There is no such thing as beneficial or deleterious, it all depends on the environment. If someone is born with ALS or elephant man's disease, there may well be a time when humans consider this to be the most attractive type of male, because they look strong and able to withstand medium caliber bullets. So basically it impossible to know if a mutation is deleterious or beneficial, we have to wait and see what the environment does.
Maybe people will be attracted to Homo-Dumbo, because of their feelings towards Republicans.
48 comments
Balderdash is more like it.
And Homo-Dumbo? If this is an insult to Obama you have to come up with something that sounds similar to his name for it to work. But considering that the republican party is so full of FAIL it shouldn't be too shocking to see why they are losing people.
So basically it impossible to know if a mutation is deleterious or beneficial, we have to wait and see what the environment does.
This is, broadly speaking, actually true. A point mutation that is regarded as neutral, and jogs along in the genome for millennia at roughly the same percentage, may suddenly (evolutionarily speaking) become highly advantageous due to an environment change, and spread rapidly through a population.
"able to withstand medium caliber bullets." I don't know about the rest of you, but when it comes time to share my genetic material, that's the FIRST thing I look for. Imagine the pick up line. "Hey, baby. You look like you take a couple body shots. What do you say we go to my place for a little target practice... *grrrraowlll*"
Huh?
If he is exceptionaly inteligent he may be a great benefit to his community, but otherwise his sexual options will be limited.
ALS renders a person motionless before it kills them and doesn't thicken the skin in any way. "Elephant man's disease" could have been any of a few different diseases, none of which are in any way related to ALS, and Mr. Merrick wasn't bullet proof and died because he tried to lie down.
"Maybe people will be attracted to Homo-Dumbo, because of their feelings towards Republicans."
Alright, I've waited long enough. Time to finally use this...
"Maybe people will be attracted to Homo-Dumbo, because of their feelings towards Republicans.
From what I can tell, the general feeling towards Republicans is one of revulsion.
able to withstand medium caliber bullets
This has nothing to do with ALS, so why would people feel so eager to withstand medium caliber bullets? Might it be because of certain Republicans' feelings towards them?
SYD SEZ... image DO NOT WANT IT! "
As for Bolder-head, PLEASE BE A POE!
"Wait, people with ALS or the elephant man's disease can withstand bullets?"
In fundieland, everything is true. Except evolution. That's a lie from the pits of hell!
"there may well be a time when humans consider this to be the most attractive type of male, because they look strong and able to withstand medium caliber bullets."
Somehow, I doubt the Kevlar gene exists. [/hyper-sarcasm]
"So basically it impossible to know if a mutation is deleterious or beneficial, we have to wait and see what the environment does."
PROTIP: Despite what His Excelsior!ness Stan Lee and the Great God Jack Kirby did, in creating the comics, the "X-Men" films are not documentaries.
This is actually true. The fitness of a gene depends on the results. One's fitness is essentially determined in retrospect.
But if someone has a crippling disease(ALS) that slowly kills them it's safe to say that this probably won't help their chances of reproductive success. Unless there are throngs of the opposite sex taking pity and having unprotected sex just because the person is dying. And even then, that would only be reproductively beneficial. Unless your pain/pleasure distinction is significantly different from the average human(I won't say insane because there's no objective way to judge whose preferences for one's own pain and pleasure are right or wrong) then I doubt you would find it beneficial to have ALS even if you were about to have 100 babies.
As for elephant man disease, if you had a culture that celebrated that sort of appearance that could be beneficial in more than reproductive ways. That doesn't even require much variation in one's ideas about pain and pleasure since if society approves of the appearance the person is enjoying the pleasure of that approval like they would if they didn't have elephant man disease and lived in a society that approved of not having elephant man disease.
wait... I thought the Republicans were the Dumbos and the Democrats were the Asses...
I missed something.
Anyway, I don't think ALS individuals can have children, thus I doubt future desirability.
He is so close to understanding.
Although there are deleterious mutations, the kind that don't allow you to survive long enough to reproduce.
neurofibromatosis*
With that said I have reached my own personal internet jackpot; I secretly wait for the day that Merrick is mentioned on every website I visit, and this was one of the few remaining.
