Genetic Entropy

[jobeth]

More accurately "random mutations even considering natural selection" is the cause of a deteriorating gene pool.

I reason I say this is that the word "evolution" can mean so many things it is better to be more precise.

Yes, that's true. But for dramatic effect I prefer to use their own words against them.

Is that okay with you?

 

[aharvey]

More accurately "random mutations even considering natural selection" is the cause of a deteriorating gene pool.

I reason I say this is that the word "evolution" can mean so many things it is better to be more precise.

Oh that you would apply these standards to yourself (can we say "complexity," "information," "downhill evolution," "design," etc.?)!

 

[aharvey]

I find it interesting that this reviewer used the word "allowed".

What kind of legislation would we want to enact to "disallow" people with "harmful" genes to breed?

And hasn't that already been tried in Nazi Germany and Communist China with disastrous results?

Wow, you're rather off the mark from the get-go. That first sentence wasn't a reviewer, it was me. I put the word in single quotes specifically to avoid the very connotation you so determinedly pursue here. Seems to be the rage among the conservative crowd these days to falsely invoke the nasty Nazis to try to discredit your opponents!

I disagree with the whole premise that "harmful genetically based conditions" are being passed on to future human generations solely by human intervention working against unrestricted Natural Selection. Rather, I agree with the premise of Genetic Entropy that posits Evolution itself is the cause of a deteriorating gene pool.

Well, no kidding! The question is not what you agree or disagree with, but rather why do you disagree with one and agree with the other? Well, really, the question is are your agreements strictly motivated by biblical literalism or is there a rational basis for them as well?

See, there is a solid logical case for the argument that medical and technical advances, and the often well developed tendency for humans to protect, nurture, and heal the sick and injured, enable (do you like that word better?) individuals with deleterious genetic conditions to survive and reproduce who otherwise would not have been able to do so. What reason do you have for disagreeing with this? Furthermore, as Hampton Carson showed a few decades ago, populations under reduced selective pressures (you know, predators, diseases, food limitations, things that we as humans have worked very hard to minimize) accumulate a rather broader suite of mutations as a direct consequence of those lowered selection pressures. Populations under reduced selection pressures tend to experience exponential growth (again like humans). What part of this is not making sense?

On the other hand, the concept of genetic entropy in the absence of the above conditions would seem to be a logical non-starter, as there is no readily apparent way deleterious mutations, even mild ones, could appear, spread, and replace the wild type alleles in a population that is experiencing normal selection pressures. We need more than your passionate beliefs; we need at the least a rational chain of logic.

If Evolution itself being the cause is actually the case, and I believe it is, then it is more "natural" to allow the gene pool to deteriorate than it is to artificially restrict the breeding or survival of "undesireables".

Ooookaaayyy. Not sure what that has to do with anything, but hopefully you've caught your breath enough to realize that nothing I've said has had anything to do with eugenics, Naziism, or anything else involving the wisdom or morality of genetically based, enforced decisions about who can and cannot have kids.

 

[Johnny]

Jobeth,

I'll attempt to respond to the barage of questions. I'll leave aharvey to clarify his own statement, I was unaware he made the comment.

In what way does nature not "allow" people (or frogs or horses) with non-lethal genetic alterations to breed? Isn't the very fact that non-lethal genetic mutations will "naturally" appear the very premise of Evolutionary theory?

Notice that the statement you responded to was referencing "harmful genetically based conditions". I said that, "Human society allows them [to breed] whereas nature would not." Harmful genetic mutations often result in the death of the organism in the wild. Most certainly they are not selected for as they will not breed as often or as successfully as the wild-type.

Quickly skimming down what you've written next, it's clear that you've completely missed the point. It is true that some individual organisms with heritable and harmful defects can and will breed. I am not denying this. What I am saying is that nature will select these out of the population because they will not breed as often and as successfully as the wild type.

Human society, on the other hand, does not select these individuals out. In fact, we do all we can to ensure these individuals lead as normal life as possible. Take away human social structures, and we no longer have a structure which protects, feeds, and help those in need. Now take away modern medicine. Now take those individuals with these diseases with no medicine and place them in a struggle for survival where the fastest and strongest win and reproduce and the others starve or get eaten.

This is the whole point. The conditions in which humans (and animals that we breed) live in is not the same conditions in which most organisms on this planet live. That's why these things aren't selected out.

Aren't there in fact many examples of "individuals with harmful genetically based conditions" among all living species who are not necessarily reproductively sterile?

Yes.

Aren't there in fact many examples of bad "mutations" that are none-the-less heritable?

Yes.

Here are a couple of examples off the top of my head:
myopia
insulin-dependent diabetes
club feet
mental retardation

Correct.

