M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
you guys aren't going about it properly... don't focus on the evolutionary aspect of the question... as that will cause you to go on tangents and eventually fall completely off the grid or anything remotely close to "why fear" ... yes the OP is using words like "mutation" that you'd like to bite on... it opens room for much talk on evolution but that's just the bait

The true question is "why"... and the subject is "fear"... all the rest is simply smoke'n'mirrors...


Alright, now that we have a broader understanding for the task at hand, onto the question. Fear is a product of evolution and a trait we carry because it's helped in man's survival. It's helped us by heightening our senses when in danger, enhancing man's chances during "fight or flight" mode. Therefore, we fear that which can harm us or has harmed us in the past.... at least to our knowledge.

Is it truly the mutation you fear? Or are you simply afraid of yourself?

The mutation is the unknown... the wild card... a big question mark.... the fear is YOU




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikhailBakunin
you guys aren't going about it properly... don't focus on the evolutionary aspect of the question... as that will cause you to go on tangents and eventually fall completely off the grid or anything remotely close to "why fear" ... yes the OP is using words like "mutation" that you'd like to bite on... it opens room for much talk on evolution but that's just the bait

The true question is "why"... and the subject is "fear"... all the rest is simply smoke'n'mirrors...


Alright, now that we have a broader understanding for the task at hand, onto the question. Fear is a product of evolution and a trait we carry because it's helped in man's survival. It's helped us by heightening our senses when in danger, enhancing man's chances during "fight or flight" mode. Therefore, we fear that which can harm us or has harmed us in the past.... at least to our knowledge.

Is it truly the mutation you fear? Or are you simply afraid of yourself?

The mutation is the unknown... the wild card... a big question mark.... the fear is YOU


I think that you are in fact going about this improperly


This is about the perspective of Evolution, it's traits and 'cause'... now, does 'mutation' fit the bill as being friend?

It's somewhat difficult to place myself in the shoes of Mr. Evolution, but I can imagine that he has a very set and deterministic approach that is a product of stimuli or influences over time which dictate what he produces. Many mutations fit this description such as those from radiation, oxidative damage and such... not particularly random. But, like all things... there is an attempt to create the best and nothing is perfect.

I understand your argument about fear completely... it makes sense. The awareness of mortality, 'death cognitions', and self esteem effectively create who we are, our behaviors and motivations... all the way up to the success rates of our endeavors.

I suppose Evolution has a pretty good understanding of everything... still discriminant as hell, but working on it. No Foe... no Friend's.... just a sad lonely anthropomorphized means of existence.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
This is why mutation is not such a good thing...Imagine if the kids at school, ones a centor, ones a menitor and every other one looks like this... I think some things better are kept standard issue.




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017
 


Maybe I've misinterpreted your post but evolution isn't some conscious process, it is merely a natural process where those who are not fit for the environment do not have the opportunity to reproduce and pass on their genes, whereas those who are, do. That is pretty much it in a nutshell. There is no "goal", it's not some entity striving for perfection, it does not sit down at a table and decide what ideas to try next any more than the weather ponders which rocks it will erode today.
edit on 3-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Just a simple question:

If mutation is a friend of evolution why are people afraid of it?

Know what I mean?

Evolutionists keeps saying that -

"Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,”

the raw materials” for evolution

necessary for "evolutionary progress.”

Then why be afraid of it?


edit on 3-9-2012 by edmc^2 because: hit enter too soon.


I just learned about this, but I'll be damned if I can remember where. Something about mutation coming out wrong about 99.9 (to the 30 millionth power) percent of the time.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
I just learned about this, but I'll be damned if I can remember where. Something about mutation coming out wrong about 99.9 (to the 30 millionth power) percent of the time.

Well, that is not correct. Silent mutations are much more common than that.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Mutation is genetic noise and only leads to entropy.

I think biological change is hardcoded and not driven by mutation.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Mutation is genetic noise and only leads to entropy.

I think biological change is hardcoded and not driven by mutation.

Hardcoded how and in what? By God?

Also, you then don't trust the mountains of evidence in the forms of molecular biology and evolution studies? Geez, I must be out of a job now.
edit on 3/9/12 by Thain Esh Kelch because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




but most are bad


By a huge margin, most mutations are totally neutral.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by crazyguy2012
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I would say we are not afraid of mutations but certain kinds of mutations. First, most cancers are caused by mutations of healthy cells. Secondly, we are afraid of viruses and bacteria mutating to become more resistant and/or more transmittable and/or more lethal. This is good for the viruses/bacteria but bad for us.



OK - what mutations are you not afraid of?



The one that greatly helps your body deal with lactic acid. You can run basically forever.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
As long as you follow darwin , there is not much we can agree on.

You better follow your illusions and fiction.

Happy dreaming



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017
 


Maybe I've misinterpreted your post but evolution isn't some conscious process, it is merely a natural process where those who are not fit for the environment do not have the opportunity to reproduce and pass on their genes, whereas those who are, do. That is pretty much it in a nutshell. There is no "goal", it's not some entity striving for perfection, it does not sit down at a table and decide what ideas to try next any more than the weather ponders which rocks it will erode today.
edit on 3-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


well... when applying the question of friend or foe, are we not implying the notion of anthropomorphizing 'Evolution' including 'Consciousness'. I suppose we can sit here and play semantics all day....

