A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

We're just reporting the research. You don't need to believe any of us.Read the research papers for yourself. See if you can fault it. That's the way it works.

Uh? Why would it matter to the basic claim (that mutations can be beneficial and be selected for) which gene mutated?We also know exactly which gene did. Read the paper.

But Faith we KNOW it was a mutation. We have the proof. We can show you the gene that mutated. Your choice is to accept the science of show where it's wrong. You can not just have an opinion that it's wrong based on nothing but incredulity.

These are facts we're discussing not just explanations. It's a fact that the black moths with the mutation survived and those without declined. That's how the ToE says things happen and there are the facts of it. If you have a better explanation you have to show it. Because the timing is a fact. It fits exactly what a mutation is. That's why it's called a mutation by those that study mutations.

So now you have seen bomb proof evidence of one, what are you going to do with it?

I know this is a radical idea for you so brace yourself - why not read some of the papers on it? That way you might at least know what it is you're objecting too.Here's a bit of a commentary that might help.

quote:

---

These are the salient results of the van’t Hoff et al paper:

​

The gene where the change resides that made the light-colored moths dark is called cortex, and is known in Drosophila to be involved in cell division of the egg in females. It wasn’t known, at least in flies, to be involved in color.

​

The association between cortex and color was found by “association mapping” in B. betularia. The researchers took a bunch of moths of both the carbonaria and typica forms (and insularia as well), and sequenced DNA in the region where the mutation was known to reside, looking for a consistent change in the DNA that would distinguish the various forms with near-perfect ability.

​

The change was found not to be a single-base mutation in the DNA, but an insertion of a “transposable element” (or “transposon”)”a bit of DNA that can move around in the genome”into the carbonaria form. The whole inserted region comprises 21,925 nucleotides, and involves a single element present in 2.3 copies that has moved as a unit into the cortex gene.

​

The transposable element actually activated (rather than silenced) the cortex gene, increasing the amount of its product in a manner we don’t understand. Curiously, the increased gene activity in the dark form was far more pronounced in larvae (caterpillars, which the paper calls “crawlers”) rather than pupae or adults, presumably because the precursors for scale development and their color are being formed at this stage of development.

​

The association between the transposon and color was nearly perfect, but not 100% so. Every one of the typica and insularia moths lacked the element, while 105 of 110 black carbonaria forms had the element. This means that other genes besides cortex may influence color”or developmental/environmental effects that aren’t genetic”but that the insertion in cortex is likely the most important one: the one that produced the fuel for natural selection on color.

​

By looking at the DNA around the transposon, the researchers could estimate the age of the mutation. If it arose recently in a single individual, most carriers of the mutation would have similar sequences nearby, as recombination wouldn’t have time to put the transposon next to varied DNA from other individuals. If the mutation was old, the surrounding regions of the carbonaria form would be more diverse, as recombination would have combined the inserted gene with other nearby genes from different individuals. Using simulations, the researchers gave the most likely date of the mutation as 1819, shortly before it was first seen in the wild. The “interquartile range” for the dates, which I take to be the range of dates between the 25% and 75% likelihood that it originated, is 1681-1806. Below is the graph showing the probability density of when the mutation to carbonaria originated (i.e., when the transposon moved). You can see that all the dates are fairly recent, so this mutation did not occur thousands of years ago. The highest probability is at 1819, not far from when it was first seen in the wild (1848; dotted line). A new variant butterfly would be found pretty quickly by the Brits, who are avid butterfly and moth collectors!

---

You might also note this regarding your other problem:

quote:

---

The mutation occurred only shortly before the environmental change”pollution”that caused the evolution of the color difference. That’s interesting, but it wasn’t necessary, for mutations like this occur continuously, and can hang around permanently. That’s because, although natural selection weeds such genes out of populations (dark moths would be at a disadvantage before the Industrial Revolution), mutation keeps putting them back in, so there is a reservoir of low-frequency mutations hanging around that could be the basis for a new adaptation should the environment change. (This is called a “mutation/selection equilibrium.”) Remember, though, that those mutations aren’t hanging around for the purpose of providing future adaptive evolution. Errors in DNA happen randomly, cannot arise to anticipate the organisms’s future needs, and sometimes, but not usually, turn out to be useful.

---

Peppered moth mutation discovered at last – Why Evolution Is TrueEdited by Admin, : Add double spacing to improve readability of first quoted section.

End of your nose? Apart from the fact that it says it was a mutation? Several times.

quote:

---

In biology, a mutation is the alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA.[1]

---

The moth's DNA was changed by a mutation which changed its colour. In this case, it is quite literally black and white.

I know why you have a doubt. You keep telling us why you can't accept facts that you disagree with. It's not an assertion, it's what science defines it as. They spent 15 years looking for the damn thing. It's what molecular biologists do and you haven't the first clue about. Read the damn paper.

The evidence is in the peer reviewed research paper. If you can't trust us or the extracts you're going to have to read it.van’t Hof, A. et al. 2016. The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element. Nature 534:102-105.AbE: Go to this page and click on the "Download full-text PDF" button to get a copy of the technical paper.Edited by Admin, : Add link to the download button for the technical paper.

'Nested hierarchies' are absolutely fundamental to biology and the ToE. We've been talking about them for 10 years and you still haven't even the most basic understanding of what they are, while never-the-less telling us that they don't matter. How can that be Faith? You must have seen it argued here 5,000 times at least. (I don't think that's much of an exaggeration.)

Prophesy: she won't read that.

This should tell you something shouldn't it?If you can't find a consensus theory between you, you're making it up individually. This is happening because you are all making up stories ad hoc and none of them are consistent with the observed facts. If they where you'd have an alternate theory that science would have to take note of. In fact it *would* be science.But it's not just alternative science that you have difficulties with it's alternative gods and alternative beliefs about the same gods within the same religion and even the same church and sect.What it all boils down to is your beliefs are personal and unique to you. You can never present a unified idea because your ideas are all driven by your own personalities and psychologies.

That's amusing. Creationists have been doing that for thousands of years and getting nowhere. Science has been at it for a couple of hundred and has a consensus.It's game over for YECs and has been for centuries. Your all individuals hiding in caves shouting.