Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Concerning mutations

Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

An example of a bad mutation could be a mutation that affects the protein synthesis of wings in flies. If the mutation causes the wings to be deformed, then it is unlikely to be able to fly, so it will be significantly less likely to survive and/or reproduce.
Meh!
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?

Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 12:04:45 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?

Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.

To the individual it is without a doubt negatively impacting their ability to reproduce, so in this sense the mutation could be considered "bad" (Nothing wrong with that though).
Meh!
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 12:50:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?
No because homosexuality isnt a genetic mutation.

Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 1:24:22 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I think you can just about say good and bad about mutations, as long as it is understood they are not meant in the moral sense. But because of the baggage attached to those words, I think it's better to use other words, such as 'beneficial' for mutations that enhance the prospects of reproduction and 'deleterious' for mutations that reduce it.

There is no guarantee a benefificial mutation will survive, nor that a deleterious one will be wiped out - its always posssible for an antelope with a beneficial mutaton gets eaten by a lion.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 1:40:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 12:50:43 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?
No because homosexuality isnt a genetic mutation.
I was of the understanding that homosexuals are born homosexual without choice? Isnt this a behavior mutation, which is genetic.
Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 2:53:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?

Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.

It has puzzled me too. Here is a possible answer:

http://www.iflscience.com...

Males with a genetic makeup associated with high levels of SSB (same sex behaviour) produced female offspring with higher rates of reproduction, or fecundity. This suggests that genes associated with SSB could be persisting in the population because they actually confer a fitness advantage in females, despite being reproductively harmful to males.

This seems to hold for fruit flies, at least. :-)
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 4:02:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 12:50:43 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?
No because homosexuality isnt a genetic mutation.

Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.

Virtually all aspects of life started as genetic mutations.
Meh!
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 5:08:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 1:40:47 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 12:50:43 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?
No because homosexuality isnt a genetic mutation.
I was of the understanding that homosexuals are born homosexual without choice? Isnt this a behavior mutation, which is genetic.
Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.
Homosexuality is due to hormonal imbalance in utero. There is no "homosexual gene" of some sort.
bamiller43
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 7:59:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?

According to evolution, yes, purely homosexual individuals do not procreate, and if homosexuality is genetic and not psychological (no i don't believe you can choose to be gay) then it would be considered a bad mutation. It doesn't make homosexuals bad people or inferior to straight people, it just means that they can't/don't reproduce and pass on the homosexual gene. Which is why the fear that allowing gay marriage will destroy the human population because then everyone will be gay and not reproduce is ridiculous.

Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 8:07:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 7:59:17 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?

According to evolution, yes, purely homosexual individuals do not procreate, and if homosexuality is genetic and not psychological (no i don't believe you can choose to be gay) then it would be considered a bad mutation. It doesn't make homosexuals bad people or inferior to straight people, it just means that they can't/don't reproduce and pass on the homosexual gene. Which is why the fear that allowing gay marriage will destroy the human population because then everyone will be gay and not reproduce is ridiculous.
I agree that is a ridiculous way of looking at it. Homosexuality is a non issue to me, was just confirming the evolutionary standpoint.
Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.
bamiller43
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 8:10:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 8:07:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 7:59:17 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?

According to evolution, yes, purely homosexual individuals do not procreate, and if homosexuality is genetic and not psychological (no i don't believe you can choose to be gay) then it would be considered a bad mutation. It doesn't make homosexuals bad people or inferior to straight people, it just means that they can't/don't reproduce and pass on the homosexual gene. Which is why the fear that allowing gay marriage will destroy the human population because then everyone will be gay and not reproduce is ridiculous.
I agree that is a ridiculous way of looking at it. Homosexuality is a non issue to me, was just confirming the evolutionary standpoint.

I know. I just hear this argument too much and felt like ranting. XD
Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 9:59:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

There are examples of monogenic disease which are normally inherited where the condition was caused by mutation when egg and sperm join such as sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis.

Since inheriting sickle cell requires the mutation from both parents, it originally would have started by being a mutation that didn't impact the carrier because it would require impacting both haemoglobin genes inherited from parents. If the mutation impacts only one they can live and reproduce normally. However they meet one other person with same mutation and suddenly they give a full blown disease to their children.

Change to disease which is not one gene and it gets complex. Multiple mutations can happen and be neutral and the perfect storm arrives and boom the offspring has some genetics that doesn't function well enough to survive.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 11:14:23 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/26/2016 8:10:38 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 8:07:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 7:59:17 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:50:08 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 10:07:00 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

A "bad mutation" is one that negatively impacts the survival of an individual, and/or negatively affects its ability to produce offspring.

I would agree with your definition. By that definition would homosexuals would be considered "bad mutations" ?

According to evolution, yes, purely homosexual individuals do not procreate, and if homosexuality is genetic and not psychological (no i don't believe you can choose to be gay) then it would be considered a bad mutation. It doesn't make homosexuals bad people or inferior to straight people, it just means that they can't/don't reproduce and pass on the homosexual gene. Which is why the fear that allowing gay marriage will destroy the human population because then everyone will be gay and not reproduce is ridiculous.
I agree that is a ridiculous way of looking at it. Homosexuality is a non issue to me, was just confirming the evolutionary standpoint.

I know. I just hear this argument too much and felt like ranting. XD
Disclaimer
I do not mean to say this to be mean or to belittle anyone. I believe in God and all to me are equal. So its not my opinion that homosexuals are bad anything.


But it would seem that in evolution where the main goal is to produce offspring and survive that homosexuals would be sorta detrimental to that cause.

Rant alert
Meh!
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 1:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:49:29 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
Had a few thoughts/questions about mutations. In evolution mutations cause changes over time as things evolve. Good mutations succeed for the most part as far as procreating, I guess good mutations can still be extinct . Bad mutations fail? Do not succeed? What is the proper way to say this?

How do we define a bad mutation? and what are some examples of bad mutations?

Thanx

Hi Dan. Mutations can be roughly defined as changes in the genetic sequence of a cell, they can be random if they are a result of genetic machinery failing (cells are not perfect :)), or somehow predictable (a result of the cell being exposed to mutagenic agents, like UV light). If this cell is a zygote (previous stage to the embryo), the individual resulting from this embryo will have all his cells mutated and, depending on the mutation, will display a different characteristic not found in the rest of the population. Mutations are, however, usualy neutral, meaning they either change nothing, or the change serves for nothing, like having structuraly different but functionaly identical proteins. Other mutations are harmful because they reduce what is called biological fitness, or "the hability to pass on your genes". An example would be genetical illness like congenit blindness: if an infant is blind, he is unlikely to reach reproductive age and profuce offspring, hence his biological fitness is greatly compromised. Other mutations are "good", ie they could give a cat a slight advantage in his night vision, make the pigment of peacock feathers brighter and more attractive, etc, resulting in fitness increase.

Now homosexuality is a tricky case. Its prevalence in populations doesnt behave like genetic illnesses. First it is far more common than any genetic illness. Second it seems to be possitively selected, meaning the higher you climb in the "evolutionary tree", the more frequent is homlsexuality. Third it doesnt compromise the survival or the hability to produce offspring (homosexuals are not sterile, as you know), and four, it has been related to kin selection in some species, meaning homosexuals increase the survavility of ie their nephews, which of course share a good deal of genes with their uncle, and so the homosexual individual is indeed passing on his genes.