The Nature of Mutations

http://www.[/b]/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000220-16.html#228

quote:

---

Please define what you think is the scientific and generally accepted (in the scientific community) definition of
1. Mutation. Please provide supporting references for your definition
2. Evolution. Also provide supporting references and in addition please demonstrate how the definition I provided by Futuyma is false and is not accepted by scientists.

---

1. The definition of mutation that the general scientific community adheres to who deals with mutations on a daily basis, which excludes the vast majority of scientists, is exactly the definitions you and the other evolutionists have stated that they are, but this is wrong. Point, it doesn't matter how many scientists hold to a theory, or even a definition, if it is wrong, then they are wrong. And the vast majority of evolutionary scientists define mutations in the evolutionary sense because that is what they were told the definition meant...not really any fault of their own.There have been plenty of scientists proposing theories that were held to for generations, even though they were wrong, and not proven wrong for a very long time due to technological advancement. Yet those scientists who held to those theories, I am willing to bet, held on to them because of some personal bias...NOT because of the known facts. Such is the case with evolutionary theory today, I am willing to bet.2. The definition of evolution? Lets see, I have read in depth Mayr, Schwartz, Smith and Zsathmary, Montague, williams, Kitcher and the like. And what I am saying is that if we totally erase all references to evolution beginning today, and begin the investigation into the hypothesis proposed by Darwin, starting with the leads he provided in his thesis, evolution would never make it to the theory stage because it would be disproven.Why? Because when all of the illusionary terminology and illegitimate assumptions have been removed from the equasion, the theory has nothing to stand upon. Period.Yes, there are mutations. Yes, if copied genes are the random happens chance items that have been proposed on this board, and NOT initiated by the organism, then I concede that there is such a thing as a beneficial mutation...only in this case, so far anyway. You have changed my mind on this...IF it is indeed a random event, but I do not think that this has been demonstrated as yet. Still a possibility, however.But, do these genetic changes demonstrate the possibility and probability that legs can be built up where there was no genetic instructions for legs before in generations past? No. So, I guess, though the process of this debate, I have discovered that this was what I was talking about all along, and I did not realize it until now.So now I leave you with this question...or perhaps I should abandone this thread and begin a new topic? I leave this up to your decision. Has genetic change, no matter what you call it, been observed and demonstrated in a scientific manner - excluding opinions made in "matter-of-fact" statements - to build up phenotypic characters where before there were no genetic instructions for them?Greetings!

Phospho,

quote:

---

1. The definition of mutation that the general scientific community adheres to who deals with mutations on a daily basis, which excludes the vast majority of scientists, is exactly the definitions you and the other evolutionists have stated that they are, but this is wrong. Point, it doesn't matter how many scientists hold to a theory, or even a definition, if it is wrong, then they are wrong. And the vast majority of evolutionary scientists define mutations in the evolutionary sense because that is what they were told the definition meant...not really any fault of their own.

​

There have been plenty of scientists proposing theories that were held to for generations, even though they were wrong, and not proven wrong for a very long time due to technological advancement. Yet those scientists who held to those theories, I am willing to bet, held on to them because of some personal bias...NOT because of the known facts. Such is the case with evolutionary theory today, I am willing to bet.

---

Absolute poppycock! A mutation is a change in any specific DNA sequence, usually by replication error (but not necessarily) that may give rise to a new haplotype, karyotype, allele, etc. What is so biased about that for chrissakes? Please tell me how all those scientists are wrong to adhere to a similar definition of mutation?!?!You're showing your creationist paranoia. The word "mutation", as far as genetics goes is a descriptive tool to describe multiple potential events at the genetic level, it is quite right that these events should have a relevant descriptor.Good grief.

quote:

---

So now I leave you with this question...or perhaps I should abandone this thread and begin a new topic? I leave this up to your decision. Has genetic change, no matter what you call it, been observed and demonstrated in a scientific manner - excluding opinions made in "matter-of-fact" statements - to build up phenotypic characters where before there were no genetic instructions for them?

