Why are most genetic mutations harmful and negative?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Here is a question for you all, this sortof ties in with the giants thread but it also has wider reach.

Why is it that, except for perhaps some useful niche applications, most mutations in humans and animals tend to be negative and have bad consequences to them?

Take the giants for example. You would think that a larger human would also be more powerful, be able to run faster and perform more aerobic acts because they have larger lung and heart capacity, or, should have an increase in their other capacities, but, in actual reality when people are born with giantism, they have a host of health problems related to heart, lungs, bones, etc. Why is this?

The same goes for those who suffer from dwarfism, they have a host of problems.

Why is it that the reality of genetic mutations do not work out like we see in fantasy and science fiction? For example, in science fiction and fantasy, most giants are very powerful, like I posted above, they have the proportions of other body parts and organs to go with their larger size.

And look at the dwarves in fantasy fiction like Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit and CS Lewis' Narnia and other things, like the old role playing games:

Dwarves are stronger than normal humans due to their smaller more dense bodies, and are able to forge steel and metal much better than normal people.

And take a real life genetic mutation called being Double Jointed.

A person who is double jointed has extra joints within their appendages such as arms, legs, fingers, hands. You would think such a condition has all good and no bad. That is what I used to think before I looked into the medical details. I thought if you are double joined that means you are more flexible and you can bend your legs and hands and fingers much better and further than we who do not have that. But look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(joints)

Persons who are born with the genetic mutation of hyper mobility also have a host of associated bad negative health problems. Why is this so?

Here is a related question to the above: Why is it that we never see real-life mutations that work out for people like we see in the X MEN series from Marvel Comics, where mutated people are born with super powers and things like that, such as a man born with super-regenerating cells that do not cause cancer, or a woman born with the ability to grow extendable "organic metal claws" from her finger tips.

Biological nature on one hand is so intricate and amazing and yet it also has so many limits.

In "Engines of Creation", Eric Drexler the famous nanotechnologist points out that alloy steel is ten times stronger than human and animal bone, and copper wires conduct electricity much faster than human neural synapses/neurons.

However, the biomimetics and biotechnologists will then also point out that neural tissue is more complex and has greater capacities in other areas than current man made electronics, and will tell you that pound for pound, bone is a very advanced composite, as is wood.

How can I unify all of these concepts into one universal thing?


And lastly, this may interest some of you: I was once involved in a long discussion between an ardent Darwinian Evolutionist and an ardent Biblical Creationist. The Darwinist believed that all living things are the result of millions and billions of years of adaptations and mutations with no intelligent designer or creator. The Bible creationist believed that the universe is between 6 and 12,000 or so years, and was created in six literal 24 hour days.

There are also theistic evolutionists who hold to various compromise positions between the two.

Anyhow, I asked both men this question: Why do we not see biological organisms making more use of actual NON-oxided bare metal and metal alloys?
For example: Why don't we see sharks with razor sharp teeth made of steel alloy that is grown from the molecular level, like their bodies do with calcium based carbides and oxides? Now, there are animals like sea urchins and things that make complex composites using proteins and minerals, and things like magnetite iron which is harder than most steel. But, we do not really see them use bare metal, such as shells made of a natural version of VG10 steel. And I asked both men "Why is this?"

The Evolutionist man told me that the ancient Protein/DNA biotic systems evolved long ago and are pretty much fixed because of energy constraints and other factors that do not make making metals as in bare metals and metal alloys very efficient processes for natural organisms. The Creationist man told me that God designed creatures in a specific way and what we see now is the result of thousands of years of the Fall from Adam and Eve into sin and the effect of the Universal Curse on nature and the universe.

What would all of you say and add to that, without getting into a religious argument?

I welcome your input as to why we do not see the use of metals and plastics and other "man made materials" in the biological world. The famous scientist and physicist Freeman Dyson who is a very big advocate for man made bio engineering and nano engineering to improve life for people, said there are no physical/chemical law reasons why trees and shelled animals and spiders and worms could not be re-engineered at the genetics level to produce fuels, composites, metals, plastics/polymers, and other materials for human use. I know some would object on ethics grounds. He said it is an issue of time, focus of resources, and intellect to do it.

