quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Like 'species', it is not that I don't 'count' certain things as mutations, it is that 'mutation' is such a broad and arbitrary term that it really tells us nothing scientifically. I prefer to talk about specific changes to genomes, and how those changes affect the organism.

Science is better when it is specific.

quote:

I will grant you that mutation has been used by people to mean any change in phenotype, but we have all been specific here. Any change in DNA sequence is a mutation. This includes insertions, deletions, and substitutions.

quote:

I have also tried to establish that the difference in phenotype between divergent species is due to a difference in DNA. Would you agree with this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Is a specific change to the genome a change in the DNA sequence which composes the genome? How does that differ from the definition of mutation which Method and I spoke of? I don't understand why you call it broad or arbitrary. A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence.

That is narrow, not broad. It isolates the word "mutation" to one and only one kind of change: a change in a DNA sequence. And thus, it is not arbitrary either, for one can examine any DNA sequence to determine whether it is the same or different from another. In particular, one can sequence the DNA of a parent and follow it through several generations noting the changes. How is this arbitrary? It is the same or it is different. Yes or no. Nothing arbitrary about it.

If I had a lamp and I wanted to 'change' the bulb, I could do it a number of ways - I could take out the old bulb and put in a new one (perhaps a more energy efficient bulb to save on energy) or I could simply smash the bulb with a hammer, or I could flip the switch to turn the light on or off. All three are 'changes' to the light bulb - all three are not the same sort of changes. The same is true of a 'mutation'; the word describes the change to a gene sequence, but the sorts of change vary widely.

quote:

Of course there are all kinds of mutations. So what? That is true of any generic term. There are all sorts of automobiles and many ways of travelling.

So, is a specific change in the genome a change in the DNA sequence of the genome? Is that a mutation? If not, why not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Of course there are all kinds of mutations. So what? That is true of any generic term. There are all sorts of automobiles and many ways of travelling.

So, is a specific change in the genome a change in the DNA sequence of the genome? Is that a mutation? If not, why not?

I thought I was fairly clear there.

'Change' means nothing. Everyone agrees a change to the genome will change an organism.

It is the sort of change that is in question.

quote:


First, again, what is a change to the genome? Do mutations change the genome? Can they change the genome? Can the genome be changed without a mutation?

quote:

I like to keep in mind that we couldn't even begin to ask these questions until about two decades ago and we couldn't even begin to answer these questions until about one decade ago. 10 years from know we'll have an entirely new class phylogenetic of questions to explore.

In the meantime, ID proponents won't be able to keep up with the details enough to engage in discussion. I think this means the "problem" of discussing evolution with those that lack the prerequisite education background in an intelligent manner will only become more difficult.

quote:

No "change" does not mean "nothing". "Change" means something is different--in this case a sequence of nucleotides.

Indeed, your reluctance to answer the question directly raises more questions.

quote:

First, again, what is a change to the genome? Do mutations change the genome? Can they change the genome? Can the genome be changed without a mutation?

quote:

In fact, since you raised the term, what is a "genome"?

quote:

So to answer a question about the definition of a mutation in terms of changes to the genome is really not to answer the question at all. Mutations may or may not affect a genome. They may or may not affect coding genes. What they do affect is a DNA sequence.

That is not nothing. It is a change that is observable.

What the impact of that change will be, is, of course, a matter of great interest. But that is a separate issue from defining what a mutation is.

Is your flip from "mutation" to "genome" an attempted evasion of the original question?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I like to keep in mind that we couldn't even begin to ask these questions until about two decades ago and we couldn't even begin to answer these questions until about one decade ago. 10 years from know we'll have an entirely new class phylogenetic of questions to explore.

In the meantime, ID proponents won't be able to keep up with the details enough to engage in discussion. I think this means the "problem" of discussing evolution with those that lack the prerequisite education background in an intelligent manner will only become more difficult.

