Not sure why you brought this over to this thread. Another way to avoid answering questions I guess.
Not really Jose. Mutations that have a beneficial outcome often, and perhaps always are a result of a loss of fitness.
Why, because
you say so? Again, why do you think your unsupported, empty say-so carries any weight at all?
And in the example I provided, the net result was an increase in fitness.
For example some island species can be highly adapted (mutations and slection) to a very precise environment. However, they are unable to survive even slight enviromental change. They have lost some of the genetic info that existed in parent populations.
And other species, e.g., niche generalists, have evolved in the opposite direction, to where they can survive almost anywhere and in a variety of environments.
But it's interesting to see you make this argument. On one hand you try and argue that loss of specificity is a net negative, but here you are arguing that increased specificity is also a net negative.
Try and have it both ways much?
"What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant. Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs.
IOW, the overall result is a net increase in fitness. Whatever decrease resulting from the reduction in HDLs is more than made up for by the increase in antioxidation. Also of note is that this discovered new evolutionary trait has led to new cardio-vascular disease treatments (rather than removing cholesterol, some now add in an antioxidant process similar to this one). So again we see how evolution adds to our understanding of biology, and directly leads to new medical advances.
In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred."
That's just stupid. The "specificity" he's talking about wouldn't even matter were it not for the mutation that allows it to act. Only the mutated form protects lipids from oxidation.
But then, we know how creationists read papers like this. They just go through it looking for excuses to wave it away and declare "It doesn't count".
Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information.
So wait....are you saying "specificity" = "genetic information"? That would help a lot, since none of you creationists seem to be able to say what "genetic information" is.