Aren't there many cases of "bad" genes that are not necessarily "killer" genes?

Yes.

Why do doctors need to caution certain people (like Type 1 diabetics and the mentally retarded) not to breed if these harmful traits will die off by themselves without our artificially disallowing (or discouraging) them?

You're missing the point. These traits will not die off because of human social structures (and because you picked bad examples, but that's beside the point).

Animal breeders are very attuned to this problem of non-lethal deleterious mutations naturally finding their way into their populations, and must be very vigilant in "artificially" preventing what would "naturally" occur from happening.

Animal breeders do not deal with animals that live in the wild. See my first response above.

The whole notion that families with harmful hereditary traits will die out without negatively affecting the entire gene pool over time is disproven by any casual observation of the facts.

Heh, are you referring to any particular studies or did it just sound nice? Because I can start citing studies that support my position if you want. It sure would be nice to get some that support yours.

 

[jobeth]

See, there is a solid logical case for the argument that medical and technical advances, and the often well developed tendency for humans to protect, nurture, and heal the sick and injured, enable (do you like that word better?) individuals with deleterious genetic conditions to survive and reproduce who otherwise would not have been able to do so. What reason do you have for disagreeing with this? Furthermore, as Hampton Carson showed a few decades ago, populations under reduced selective pressures (you know, predators, diseases, food limitations, things that we as humans have worked very hard to minimize) accumulate a rather broader suite of mutations as a direct consequence of those lowered selection pressures. Populations under reduced selection pressures tend to experience exponential growth (again like humans). What part of this is not making sense?

If makes perfect sense. Yikes! This could mean that things are much worse than I suspected. The Human Gene Pool is probably hastening its way towards becoming completely unviable much, much sooner than I imagined.

Is that your take on it as well?

On the other hand, the concept of genetic entropy in the absence of the above conditions would seem to be a logical non-starter, as there is no readily apparent way deleterious mutations, even mild ones, could appear, spread, and replace the wild type alleles in a population that is experiencing normal selection pressures. We need more than your passionate beliefs; we need at the least a rational chain of logic.

I disagree that "there is no readily apparent way deleterious mutations, even mild one, could appear, spread, and replace the wild type alleles in a population that is experiencing normal selection pressures." This spread of deletitous mutations could happen by completely natural means, and even in the absence of artificially reduced selective pressures.

What I mean is that there are selective pressures in existence even in the "wild". So the negative build-up of deletrious mutations would in fact occur even without our contributing to the problem by "allowing" and protecting the rights of un-desirables to breed.

Our artificial, so-called "compassionate" interference with the "Natural" course of "Survival of the Fit-ist" only serves to exacerbate an inherent and pre-existing problem.

Does this make sense to you?

Ooookaaayyy. Not sure what that has to do with anything, but hopefully you've caught your breath enough to realize that nothing I've said has had anything to do with eugenics, Naziism, or anything else involving the wisdom or morality of genetically based, enforced decisions about who can and cannot have kids.

Of course you are not the type of person who would advocate something so heinous as a Global Human Society compelling the use of Eugenics or Genetic engineering on other people. But can't you foresee that once people realize how really bad things are, they might, however reluctantly, consider something along those line for the Sake of the Survival of the Human Race. Give them time.

 

[jobeth]

Human society, on the other hand, does not select these individuals out. In fact, we do all we can to ensure these individuals lead as normal life as possible. Take away human social structures, and we no longer have a structure which protects, feeds, and help those in need. Now take away modern medicine. Now take those individuals with these diseases with no medicine and place them in a struggle for survival where the fastest and strongest win and reproduce and the others starve or get eaten.

Do you agree with what I said in response to aharvey that:
"There are selective pressures in existence even in the "wild". So the negative build-up of deletrious mutations would in fact occur even without our contributing to the problem by "allowing" and protecting the rights of un-desirables to breed."

This is in fact what many scientist believe may be happening in the case of "the demise of the Amphibians on Planet Earth", which is occurring on a Global Scale and even after ruling out articial environmental and dietary factors.

In other words, the demise of the Amphibians may be somewhat due to environmental and dietary factors, but there seems to be some underlying and Evolutionary and intractable force that is contributing to the problem. If true, I believe this is a profound discovery whose development and implications must be taken seriously and studied for the sake of the survival of all animals, including Humans.

 

[aharvey]

If makes perfect sense. Yikes! This could mean that things are much worse than I suspected. The Human Gene Pool is probably hastening its way towards becoming completely unviable much, much sooner than I imagined.

Is that your take on it as well?

