12-23-2005, 08:14 PM
Hi,
First, a mutation is simply a change in the genetic structure. Some are viable, most are not. And as the Wikipedia article points out, only those to the germ cells have a chance to change the species.
As to 'a basis for evolution', if survival is an evolutionary goal, then I will simply give one example that demonstrates the idiocy of your statement. And it doesn't involve fruit flies, it involves people. The mutations (i.e., difference in the gene pattern) responsible for sickle cell anemia have been identified for some time now. Those mutations, if they appear only from one parent, gives the offspring a high resistance to malaria. So, in sub equatorial Africa, those mutation mean that there is only about a 45% mortality rate from malaria and sickle cell combined as opposed to an 80% rate from malaria alone.
A good solution? No. But since there's no intelligent designer and nature just works with what happens, a good enough solution till something else comes along.
I had a friend who used to, jokingly, answer a question with, "I don't know. (pause) Nobody knows." It's not nearly as funny when someone uses the equivalent line ("I don't understand science, so it must be wrong") literally.
--Pete
Doc,Dec 23 2005, 07:50 AM Wrote:On mutation.I don't know from what pool of ignorance you got this information, but it is crap.
Mutation as a form of evolving or advancement has been proven false. Mutation is a lack of genes... In some very long and involved studies involving mutations as a basis for evolution, they have found that each critter that mutated was missing genes and the mutation, even if it was a good mutation, was bad because of genetic damage. I am not smart enough to hash this out completely or defend it, so go looking for this stuff your self. It was really very interesting what they did, showing that mutations would only lead to dead ends in the long run.
The study started with fruit flies and worked up to other bugs and critters with speedy reproduction cycles.
[right][snapback]97885[/snapback][/right]
First, a mutation is simply a change in the genetic structure. Some are viable, most are not. And as the Wikipedia article points out, only those to the germ cells have a chance to change the species.
As to 'a basis for evolution', if survival is an evolutionary goal, then I will simply give one example that demonstrates the idiocy of your statement. And it doesn't involve fruit flies, it involves people. The mutations (i.e., difference in the gene pattern) responsible for sickle cell anemia have been identified for some time now. Those mutations, if they appear only from one parent, gives the offspring a high resistance to malaria. So, in sub equatorial Africa, those mutation mean that there is only about a 45% mortality rate from malaria and sickle cell combined as opposed to an 80% rate from malaria alone.
A good solution? No. But since there's no intelligent designer and nature just works with what happens, a good enough solution till something else comes along.
I had a friend who used to, jokingly, answer a question with, "I don't know. (pause) Nobody knows." It's not nearly as funny when someone uses the equivalent line ("I don't understand science, so it must be wrong") literally.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?