...strongly selects: yes. But not perfectly. There is still plenty of room for mutation.
Yes, because the DNA cannot impede it from happening. If it could, it would, evident in that organisms that show a high amount of mutations are preterred sexually by the opposite gender of their species. It doesen't mean it actually seeks mutations to happen. So how does this prove me wrong?
None of this is actually up for debate as the process of mutation has been fully modelled, studied and even observed. Even the mechanisms of mutation have been quantified and identified, everything from simple deletions; repetitions; insertions; transpositions and plain old random coding errors to very complicated exotic mechanisms involving viral manipulation of gene sequences.
Lmao...what the fuck has studies done with retrovirus gene therapy got to do with mutations where exogenous agents are not used as catalysts for the mutations? And the process by which mutations occur is irrelevant because how does this address my point that mutations are not actively seeked out by the DNA? All these errors, deletetions, insertions, etc, result either from a failure of RNA-transcryptase enzyme to properly code the informations for protein synsthesis contained within the gene alleles, or an alteration in the gene allele itself, something that
should not happen. Again, dumby, how does this prove me wrong?
People "strongly select" against bumping into each other in the street because it is usually disadvantageous, but sometimes people bump into each other; fall in love; marry and spend the rest of their lives walking almost everywhere together.
An abstruse analogy that escapes me. If you mean that people are DNA and that mutations are the bumping and the children are the genetic change, then your analogy doesen't apply because people bump in each other and get married and have kids because it is a biological imperative for people to reproduce the species, but the DNA doesen't actively seek mutations to happen, so if the mutations(the bumping) occurs, it often does not result in children(the gene passing on the next generation), because people who show signs of mutations are selected against. And yes, to add insult to the injury I am causing you, people sometimes bump purposefully into each other as a means of introducing themselves to members of the opposite sex. Idiot.
I still watch where I'm going: strongly select against making mistakes. That doesn't mean people can't bump into each other and fall in love.
Stupid analogy. People seek and each other and yes, they in many cases seek to bump into each other as an excuse to introduce themselves. Does the DNA actively seek making mistakes of transcription? No.
This is a common misconception adhered to by those who WANT or NEED to find some error, any error in the evolutionary theory (I'll presume you are some version of Creationist).
Way off your mark. I'm by no means a creationist. In fact, you haven't even read my post where I stated that I believe in the theory of evolution except for this fatal flaw.
In reality, humans do indeed select mates based on certain genetic criteria:
-general health
-body structure
-facial (and body) bilateral symmetry
-ethnicity
-smell
Thanks for stating the obvious, genius. And people choose those who are closest to the average exactly because they are the least genetically dissimilar. The traits that you see the most often in the population are those that have the highest inclusive fitness proven over generations, and people with too many variations from the norm are preterred.
General health is pretty obvious, body structure is probably secondary to that
Body morphology correlates strongly with general health. A person who had infantile paralysis and has one arm has a much poorer general health than someone with both arms the same size. It indicates a higher propensity for developing infections, a weaker immunological system, inferior motility which impedes a series of fitness-increasing activities, etc.
(with an emphasis on secondary sexual characteristics but with a neotenic twist),
Only in the case of women, dumby. In men, secondary sexual characteristics are less important than social status and mature facial features are preferred over neoteny. This is especially true when women are ovulating.
and the smell component is based upon a biological imperative to find a mate with as few immune system trace smells in common as possible in order that any offsping produced have the best possible mix of immunities. If memory serves me there are someting like six individual immunity smells associated with humans, and each human carries three of these distinct smell markers (don't quote me on those exact numbers, I'm a physicist by training not an endocrinologist).
Yes, this is true.
But then we have ethnicity and bilateral symmetry.
The ethnicity aspect is based around a preference to limit the chances of in-breeding, while still producing viabe offspring... humans prefer a mate that is a happy medium of being as diverse from their own gene pool as possible while simultaneously not being so distantly related as to hinder the chances of conception.
Yes, but inbreeding, historically, even after transportations methods became easily available, has been far more common on a per capita basis than interethnical mating. This goes to show that sexual selection is more cautious regarding genetic differentiation rather than genetic status quo.
Capt Kirk happily made it with the green Orion slave girl, but he didnt ask the Gorn if he had a sister, get it? Both green, both alien chicks... but more chance of impregnating the green-skinned hottie than the green scaled egg-laying lizard woman.
How is this relevant to anything? I hardly think Star Trek is the epitome of scientific excellency...and I never disagreed with this point.
If you average male faces across the entire population, the hypothetical "mathematically average guy" looks suspiciously like Brad Pitt... that's why most girls find him so attractive, he's genetically right in the middle of human diversity: not so distant as to be reproductively incompatible to the vast majority of women, nor so closely related as to represent an in-breeding danger to the vast majority of women.
Again, it is the similarity that makes the average face attractive and not the difference. If it were the difference, than elephant man would be the most attractive of all.
Similarly, half-caste/mixed-race people are considerd attractive by a large overlap of both groups from which they are derived... despite a natural hman preference for ones own racial group.
All the high paid supermodels, with a few exceptions, are of pure Northwestern European ethnicity. They are more popular with non-European ethnicities than the models of said non-Europeans ethinicities are with their own people. You: fail.
Now on to the crux of the problem... bilateral symmetry. Critics with a poor understanding of geneitcs (Creationists) often conflate bilateral symmetry with some measure of mutation. Such is NOT THE CASE.