AND WITH THAT ALSO SAID
THIS FELLA IS A SPECIAL KIND OF DUMB
The dumb where you can be so close to understanding, yet so far.
Because YES, the same trait can be deleterious or beneficial if placed in different environments -- e.g. rock pocket mice living on black lava flows, or on tan sand. Black fur is deleterious on sand and beneficial on black lava flows; pale tan fur is beneficial on sand and deleterious on sand.
BUT GOD SO CLOSE AND YET SO VERY VERY FAR
(and don't get me started on How Proteus Syndrome and/or NF is Not An Advantage in Practically Any Circumstance.)
"Elephant Man's" disease does not make you look like an elephant, nor does it make you more physically resilient.
If the "elephant man gene" caught on among some segment of the population, they wouldn't be called Homo Dumbo , they'd probably be called something like Homo Non-Erectus .
"So basically it impossible to know if a mutation is deleterious or beneficial, we have to wait and see what the environment does."
I FIND THIS HYPOTHESIS INTRIGUING. THIS MAN CLEARLY KNOWS HIS BIOLOGY.
I PROPOSE AN EXPERIMENT. BOLDER-DASH WILL HUMP AN ELEPHANT PERSON. I WILL BE THE CONTROL AND NOT HUMP AN ELEPHANT PERSON. FINALLY WE WILL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE ENVIRONMENT DOES.
MEET YOU ALL BACK HERE IN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS FOR PRELIMINARY RESULTS.
there may well be a time when humans consider this to be the most attractive type of male
I don't think so. This is what most women want and what most men would like to be like today:
image
And that's about 2460 years old. I don't see the male ideal changing any time soon.
[A note for Republicans: you don't get that figure by eating Wonder Bread, Twinkies, Miracle Whip, KFC, Reddi Wip, Lay's, pizza, ...]
It's clear this guy is taking the piss, but he's actually seems kind of right.
Is he just saying something sort of correct in a stupid way so he can leap off into newer greater acts of stupid?
The withstanding bullets thing is stupid,and the last sentence is just as dumb. The rest though, yeah, I can pretty much agree with.That is generally how that works.
Instead of 'environment' I'd have to say 'selection pressure' though.
In evolutionary biology, "beneficial" simply means "increases the probability of reproduction."
Someone born capable of withstanding medium caliber bullets but is sterile has not had a beneficial mutation as defined by evolutionary biology.
"So basically it impossible to know if a mutation is deleterious or beneficial...."
And yet, somehow, we seem to figure it out by observing the results, and without the help of Captain Obvious.
There is no such thing as beneficial or deleterious, it all depends on the environment.
This isn't quite true. Some things have been highly conserved throughout the history of life, while others are easily mutable. Some things can be changed without effect and others can't. Cytochrome c is found in almost all living cells of animals and plants. A cell with an inoperable gene for cytochrome c would die, and so such a mutation would always be fatal. That's why we don't find such a mutation in living cells. But the gene for cytochrome c can undergo considerable alteration and still function. The effect or purpose of such alterations is unknown.
A beneficial trait is one that helps you survive and more importantly makes it more likely for you to spread your genes.
If you're born with a mutation that leaves you disabled, dead or otherwise unlikely to produce then it's certainly not beneficial.
Sure it depends on the environment but some things aren't going to be beneficial in ANY environment.
How Lou Gehrig's Disease is beneficial by any stretch of the imagination is beyond me. The Elephant Man example is also a completely pointless hypothetical consisting of human beings finding someone with that disorder attractive which is an absurd supposition that would require a drastic societal change and probably a majority of people to suddenly have this mutation in order for other humans to view it as normal and therefore attractive.
Of course you only used it as an example so you could make a forced and unfunny joke about Republicans, that doesn't mean I have to let the stupidity slide.
I also have no idea what you think the Elephant Man syndrome is considering you think someone with it could repel bullets but it has nothing to do with actual elephants.
This seems like a prolix way to state that you know JUST enough about evolution to really highlight your ignorance.
And as far as: "There is no such thing as beneficial or deleterious," take a look at a Harlequin baby and tell me there's no way to know if it's beneficial or deleterious.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
