I suppose I was asking too much to hope for an explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
|
I suppose I was asking too much to hope for an explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
God did it, duh. Why would you need more of an explanation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Like wise you are not interested in observabable testable and repeatable science. You are just interested in propagating your myth (in the guise of science) about a one cell creature from a soup which you claim is the mother of all living things. You continue to claim it is fact but I have failed dismally to give even one piece of conclusive evidence... lolQuote:
Originally Posted by michealb
If you knew anything about science you would know that natural selection cannot and has never been observed produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased. For macro evolution to be feasible there has to have been a huge increase in genes "manufacturing" to go from amoeba to man. This increase in new genetic information has not been observed in Biology. So those who believe in the amoeba to man myth rely on faith not science.
Funny you should say I don't know anything about science since 95% of scientists agree with me. You arguing from ignorance to appeal to ignorance. If only you would apply half the standards for evidence that you require of evolution to your own religion we could stop this debate right now.
Welcome back, Sassy. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Mutation produces changes in genetic information. Selection selects for or against variants.
But it is not true that selection reduces information. Selection is, at heart, changes in the frequency of different combinations of genes. Changes in the proportions of different genes or combinations of genes from generation to generation IS selection, but selection does not necessarily reduce genetic variation. In fact, it's possible to select for increased mutation rates and therefore SELECT FOR increased information. For example, there's evidence that heat shock proteins, which are sensitive to stress, do this.
As for evidence for overall increases in information, that happens all the time when DNA multiplies. So a gene for a protein doubles or triples so that the next generation has two or three copies of the same gene. (Regulatory genes makes sure that not too much of the gene is expressed.) Then, over time, Copies 2 and 3 of the gene can mutate and eventually produce proteins that are different from the original Copy 1 and have different functions. So you can end up with three different proteins where you had one before. Happens all the time.
Same thing can even happen with whole chromosomes. Plants are famous for doubling and tripling their chromosome numbers, which is one reason potatoes have so much more DNA than we do. (What was God thinking? ;) )
This is not an obscure area of biology, but a well known phenomenon. Genetic information certainly increases through these kinds of mutations. So even if it were logical to object to evolution on the grounds that a mechanism is not yet known (which is NOT a legitimate argument), it would still be incorrect, because in this particular case, the mechanism for increasing genetic information is known.
What we know about the evolution of humans from bacteria is based on the overall pattern in the fossil record, as well as our genetic history (which we carry within us), not on mechanisms like natural selection.
I know the theater curtain went up; I don't need to know every detail of the ropes and pulleys that made that happen to know it went up. I can see it. In the same way, we can see the story of life in the fossil record and in the patterns of our own genes, which confirms the same story found in the fossil record.
NATURAL SELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MACRO EVOLUTION
Once again darwinist try to use false "evidence"... Natural selection cannot creat genetic information. It can create change within a species and even create a big enough change that the two different creatures cannot mate anymore, but there is still no new genetic information created. Usually the changes are a result of a genetic loss of information. The science of genetics proves this. Once you choose all the genes for small size in the dog population, you cannot get any smaller. And you can mate those small dogs with each other for an eternity and you will not be able to turn them back into collies. The genetic information has been lost forever.
Evolution requires a buildup of new previously non-existent information on the DNA strand. This cannot happen with natural selection since, for the most part, it involves a loss of information and evolution needs a gain of new information.
Darwin wasn't aware of the difference then but people today realize the difference. Evolutionists have now desparately moved to the position of mutations as being the primary source of information gaining mechanism. However, they have never found a single instant where a DNA strand has ever been built up by a mutation to arrive at new previously non-existent information.
Nearly everything in this post is false. I don't know where to begin!
Really Sassy, anyone who has taken first year biology, either in high school or college, knows that mutation and selection are separate processes and that genetic mutation generates new information (both useful and not useful) while selection changes the proportions of different mutations in a group of individuals.
As for little dogs, if you interbreed a lot of unrelated small dogs--that is outbreed--you will certainly get some bigger dogs that are more wolflike--though probably not wolves, given that small dogs are purebreds--meaning inbred. If you just breed chihuahuas with chihauhaus--of course they are inbred and incapable of changing. You have bred all the variation out of them. But just because it's possible to do that doesn't mean that's normal.
