Steviepinhead
Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Dave, you are such a moronic ignoramus.
While we're waiting for a more complete explication of Dave's Spinca language theory (or maybe it's the Guaranish theory...), let's get real basic with Dave's "no beneficial mutations" aka "no new information" aka "the genome was degenerating even as biodiversity was proliferating" hypothesis hustle.
Dave apparently thinks that almost every genetic copying "error" aka mutation is deleterious or slightly so (we assume this is what he means by continually repeating his "nearly neutral" mantra, though he's too much of a woosy to actually take a firm position). Who cares, Davey--any mutation that is significantly deleterious, that is harmful to the critter's chances of survival when exposed against the background of its immediate environment (let's call that impact-in-the-immediate "exposure" for short), will eliminate that particular critter from the gene pool. Bad mutation=low odds of reproducing before dying=elimination of that mutation from the population.
So--barring that poor mutant individual--cares about "bad" mutations? Only comprehension-stunted Davey.
(Of course, even immediately-bad mutations aren't necessarily immediately "exposed," because of the whole dominant/recessive alleles thingy that Dave has such trouble wrapping his head around: one of a mutation may confer an immediate benefit that outweighs the potential harm that results when that mutation doubles up. but why get complicated when Dave has enough difficulty with the fundamentals.)
That leaves "neutral" mutations--let's say they are the overwhelming majority after "exposure" deletes any immediately-harmful mutations.
Notice these value-laden terms (good, bad, neutral) aren't absolutes. They mean nothing outside the context provided by the environment in which the critter has to develop and survive. Today's "neutral" mutation can become tomorrow's "good" or "bad" mutation, depending on changes in the environment.
And any mutation that isn't immediately "exposed" is the equivalent of "neutral," right, Davey, because if the phenotype that's carrying it doesn't express that mutation, then the phenotype can't be hurt or harmed--yet--by carrying it (I know, Davey, this gets back into the alleles thingy that's such heavy sledding for you, so just skip this section if it makes your brain sweat).
So, we can disregard the bad mutations, which get eliminated, and the bad mutations which aren't "exposed" to the current environment (they'll either get eliminated when they are exposed or, if the environment changes enough in the meantime, maybe they'll turn out to be neutral or good by then).
Likewise, we can disregard the neutral mutations (they have no current survival impact and can't be selected for or against: that's what "neutral" means...). If the environment changes enough so that "neutral" turns out to mean "bad," then see above. If the environment changes enough so that "neutral" turns out to mean "good," then see below.
Note, Davey, that it doesn't matter how overwhelmingly numerous the bad and neutral mutations may be relative to how non-numerous any occasional (or even "vanishingly rare," teaspoon-in-the-ocean) good mutation may be. The bad ones get eliminated, the neutral ones don't matter either way [/I]for the present[I], so the however-rare-you-wanna-believe-them-to-be good mutations are the only ones that get "counted" by this utterly-unintelligent sieve-system.
Good mutations, however rare, simply can't get "overwhelmed," Davey.
And remember, in addition to any good-out-of-the-box mutations, you've also gotta count the good-eventually ones that started out as bad (but didn't get expressed because they were recessive) or neutral...
So there's more than you think, in any event.
This is all agonizingly simple stuff, Davey, which is why it's so funny to see you twist in the wind trying to pretend that's it's too hard to comprehend.
Well, okay, for you, maybe it is.
|
