Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Ibn Al-Shahid

Doesn't a baby pretty much show evolution?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 12/6/2018 at 3:31 PM, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Doesn't the whole process of conception to birth show evolution in an incredibly fast rate?

Sperm -> Fetus -> Baby

Sure.  One would have to be blind not to see that things evolve from potentiality into actuality.  But it has to be a "thing".  So, in this case, it is the human being that grows from a potential state into an actual state.  In the case of a plant, it grows from a potential state (seed) into an actual plant. 

So as far as Darwinian Evolution is concerned, the question that should be asked is: "is something (a substance or an organism) being evolved"?  The answer for those who espouse evolution is obviously no.  This allows for more absurdities like "something evolving out of nothing"!  You might as well say that the world (something) evolved out of nothing if one can say that there is no organism or substance of any kind that is evolving!  Darwinian Evolution is a man-made myth of the origin of the universe and of species (and this is a fundamental problem).  A creation myth needs to come from God or revelation because that is what has the potential of liberating us.  All of these are myths because in the realm of relativity nothing is absolutely true.  Even the fact that there is a creation is not absolute truth!  There is only One Absolute Truth everything is else is relatively false/true.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't evolution. Evolution happens on the level of a population. It cannot happen in a individual organism. This is because traits are "selected for" by nature and gradually become more common as the organisms with those traits survive to reproduce more often and gradually those traits become more common over a long period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, exshia2004 said:

This isn't evolution. Evolution happens on the level of a population. It cannot happen in a individual organism. This is because traits are "selected for" by nature and gradually become more common as the organisms with those traits survive to reproduce more often and gradually those traits become more common over a long period.

In other words, an individual organism (such as a baby) does not evolve because he/she retains the same genes throughout life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is maturation, not evolution. A child and an adult doesn't have different sets of chromosomes. And the chromosome number in a certain species remains the same throughout its whole life. Even a little change in the number of chromosome during meiosis (spermatogenesis/oogenesis) can cause severe deformity. A very well known and common example is 'down syndrome'.
Forget about the chromosomes, even a single change in the sequence of DNA of sperm/ovum can cause severe genetic deformity. And Darwin says a whole set of chromosome or even the number can change and give rise to another species? Nah, modern science disapproves this. If it was the case then there would not have been the existence of genetic diseases. Instead a new & higher species would have emerged with each & every mutations!! Surely darwin was an illiterate & ignorant one.

And maturtation or aging process itself proves the absurdity of evolution theory as it shows that no matter how much changes you go through in your whole life, you will remain what you were at the first place. A baby of moneky will remain monkey forever and a baby of gorilla will remain gorilla forever. Neither the monkey can be gorilla nor the gorilla can be monkey ever.

Edited by Stitcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 10:25 PM, Stitcher said:

Forget about the chromosomes, even a single change in the sequence of DNA of sperm/ovum can cause severe genetic deformity. And Darwin says a whole set of chromosome or even the number can change and give rise to another species? Nah, modern science disapproves this. If it was the case then there would not have been the existence of genetic diseases. Instead a new & higher species would have emerged with each & every mutations!! Surely darwin was an illiterate & ignorant one.

And maturtation or aging process itself proves the absurdity of evolution theory as it shows that no matter how much changes you go through in your whole life, you will remain what you were at the first place. A baby of moneky will remain monkey forever and a baby of gorilla will remain gorilla forever. Neither the monkey can be gorilla nor the gorilla can be monkey ever.

Speciation does not necessarily result in a more complex species. The new species can be equally as developed or even less developed. There are 2  broad categories of speciation; Allopatric and Sympatric speciation. Maturation of a individual organism has nothing to do with speciation. Branching off species simply cannot reproduce with the original species, there are no other requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 11:17 PM, Hameedeh said:

In other words, an individual organism (such as a baby) does not evolve because he/she retains the same genes throughout life. 

This isn't actually true, as babies can still mutate and accumulate mutations. Not to poke as your idea is still generally correct in that babies and adults do not live long enough to accumulate enough mutations to acquire a visible change in species from their mother or father.

But as the prior person stated, evolution involves the fixation of new mutations amongst a sizable population through time. More specifically, those which are carried through natural selection.

On another note though....

Someone earlier mentioned that Darwin stole the idea and was allegedly racist.

But in reality, Darwin, while he did not discover evolution, was popularized because he proposed mechanisms by which evolution occurred, which is through natural selection and mutations.