[knivesandbooks]

If I'm not mistaken-- and not too far gone from my biologu courses-- most mutations are actually neutral.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

If I'm not mistaken-- and not too far gone from my biologu courses-- most mutations are actually neutral.

Neutral, and some positive, and others in certain niches, useful. But I guess my core point is why are there negative side-effects to many mutations such as giantism and double jointedness and other things?

[Bloke]

[SpyderEdgeForever]

LOL Exactly, Bloke. For example, in science fiction, being exposed to nuclear radiation can give a man super powers. In real life he gets dead. Sad.

[MichaelScott]

Mutated genes are merely genes that have been changed. They aren’t good or bad, just different.

[The Meat man]

Well, I'm not a molecular biologist but here's my thought.

A mutation is a copy error in the DNA of a cell. The genome, the complete stand of DNA found within the nucleus of every cell in every living thing, is literally incomprehensibly complex and fine tuned. So any copying error is overwhelmingly likely to be detrimental.

Really, it all comes down to the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, things move from order to disorder - not the opposite.

[spyderg]

From what I know of mutations is the useful kind are generally small and it takes generations for noticeable changes to occur. We and other animals evolve slowly as we adapt to environmental changes. In the past only the strong would survive. Whoever had the mutation that was beneficial would survive and pass it on. The others would not be so lucky and of course not pass on their genes. Nowadays medicine and care can be provided to prolong life of people with dabilitating mutations so perhaps those mutations continue to be passed on whereas long ago they wouldn’t. Sudden large mutations generally don’t necessarily work in certain environments. Also I would assume that ages ago those with noticeable mutations might have been feared or shunned, again not allowing for passing on of those genes.
As far as giants go, once you get to a certain size, our bones and muscles wouldn’t work to properly support us. You have to have thicker and stronger support. This slows one down among other issues.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Well, I'm not a molecular biologist but here's my thought.

A mutation is a copy error in the DNA of a cell. The genome, the complete stand of DNA found within the nucleus of every cell in every living thing, is literally incomprehensibly complex and fine tuned. So any copying error is overwhelmingly likely to be detrimental.

Really, it all comes down to the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, things move from order to disorder - not the opposite.

This is a very good summary of the situation.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

What would be a good alternative material for human and animal bone tissues, if the ability existed to successfully integrate alternative materials into the skeletons, that would not be detrimental, and would give better protection? Would you want some form of advanced carbon fiber based composite?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Mutated genes are merely genes that have been changed. They aren’t good or bad, just different.

Do you think most people in the world, if asked, and if they understood this, would be for or against human re-engineering of genes to make physical life healthier and more survivable?

[Sjucaveman]

It all depends on where the error occurs. For instance, if during development a human embryo by error ends up with a 3rd copy of the 23rd chromosome they will have downs syndrome. If any other chromosome ends up with a 3rd copy it's almost universally fatal.

My daughter had a deletion of a small portion of her genetic code that helps proteins to know what to do in the body. She was born with minor holes in her heart that would have been survivable but also had an extra layer of cells in her lungs. That later of cells was between her alveoli and capillaries meaning her lungs couldn't get oxygen into her body or carbon dioxide out. She lived to be 21 days old all of it on a machine that pumped and oxygenated her blood.

[Bloke]

a good alternative material for human and animal bone tissues

[SpyderEdgeForever]

It all depends on where the error occurs. For instance, if during development a human embryo by error ends up with a 3rd copy of the 23rd chromosome they will have downs syndrome. If any other chromosome ends up with a 3rd copy it's almost universally fatal.

My daughter had a deletion of a small portion of her genetic code that helps proteins to know what to do in the body. She was born with minor holes in her heart that would have been survivable but also had an extra layer of cells in her lungs. That later of cells was between her alveoli and capillaries meaning her lungs couldn't get oxygen into her body or carbon dioxide out. She lived to be 21 days old all of it on a machine that pumped and oxygenated her blood.

Oh my, first of all thank you for explaining this to me, and my brother, you and your family have my most sincere compassion and condolences on what happened to your precious child.