Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 226 of 455 (785681)
06-08-2016 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
06-08-2016 7:16 PM


Mutations
There are two different theories here about the cause of "differences in DNA sequence." MUTATIONS are not responsible for them, BUILT-IN NATURALLY OCCURRING ALLELES, or differences in DNA sequence, are responsible for them.
It seems that Dr A is being a bit unclear to you.
It is a known fact that mutations occur and create differences in the DNA sequences from parents to offspring. You, yourself, have a number of them. Every human born does. (well, I suppose it isn't statistically impossible that someone could be born without them it is just very, very, very unlikely).
That means there re billions and billions of new mutations every generation. They have been measured. They are a fact. You can make all the unsupported assertions that you want but the facts simply will not go away.
I'll help you with your argument: we haven't measured every human so how can we know this is a fact? The answer is that whenever we do measure they are there. The answer is that the nature of replication produces these changes. The answer is there is no reason to think otherwise. When you supply one then it can be considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 7:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 1:02 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 227 of 455 (785683)
06-09-2016 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by NosyNed
06-08-2016 11:59 PM


Re: Mutations
Correct me if I'm wrong:
The mutations you are talking about are in the somatic/body cells, at least the vast majority of them are, is this correct?
In other words I did not inherit them and they do not affect any of my inherited traits, is this correct?
I did not pass any of them on to my daughter, is this correct?
All those dog breeds may also have their own individual set of mutations that also contribute absolutely nothing to their breed traits, is this correct?.
Mutations are known to be predominantly either neutral or causes of disease, is this correct?
If all that is correct, those mutations have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about in this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by NosyNed, posted 06-08-2016 11:59 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2016 1:14 AM Faith has replied
 Message 229 by Genomicus, posted 06-09-2016 1:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(3)
Message 228 of 455 (785684)
06-09-2016 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
06-09-2016 1:02 AM


Re: Mutations
You are wrong. Of course, during growth many mutations occur in somatic cells -- that can lead to cancer for one thing.
But there are mutations in the reproductive cells in all of us.
Mutations are known to be predominantly, in fact overwhelmingly neutral. If they weren't we'd be in bad shape. Ok, actually that is for the ones we carry not the ones the terminate pregnancies.
It hasn't been determined but since the majority of fertilizations naturally abort it could be that there are many, many that are deleterious enough to cause this. However, just regular developmental errors that have nothing to do with genetics could be the predominant cause of this. I think it is unknown.
Mutations in somatic cells have never been a part of the discussion for anyone. They are not interesting from an evolutionary view.
We are all only talking about germ line mutations.
ABE:
You passed some number of your mutations on. And some were added in her that you don't have.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 1:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 5:14 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 229 of 455 (785685)
06-09-2016 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
06-09-2016 1:02 AM


Re: Mutations
The mutations you are talking about are in the somatic/body cells, at least the vast majority of them are, is this correct?
No, plenty of mutations occur in gametes, so this is obviously what NosyNed is referring to. Literally nobody here (other than you) is discussing somatic mutations, as these aren't really relevant to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 1:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 230 of 455 (785686)
06-09-2016 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
06-08-2016 7:16 PM


This is why you should not insist on your own versions
quote:
My basic argument proves that the ToE doesn't work. That leaves design.
You've even managed to confuse yourself. You refuse to deal with the actual theory of evolution, insisting on your own (strawman) instead. And we don't care if you prove that false because none of us believe it.
In the real theory of evolution genetic variation can increase. Evolution does not act like a peculiarly close-minded breeder, who cannot accept any new variation (as you admit there are plenty of possible variations that do not get in the way of real breeders - and evolution has no intended outcome that variations could interfere with anyway).
The real theory of evolution accepts the fact that mutations can produce useful traits - and even with the restrictions imposed by your demand for proof some small examples have been found. Simply assuming that it cannot happen is convenient for you but hardly a convincing argument.
And if praying to God doesn't help you understand, why should we expect it to help anyone else ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 7:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 5:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 231 of 455 (785687)
06-09-2016 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
06-08-2016 6:25 PM


Re: Why they lived longer then and dragging this onto the topic
Faith writes:
I was quoting Jonathan Sarfati, I didn't say that myself.
Yes Faith, I know, that's why I asked if you'd tell him that he's wrong now that you have the proof that he is.
The moth situation is not as clear as you are saying it is.
It couldn't be clearer, it's exactly the evidence that you claim can't exist - a genetic mutation causing a phenotypic change that has a beneficial competitive advantage. The date of the mutation has even been identified.
"Ilik Saccheri and colleagues have identified the melanism-causing event as the insertion of a class II transposable element into the first intron of a gene called cortex. Statistical inference indicates that the polymorphism occurred around 1819, when the Industrial Revolution was well under way."
There's nothing to argue about. It's a genetic mutation that caused a colour change.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 06-08-2016 6:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 5:18 AM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 232 of 455 (785689)
06-09-2016 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by NosyNed
06-09-2016 1:14 AM


Re: Mutations
All I can say is that's too bad. Not a healthy situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2016 1:14 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2016 7:59 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 233 of 455 (785690)
06-09-2016 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Tangle
06-09-2016 3:42 AM


Re: Why they lived longer then and dragging this onto the topic
Faith writes:
I was quoting Jonathan Sarfati, I didn't say that myself.
Yes Faith, I know, that's why I asked if you'd tell him that he's wrong now that you have the proof that he is.
That was a confusing remark since you didn't mention his name and the quote is attributed to me, not to Sarfati, and not to Sarfati via me.
Could be a mutation, might not be.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Tangle, posted 06-09-2016 3:42 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Tangle, posted 06-09-2016 7:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 234 of 455 (785691)
06-09-2016 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by PaulK
06-09-2016 1:27 AM