Al Jahiz or whoever was mentioned before, probably didn't know anything of mutations and therefore wouldn't have proposed a detailed mechanism for how evolution occurred, despite perhaps believing that it happened none the less. Darwin also performed studies in the Galapagos, and was even further inspired by uniformitarian ideas which allowed for a more modern perspective of evolution, which resulted in the theory that we have today.

Not to take away from the findings of ancient philosophers, but I wouldn't call modern scientists thieves and racists just because we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 1:25 AM, Stitcher said:

Forget about the chromosomes, even a single change in the sequence of DNA of sperm/ovum can cause severe genetic deformity. And Darwin says a whole set of chromosome or even the number can change and give rise to another species? 

If it was the case then there would not have been the existence of genetic diseases. Instead a new & higher species would have emerged with each & every mutations!! 

 

Your claim implies that all mutations are either detrimental or all would otherwise produce new species with every mutation.

But in fact, mutations can detrimental, neutral or benefocial, contrary to claims of young Earth Creationists.

Many mutations actually don't have any affect on a species at all. There are also reverse mutations, in which a gene which once mutated, can also revert back to it's original sequence.

With that said, no, new species would not necessarily emerge with each and every mutation. I am not sure why you even bothered to claim something so blatently false.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 11:27 PM, eThErEaL said:

like "something evolving out of nothing"!

They will say that when given billions of years, miracles can happen, as if that a scientific canon or even if that actually makes little sense to rest of the scientists who work with things like maths and engineering sense. Especially because apart from our planet all the billions of planets around us have remained devoid of any kind of life given even more billions of years than how old Earth is. Then they will say, no, you need water for it, and the necessary ingredients. When asked why and how did this precise and unique template for biological life come into existence they are stumped.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, exshia2004 said:

Maturation of a individual organism has nothing to do with speciation.

This is exactly what I said. As OP asked, "sperm - fetus - baby" if this is a proof for evolution? To what I said that its maturation not evolution. Thank you for clearing my point. 

6 hours ago, exshia2004 said:

The new species can be equally as developed or even less developed.

As per evolutionists, evolution occurs in a population to survive with the environment, then why there will be a less developed  species in the process of evoltuion? Instead nature is supposed to select the best species for survival. So your above statement also gives a point to refute the "evolution theory", proving that this natural selection theory is controversial & unnatural itself. Thanks again for giving another point against evolution theory. :clap:

 

6 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

This isn't actually true, as babies can still mutate and accumulate mutations.

Yes, and gives rise to "mendelian disorders", ends up producing genetically affected offsprings.

Actually mutation is a constant process that is occuring in our cells every single moments. But there are lot of mechanisms I.e. Med1 gene, p53, NER etc that prevents our DNA to mutate or repairs the mutated DNA and protects the original sequence. And there is this Apoptosis/cellular suicide when everythings fails to prevent the mutation. Huh? Nature has this much animosity towards mutation that it orders the mutated cells to commit suicide?
Think deeply. You will know what nature permits and what doesn not.

6 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Many mutations actually don't have any affect on a species at all.

This condition is referred as "Incomplete penetrance" in medicine.
These genetically mutated organism may not have any effect/disease but their offspring may have fatal conditions & eventually they will die. Death of an affected person results in end of passing severely mutated gene to offsprings. This is how nature selects. Haha. So nature doesn't tolerate any change in the genotype positively. And nature doesn't want to interfere with the sequence of genes and chromosome numbers that was determined by God. 
So, we can say, what darwin or others refer as "natural selection" is itself controversial in many ways. A complete illogical, impractical & deceptive theory without any scientific evidence.

Edited by Stitcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stitcher said:

This is exactly what I said. As OP asked, "sperm - fetus - baby" if this is a proof for evolution? To what I said that its maturation not evolution. Thank you for clearing my point. 

As per evolutionists, evolution occurs in a population to survive with the environment, then why there will be a less developed  species in the process of evoltuion? Instead nature is supposed to select the best species for survival. So your above statement also gives a point to refute the "evolution theory", proving that this natural selection theory is controversial & unnatural itself. Thanks again for giving another point against evolution theory. :clap:

 

Yes, and gives rise to "mendelian disorders", ends up producing genetically affected offsprings.