In most organisms, there is ample genetic variation and selection does not reduce that. Reductions in population size and inbreeding reduce genetic variation, not selection per se. You have confused unrelated ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
[QUOTE]Hello Asking, Thanks for welcoming me back! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Back to the debate... Once again you are confusing Micro with Macro evolution. When I say natural selection can not add "new" information what I mean is that it does not add information that was not already pre-existing for example take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses–big working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety–the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.
Limits to variation also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than the ‘wild’ type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore! The greater the specialization (or "adaptation", in this case to the demands of the human breeder, who represents the "environment"), the more one can be sure that the gene pool has been extensively "thinned out" or depleted, and the less future variation is possible starting from such stock.
As far as mutations go there is just no evidence for even 10, let alone the millions, or rather trillions of these literally miraculous information increasing mutations that must have occurred if evolution is really true. Why don't we observe this happening in the lab when we examine real live mutations? Which makes more sense? To believe in trillions of miraculous events happened by chance or to believe in the miracle of creation by an Intelligent Designer whose fingerprints are clearly seen in the design of every living creature? There is just no scientific evidence to support Macro evolution. Not even in fossil evidence.Quote:
What we know about the evolution of humans from bacteria is based on the overall pattern in the fossil record, as well as our genetic history (which we carry within us), not on mechanisms like natural selection.
I know the theater curtain went up; I don't need to know every detail of the ropes and pulleys that made that happen to know it went up. I can see it. In the same way, we can see the story of life in the fossil record and in the patterns of our own genes, which confirms the same story found in the fossil record.
Yet again you show your ignorance of science in general and evolutionary science in particular. Genes produce proteins. Protiens determine expression of the genes. Genes express different proteins at different times... etc, etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Wonderful point no one had yet brought up.Quote:
asking> One of Darwin's major contributions to science was to emphasize the fallacy of that kind of thinking--to show that the very foundation of life is based on there NOT being an ideal form of any living organism, that every form is tentative, every individual a prototype. There is no ideal ideal wolf or hare, no ideal spreading oak tree or swaying grass plant. No ideal human.
And YET AGAIN you show your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Natural selection does not, 'for the most part... involve a loss of info.' It's simply different info, frequently building on what was there. Selection 'decides' whether the change works ina given environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyTEvolution requires a buildup of new previously non-existent information on the DNA strand. This [U
"cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore!"
So, Sassy, explain why some humans are born with tails - the ones their very distant ancestors had - if the info isn't still there?
Why is there still a species of bird with dino claws?
First I have to say that I am totally clueless when it comes to science, so I cannot form an opinion here. I'm posting to ask for more info.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Having said that, I will assume (yes I know what assuming does ;)) that you all are arguing whether God created man or science created man? Right?
Is it possible to believe in both? I don't know, once again, science, not my best subject.
I know, or I guess I believe, that dinosaurs existed, I believe that cromagnum man existed, does that mean that I believe more in science then in God? Confused here people, help me out. Am I completely off topic, or am I close?
If I'm totally off topic here then I'll leave, but if not, explanation would be greatly appreciated, in laymans terms please, remember, science, my worst subject. ;)
Alty - the main argument is because there are those here who deny evolution occurred - is occurring, at least what they call 'macro evolution.' Tho they try to deny it, their unacceptance of this fundamental biological science is religiously based with the arguments from many originating with the mis-named ICR (Institute for Creation Research). Because of that it becomes dificult for many to accept that a god might have had a hand in at the but then 'stepped back' (it's the last part they apparently can't accept). I simply cannot understand why there's so much hostility to science.
Maybe because science and religion don't mix, at least not science and Catholicism (can't speak for all religions). Many scientists were jailed by the Catholic church because they had scientific proof of evolution, and other things, that contradicted the bible. Of course this was many, many years ago, at least, that's what I've read. Boy, I'm opening a can of worms here. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
For me personally, I believe in both, there's too much scientific proof (even for an unscientific person like me) to believe that only God created the world, but I'd like to, yes, like to, believe that God had a hand in it.
