John writes:
>>> In article
m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> lsend...@hotmail.com writes:
>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 5:37=A0pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>> If the theory of evolution is based upon some observables like,
>>>>> mutation,
>>>> ALL, as in ALL, mutations are loss of genetic info and almost always
>>>> leads to a lower life.
>>> Nope. Many critical mutations have been to genes of which
>>> there were multiple copies, with the result that the
>>> organism can now make two proteins where before it
>>> could only make one protein. That's a gain in information.
>>>
>> No it isn't. There is no new information. There be more
>> but not new.
>
> How does adding not increase information. Information is not a
> qualitative metric, if that's what you are alluding to. But that's a
> small point. Let's move on.
>
>>> Further, point mutations to single-copy genes do not represent
>>> a loss of genetic information; they represent a change in
>>> existing information. And they do not inevitably
>>> "lead to a lower life";
>>
>> two head turtles, snakes, a little girl with 4 arms and 4 legs.
>> Can she run faster or do the dishes faster? No. All mutations
>> bring with them complications, not higher life forms.
>
> Most mutations are undetectable (null) or if they are evinced and not
> null, then they are usually fatal. However, there are recent mutations
> that have survived and flourished.
>
> In humans, lactose tolerance is a recent evolutionary mutation.
>
> There is a now-famous Italian family that is practically immune to
> atherosclerosis. Wouldn't many of us like that mutation in our line?
>
> How about Sickle-cell? Yes, it diminishes blood's ability to nourish,
> but usually not enough to kill, and enough to make one highly resistant
> to mosquito-borne disease such as malaria.
More quantitatively, if both parents are heterozygous for
the mutation, then
-- one child out of four will be no different from
non-sicklers.
-- one child out of four may or may not die
of sickling before reaching reproductive
age.
-- two children out of four will have an
enhanced resistance to malaria.
In regions free of malaria, this is a disadvantage. However
in regions where malaria is a leading cause of death, it
provides a distinct survival advantage.
All caused by a single mutation, one amino acid's worth
of difference in the hemoglobin.
-- cary
>
> But we must remember that a change in the environment can make some
> mutations a liability, or useless. We have plenty of useless physical
> parts and traits and we aren't dead. Yet.
>
> Still, I can't quite wrap my head around the profound mutation that made
> humans from a chimp, lemur, whatever. Exactly what was it, what does it
> effect, make? Is it the language center? Larynx? What?
>
> Or what environmental pressure would favor the expression of a mutation
> to 'human'? I'd be careful not to anthropomorphisize (sp) a
> rationalization - it's all after-the-fact.
>
> Why not remain chimps and lemurs? What's the harm in the end?
>
>