Actually mutation is a constant process that is occuring in our cells every single moments. But there are lot of mechanisms I.e. Med1 gene, p53, NER etc that prevents our DNA to mutate or repairs the mutated DNA and protects the original sequence. And there is this Apoptosis/cellular suicide when everythings fails to prevent the mutation. Huh? Nature has this much animosity towards mutation that it orders the mutated cells to commit suicide?
Think deeply. You will know what nature permits and what doesn not.

This condition is referred as "Incomplete penetrance" in medicine.
These genetically mutated organism may not have any effect/disease but their offspring may have fatal conditions & eventually they will die. Death of an affected person results in end of passing severely mutated gene to offsprings. This is how nature selects. Haha. So nature doesn't tolerate any change in the genotype positively. And nature doesn't want to interfere with the sequence of genes and chromosome numbers that was determined by God. 
So, we can say, what darwin or others refer as "natural selection" is itself controversial in many ways. A complete illogical, impractical & deceptive theory without any scientific evidence.

All I am saying is that mutations can have various affects on populations, and this may be detrimental as you say, but also may benefit a population, or otherwise may have no affect at all.

I don't know why you seem to think that all mutations result in disorders.

And yes, it is true that our biological systems act to prevent mutations. But this doesn't change the fact that they occur and the fact that they can benefit our survival. And these systems, including apoptosis, does not ultimately prevent mutations from occuring, nor passing on to our children. Do these systems prevent most mutations? Sure. Do they prevent all mutations? Well obviously not else our children wouldn't be genetically unique from ourselves. Do all of our children have genetic disorders because they posses a mutated gene? Of course not. Nor would their off spring necessarily possess a genetic disorder either.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/neutralmutations

"No; only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders—most have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a gene's DNA sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.

Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by certain enzymes before the gene is expressed and an altered protein is produced. Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair errors in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, DNA repair is an important process by which the body protects itself from disease.

A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an individual better adapt to changes in his or her environment. For example, a beneficial mutation could result in a protein that protects an individual and future generations from a new strain of bacteria."

 

Your responses, while useful tidbits of information, aren't actually justifying your position.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, 

"evolution occurs in a population to survive with the environment, then why there will be a less developed  species in the process of evoltuion?"-stitcher

Why are there less developed species? Well the answer, assuming I understand what you're trying to ask, is that our environment is constantly changing.

What once was biologically superior at one point in time, is no longer or will not always be.

A simple analogy: take a polar bear for example. It blends in with snow, it has sharp teeth and is a dominant predator in icy environments.

But let's go back to the mesozoic. When there are no ice caps and Antarctica is a tropical environment near the equator. Now all of a sudden, the polar bear is helpless, exposed, it's even small and weak compared to other predators of that time. It is a fish out of water.

And it comes as no surprise to us that polar bears didn't exist back then anyway, nor would evolution result in them as they would not be dominant predators.

With this, polar bears in today's time dominate their particular environment. But this wasn't always the case. 

Species can also share environments, given that resources are available. People share environments with birds for example. Yes, if we had to compete with birds over resources, one or the other would fail. But we do not directly compete with them (often enough) and so we co exist. Natural selection often relates to environmental factors and factors of predation. But if a bird is happy in a tree, and we choose not to cut the tree down, then two species can co exist, regardless of which is arguably more or less adapted.

But as the environment of the Earth and continents changes, life changes with it. Which is why there are now and will always be less adapted species. Because everything is always changing. And different species can live together while others can't. And all species are constantly changing, producing endless "matchups" throughout time.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one more post before I pass the mic here.

It is true that, out of control or unregulated mutations, which we generally refer to as cancer, kills us. But that doesn't mean that every species that accumulates mutations, automatically has cancer. 

People with blue eyes for example, do not have cancer just because they posses a unique gene from the rest of us. Same with people with red hair.

With that said, our regulatory systems which prevent cancer, are still not necessarily full proof in preventing all mutations. And over time, mutations accumulate.

I'd like to share the example of elephants. There are two species of elephant in particular that I'd like to mention as an example, the Indian and African elephants.

They're genetically different from one another as a product of accumulated mutations in their individual populations in Africa and India. Do all African elephants possess genetic disorders because they have mutated different genes than Indian elephants? No of course not. Do all African elephants have cancer? No, let's not be silly. Do African elephants continue to accumulate mutations that are different from mutations accumulated in Indian elephants? Of course. This is the source of their different DNA. Are African elephants more or less superior than Indian elephants? They're unique and evolved to their own environments. They do not compete for resources and therefore both coexist on Earth despite their genetic differences.