Be it God, or science, or both, it's a pretty great world, so cudos to whoever or whatever created it, except for mosquitos of course, whoever, or whatever came up with that idea, well, they deserve a swift kick in the butt. ;)
Hope I'm not too far off topic here. Thanks Flyer for the explanation. :)
Alty - actually Catholics accept evolution - at least John Paul II did (the new guy is more old school so it's wait and see... here I am telling a Catholic... sorry). It's mostly fundamentalists that deny the separation of science and religion in the sense that sci is not anti-relig, but a-relig. The idea for them (as I've read) is that evolutionists must be 'godless atheists' (notice the slur in the redundancy). And it's not just Christian fundies.
Way back when I thought I believed in God I had no problem accepting science in gen and evol in particular. I guess that's why I can't understand why the hostility. Fear is the best answer I can come up with...
No need to be sorry, I'm not Catholic, I'm actually not anything, at least were organized religion is concerned. I also don't believe in the bible or church. Yup, I'm a very strange believer in God. :)Quote:
here I am telling a Catholic... sorry).
Cred did find a word that actually describes my beliefs very well, I guess I'm a deist, at least the description fits. :)
Thanks for explaining Flyer, where science is concerned, I am totally lost.
Alty - I'd forgotten you said you're a believer - just not in organization <G> Deist is the right word. Puts you in good company. T Jefferson's best described that way, for one.
I'm happy to explain science to anyone who will listen (and, as seen from this thread and others, even to those who won't). Part of it is the frustrated teacher in me, part the sorry shape of sci ed in this country...
Sassy- - since you keep denying it, here's another example of transitional fossils:
"Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaffe numerous times... During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary.
How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found, the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus. Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.
"... [S]everal important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles."
Recall that Gish stated: "There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones" (Gish 1978, p. 80). Gish simply does not understand how gradual transitions happen (something he should understand, obviously, if he intends to criticize evolutionary theory). These fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look. In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions. Thus, there is no reason to expect transitional forms with intermediate numbers of jaw bones or ear bones. For example, in Morganucodon, the quadrate (anvil) and the articular (hammer) serve as mammalian-style ear bones and reptilian jaw bones simultaneously. In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear (see Figure 1.4.2). The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear.
[from 29+ Evidence for Macroevolution] (bold emphasis added)
I'm afraid that explaining science to me might be quite frustrating to you. Where science is concerned I did the very least I could get away with in school.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
I have to say that the science program in our school was great, or so I've heard. ;)
I've always been more geard towards English, writing, art and the like.
I am more than willing to listen, but if it's not simple I might need some help understanding. :)
I guess it might seem strange a lapsed art teacher would try so hard to educate on science, but for me it's the learning. My 'adopted nieces' are always giving me scowls because I try to correct their English. If there's one thing I'm intolerant about (I try not to be) it's people's refusal to be educated. For some I call it "intentional ignorance."
Well, you have an eager student right here. I'm willing to learn more. You have your work cut out for you though, I'm a stubborn student, just warning you. ;)
Sorry for getting off topic, thank you for the explanations, I do appreciate it. I'll check back once in a while, I do find this topic interesting. If I have questions can I post them here, or should I PM for an explanation? Cred, that's up to you, it's your thread. Let me know.
Fine with me. Others here want to learn too. But, as you said, it's Credo's thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Ok then what do you call what these scientists did? Not intelligent and purposeful?
Please describe the "natural" means of how DNA and RNA originally came about.
Don't posit a theory or a model. Show me a "natural occurence" of a spontaneous formation of another means of information storage, retreival, and inheritance other than by DNA or RNA. One that did not involve intelligent human manipulation.
They used the same sugar backbone, and just used "artificial" base pairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Again, was their version functional?
Again, it takes intelligence. Also the method of airplane propulsion is via a designed engine, unlike the flapping wings of a bird or bat :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Which begs the question of exactly how did "the natural world" actually develop these.
It is all based on assumptions and models, not proven experiments.
Technology is an example of intelligent design!;) Humans using their intelligence!Quote:
Originally Posted by Asking
Did "natural selection" evolve washing machines or paintings or skyscrapers ? :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
How did the bowl originate?
Just a question, not prosetlyzing :cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Story telling at its best :D
Where is the science? The experiments reproducing, measuring, and testing methodology and results?
Homology is as much evidence of design as much as evolutionists claim it is their "proof."
GM's Toronado had front wheel drive, and so do modern Honda Accords. Is it an assumption to say that "natural selection" evolved them both and that they have "common descent?"
But they do mix. There are scientists, engineers, physicians etc... that believe in God and know and use science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.