---

Yes. Hall 1982. He knocked out the lac operon (actually only the enzyme, it matters little as a whole new system had to be rebuilt) in a E.Coli. Not only did a new enzyme that cleaved lactose evolve, but a new expression control system, & a relevant protease to facilitate the transport of the sugar into the cell. Complex function evolved in the lab.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-21-2003]

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. I must also state that variation is not an evolutionary concept at all. It was adopted by evolutionary theorists in an attempt to save their theory, but not even that has helped them except to the non-thinking masses (not directed at you).
-------------------------------------------------------------

​

Yes it is directed at Crashfrog, and at everyone else who believes in evolution. If it is not directed at Crashfrog, then it isn't true. You said that variation saves evolutionary theory only to the non-thinking masses, but both Crashfrog and I didn't think it needed saving in the first place. By what you said, that makes us non-thinking....There have been a lot of inaccurate things proposed on these forums, but very little that is as insulting and inaccurate together as what you said.

---

Hopefully I did not insult those who have been dialogging with me, I hope that they understand me enough to know what I was saying, but then again I was rather vague. Sometimes my fingers do not carry across what is running through my mind.For clarification, when I say non-thinking masses, irregardless of what Galop says, I refer to the public, not scientists. As I have said before, I do not blame the majority of the scientific community for believing or advocating evolutionary theory, they only believe what they were taught in college, and it is sad that they have been taught opinion as fact. I blame those evolutionary theorists, primarily from yester year, who did not follow the scientific method when they came to the end of the life of the theory, but instead invented new words, terminology and unfounded assumptions in order to keep the dead theory appearing to be alive.I do not call scientists non-thinking individual...at least not the vast majority...for whether you believe it or not, even scientists are human. What's more, I refer to the population of this country...the majority...as non-thinking, simply beause we as a technologically advanced society no run on emotionally charged decisions rather than brain power.You can see this everywhere. People speed down the road (even you!) without thinking or considering the possible consequences of their actions...just because they want to do what they want to do irregardless. Sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you kill someone because of your recklaceness (general, not YOU you). In my profession I see this on a monthly basis.In the days of old when one had to use their brain in order to hunt for food, build their homes and so on, we were thinkers. No we are lazy gluttons. How many on this board are overweight? Is it due to physical constraint, or laziness? I prove my point.When I refer to the non-thinking masses, even some christians fall into this catagory. True christianity begins usually in the life of a believer as based upon pure unqualified faith, but if it remains there, it dies and becomes religion. If that faith does not become solidly founded in evidences of the reason for that faith, it dies. I have found that a vast majority of so-called christians today are living a religion of unfounded faith that they call christianity...because they do not study and think about the world around them.So, if I have offended anyone else on this board, Math especially, I do apologize. This misunderstanding is entirely my fault...HA!!! I didn't think to explain myself when I said it...DOH!Have a great day, ya'all!

So, PPG, It seems you've spent weeks arguing about mutations and what they are defined as when that was not the point at all. I think a small apology is in order.Now what you are arguing is that, while they occur, there is some magic limit to what they can accomplish. Is that it is a nutshell?Is what you come down to an "intelligent design" argument then? If so you've spent an awful lot of time to get there. Maybe we should clearify that early on to save time in the future.

So salty, it appears that you have no direct evidence that ancestral cetans reproduced asexually. You cannot guess when they converted from asexual to sexually reproducing organisms. Can you ascertain when cetans stopped evolving?

Has genetic change, no matter what you call it, been observed and demonstrated in a scientific manner - excluding opinions made in "matter-of-fact" statements - to build up phenotypic characters where before there were no genetic instructions for them?The question is, does it have to be like that?Every biological structure builds on something that was there before by incremental improvement.You ask us to show you that major biological novelty can arise through mutation - I ask, why is major biological novelty neccisary? The only true biological novelty is abiogenesis. (Before you ask, no, I don't know how that happened. Aliens, maybe.) After that, everything else is building up on what has come before. There's no biological function you can name where I can't find a simpler version somewhere, or propose a scenario where, through scaffolding, an "irreducibly complex" function could have arisen incrementally.

quote:

---

For clarification, when I say non-thinking masses, irregardless of what Galop says, I refer to the public, not scientists.

---

That's my point. It's scientists who have been won over to evolution, while the public--your non-thinking masses--are won over to anti-evolution. It is not the unthinking masses who have been "fooled" by the doctrine of variation, it is scientists. The non-thinking masses agree with you! And the more time they spend thinking, the less they agree with you, because it is not just the educated, but also the internet surfers, who get to hear both sides of the story, who swing most heavily to the evolution side.

In other words, your statement that variation has fooled no one but the non-thinking masses is simply false. If your opponents in this debate had said that your assertions and wishes only fooled the non-thinking masses, they would have been statistically justified. You, however, when you make such a statement, are simply wrong.

