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

To clarify, your source doesn't describe what one would call a rare variance that doesn't result in disease. 

Perhaps you think that such a thing does not exist? You should understand that polymorphism in populations is the result of mutations. You can call them polymorphisms if it makes you feel better though.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post

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


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.


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".

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-


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:

Because you seem to like the world health organization:


Paragraph 4 talks of chromosome inversion, referred to as a mutation, playing a role in speciation and polymorphism.

Speciation of course being a product of fixation of mutations, as opposed to the mutation resulting in degenerative disorders.


Another example of a mutation fixated in a population, resulting in reduction of cardiovascular disease. As opposed to causing disease that is.

Unless you want to call any and every unique genetic variations...diseases, regardless of if they benefit or harm a species.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you also think about it, we as humans have evolved since the time of Prophet Adam (عليه السلام) and Eve. Back then humans were giants with big feet, and now after many generations we have now evolved into much smaller people. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I enjoy the topic, I just want to keep working this one over a bit more. 

A polymorphism is itself a mutation. The difference in language simply being related to the frequency at which the mutation occurs in a population.

By this understanding, there is no such thing as a polymorphism that doesn't originate as a mutation, given that polymorphisms must first originate in individuals before increasing in frequency within a population.


Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are defined as loci with alleles that differ at a single base, with the rarer allele having a frequency of at least 1% in a random set of individuals in a population.


"it depends on frequency of its happening. less than 1% is being considered as mutation. because it is not stable. but more than 1% since it's fixed in population is being considered as SNP."


"A variation in the DNA sequence that occurs in a population with a frequency of 1 % or higher is termed a polymorphism [26]. The higher incidence in the population suggests that a polymorphism is naturally occurring, with either a neutral or beneficial effect. "

In scientific literature, the phrase "mutation" is at times used to describe what would otherwise be considered polymorphisms. The reason being that the word mutation is often used to describe things like point mutations, which can be detrimental, neutral or beneficial. And in cases of beneficial mutations that fixate and increase in quantity in a population, technically they could be called polymorphisms, but really it is irrelevant as the focus of the topic is typically not on what a mutation is called, but rather some greater interest.

With that said, I will turn back to older posts...

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? 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!!

With the above said, this is factually incorrect.

While it is true that single changes in DNA can cause deformities, of course not all do. The vast majority have no effect at all and some are even beneficial to a population.

Unless the deformities themselves can be beneficial to the survival of a species. In which case, it would not disprove the theory of evolution whether they cause deformities or not.

And the latter comment doesn't make any sense, that there might be new species formed with each and every mutation.

To suggest that all mutations result in deformities and disease is blatently false.

To suggest that mutations never result in beneficial genetic and morphological changes to species is also blatently false.

To suggest that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation is blatently false 

If someone prefers to state that only polymorphisms are beneficial, then it follows that the polymorphism itself originated in a smaller number of individuals, and therefore was a mutation at it's origin. Which therefore results in the conclusion that the mutation was beneficial, fixated and resulted in a polymorphic population.

And we can all pickup a textbook and can read vague and rigid definitions of the term "mutation", but of course actual scientific literature is far more expansive. In which case, the medical textbook language is limited in scope and doesn't appear to contain information about beneficial mutations aside from reference to polymorphisms which are themselves mutations that have progressed into a larger number of individuals due to their beneficial nature.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

And one more comment.

In the case of fish to tetrapod evolution, such as in regards to the transitional fossil tiktaalik;

Someone could suggest that tiktaalik possessed "deformities" being a fish with an unfused skull (essentially having a neck that could turn and a head that could move independently from the body). It is true that most fish, if not all fish that I have ever seen, do not possess necks. The mutation later took hold of the population, in which case, tiktaalik as a species, was large in number. They could even be referred to as a polymorphic population.

But in this case, as an example, the "deformity" is actually a beneficial trait to the species. While tiktaalik lost its ability to swim as fast as fish, it gained the ability to walk on land, and in this, the deformity resulted in the later dominant animals, such as dinosaurs, to walk the Earth.

In which case, I'd be hard pressed to call it a "deformity" in the conventional sense, nor is the trait a disease. But rather it is a biological quality that has evolved and benefited the species. 

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.

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...