST majority will be deleterious, as you said. All at once doesn't help if they are all bad...

What? You're very confused about what I said. Please reread what I actually said about neutral mutations, this time paying attention.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

These reference are all just standard recitations of standard dogma. They are not proving anything except that most folks believe in mutation. There is minimal evidence that "most" mutations are "deleterious" (versus "all") because these references all presume mutation-driven speciation. These are still circuitous arguments, not evidentiary support.

... said the anti-scientific Creationist ...

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: These reference are all just standard recitations of standard dogma. They are not proving anything except that most folks believe in mutation. There is minimal evidence that "most" mutations are "deleterious" (versus "all") because these references all presume mutation-driven speciation. These are still circuitous arguments, not evidentiary support.

TeleMad: ... said the anti-scientific Creationist ...

Some support for his anti-scientific statements being Creationist and religious (emphases added)...

”Creationists often say that all mutations are harmful and deleterious, and degrade the genome. They say that mutations can only scramble the information that's there, and that mutations cannot produce new "information."
(http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm)

”Although creationists sometimes assert that all mutations are harmful, this is not so.” (www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html)

And from a religous site that tells believers how to respond the atheists...

”Answers for Atheists [a religious site]
...

But what about evolution? Doesn't that contradict the Bible?

...

Asked once what were the probabilities that life could have been formed by chance, Dr. Wickramasinghe said they were about as plausible as "a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747" [a position Biochemist defended ... for evolution, not abiogenesis, none the less!] ‑a modern jet airliner. ...

Evolution also says that changes in living things brought about by mutation are often beneficial, while in fact no beneficial mutation has ever been observed, either in nature or in laboratories. Yet evolutionists tell us that mutations provided the changes necessary‑the changes upward in order of complexity‑for macro‑evolution to occur. So far as science has ever observed, all mutations are harmful, not helpful, to living organisms. But because some people believe in macro evolution, they have hypothesized that some beneficial mutations must occur. for without them, macro evolution cannot have occurred. This means they are allowing their faith in macro evolution to determine what they think about nature.”
(http://www.greatcom.org/resources/an...14/default.htm)

And here, after the statements that clearly show this is a Creationist site, we have a snippet from a Creationist’s version of a hypothetical dialog between a “stupid” (i.e., mainstream) biology professor and an amazingly “brilliant” (i.e., Creationist) student.

”Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

…

Student: But prof, there is no evidence supporting evolution by mutations. In contrast, there is clear-cut evidence against it.

...

Student: But prof, all mutations are harmful! Most are weakening or damaging, and many are outright lethal!

…

Student: But prof, not once has a beneficial mutation ever been recorded. They always only harm, damage, weaken, or kill outright.

...

Student: But prof, it has been found that mutations, which are always harmful, have widespread damaging effects on genes.

...

Student: But prof, this mass of knowledge has only confirmed that mutations are always harmful and are totally incapable of changing one species into another.
…”
(http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut17.htm)

Does the Creationist student remind you of anyone? Oh, perhaps Biochemist?


Any of these Creationist/religious beliefs ring a bell? Oh, perhaps in Biochemist's "scientific" arguments?

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

But most mutations aren't fatal, they're deleterious. There's a difference between being dead and just being at a selective disadvantage.

Also, all of us discussing mutations should be careful not to focus on only deleterious and beneficial mutations: many mutations are neutral. Neutral mutations harmlessly expand the genetically coded information in the species' genome, which allows for a harmless search through sequence space. Some of the variation may turn out to be useful when the conditions changes.

That's true too. However, it even more points out the fact that there are a lot of yet unknows when it comes to evolution. Personally, I see a combination of both gradual and PE type events as producing what we have here on earth. PE, by itself is not some creationist's development or theory. It actually at its roots is another alternative evolutionary theory. From my own take of this on going discussion it seems at least some creationsist are willing to at least admit that the major mechanism involved in nature is evolution of one kind or another which is a major improvement over the more traditional literal seven days crowd. Their debate is more with the exact mechanisms involved which even the Gradual versus PE proposals in evolutionary camps show is not a fully settled issue by any stretch and at the same time that perhaps there is some evidence of an intelligence behind it all. While most of us would argue the intelligence issue I do believe there is room to debate the other issues at the current time.