Well, no, not really. In part, I think, perhaps because you've got part of the equation backwards (that is, selection pressures in the wild work against the build-up of deleterious mutations, whereas the later comment of yours (which I've bold-faced below) says that you think that selection pressures would cause a build-up of deleterious mutations.

Another reason I tend to disagree with your particular doomsday scenario is that I think you're grossly overestimating the rate at which we're 'allowing' deleterious mutations to accumulate (plus I also think you're discounting any positive benefits these technically 'unfit' individuals may be able to contribute to society, but that's not exactly relevant here). The fact that human populations continue to increase at an exponential rate while per capita resource consumption rates also continue to increase, while the absolute size of the planet itself remains constant, suggests two things to me: 1) deleterious mutation rates are not accumulating fast enough to have an effect, and 2) a far far more likely doomsday scenario is one triggered by a tipping point involving the sudden mismatch between essential resource demand and availability (this is after all what's behind most natural population crashes, and doesn't require generations to kick in, unlike your mutational load notion), enhanced by the various malicious technologies our big brains have made possible.

I disagree that "there is no readily apparent way deleterious mutations, even mild one, could appear, spread, and replace the wild type alleles in a population that is experiencing normal selection pressures." This spread of deletitous mutations could happen by completely natural means, and even in the absence of artificially reduced selective pressures.

What I mean is that there are selective pressures in existence even in the "wild". So the negative build-up of deletrious mutations would in fact occur even without our contributing to the problem by "allowing" and protecting the rights of un-desirables to breed.

See above. The bold faced statements are self-contradictory. Selection pressures by definition can only favor traits that increase their carriers' representation in the next generation. By defintion deleterious mutations cannot increase their carriers' representation in the next generation.

Our artificial, so-called "compassionate" interference with the "Natural" course of "Survival of the Fit-ist" only serves to exacerbate an inherent and pre-existing problem.

Does this make sense to you?

Again, see above for why I think that, although technically not incorrect, this is off the mark. One could also make the case that our compassion is not artificial, but is in fact another product of natural selection. Indeed, there are broad fields of biology that deal with such things (look up terms like "kin selection," "inclusive fitness," "reciprocal altruism," for starters).

Of course you are not the type of person who would advocate something so heinous as a Global Human Society compelling the use of Eugenics or Genetic engineering on other people. But can't you foresee that once people realize how really bad things are, they might, however reluctantly, consider something along those line for the Sake of the Survival of the Human Race. Give them time.

I have confidence in the ability of humanity to inflict great damage upon itself. But I think the motivation is unlikely to be mutational loads and more likely to be resource deficits.

 

[jobeth]

I have confidence in the ability of humanity to inflict great damage upon itself. But I think the motivation is unlikely to be mutational loads and more likely to be resource deficits.

Great point. I was going to introduce this concept of resource deficits myself eventually to show how things are conspiring to reveal a much bleaker prognosis for Human Survival than anyone currently susposes.

Global Warming (which I believe is a evolutionary phenomena of the cosmos that is affecting a much larger region of space than merely our tiny planet) is another.

Vanishing Male-Sperm Count is another.

NEAR (Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous) is another.

WWIII or IV or VI providing opportunity for World-wide Nuclear Holocaust is another.

There are more. And if all these things really are conspiring to bring about the demise of Human Survival, then it's going to be a race to see which one will cause our extinction first. Who is doing a comparative study on which doomsday scenario poses the most imminent threat to Human Survival?

Stephen Hawking has suggested that things are so bleak, we ought to dispense with all this talk about figuring out what's going on, and just head for the moon, right away.

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-06/departments/hawkingexit/

Well, no, not really. In part, I think, perhaps because you've got part of the equation backwards (that is, selection pressures in the wild work against the build-up of deleterious mutations, whereas the later comment of yours (which I've bold-faced below) says that you think that selection pressures would cause a build-up of deleterious mutations.

Well, Yeah. Of course I believe that selection pressures could cause a build-up of deleterious mutations. That's one of the things Evolution predicts can happen. Who ever said that Evolutionary Processes can only work one-way?

There are plenty of examples of animals adopting to their new environment so well that they could not even survive were they placed back into the environment from which they migrated, aren't there? If they become over time so mutated by their environmental pressures that they have lost the ability to survive in the same environment where their evolutionary ancestors began, than that is an example of a build-up of deleritous mutations, isn't it?

After all, their evolutionary ancestors, were they still living, would be able to survive in the environment where their evolutionary descendants are thriving. They did it once, so why wouldn't they be able to do it again?

So we see that the evolutionary ancestors, were they still living, are superior to their own evolutionary descendents who have since mutated to suit their new environment, because the ancestors are ABLE to migrate and survive, while the descendants are NOT ABLE to retrace their migration and survive.