Oh but I do insist
The evidence that mutations produce real traits is terrifically scarce, an odd situation here or there, and even then there are other explanations than mutation for particular changes.
I'll say it again: even if mutations did do what you claim, they could make nothing new, could do nothing more than contribute to the pool of ordinary allelic variations, which would be redundant since there is plenty already built in; and that pool has to be reduced in order to get new phenotypes. As long as reduction in genetic diversity is needed for this purpose the ToE is a dead duck. No amount of mutations can overcome the selective processes that produce new phenotypes. But in reality mutations don't do anything like what is claimed anyway. With a few really questionable exceptions they contribute zip to the wellbeing of organisms or their evolution.
And God has indeed helped me to understand these things.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2016 1:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2016 5:43 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 235 of 455 (785692)
06-09-2016 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Dr Adequate
06-08-2016 8:21 PM


Re: You are looking at the wrong part of the system
Sure, one breed is not another breed. A chihuahua with the genes of a dalmatian would not be an unusual chihuahua, it would be a dalmatian. A human with the genes of a chimp would be a chimp. A dog with the genes of a giraffe would be a giraffe. And yet the fact remains that humans, dogs, and chihuahuas exhibit diversity and yet are recognizable in spite of that diversity.
The breeds do NOT exhibit high GENETIC diversity. They can't, because they DON'T have all those genes for other traits. Each breed has to have low genetic diversity unless it's been mixed with others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-08-2016 8:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2016 11:02 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 455 (785693)
06-09-2016 5:42 AM


Still await the rationalization for MtDNA & MicSat gen div measures
The topic that still needs explanation is the idea that you can measure genetic diversity by mutations in mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA -- both areas that seem to have nothing to do with the actual losses under discussion, such as the loss of genetic diversity that is necessary to forming breeds and species, and the loss that at the extreme endangers creatures such as the cheetah and the elephant seal.

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Genomicus, posted 06-09-2016 6:08 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 237 of 455 (785694)
06-09-2016 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
06-09-2016 5:25 AM


Re: Oh but I do insist
quote:
The evidence that mutations produce real traits is terrifically scarce, an odd situation here or there, and even then there are other explanations than mutation for particular changes.
The cases with absolute proof are rare because it is hard to get absolute proof. The evidence is far more abundant.
quote:
I'll say it again: even if mutations did do what you claim, they could make nothing new, could do nothing more than contribute to the pool of ordinary allelic variations, which would be redundant since there is plenty already built in; and that pool has to be reduced in order to get new phenotypes.
The whole point of your argument is that the "built in" variation is NOT sufficient. Adding to it, then, is precisely what we need to answer you.
quote:
As long as reduction in genetic diversity is needed for this purpose the ToE is a dead duck.
This assertion of yours has already been refuted. So long as genetic diversity can increase between speciation events it can offset any losses during speciation events.
quote:
But in reality they don't do all that anyway, with a few really questionable exceptions they contribute zip to the wellbeing of organism
In your, biased, opinion.
quote:
And God has indeed helped me to understand these things.
How like a creationist - always blaming someone else for your mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 5:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 5:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 238 of 455 (785695)
06-09-2016 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by PaulK
06-09-2016 5:43 AM


Re: Oh but I do insist
The whole point of your argument is that the "built in" variation is NOT sufficient. Adding to it, then, is precisely what we need to answer you.
Don't know where you got this idea. It's entirely sufficient. The processes that reduce genetic diversity are the way the system was designed for the purpose of producing variety in living things. If there had been no Fall, no death, the system would produce wonderful variations in every Species or Kind without endangering them, lots more breeds of dogs even than that large collection we have. It's only because we live in this fallen world that the loss of genetic diversity becomes a problem for conservationists to deal with.
And mutations can't help conservation. Carefully reintroducing gene flow through remixing separated populations is the only help for it, and that's a lot of what conservationists do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2016 5:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2016 6:10 AM Faith has replied
 Message 253 by 14174dm, posted 06-09-2016 1:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 239 of 455 (785696)
06-09-2016 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
06-09-2016 5:42 AM


Re: Still await the rationalization for MtDNA & MicSat gen div measures
The topic that still needs explanation is the idea that you can measure genetic diversity by mutations in mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA -- both areas that seem to have nothing to do with the actual losses under discussion, such as the loss of genetic diversity that is necessary to forming breeds and species...
Wut? No. You still don't get it. There is no net loss of genetic diversity necessary for the origin of new species.
...and the loss that at the extreme endangers creatures such as the cheetah and the elephant seal.
Umm, one of the reasons why the cheetah and elephant seals are at such a precarious point is precisely because they lack nucleotide diversity (which is measured through mtDNA, etc.), and thus lack genetic diversity. A low level of nucleotide diversity can be extraordinarily dangerous for a population. Fortunately, the elephant seals seem to be on the rocky road to recovery, but that's going to take time and will be contingent on other factors (e.g., the selection pressures wrought by an increase in global warming).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 5:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 6:32 AM Genomicus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 240 of 455 (785697)
06-09-2016 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
06-09-2016 5:52 AM


Re: Oh but I do insist
quote:
Don't know where you got this idea. It's entirely sufficient.
The point of your argument is that variation must run out, bringing evolution to a halt. This is the only truly relevant "sufficiency" to this discussion.
quote:
And mutations can't help conservation. Carefully reintroducing gene flow through remixing separated populations is the only help for it, and that's a lot of what conservationists do.
A solution which takes thousands of years - perhaps many thousands - while providing no short-term help is obviously worse than a solution that can have effects within a few generations. So your point has no relevance to the discussion - it is true no matter which side is right. Are you going to blame God for your failure to understand that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 5:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 6:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024