Whatever is being created is subject towards its surroundings... if cause and effect are in full swing, then whatever results is 'perfect' in its creation at a given moment. Maybe not 'perfect' in regards to the 'big picture' but a momentary state of equilibrium with everything surrounding it.

pointless conversation I suppose...



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by jiggerj
I just learned about this, but I'll be damned if I can remember where. Something about mutation coming out wrong about 99.9 (to the 30 millionth power) percent of the time.

Well, that is not correct. Silent mutations are much more common than that.


Reading you guys, I must say that perhaps you are right.

If only there were no mutations, YOU guys wouldn't exist ... and the Universe would be a lot better off, without guys like you.

Agreed.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I think we were manipulated in both bad and good ways at different times



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


mutation is a roll of the dice good and bad, i think natural mutations are more positive as opposed to man made mutation, but im no scientist



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Mutation is genetic noise and only leads to entropy.

I think biological change is hardcoded and not driven by mutation.

Hardcoded how and in what? By God?

Also, you then don't trust the mountains of evidence in the forms of molecular biology and evolution studies? Geez, I must be out of a job now.

No-one has yet demonstrated that a 'mutation' can lead to a beneficial change.

However, it has been demonstrated that organisms have the inate ability to change in response to environmental factors and that this ability is an intrinsic function of the organism.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Mutation is genetic noise and only leads to entropy.

I think biological change is hardcoded and not driven by mutation.

Hardcoded how and in what? By God?

Also, you then don't trust the mountains of evidence in the forms of molecular biology and evolution studies? Geez, I must be out of a job now.

No-one has yet demonstrated that a 'mutation' can lead to a beneficial change.

However, it has been demonstrated that organisms have the inate ability to change in response to environmental factors and that this ability is an intrinsic function of the organism.



Really? How about the mutation for lactose tollerance I mentioned in my post? Because it is a mutation, and it is benificial.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 





No-one has yet demonstrated that a 'mutation' can lead to a beneficial change.


That is not correct. It is so absurdly, trivially, untrue that it hardly merits a response. Unfortunately there are more than a few people that are confused about this that it just cannot be let pass.

The mutations that led to the human ability to speak was a beneficial change. The mutations that produced the eye was a beneficial change. Obviously, since it was mutation that led to the proliferation so many plant and animal varieties, mutations are beneficial.



However, it has been demonstrated that organisms have the inate ability to change in response to environmental factors and that this ability is an intrinsic function of the organism.


This statement just indicates that you do not understand biology in anyway, let alone evolution.

You are vaguely correct when you try to describe an individual organism's response to environmental change as an ability that is already within the capability of that individual organism. But the individual is NOT changing, all an individual does is survive or not survive; breed or not breed. If an individual breeds, then its descendants inherit the traits that that individual possessed that allowed it survive the environmental change; if it doesn't then it doesn't have descendants to continue the disadvantage.

However, individual organisms do NOT 'change in response to environmental factors'. Dogs shedding hair in the summer is not, for example, evolutionary 'change in response to environmental factors'. Mutations occur between generations - individuals remain the same during their lifetime - individuals do not change in response to environmental changes. Evolutionary change is across generations and has nothing to do with individual organisms.

It is POPULATIONS of organisms that 'change in response to environmental factors'.

Obviously, a mutation is not what you think it is. A mutation is not a 'deformed', nonviable organism, like a cow with two heads or something. That is not 'a single' mutation in one gene, but large scale damage to a whole section of DNA. A birth defect such as this is usually caused by some toxin poisoning like excess radiation or cigarette smoke or powerful drug like Thalidomide. Some mutations do cause birth defects, true, but these are very very rare.

The child is NEVER exactly like the parent. NEVER. Hundreds of small mutations occur between generations of every organism. I am not talking about just eye color or height or stuff like that. Of these hundreds of mutations most, by a wide margin, do absolutely nothing. Of the few mutation that do actually make a difference, some make a good difference, some make a bad difference.

If a mutation is good enough, it makes a difference to that individual organism that happens to carry the mutation, and it is passed on to the descendants of that organism. If a mutation is bad enough, it makes a difference to that individual organism that happens to carry that mutation, and kills it before it has a chance to breed, or makes its success at breeding less than other individuals in the population, so it is not passed on as effectively. That is called 'natural selection' and it really is just that simple. A neutral mutation is passed on if its possessor is otherwise able to breed - just sort of 'hanging around' in the gene pool - and it may someday prove useful to respond to some environmental change.

Evolution is "change over time". The accumulation of these tiny little changes, mutations, over time is evolution.

That's really all there is to random mutations and evolution at this level of discussion. You can say that a population that changes due to some environmental crisis is 'merely' adapting using 'abilities' that it already had and you would be correct. But that 'ability' entered their gene pool as the result of a random mutation sometime in the past.

A population doesn't 'choose' to evolve when it needs to respond to a new environment. A population evolves when it faces a new environment if its previous accumulation of random mutations provides it with the 'key' to survival.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
No-one has yet demonstrated that a 'mutation' can lead to a beneficial change.

However, it has been demonstrated that organisms have the inate ability to change in response to environmental factors and that this ability is an intrinsic function of the organism.

That is absolutely untrue, and really this shows your lack of research into the area. Just a general understanding of molecular biology with low level research, would have shown plenty of examples of this.

You shouldn't be arguing about something you lack complete knowledge of.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join