Creationists - Mutation and Evolution?

Question

I can't find the question now but a little while back someone asked about the evolution of viruses that we see and didn't that support evolution.

Some replied that this was mutation not evolution. Now there is no qualitative difference (both just involve rearranging the base pairs of RNA) so any posited difference must be quantitative. Where is the boundary between mutation (possible) and evolution (impossible)? What is the mechanism that kicks in to stop mutation going betomd a certain point? And how do we know that that mechanism limits mutation to such an extent that it stops evolution?

I have read the theory that mutation stops at the boundaries of the species but haven't read of any mechanism that would ensure that.

Yes I know mutation is part of evolution. Once they accept mutation the anti evolutionists must posit a limiting mechanism for mutation - or evolution happens!

Answer 1

I asked that question, and there is no known mechanism. There is however a mechanism that keeps different species from being able to interbreed.

Answer 2

Yeah, you'll never get fundies to answer this question logically. They don't know enough about science, scientific methods, or reality. And they use a book to stop all thought on the subject.

But in reality, mutation IS evolution to some degree. I mean, when a mutation occurs and it somehow makes a creature more likely to survive it's environment and pass that mutation on, that IS evidence of evolution. Mutation + survival of the fittest = evolution.

There is nothing that "limits mutation." And it doesn't stop...it continues into perpetuity.

If you want more evidence that evolution occurs, check out the Hawaiin islands. Lava flows often create little jungle "islands" on which there is plenty of evidence of animals evolving in rather short periods of time.

I think you believe evolution stops at the boundaries of species because when something mutates to the extent that it can no longer breed with other members of its species, it is then considered a NEW species.

Answer 3

First: Viruses need living cells to live. They depend on already existing living cells so it is impossible to say that they form an intermediate form between living and non living things.

Second: Mutation in most cases causes lethal damage or at least malfunction of the organism. And the best thing that can result from a mutation is developing some change in certain metabolic pathway or some resistance to enviornmental factors like temperature or radiation. But this happens very slowly and with minimal succesfull results. And there wasn't any record of a new species comming as a result of mutation but only new generations of the same species with some new characters "one or two". That's what I know. I don't say that I know it all but I'm sure that mutation can't explain evolution. Evolution until now is a theory which needs the concrete experimental proof to tell us that a new speceis can evolve from a former one.

Answer 4

I'm not sure if evolution even apples to viruses (they aren't actually alive), anyway mutation can lead to evolution but you need some other things like geographic isolation of a subset of a population, basically if a population(finches for ex) get's split up over time beneficial mutations will accumulate and eventually the subsets of the orig population will become different enough that they can no longer interbreed, when they can no longer interbreed, you can say that (macro)evolution has occured.

Answer 5

Mutation is the sudden and radical divergance of an offspring in a specific species that is most of the time harmful and has a slim chance of being neutral. It is the result of genetic defection, sometimes the result of artificial contamination. A prime example of this would be the mutant frogs environmentalists love to point to as evidence of the effects of pollution.

Evolution is the general development of a species overtime. It is the result of an environment's effects on an organism, breeding patterns, natural selection, and death rates.

Neither Evolution nor Mutation have ever resulted in a recorded rise of a new species, and given how wildly divergant two members of the same species, a great dane and a pocket poodle are both dogs for instance, can be, I am extremely skeptical that either are capable of change on that scale.

Answer 6

Hi. Almost all mutations have a deleterious effect on the organism. Once in a great while a mutation proves beneficial and future generations inherit the mutation. Occasionally the benefit is so great that the organism survives better than it's ancestors. I know you feel evolution is impossible and I will not argue the point, but what would you call beneficial mutation?

Answer 7

i think that the two connect, its evolution when a certain mutation survives to reproduce, if its a bad mutation it doesnt work out, if its beneficial it works out better than the original. Whats the question here isnt that an obvious connection or definition? Of course that would be survivl of the fittest, which isnt a factor with the human race anymore, so maybe you could say that we have stopped our own evolution with the medicines and death control we have now.

Answer 8

Mutation is a sudden change caused by an unstable or unnatural outside source, like radiation or lead poisioning, its usually something anti-progressive. Meaning that it tends to destroy the species eventually rather than help it progress through the ages. Evolution is a slow change in a species that is gradual and generally caused by a change in a normally stable outside factor, such as the enviroment. While both can change the appearance and reactions of a species, generally only evolution is passed along in the offspring.

Answer 9

One must first understand the difference between a virus and and organism. Some virii are listed as lving organisms - we will not touch on those.