The point is that not all mutations result in cancer or disorders. And while our biological systems do prevent most mutations from passing on to our children, our systems do not prevent all mutations. And of the mutations that are passed on, most are neutral and have no affect on a species nor it's offspring. Some are beneficial and some are detrimental.

 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me wrong. I didn't asked why there is an existence of lower species.

Exshia stated, "The new species can be equally as developed or even less developed."

So, I asked in the evolutionary process why there will be a rise of new less developed species from a relatively higher species? This is contradictory to laws of natural selection.

The examples you are refering to, like eye colors, that is not due to mutation. Instead its the different promoter and different expression of genes that leads to different eye colors.

As for bears, they are genotypically different. Not mutated. Take a polar bear from arctic and let it live in a rainforest for thousand years. See, if you can note a genetic difference on its offsprings. Or the polar bear gives birth to a dog maybe, due to changing its normal habitat. Practically that won't happen ever. Lol.

I understand, that mostly you are refering to exchange of genetic materials in homologus allele or genetic recombination. I would not call that as a mutation. I would like to define mutation as any type of insertion, deletion, reversion or translocation of bases that changes the DNA from its normal variants. And these always leads to disorders. Recombination results in expression of genes on different level, but that does not change an organism to a different one neither changes its main function. To change a total function of an organism or to convert it into an another species you must change the sequence of bases, insert, delete or add a whole different chromosome.

Ever wonder why different animals have different number of chromsomes? Ever wonder why changes in the number of chromosomes leads to cytogenic disorders but never to any beneficial effects?

Apoptosis is not always successful to prevent mutations. And hence cancer occurs. But not all mutations cause cancer. Oh dear. Genetic mutation leads to thousands of other diseases that are not cancers.
Infact we are in an era where scientists are trying relate almost every disease to genetic changes. And soon there will be drugs for all diseases that will work on genetic level, not on cellular level like currently available drugs. Well, if this is not enough for you to believe that genetic changes leads to diseases then there is nothing to discuss about.

Edited by Stitcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exshia appears to be referring to overall complexity of an organism. In that species do not necessarily need to increase in complexity during evolution.

And regarding different species of bears, elephants and even traits of people, the qualities that set us apart from others are ultimately the product of mutations.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

You didn't mention my example of elephants either. Which are of differing species yet share common ancestry and are genetically unique from one another.

You're further incorrect in suggesting that point mutations such as insertions and deletions always result in disorders.

What source of information are you referring to where you have heard this?

Surely you realize that when we have children, we not only pass along reshuffled genes, but we also pass along mutations which you alleged only result in disorders.

The problem is in your conclusion that mutations only result in genetic disorders, which is incorrect.

 

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/neutralmutations

Do all gene mutations affect health and development?

No; only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders—most have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a gene's DNA sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.

Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by certain enzymes before the gene is expressed and an altered protein is produced. Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair errors in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, DNA repair is an important process by which the body protects itself from disease.

A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an individual better adapt to changes in his or her environment. For example, a beneficial mutation could result in a protein that protects an individual and future generations from a new strain of bacteria.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More for reading:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/point-mutation

Gene variation

Point mutations that do not inactivate but modify the function of coded protein are another important player of the pathoadaptive mechanism of E. coli evolution. An example of pathoadaptive point mutation is the evolution of fimH gene encoding the type 1 fimbrial adhesin in E. coli (see Chapter 12). FimH is expressed by >90% of E. coli (Johnson and Stell, 2000), and uropathogenic isolates express some specific variants of FimH owing to accumulation of point mutations(Weissman et al., 2006). These variants significantly enhance binding to mannosylated glycoproteins on uroepithelial cell surfaces, thereby increasing bacterial tropism to uroepithelium (Sokurenko et al., 1998; Hommais et al., 2003). Point mutations leading to functional modification that is pathoadaptive in nature have been shown in at least two other types of E. coli adhesins – Dr. family (Korotkova et al., 2007) and class 5 fimbrial adhesins in enterotoxigenic isolates (Tchesnokova et al., 2010; Chattopadhyay et al., 2012).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of mutation. Variation that causes disease are called mutation.

2019-08-22-19-44-07.thumb.jpg.6de0f5e564ece43c8ee99c804da25f5f.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutation always causes disease whether classic disease or complex.