Actually, we have been talking about mutations since the 1920s (80+ years), and the essential concept has changed little since then. I am not sure how that would be 'hard' to keep up with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, I have agreed the term encompasses all those things, among other things, as I described above; I simply don’t find the term particularly useful.

quote:

Sure; the difference in all organisms is a difference in DNA.

quote:

That's a completely head-in-the sand attitude.

In the 1920s it did not require much disbelief to disbelieve evolution or to argue against it. The essential concept has changed little, but the details have changed by enormous degrees. The essential concept is easy to argue against in the 1920s when the details were not well understood, but today it grows increasingly more difficult to argue against the essential concept with each passing decade, as the details become increasingly understood.

quote:

I would suggest that for this thread we limit the term to mean a change in DNA sequence. Does that sound good?

quote:

Would you also agree that the mechanism which replicates DNA for gametogenesis produces changes in DNA sequence which are independent of fitness?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
The way you put things here is a bit odd.
What 'disbelief' did one have to have to disbelieve evolution? Does that statement even make sense, to have disbelief to disbelieve something?
Do we now have belief to believe it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
How about if we consider specific changes that are known to actually occur? Then we can speak with some knowledge, and admit when information isn't available?

quote:

I use 'disbelief' here as a noun that is a quantifiable measure of how much one believes in something.

It would be very useful to read the historical arguments over evolution.
The Creationism proponent typically lacks the scientific background to communicate and just "disbelieves."

Before 1953: Mendel, Darwin
Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genes over time.
Bob the Creationist: I don't believe that, what's a gene anyway?
Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in Biology, and we don't know yet exactly what it is.

After 1953: Watson, Crick
Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genes by changing DNA over time.
Bob the Creationist: I've know about genes because I'm red-green color blind and I payed attention in biology class, but I don't believe that.
Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in this new field we call Micro-Biology and we don't know yet exactly how it works yet.

After 1975: Sanger, Maxam, Gilbert etc.
Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genomes by changing genes by changing DNA over time.
Bob the Intelligent Designer guy: I've know about DNA because and I payed attention in micro-biology class, but I just don't believe that.
Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in this new field we call Genomics and we don't know yet exactly how it happened.

I claim that with each step of discovery, the number of Bobs available to discuss the details declines by some percentage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

I’ve pretty much already described what I’m looking for in post #93. Jhud more or less acknowledged in post #61 that there’s no way to determine whether or not specific mutations would have provided an advantage to an animal that lived in an unknown past ecosystem, so it’s incorrect to claim that some of these mutations were definitely harmful, and couldn’t have been favored by natural selection.

quote:

What I’m looking for from him now is an explanation, taking into account everything we’ve discussed so far, of why we can’t predict these known processes would work together in order to produce evolutionary changes.

quote:

From what I have read Jhud has not offered any evidence that these mutations were harmful. That claim continues to be unsupported.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
How would one determine whether imaginary mutations are harmful?

quote:

DNA differences between species are not imaginary.

How did you determine that these changes were harmful?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
The way those differences occurred are imagined by evolutionists. I never said the differences were harmful.

quote:

The production of mutations is an observed phenomenon, not imaginary. Are you saying that organisms only recently started producing mutations through imperfect replication?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The production of mutations is an observed phenomenon, not imaginary. Are you saying that organisms only recently started producing mutations through imperfect replication?

No, I am saying mutations interdependent and independent structures allowing for new capabilities like those found in a bat are in the evolutionary view the product of imaginary mutations.

quote:

Imaginary designers intervening with their invisible tendrils is much more likely . If you were half as skeptical about ID and creationism as you are towards evolution, you might be worth listening to. However, your bias seems to totally override any critical thought you have on these issues. You simply seem to want to be the anti-anti-hero.

Can you honestly tell us that ID and creationism have substantial evidence in their favor that would lead a reasonable person to conclude those 'theories' are more substantiated than evolution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I think that the existence of information driven nano-machinery should lead any reasonable person to consider the existence of a designer, barring spectacular evidence to the contrary, yes.