Were you taught something different than this?

 

[Johnny]

Jobeth,

Do you agree with what I said in response to aharvey that:
"There are selective pressures in existence even in the "wild". So the negative build-up of deletrious mutations would in fact occur even without our contributing to the problem by "allowing" and protecting the rights of un-desirables to breed."

Why would the existence of selective pressures contribute to the negative build-up of deleterious mutations? How does that work?

I'm going to ask you again: Do you know of any studies which show the accumulation of mutations which negatively impact reproductive success in a gene pool that is subject to strong selectional pressures?

 

[Johnny]

Of course I believe that selection pressures could cause a build-up of deleterious mutations. That's one of the things Evolution predicts can happen. Who ever said that Evolutionary Processes can only work one-way?

The only way evolution predicts this happening is if said "deleterious" mutations increase reproductive fitness.

If they become over time so mutated by their environmental pressures that they have lost the ability to survive in the same environment where their evolutionary ancestors began, than that is an example of a build-up of deleritous mutations, isn't it?

What? Slow down for a second. A deleterious mutation is harmful to the organism. When we talk about organisms being "fit", "adapted", and when we refer to "deleterious mutations", we are referring to these terms in the context of the environment (niche) in which they live. It is fruitless and meaningless to compare the organism to a niche for which it is not adapted even if it is a niche of an ancestor species. For example, it is meaningless to say that the mutation which led to the eventual loss of most of our tail was deleterious just because we can no longer counter-balance ourselves in the trees where our ancestors lived. In fact, by definition, the mutation isn't deleterious because it is beneficial to us in our present niche. If it were harmful to us in our present niche and decreased our reproductive fitness, then it would be deleterious. The very idea of harmful mutations that decrease our reproductive fitness (i.e. most deleterious mutations) accumulating in a population runs contrary to the predictions of evolutionary theory which is based on natural selection. However, human populations and domesticated animals are not subject to the same selectional pressures as animals in the wild. For this reason, deleterious mutations accumulate with some frequency. However, in the wild where it is survival of the strongest and fittest, this runs against the logic of natural selection.

You said,

"If they become over time so mutated by their environmental pressures that they have lost the ability to survive in the same environment where their evolutionary ancestors began, than that is an example of a build-up of deleritous mutations, isn't it?"​

Think about this for a second. It doesn't make any sense to assert that mutations are deleterious because they don't allow for survival in another niche. By this definition all mutations from bacteria to humans are deleterious because even if they conferred a survival advantage, we could always point to some other niche in which they would not.

So we see that the evolutionary ancestors, were they still living, are superior to their own evolutionary descendents who have since mutated to suit their new environment, because the ancestors are ABLE to migrate and survive, while the descendants are NOT ABLE to retrace their migration and survive.

Why wouldn't they be able to retrace their migration? There is nothing other than circumstance that would prevent this from happening.

 

[jobeth]

Jobeth,

Why would the existence of selective pressures contribute to the negative build-up of deleterious mutations? How does that work?

I'm going to ask you again: Do you know of any studies which show the accumulation of mutations which negatively impact reproductive success in a gene pool that is subject to strong selectional pressures?

Of course not. That's the whole point of my argument: Deleritous Mutations can and do accumulate which do NOT negatively impact reproductive success, at least not immediately.

Here is one study referenced from the Chapter entitled "A Rage to Persuade":
"This was shown very nicely in an experiment with African widowbirds. The males have extremely long tail feathers which they show off as they fly around their breeding territories. As you would expect, the males with the longest tails had most success in persuading females to mate with them. A team of biologists captured males and artificially shortened or lenthened their tails by cutting and grafting the central feathers with glue, then released them to see whether they did better or worse in attracting females than before the surgery. Sure enough, the males whose feathers had been artificially lengthened now did much better in that department, while the birds whose tails had been shortened suddenly found their seductive powers dramatically diminished. This straightforward test showed that the male's success in attracting females depended entirely on the length of his tail - not on his general vitality or on any other feature which the females on the ground were able to make out and factor in to their mating decisions. They were gauging these qualities indirectly by the extravagance of the tail. When the researchers released birds with tails surgically enhanced so that they were longer than any ever seen in the wild, these birds did best of all, irrespective of how puny their tails had been at the start. Clearly, the female widowbirds' appetite for longer and longer tails is still not satisfied, and the males will just have to try harder in the future."
snip
This "feature of sexual selection that struck Darwin is that it can spiral out of control. The only check on the extravagance of the peacock's finery is not waning interest in showy tails on the part of the females but the incapacity of their suitors to do any better. As the experiment with African widowbirds showed, males could probably carry on growing longer and longer tails and reap the sexual rewards for their efforts until they could no longer lift off the ground."
excerpted from the book "Adam's Curse" by Bryan Sykes W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2004 p. 124, 126

Can you see now that selective pressure even in the wild can and does serve to accumulate harmful mutations that nevertheless do not hinder their reproductive success. In this study, the selective pressure of attracting females is strong enough to eventually render the males unfit for survival at the same time that they are MOST FIT for reproductive success.