2019-08-22-19-49-55.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have given references from textbooks that are taught in medical schools. But as we are not agreeing on definition of mutations. Its not going to end the dispute. So lets put this aside.

Now tell me, as the evolutionary process is continuous there should have been an intermediatory phase of an evolving organism. A monkey doesn't turns into a human overnight, right? So, why we can't see any of these creatures that is half the way of evolving to human? Like a HUMONKEY perhaps. :D

And also, human are existing for a long time. Why they are not evolving to a different species?

And lastly, why there is life in Earth only? Why not on other planets that we know? Don't tell me that those planets lack water. As the evolution says life was created by its own and nature selects how to survive, so life can be created on other planets too that lacks water, by a different mechanism perhaps. But why we can't see the success of nature on other planets?

Edited by Stitcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

(bismillah)

I really don’t comprehend how the people discussing here think proving evolution will make all religion and God false. You won’t find any Islamic scholar who will tell you that evolution contradicts Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Stitcher said:

Now tell me, as the evolutionary process is continuous there should have been an intermediatory phase of an evolving organism. A monkey doesn't turns into a human overnight, right? So, why we can't see any of these creatures that is half the way of evolving to human? Like a HUMONKEY perhaps. :D

And also, human are existing for a long time. Why they are not evolving to a different species?

Salam it said in Qur'an & narrations that people turned to monkey & pig for their sins although it doesn't seen in time of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) but not rejected by Jewish & Christians at his time and some texts said that in end time probably near time of reappearance this phenomenon maybe will happens again but it doesn't have a very strong document except what is said in Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mortadakerim said:

Salam,

(bismillah)

I really don’t comprehend how the people discussing here think proving evolution will make all religion and God false. You won’t find any Islamic scholar who will tell you that evolution contradicts Islam.

no one here is saying evolution will falsify God... if anything, it proves the genius of God to create such an amazing system that we barely even scratched the surface of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stitcher said:

I have given references from textbooks that are taught in medical schools. But as we are not agreeing on definition of mutations. Its not going to end the dispute. So lets put this aside.

Now tell me, as the evolutionary process is continuous there should have been an intermediatory phase of an evolving organism. A monkey doesn't turns into a human overnight, right? So, why we can't see any of these creatures that is half the way of evolving to human? Like a HUMONKEY perhaps. :D

And also, human are existing for a long time. Why they are not evolving to a different species?

And lastly, why there is life in Earth only? Why not on other planets that we know? Don't tell me that those planets lack water. As the evolution says life was created by its own and nature selects how to survive, so life can be created on other planets too that lacks water, by a different mechanism perhaps. But why we can't see the success of nature on other planets?

Your interpretation of the language is flawed. By your interpretation, one would believe that any and every type of mutation results in disease, which is blatently false.

Diseases do result from mutations, however not all mutations result in diseases.

Until you're able to recognize this simple fact, there is no point in continuing at all. And if you would rather we call beneficial mutations that fixate as "polymorphisms", we can do that as well.

Either way,  genetic variations that result in disease can correctly be referred to as mutations. But you have to be able to understand that not all mutations result in disease and in some cases are beneficially fixated to a population. No rigid reading of a single paragraph of text can change this.

Dare I ponder the question of if your medical text book has any discussion about biological evolution? Or should I just assume it focuses on medicine and is otherwise detached from the natural sciences? If there is more on evolution, feel free to share the part where it suggests that evolution could not be possible given that all mutations allegedly cause disease.

But of course no credible source would ever draw such a conclusion, only misreadings of textbooks.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets compare information.

Would you say that the following article is false? It is from the US national library of medicine website.

Do all gene mutations affect health and development?

No; only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders—most have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a gene's DNA sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.

Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by certain enzymes before the gene is expressed and an altered protein is produced. Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair errors in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, DNA repair is an important process by which the body protects itself from disease.

A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an individual better adapt to changes in his or her environment. For example, a beneficial mutation could result in a protein that protects an individual and future generations from a new strain of bacteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regarding your text book, please elaborate:

Do you think that all point mutations result in disease as per your textbooks definition:

"Rare genetic variations that result in disease are generally referred to as mutations".

Or is it fair to say that while variations that results in disease such as some point mutations can be referred to as mutations, this it is also true that not all point mutations result in disease?