Let's touch on HIV. This is a piece of RNA - it isn't even a whole piece. Somewhere in the past a white TCell broke down and spat out this pice of wandering chemicals gone wild.

1) the piece of RNA enters the host body - we will not go into how (since then all of the know-it-alls will argue over the small stuff.) This complex molecular chain then floats along until it gets into a spot of rest (Colon and base of brain). There it sits inactive.

2) Another infection accurs sometime down the road - usually caused by another more active STD or tuberculosis, etc... T-Cells come to the rescue. NOTE: The first TCells are actually StemCell-like in nature. They carry just about everytype of negative RNA that is available. Normally, the invador will kill off all but those TCells that have the exact negative RNA to combat the buggers. Then the surviving TCells multiply and start beating the crap out of the infection.

3) A poor wondering TCell just happens to bump into a strand of HIV. This is where HELL breaks loose becasue in the beginning the HIV WAS from a TCELL - that's why the inifinity for it. HIV gets "eaten" then does the "SPECIES" thingy to the TCELL. Here's how that works :

- First the piece of RNA strand of HIV comes in contact with the negative RNA strands of the TCell Host. A portion of the negative TCell strand pops out and the HIV piece takes it's place (called higher affinity in chemical terms).

- Since the TCell is still alive, it begings it's multiplying stage. The RNA is read a replicated. These replications twist together in the mitchondria and form another nucleus and all the other fun stuff inside a cell. However, instead of splitting off into another TCell, the replication effort goes into a forced loop starting and stopping along the strand at the HIV position. This is like a scratch on a LP or a CD. Over and over and over the portion of the strand that holds the HIV is replicated.

- There is only so much material that can be used in this little manufacturing endeavor and finally the host TCell uses up so much that it dies. But the HIV "babies" called Phages break off. Remember that the HIV RNA is stable enough not to break down from the death of the host.

- So now there are hundreds of little HIV phages floating around all dum-like in the body of an unsuspecting organism. But they are different from the original... A little piece of the RNA strand surrounding the HIV "baby" has stayed on. This is not a mutation. This is not evolution. This is not adaptation. This is merelt chemical fact. The host TCell's RNA pieces - since they are now stuck to the ends of the HIV strand - are now part of the HIV strand and now make the introduction to othe TCell's that much easier to be taken over.

4) This process takes time just because the inside of the organism's body is emense when in the perspective of a micro-sized molecular string of nastiness. The poor organism may not even be aware or even succumb to the after affects - loss of all TCells - for YEARS. Thus the idea that a negative HIV test proves no HIV is soo stupid. But I digress.

5) Imagine that the first TCell was a stemcell, this makes it more difficult to track down the HIV - it has been replicated into many different types of RNA. So you may get hundreds of different "strains". Is this mutation? It is called such by the CDC since what it means is the HIV no longer reacts the same way to the drugs used to nullify the HIV strand's "gloming" abilities.

But it is not true mutation. It is just an accidental reworking of the run away chemical program.

Mutation is a bad word much like Creationism and Evolution. Hell, Darwin didn't even know about DNA or mitchondria or chromosones when he started his little study in the Galapogos Islands. The only thing that stops an adptation in a species is the ability to pass it on the the next generation.

There are a set number of chromosonal pairs for each type of life. When a chromsone is damage one would get what one calls a "mutation" something out of the ordinary - this is an effect not a cause. The effect dies with taht inidvidual since the chromosone is not viable for replication - hence no offsprings.

An adaptation is an environmental coincidence. Hairier animals survive the ice ages. Animals with little or no hair either die from the environment of find some igenious method of survival that compensates for this problem. This is adaptation.

Now one can say a family may have a hereditary disease. This is neither an adaptation nor a mutation nor evolution. This is a disease of the DNA strand that was damaged at some point but not enough so that the whole chromosone is unviable. This damage is replicated unerringly until enough combinations (generations) eleviate the burden on that DNA strand to come up with the set task - then it becomes recessive. It will always be there but has been 'watered down" to such an extent that the hereditary disease may jump many generations - until a combination of chromosones cause it to reamerge.

Again - not evolution. Not a mutation. and not adaptation.

Adaptation is environmentally controlled and culls the species down to those that can change their ways enough to survive to pass on the new habit.

Hope I helped.

Answer 10

You might try posing this on the biology boards. These folks are nowhere near qualified to answer that, although they'll swear up and down that the article they read in Reader's Digest 20 years ago is not only still valid, but all they need to know on the subject.