 

[jobeth]

The only way evolution predicts this happening is if said "deleterious" mutations increase reproductive fitness.

Well isn't that a convenient definition for you? By your definition, you've pre-emptively excluded my premise. Go you!

What? Slow down for a second. A deleterious mutation is harmful to the organism. When we talk about organisms being "fit", "adapted", and when we refer to "deleterious mutations", we are referring to these terms in the context of the environment (niche) in which they live. It is fruitless and meaningless to compare the organism to a niche for which it is not adapted even if it is a niche of an ancestor species. For example, it is meaningless to say that the mutation which led to the eventual loss of most of our tail was deleterious just because we can no longer counter-balance ourselves in the trees where our ancestors lived. In fact, by definition, the mutation isn't deleterious because it is beneficial to us in our present niche. If it were harmful to us in our present niche and decreased our reproductive fitness, then it would be deleterious. The very idea of harmful mutations that decrease our reproductive fitness (i.e. most deleterious mutations) accumulating in a population runs contrary to the predictions of evolutionary theory which is based on natural selection.

Yes. That is exactly my point. What I am saying is precisely that Evolutionary Theory based on Natural Selection may be wrong in their Predictions. We must compare the Predictions with the Facts. In other words we must look for Facts that may contradict our Predictions as well as looking for signs that may seem to confirm our predictions.

However, human populations and domesticated animals are not subject to the same selectional pressures as animals in the wild. For this reason, deleterious mutations accumulate with some frequency. However, in the wild where it is survival of the strongest and fittest, this runs against the logic of natural selection.

Logic? Or pre-concieved notions?

You said,

"If they become over time so mutated by their environmental pressures that they have lost the ability to survive in the same environment where their evolutionary ancestors began, than that is an example of a build-up of deleritous mutations, isn't it?"​

Think about this for a second. It doesn't make any sense to assert that mutations are deleterious because they don't allow for survival in another niche. By this definition all mutations from bacteria to humans are deleterious because even if they conferred a survival advantage, we could always point to some other niche in which they would not.

BINGO.

Why wouldn't they be able to retrace their migration? There is nothing other than circumstance that would prevent this from happening.

You may be right, but I doubt it. No offense intended to you personally. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine, but I believe that my opinion more accurately agrees with the facts than yours does.

 

[aharvey]

Well isn't that a convenient definition for you? By your definition, you've pre-emptively excluded my premise. Go you!
:devil:

Um, jobeth, what exactly do you think "deleterious" means? I think to most people, dictionaries, and the like, it means "having a harmful effect; injurious." So, yes, by definition, your premise is excluded. I think that's the point both Johnny and I are trying to make. It's not a logical trick, as you seem to think. It is wrong by definition.

Yes. That is exactly my point. What I am saying is precisely that Evolutionary Theory based on Natural Selection may be wrong in their Predictions.

In fact, what is wrong is your notion of what evolutionary theory predicts.

We must compare the Predictions with the Facts. In other words we must look for Facts that may contradict our Predictions as well as looking for signs that may seem to confirm our predictions.

Just as long as you realize that "Your Predictions" are not "Evolutionary theory's predictions."

Logic? Or pre-concieved notions?

Definitely logic, which follows directly from the relevant definitions.

BINGO.

Um, okay, but that's a rather unique and definitely biologically irrelevant definition of "deleterious"! Unless you're trying to suggest that all life forms were originally perfectly adapted to all possible environments (which is also intrinsically nonsensical, since that environment includes all the other perfectly adapted organisms!), in which case all mutations would serve to reduce the range of environments an organism could live in.

You may be right, but I doubt it. No offense intended to you personally. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine, but I believe that my opinion more accurately agrees with the facts than yours does.

While technically correct (i.e., I have no doubt that this is what you believe), I can only say that although I can't even understand your original point here, it sure smells funny. Perhaps you should clarify the point above: do you think that all living organisms were perfectly adapted to all environments?

 

[Johnny]

Of course not. That's the whole point of my argument: Deleritous Mutations can and do accumulate which do NOT negatively impact reproductive success, at least not immediately.