Make up your mind. Do you want to hear theories about how DNA came to be? (No, I thought not). Or do you want a 2nd example? That one can't be done, that I know of. So what does that prove? If there were more 'varieties' of DNA then I'd have to concede it might not have occurred naturally. But since there's only one...Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
They form naturally when the center is lower than the edges.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Bowl Lake, AZ
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/58...cc9bcbcc9a.jpg
The science is there if you look instead of merely trying to find fault. Every attempt to do so has been countered by the science. Observation is a big part of it and when predictions are made on the observations and they hold true, then scientific conclusions are made.
Yes, there are many scientists who believe in God. The point is that they do not try to mix their beliefs with their science, don't make supernatural leaps. Some of them are even evolutionists and have no problem at all separating their belief in God from the science of evolution - yes, macroevolution. So science and religion do not mix and are mutually exclusive..
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Yes, what is the theory about how DNA came to be, how it came to be within a cell, how the ribosomes and amino acids and RNA came to be. How they all become one complex coordinated system of information storage, rereival, editing, adaptation etc...
And secondly
Why a second system did not "evolve?"
There are competing hypotheses on how life actually began. Evolution doesn't really address it. It is concerned with what happened after. But if you're serious, I'll get the info together on a couple of the ideas.
Reason for no 2nd? It was out-competed and failed.. That's not something I've read much on. I think that in order for life to occur, the amino acids have to be in a certain configuration. Whether another one would work we won't know, probably, until we find life on another planet. And even then we'd have to bring a sample home or develop some really sophisticated robots that make today's look like tinkertoys -after, of course, we managed to travel to where it is. Be nice if Mars could give the first chance to find out since it's relatively close.
I find the discussions on how life started to be fascinating. But only scientifically. I have no problem looking for a 'natural' way for it to happen and it's not beyond my inagination to consider. Basically you and I seem to have problems in this area because where I see the wonders of nature, you see the hand of God. To me, it's just 2 sides of the same coin. One side invokes the supernatural, the other merely natural.
Hypothesis, but not proof? Reproducible, experimentally proven proof?
These hypothesis include a "god" then since "god" cannot be proven either?
And those amino acids should be almost exclusively left handed.
The eye : humans vs compund - 2 different designs, not one out competing the other.
The ear : humans vs bats - 2 different techniques, not one outcompeting the other.
Hypothesis include a 'god' since 'god' can't be proven? - No. To insert a god is to invoke the supernatural. Science doesn't do that.
Eye and ear competition - different solutions for different problems.
And don't forget different requirements !Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
But can science define the exact "natural selection" methods at different episodes of evolution? That is similar to invoking the supernatural, isn't it?
As to knowing the natural selection factors, here is an example,
Antibacterial drug resistance. We know the seletive pressure is made by inteligent humans using natural and designed antibiotics.
Does anyone know the selective pressures at the exact time that compound eyes were selected for?
Cool trick, can I do it too?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
God is all knowing. Not following him kills your drive in life. Even young kittens know this.
Sassy, I don’t accept your contention, at the end of your post, that the only two scientific choices are between evolutionary theory as its now understood and a God in the sky who separately created all the higher taxa, which is apparently what you are suggesting. I think if you have an alternate Scientific theory to account for all the evidence for evolution, you should present it. I’m not going to critize your current alternate hypothesis—because good manners prevents me from doing so. Plus, I’d be accused of criticizing your personal beliefs, which you have said elsewhere are unrelated to your disbelief in evolution.
So, for now, I’ll limit my discussion to showing why your assertion that natural selection always leads to a reduction in genetic information is wrong. The short answer is of course gene and chromosome doubling. There IS a reason that different organisms have different numbers of chromosomes and different amounts of DNA. And it’s not true that we have just as much as we need—some ideal amount. Otherwise, there’s no reason a potato would have so much more DNA than a human. So genes multiply and then one copy can mutate independently of the original, so that genetic information increases. When chromosomes double, you get the same result on a massive scale. It's just false to say that there's no way for genetic information to increase. It's easy.