Strands of DNA helix are NOT involved in producing each side of the body, nor any body macro-structures. The helix is simply a storage/replication method for the DNA molecule itself, bodily asymmetries DO NOT reflect any underlying DNA asymmetry or mutation
Ugh, no, completely wrong. The information that codes for the synthesis of all bodily proteins and their arrangements are defined by the DNA. So if there is a gene allele that codes for the formation of the ear, and one ear comes out with a bizzare shape, then the gene expresseed itself incorrectly when coding for that ear. If both ears come out flawed, the gene itself experienced a disarrangement of it's nucleotids. As you may know, there are four and small changes in the arrangement of them causes a gene to code for a completely different protein.
Humans prefer symmetrical mates (especialy facially symmetric mates) as a high degree of facial symmetry is a good effective measure of overall health.
And a good measure of overral health is a good measure of overral good genes. People with congenital diseases like diabetes, artherosclerosis, Down's Syndrome, etc, are seldom healthy. Nice redundant argument.
Facial and bodily symmetry is a measure of proper GROWTH, not a measure of mutation.
And the process of growth is controlled by genes - with environmental influences like nutrition playing a role. A person that grows assymetrically is more likely to carry mutations. This is obvious. And besides, it's not always that assymetry only appears after extra uterine growth starts. In many cases, the assymetries are alsready apparent in the foetal stage.
If someone has a lob-sided face, that usually means they have suffered several low-grade sinus infections, indicating they are sickly stock.
Which came before, the egg or the chicken? People with good formation of the nose are less liekly to develop inflamation of the sinuses, and the proper growth of the nose is controlled by, you got it, genes.
Likewise a strong jaw (relative to gender) and good cranial symmetry indicates good nutrition during a relatively disease-free childhood.
No, a strong jaw correlates with strong androgenic receptors in the skeletal structure of the jaw, which is perceived as a sign of dominance by women and thus attractive. It also indicates that the man in question is likely to be a good provider, since only someone competent at getting food could expend calories building a huge jaw.
There is absolutely NO WAY for any animal (human or otherwise) to select a mate based on mutation quotient... as such mutations almost always go unexpressed in the phenotype (most DNA is inactive "junk" DNA).
Irrelevant. What matters is not the total amount of mutations, but the relative number of mutations compared to others, which is easily detectable morphologically. Whether 10,000 genes are prone to express proteins or 10, the differences in mutations are easily morphologically apparent.
Mutations only become obvious when they are so detrimental as to produce an obviously damaged individual. For example, most humans would be put off a prospective mate if that mate was grotesquely deformed/crippled by a simple single gene mutation such as produces Proteus Syndrome (what John Merrick, the so-called Elephant Man semingly suffered from).
Wrong. There is a scale of attractiveness, with the average person having more mutations than a supermodel, and the elephant man having far more than the average person. And the supermodelm is perceived as more attractive, the average person less and the genetic freak the least.
Most humans would prefer a nice musky-smelling, healthy-looking, symmetrical and attactive mate... a mate who might well carry recessive gene expressions for hundreds of fatal genetic congenital disorders.
And this all correlates with genetic fitness. So thanks for stating the obvious and agreeing with me.
Mates are NOT selected based on mutation.
The vast, vast majority of mutations have NO EFFECT and NO EXPRESSION
Not all mutations have morphological markers, yes, but they all have physiological markers. It is relative. Most people have mutations, and yet the degree is not enough to compromise their ability to pass on theri genes to the next generation.
A small percentage of mutations result in cancer, and a smaller still fraction resut in entirely new gene expressions which then become traits that compete in the gene pool.
I never denied that mutations are sometimes advantegeous. My point is that organisms avoid mating with those that express the highest amount of mutations. This indicates that, if mutations are the mechanism that drives natural selection, than natural selection is selecting against it. Why the fuck can't you understand this simple concept?
Mutation is merely the mechanism which randomly gives rise to new genes... evolution is the process by which these new genes compete for replication.
The entire premise of your argument is faulty.
This is what you're saying: that mutations are the mechanism with which natural selection works with to determine which genes are adaptible. So natural selection should encourage selection for the highest amount of mutations possible, so as to increase the possibility of genetic options for species to meet the challenges the environment gives them to the highest degree possible. But this is not what happens. The most deformed, the most mutant are strongly selected against. See how retarded this logic is? The mechanism that drives evolution cannot be something that occurs unwillingly by the DNA and that it tries to avoid, but a mechanism that is encouraged by the DNA. What we see in Nature is that indiciduals with a high number of mutations are preterred compared to individuals with little mutations.
It still allows room for mutation. Only ring structure DNA sequences (as found in some primitive microbes) actively prevent and correct DNA mutations, and even they still allow for some mutation errors to occur. Google "spirococci radium durens" a germ that has near perfect reproductive fidelity due to its unique self-correcting DNA structure.
No, it does not "allow" mutations to occur, they occur despite the microbes best efforts to the contrary.
Mates are NOT selected based on mutations or mutation quotient, they are selected based on phenotype.
Redundant argument. Mutations are morphologically and physiologically expressed in the phenotype.
...just plain wrong. So very, very wrong.
This is tantamont to claiming that because the layering of bricks builds walls, then rockslides should produce cathedrals... obviousy they don't, therefore the layering of bricks does not build walls.
I never said that. Your analogies suck. Whether mutations produce brick walls or cathedrals is irrelevant because my point is that mutations are something that the DNA actively seeks to prevent and selectas against. So you are basically saying that if the DNA could reproduce perfectly from generation to generation adapted to a specific environment, then the environment changed demanding the genotype change to express a different phenotype, then the DNA would perish since it would have no active mechanism necessary to make the genotypical alteration for the organism it codes for to survive in the new environment? This is retarded to the max.
Stupid. Faulty extrapolaion, from faulty misconceptions.
You don't even know what conceptions I am talking about, which is why you think my extrapolations are flawed. Read what I wrote again, dumbass.
...guess you forgot the basic concepts.
Even if I forgot the most basic evolutionary and molecular biology, I would still know a hell lot more than you.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