I don't have a problem with the general point you're making (I might quibble a bit over the idea of neutral mutations--but that's neither here nor there right now). Reproductive success is what its all about.

Here is one study referenced from the Chapter entitled "A Rage to Persuade":

My question is this: In what sense are the large tail feathers harmful? The purpose of his tail has changed. He no longer uses it for flight very often, as many other birds, but instead uses his extravagant tails to attract females. You may say that it is harmful (i.e. deleterious) to him because he can no longer fly long distances with it. But since when is this deleterious? Is it deleterious in me, because I sure can't fly for any distance. The fact is, the male is getting more sex, and producing more offspring, and he doesn't need to fly very far to ensure this chain of events. In his niche, long distance or sustained flight is unnecessary--just like in my niche. Again, you're not using the term properly. When we talk about deleterious, we talk about the organism--niche relationship. A mutation resulting in a reduced capacity to fly is deleterious for an eagle, because an eagle needs to fly to eat and reproduce. Notice the organism---niche relationship. So again, in what sense is this deleterious?

Well isn't that a convenient definition for you? By your definition, you've pre-emptively excluded my premise. Go you!

That wasn't me that exluded your premise, that was the dictionary. Look it up.

What I am saying is precisely that Evolutionary Theory based on Natural Selection may be wrong in their Predictions. We must compare the Predictions with the Facts.

I'm eagerly awaiting the studies you're about to post.

Logic? Or pre-concieved notions?

Logic.

BINGO.

So then I can evolve from an ape to a human using only deleterious mutations? Isn't that a nice way to completely ignore the definition of a word and render it virtually meaningless when you're trying to communicate with others. Bob Enyart pulled this one on me once ("Since my definition for bias is better. - Bob Enyart").

You may be right, but I doubt it. No offense intended to you personally. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine, but I believe that my opinion more accurately agrees with the facts than yours does.

I will look up some literature for you.

 

[Johnny]

I can only say that although I can't even understand your original point here, it sure smells funny.

Jobeth, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you. It is not my intention if it happens.

I interpreted his statement this way: Parent species are genetically superior to offspring species because parent species adapted to new niches (thus the speciation) whereas the offshoot species cannot be reintroduced to the parent's niche and readapt successfully.

 

[jobeth]

Um, jobeth, what exactly do you think "deleterious" means? I think to most people, dictionaries, and the like, it means "having a harmful effect; injurious." So, yes, by definition, your premise is excluded. I think that's the point both Johnny and I are trying to make. It's not a logical trick, as you seem to think. It is wrong by definition.

Yes, I agree that deleterious means exactly what you say. But I make the further point that deleterious mutations may in fact accumulate within a species even while at the same time they remain reproductively viable.

I agree that Certain kinds or types of deleterious mutation affect Reproductive Fitness. But there are other deleterious mutations that can accumulate and affect Survival Rates without a corresponding decrease in Reproductive Fitness.

On the one hand you have Johnny's point that "said deleterious mutations increase reproductive fitness". And on the other hand you have me agreeing that said deleterious mutations may indeed increase reproductive fitness, but they may at the same time decrease Fitness for Survival.

Can you the difference between saying 1) that deleterious mutations accumulate within a given species if and only if they result in reproductive fitnes and saying 2) that deleterious mutations can accumulate even in the absence of a corresponding increase in that population's fitness for survival?

In fact, what is wrong is your notion of what evolutionary theory predicts.

No, I KNOW what evolutionary theory predicts. And I'm saying that what evolutionary theory predicts may in fact be wrong on the point we are discussing. Namely, the mistake is to say that all deleterious mutations will necessarily die out within a given species without negatively affecting the subsequent generations.

See http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...abs/397344a0_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1089191389

This article relates the fact that some harmful mutations can become "fixed" in an entire population, in this case Humanoid, even while they remain reproductively successful.

Just as long as you realize that "Your Predictions" are not "Evolutionary theory's predictions."

Bingo. That is precisely my point. I disagree with Evolutionary theory's predictions. I believe that based on the theory of Natural Selection as a determining factor in Evolutionary Theory, these predictions are Wrong.

Now, if it turns out that the theory of Natural Selection is wrong, then that would definitely have an affect on my argument.

Did you read what I wrote to Johnny about the widowbirds in "A Rage to Persuade"?

 

[jobeth]

Jobeth, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you. It is not my intention if it happens.

I interpreted his statement this way: Parent species are genetically superior to offspring species because parent species adapted to new niches (thus the speciation) whereas the offshoot species cannot be reintroduced to the parent's niche and readapt successfully.

Yes. Thank you. Excellent job of succinctly and accurately representing my view.