Of course you cannot easily breed for green horses (that I know of). There are limits to the KIND of genetic information that's available to select from at any given time. But that's different from saying selection reduces variation. You haven’t bolstered your argument with this example.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I don't know enough about horse genetics to argue this specific example, although I wonder if it’s true, but I can tell you that common sense is a poor guide for this kind of argument. It is not true that one type (species, breed, whatever) has less variation than a parent type, by definition. You are making a variation of an argument against evolution that was made in the 19th century, by an engineer. But it was not true then and it is not true now.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Decreased genetic variation happens when you take, say, 10 people (or animals) from a population of 100 million and put them on a desert island or mountain top where they can only breed with each other. So you have only taken a tiny sample of the variation that’s in the larger population AND you have imposed inbreeding, which further reduces variation.
Most reductions in genetic variation in dog and horses breeds are the result of inbreeding. They are not the result of selection, either in the wild or in domesticated animals. I gather that dog breeders often inbreed their dogs heavily because humans value “purebred,” or inbred, dogs. But you can avoid excessive inbreeding by outbreeding just occasionally.
In the wild, not only do animals and plants frequently outbreed, they may even hybridize with other species. For example, wolves and coyotes are two different species that have been separated for millions of years (as shown by genetic studies), yet in certain situations they can mate and produce healthy pups. In fact, genetic studies suggest the red wolf of the American South is a wolf-coyote hybrid that has become its own species. Hybridization increases information. (As can DNA doubling and mutation.) Plants commonly hybridize.
So your statement that selection reduces variation is not true. But after thinking about it, I realize that even though you have blamed selection for loss of information, you are probably thinking of situations like rapid speciation in oceanic islands or mountain tops, where a small population inbreeds. Again, it’s the small population size and the inbreeding that cause a loss of information compared to the large parent population on the mainland.
But that IS the situation in which rapid speciation often occurs. So let’s assume you understood that it’s inbreeding that causes information loss (not selection). In that case, you would have a valid point that information is lost in the very situations where heavy selection is most likely to produce a new species.
The initial speciation event can occur very quickly.
But what happens afterward is equally important. Let’s say the species was a lizard stranded on a mountain top. They quickly inbreed and evolved larger jaws for coping with a local grasshopper--the only food around. The grasshoppers turn out to be successful for their own reasons and the lizards spread to other mountain tops, following their prey.
Over millions of years, the longer jaws that evolved quickly from a few genes are stabilized so that minor mutations, or new genes from other populations of lizards cannot prevent the lizards from having long jaws. Along with making the expression of the long jaw trait more stable, the lizards also accumulate more genetic information. Genes double and mutate. Some old genes are lost and replaced by new ones. Occasionally, the now large (no longer inbred) population hybridizes with other species of lizards, which brings in new genes without swamping the long jaws trait—which is now a robust trait.
So, yes, if a new species arises through being isolated, inbred, and experiencing heavy selection (allopatric speciation), they can experience some initial loss of information. But they will get information back!
This is a strange assertion, since literally every gene in your body represents a long series mutations. Humans have approximately 30,000 genes. Each one is the product of many mutations, some of which happened in the last ten thousand years, but most of which occurred hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. A few of our genes evolved literally billions of years ago. Every one of us is just a bunch of random mutations that gradually accumulated to form a functional organism.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Why don't we observe this happening in the lab when we generate mutations with nasty chemicals and x rays (which is how it’s usually done)?
We can generate all kinds of mutations in the lab. But there’s no way to tell if they are “good” or “bad” unless we test drive them in a real animal in a real environment. In the wild, animals and plants make all kinds of trade offs between acquiring energy/food and being safe from predators or competing with other organisms. So a gene that makes an animal big, say, might be useful in one environment, deadly in another. You can’t test this in the lab. You need to test drive individual mutations, which is what natural selection does. You CAN observe evolutionary change in the wild and you can peg it to specific genes.
I remember a lab that knocked out a gene for a growth regulating gene in a mouse and the researchers expected the baby mice missing the gene to die before they were born. The gene was considered a very important one. But the baby mice not only did not die, they grew up to have long hair, like Persian cats. So normally, long hair is probably not adaptive in mice. But it’s easy to imagine a situation where such a mutation could be useful.
Most mutations that occur in the lab do not produce traits that the researcher can understand like that. Whether something is "good" or "bad" depends on the genetic and environmental context. A fatal gene might turn out to be nonfatal and useful if another mutation had evolved first that prevents it from being fatal and allows it to do something else. So you really can't know the value of individual mutations out of context--and the lab is totally out of context.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 AM. |