Creationists

[daws101]

Dodge !!!!

hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

 

[Youwerecreated]

hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

Can you match 5,000 genetic disorders due to harmful mutations with 5,000 beneficial mutations ?

How bout it,are neutral mutations also harmful to the organism ?

 

[Hollie]

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

Can you match 5,000 genetic disorders due to harmful mutations with 5,000 beneficial mutations ?

How bout it,are neutral mutations also harmful to the organism ?

There's no reason why the numbers have to match. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

What if I tell you there is no such thing as a neutral mutation and they are all harmful ?

 

[UltimateReality]

Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]

MORe ID bullshit!

Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?

 

[UltimateReality]

hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

best non answer ever!

Best non-response with no links to evidence ever!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

best non answer ever!

Best non-response with no links to evidence ever!!!

Funny. I am about to blow his mind if he attempts another worthless response concerning mutations.

They were taught a lie from High school on to college about mutations.

 

[Hollie]

best non answer ever!

Best non-response with no links to evidence ever!!!

Funny. I am about to blow his mind if he attempts another worthless response concerning mutations.

They were taught a lie from High school on to college about mutations.

What's comical is that you don't understand that beneficial mutations are exampled in the form of organisms that display fitness for survival.

I suppose they don't teach you that at the Harun Yahya madrassah

 

[Youwerecreated]

hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.

Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.

Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.

So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.

So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..

Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.

What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Daws let me give you an example if what I just said was to deep for you.

Let's say you have a wooden house and on your house you had this little spot of termites. These termites you couldn't do anything about. Eventually those termites would spread through the whole home until it was destroyed. These semi neutral mutations would do the same thing to the host that those termites did to your home.

 

[daws101]

Dodge !!!!

hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.

Are you having a difficult time reading my question ? most cause no change can these mutations be harmful to ?

Now I gave you a choice are mutations more harmful or beneficial to an organism ?

and I answerd. "the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all."
the problem is you lack of reading comprehension

 

[daws101]

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

Can you match 5,000 genetic disorders due to harmful mutations with 5,000 beneficial mutations ?

How bout it,are neutral mutations also harmful to the organism ?

see post #6103.

 

[daws101]

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

What if I tell you there is no such thing as a neutral mutation and they are all harmful ?

you'd be lying !

 

[daws101]

We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.

Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.

Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.

So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.

So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..

Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.

What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.

mind not blown !
your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.

example of benificial mutations in humans.• Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

• Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

• Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

• Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

 

[daws101]

best non answer ever!

Best non-response with no links to evidence ever!!!

Funny. I am about to blow his mind if he attempts another worthless response concerning mutations.

They were taught a lie from High school on to college about mutations.

once again you have no proof ....that makes your statement false, bias, ignorant and bigoted...
one of god's finest works you are !

 

[daws101]

Daws let me give you an example if what I just said was to deep for you.

Let's say you have a wooden house and on your house you had this little spot of termites. These termites you couldn't do anything about. Eventually those termites would spread through the whole home until it was destroyed. These semi neutral mutations would do the same thing to the host that those termites did to your home.

false example there are no semi - neutral termites .

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.

Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.

Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.

So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.

So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..

Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.

What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.

mind not blown !
your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.

example of benificial mutations in humans.• Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

• Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

• Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

• Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

I don't pretend to be an expert on genomics, but please enlighten me how they tell the people in the community in Italy don't have the original form of the gene and the rest of us don't have the harmful mutation? Basically, your argument is based on an unproven assumption that humans crave certain foods based on a speculative evolutionary past.

 

[daws101]

DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube

MORe ID bullshit!

Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?

don't need any ! do you not understand the concept of false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.

 

[daws101]

I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.

Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.

Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.

So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.

So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..

Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.

What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.

mind not blown !
your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.

example of benificial mutations in humans.• Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

• Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

• Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

• Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

I don't pretend to be an expert on genomics, but please enlighten me how they tell the people in the community in Italy don't have the original form of the gene and the rest of us don't have the harmful mutation? Basically, your argument is based on an unproven assumption that humans crave certain foods based on a speculative evolutionary past.

wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?
or how did they break the news to them? the same applies to the us part too.
as to the second and dumbest part of that statement:Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our BodiesHillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 18, 2005
Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.
"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:

• How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
• What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?

Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.

How Did Meat-Eating Start?

Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.

Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).

Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.

"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?"

The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.


"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies<< Back to Page 1 Page 2 of 2
"From there we can extrapolate back to what two species of early humans may have done vis-à-vis each other two or three million years ago," Stanford said.



"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.

"Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."

Diet and Teeth

Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.

Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.

"Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusion—a very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."

Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.

Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.

"We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.

"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies

 

[UltimateReality]

MORe ID bullshit!

Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?

don't need any ! do you not understand the concept of false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.

Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.