 

[jobeth]

Reproductive success is what its all about.

I know that is what we were taught. But ...
A big tailed widowbird may have superior Reproductive Success, but at what cost to his own survival and the survival of his species?

My question is this: In what sense are the large tail feathers harmful?

Are you serious????

The purpose of his tail has changed. He no longer uses it for flight very often, as many other birds, but instead uses his extravagant tails to attract females. You may say that it is harmful (i.e. deleterious) to him because he can no longer fly long distances with it. But since when is this deleterious? Is it deleterious in me, because I sure can't fly for any distance. The fact is, the male is getting more sex, and producing more offspring, and he doesn't need to fly very far to ensure this chain of events. In his niche, long distance or sustained flight is unnecessary--just like in my niche. Again, you're not using the term properly. When we talk about deleterious, we talk about the organism--niche relationship. A mutation resulting in a reduced capacity to fly is deleterious for an eagle, because an eagle needs to fly to eat and reproduce. Notice the organism---niche relationship. So again, in what sense is this deleterious?

A long-tailed male widowbird may be great for attracting female widowbirds and successfully breeding with them but they are not so great at:
1. Evading predators.
2. Finding food and water for themselves.
3. Migration or finding shelter.

Now for any one individual male, these things may seem like trivial set-backs compared to the greater reward of more opportunities for sex, but for the species as a whole? Male long-tailed widowbirds father even longer-tailed widowbird sons. What good is it that he has greater opportunities to breed if all his male offspring die of hunger or thirst or if they are wiped out by predators or by their inability to migrate to more suitable climates?

For a species that reproduces sexually, having no living males is not a good thing.

That wasn't me that exluded your premise, that was the dictionary. Look it up.

Sucker. You need a better dictionary.

I'm eagerly awaiting the studies you're about to post.

I gave you one study about the widowbirds.

Here is another on Humanoids:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...abs/397344a0_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1089191389

So then I can evolve from an ape to a human using only deleterious mutations?

Nothing has ever evolved from an ape to a human. Evolutionary Theory does not affirm this (and neither do I).

I will look up some literature for you.

I already have an education. We are having a conversation where I expect you and I to render our opinions and answer each other's objections ourselves based on the education we already have. That is what educated adults do.

 

[Johnny]

Jobeth,

I think I'm getting a little closer to understanding your position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it you are asserting that some deleterious mutations can accumulate in the genome because not all deleterious mutations negatively impact reproductive success (and some could even increase it). Is that correct?

If so, then I agree with your assertion. But I still am unclear as to why you think this is incompatible with evolutionary theory (you said, "And I'm saying that what evolutionary theory predicts may in fact be wrong on the point we are discussing.") What specific predictions are made by the theory which are not compatible with what you have presented? Recall that natural selection can only select for reproductive fitness. There is no mechanism by which natural selection can select for "survival fitness" as you have called it unless reproductive fitness is secondary to survival fitness (which it often is). However, survival fitness can be decreased in leu of increasing reproductive fitness. I am not insinuating that you are unaware of this, however, it is necessary to be perfectly clear about what the theory does and does not say.

My main point of contention is with this statement, "Namely, the mistake is to say that all deleterious mutations will necessarily die out within a given species without negatively affecting the subsequent generations." As I mentioned above, and in another post, the theory of evolution does not predict that deleterious mutations will not be incorporated, just that those which decrease reproductive fitness will not eliminated. As you mentioned, survival fitness does not always correlate with reproductive fitness (though often it does). Thus, I'm still curious as to why you think the theory and your assertions are incompatible.

-----------------

Are you serious????

I am completely serious. I am interested in what criteria you apply to determine if something is "harmful" and "harmful as compared to what".

A long-tailed male widowbird may be great for attracting female widowbirds and successfully breeding with them but they are not so great at:
1. Evading predators.
2. Finding food and water for themselves.
3. Migration or finding shelter.

But is it not his reproductive fitness which is selected for?

Nothing has ever evolved from an ape to a human. Evolutionary Theory does not affirm this (and neither do I).

Truly, I'll be more careful. My statement is irrelevant now that I better understand your position.

I already have an education. We are having a conversation where I expect you and I to render our opinions and answer each other's objections ourselves based on the education we already have. That is what educated adults do.

I was not implying anything about your education, I apologize if I gave that impression. I was simply stating that I'd look for studies that have been done which affirm my position.

I'm enjoying this conversation. I feel like it's more productive than the usual ones around here.

 

[jobeth]

Jobeth,
I think I'm getting a little closer to understanding your position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it you are asserting that some deleterious mutations can accumulate in the genome because not all deleterious mutations negatively impact reproductive success (and some could even increase it). Is that correct?