Indeed, the language in your text book does not appear to explicitly exclude the possibility of point mutations that benefit the survival of a population. Rather it simply states that variations that are harmful are commonly referred to as mutations, for which I would agree.

 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.who.int/genomics/public/geneticdiseases/en/

Quote

Dysfunctional gene behaviour is commonly termed as a mutation. 

As per WHO. Please don't say that they are also stating blatant false.

Again, this was the broad headline, "Genetic variation" under which comes the mutation & polymorphism.

IMG_20190823_014849_962.jpg.0152c2ccc62d2e12ab4a4c5352359e7d.jpg

Polymorphism is the normal variations and mutation is the abnormal alteration or deviation from normal variant.
Will you still want to say that everyone is wrong except your mentioned website?!

Maybe your referred website used the word "mutation" as a vague term for "genetic alteration" just to simplify the definition so that everyone can understand without any difficulties, as mass people refers every kind of genetic alteration as "mutation".

Quote

only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders—most have no impact on health or development

Earlier I said, mutation may or may not have effects on phenotype. If mutation shows effects then it is termed as genetic disease. And if mutation is silent then its called "incomplete penetrance". But still it comes under the term "genetic defect" as it is deviated from normal variant and it may exert its fatal effects on the affected person anytime.

I also found the author of that site as biased by "evolution theory" who tried to explain the disorders by natural selection but failed. It is due to the fact that they have taken the theory as a principle for explaining other proven scientific matters, whereas it is just a theory. Not proven yet and not established as a scientific law. An evidence is here-

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/evolution

Quote

So why do some harmful traits, like genetic diseases, persist in populations instead of being removed by natural selection? There are several possible explanations, but in many cases, the answer is not clear.

Lol, what? They don't even know the answers? Actually they really don't know what they are talking about. And until they don't give up the efforts to explain everything by a man made false theory (not a scientific rule), they won't find a conclusion ever.

I really don't find this argument effective, so earlier I politely asked you to put this aside. And again requesting you, if you can, then skip this "definiton" part and answer my previous 3 questions. Maybe there will be a point on which we both can agree on. Otherwise we should stop here.

Thank you anyway for your responses. :bye:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Stitcher said:

As per evolutionists, evolution occurs in a population to survive with the environment, then why there will be a less developed  species in the process of evoltuion? Instead nature is supposed to select the best species for survival. So your above statement also gives a point to refute the "evolution theory", proving that this natural selection theory is controversial & unnatural itself. Thanks again for giving another point against evolution theory. :clap:

Complexity does not necessarily entail better adaption to the environment and more "fitness". I was referring to overall complexity. This is not a refutation of evolution in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel more comfortable calling the genetic variance a polymorphism, as opposed to mutation, that's fine. Most scientific papers that I've read, of which there have been many, typically refer to them as mutations, but it doesn't matter to me what you want to call them, as long as we both recognize that they involve genetic change such as insertions and deletions, which fixate amongst a population, and as long as we both agree that they can in fact have beneficial affects on populations and do not always result in disease or genetic disorders.

Either way, regardless of what you feel it should or should not be called, there are factually, beneficial variances which bring about polymorphism in populations. By definition, they must be in this case. And of course, all polymorphisms start out with and as mutations, prior to fixating amongst a population.

The original point still stands that not all genetic variations, regardless of how you feel they should be called, cause genetic disorders.

Also, thank you for sharing your disagreement with the department of health and human services. Ill stick with them on this topic however.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up on my last post, I will re quote my prior post as well. I still haven't gotten a clear answer as to whether or not you believe that all point mutations, frame shifts, insertions, deletions, duplications etc. all produce deleterious affects and genetic disorders, or if you think that some can be beneficial.

Fact of the matter is, some can be beneficial and I'm waiting to see if you're willing to accept this reality or not.

And if you would rather call them all polymorphisms as opposed to mutations, you're free to do so.

See the following:

And regarding your text book, please elaborate:

Do you think that all point mutations result in disease as per your textbooks definition:

"Rare genetic variations that result in disease are generally referred to as mutations".

Or is it fair to say that while variations that results in disease such as some point mutations can be referred to as mutations, this it is also true that not all point mutations result in disease?

Indeed, the language in your text book does not appear to explicitly exclude the possibility of point mutations that benefit the survival of a population. Rather it simply states that variations that are harmful are commonly referred to as mutations, for which I would agree.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...