Exactly. Thank you.

If so, then I agree with your assertion. But I still am unclear as to why you think this is incompatible with evolutionary theory (you said, "And I'm saying that what evolutionary theory predicts may in fact be wrong on the point we are discussing.")

I do not say it is incompatible with Evolution, but only with the theory's "Predictions".

What specific predictions are made by the theory which are not compatible with what you have presented? Recall that natural selection can only select for reproductive fitness. There is no mechanism by which natural selection can select for "survival fitness" as you have called it unless reproductive fitness is secondary to survival fitness (which it often is). However, survival fitness can be decreased in leu of increasing reproductive fitness.

Not exactly. Yes, survival fitness can be decreased. Natural selection selects for Reproductive Success, which is different than saying it Selects for Reproductive Fitness. Although they are often confused, Reproductive Success and Reproductive Fitness are not the same things.

I am not insinuating that you are unaware of this, however, it is necessary to be perfectly clear about what the theory does and does not say.

I agree. The theory is not as neat and easy to explain as some would like it to be. It's not really a concept that can be understood by children. Introductory courses, in an effort to make things easy to understand, as well as more palatable for parents, means making it somehow less sexually provacative and less gruesome. There are pressures to omit aspects like what we are discussing, even in the absence of religious objections. Because children would have a hard time grasping these concepts, and because their parents might not approve, their teachers omit giving them the whole story.

You and I know that Survival fitness can be decreased in the presence of increasing reproductive success. This is not an easy concept to explain to people who are accustomed to focusing on Reproductive Fitness to the exclusion of any other consideration. At least I have found it a difficult concept to explain to people, although you seem to able to explain it better than I can.

My main point of contention is with this statement, "Namely, the mistake is to say that all deleterious mutations will necessarily die out within a given species without negatively affecting the subsequent generations." As I mentioned above, and in another post, the theory of evolution does not predict that deleterious mutations will not be incorporated, just that those which decrease reproductive fitness will not eliminated.

Are you sure? It seems to me that what is taught is that those mutations which decrease Reproductive Fitness are the ones which will be eliminated. But you say they will not be eliminated?

As you mentioned, survival fitness does not always correlate with reproductive fitness

That's right. Thank you. How come whenever I bring up the fact that killer mutations can occur simultaneously with Reproductive advantage, I get so much grief?

For instance. You were obviously confused about what I was saying when you said:
"The very idea of harmful mutations that decrease our reproductive fitness (i.e. most deleterious mutations) accumulating in a population runs contrary to the predictions of evolutionary theory which is based on natural selection."
I was talking about the fact that harmful mutations that serve to increase reproductive success while simutaneously decreasing reproductive fitness will accumulate in a population. You objected then, but apparently not now.

Well, anyway, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Thus, I'm still curious as to why you think the theory and your assertions are incompatible.

Because I find people who tend to make outrageously optimistic Predictions based on their woefully inadequate knowledge of the Theory of Evolution and the concept of Natural Selection.

I am completely serious. I am interested in what criteria you apply to determine if something is "harmful" and "harmful as compared to what".But is it not his reproductive fitness which is selected for?

NO. It is his reproductive success which is selected for rather than his fitness for survival, which includes his reproductive fitness. And that is the problem.

Think of those poor long-tailed birds. And who knows what kind of Killer genes are affecting the Amphibians. Here is another example:

Most women choose to breed with docile, non-violent men. As a result of this Selective Pressure, we have fewer rough and savage men among us now than in the past. Human males are becoming more "domesticated" and less prone to barbarianism. For women and children this is a good thing. But is it good for the survival of human males? Or for the Human Species as a whole? Could it be that the reason we have so many maniacal dictators with WMDs in so many countries around the world is precisely because we have fewer men in those countries who will resort to violent revolt?

Bryan Sykes suggests that both the globally vanishing sperm count and the increase in male homosexuality may also be due to the Selective Pressure of women. He thinks humans may be breeding less virile men, literally. He even subtitled his book "A World Without Men" and posits a time when we may have to reproduce without sex.

Some might say the feminization of our culture is because we are supressing our little boys' natural tendencies towards violence on school playgrounds. I realize that these speculations touch on Politics and Sociology, and the whole Nature vs. Nuture debate, but I find it plausible and interesting. And I don't find anything in the Theory of Evolution that would exclude either Nuclear Holocaust nor Male Infertility from happening. In fact, it may be that Evolution itself, through the process of Natural Selection, is to blame.

I'm enjoying this conversation. I feel like it's more productive than the usual ones around here.

Me too.

I have edited this post since it was originally posted for clarification.