Phospho makes a good point. It was originally raised by Mivart in Darwin's own day. What is the origin of incipient structures? How can selection produce something that isn't there yet. My view is that, just as in ontogeny, the information for all of evolution has been present from very early on. Just as in ontogeny, it has been derepressed by devices about which we know nothing. This idea is not entirely new with me as it was suggested first by Leo Berg in his book "Nomogenesis or Evolution by Law". Later, Grasse inferred the same. In any event, evolution remains a great mystery, but then so does gravity! salty

Hi Phospho,Thanks for your response. I realize you are getting swamped with posts to you and appreciate your taking the time to wade through.Ok, to your post,

quote:

---

The definition of mutation that the general scientific community adheres to who deals with mutations on a daily basis, which excludes the vast majority of scientists, is exactly the definitions you and the other evolutionists have stated that they are, but this is wrong. Point, it doesn't matter how many scientists hold to a theory, or even a definition, if it is wrong, then they are wrong. And the vast majority of evolutionary scientists define mutations in the evolutionary sense because that is what they were told the definition meant...not really any fault of their own.

---

The first sentence makes absolutely no sense. I deal with mutations on a daily basis as do all geneticists, microbiologists, etc etc. Mutations were not defined by evolutionists but by geneticists. It is for you to show that how I have defined mutation is incorrect as you have now shifted to not only saying scientists are wrong about beneficial mutation but that they are wrong about all mutation.I am afraid also you have not answered my question. I asked for YOUR definition of mutation...you merely stated that mine and the rest of the scientific community's definition is wrong. So there are two things required of you. 1. state why the scientific definition of mutation is incorrect 2. what yours is and why it is better.

quote:

---

There have been plenty of scientists proposing theories that were held to for generations, even though they were wrong, and not proven wrong for a very long time due to technological advancement. Yet those scientists who held to those theories, I am willing to bet, held on to them because of some personal bias...NOT because of the known facts. Such is the case with evolutionary theory today, I am willing to bet.

---

It is clear from many of your posts that you have a profound fear of science and scientists and you project all sorts of character defects on to the scientific community. I find this a common feature among creationists but don't really understand it. Nonetheless, instead of being "willing to bet" wouldnt it make more sense to actually go and find out for sure? There is a large body of literature on history science and philosophy that you could easily access to know how and why theories are developed, supported, or overturned...you would probably be pleasantly surprised to find out we are not all out to get you.

quote:

---

2. The definition of evolution? Lets see, I have read in depth Mayr, Schwartz, Smith and Zsathmary, Montague, williams, Kitcher and the like. And what I am saying is that if we totally erase all references to evolution beginning today, and begin the investigation into the hypothesis proposed by Darwin, starting with the leads he provided in his thesis, evolution would never make it to the theory stage because it would be disproven.

---

Agian, you have not given me a definition of evolution similar to your avoidance of defining mutation. If you do not know what either is how can you make definitive statements that they are wrong? In any case, the hypothesis proposed by Darwin became a theory because of just the kind of investigation you suggest. It is the best supported theory in biological science and is therefore has not been overturned.

quote:

---

Why? Because when all of the illusionary terminology and illegitimate assumptions have been removed from the equasion, the theory has nothing to stand upon. Period.

---

I am a scientist and require evidence before I will accept such an assertion..please provide it or admit you cannot and retract the statement.

quote:

---

Yes, there are mutations. Yes, if copied genes are the random happens chance items that have been proposed on this board, and NOT initiated by the organism, then I concede that there is such a thing as a beneficial mutation...only in this case, so far anyway. You have changed my mind on this...IF it is indeed a random event, but I do not think that this has been demonstrated as yet. Still a possibility, however.

---

I am glad you are open to what is said by members of the forum. If you ever get a chance to access some of the references I posted they demonstrate very nicely that mutation is random, beneficial, and not initiated by the organism...but you don't have to take my word for it as one can also access the primary literature and the data itself. If one is so motivated, one can even attempt to reproduce the data...that is another key benefit of the scientific method..it requires reproducibility...

quote:

---

But, do these genetic changes demonstrate the possibility and probability that legs can be built up where there was no genetic instructions for legs before in generations past? No. So, I guess, though the process of this debate, I have discovered that this was what I was talking about all along, and I did not realize it until now.

---

The entire field of developmental biology is concered with just such questions. In terms of limb development a fair amount is known..J Exp Zoolog Part B Mol Dev Evol 2003 Feb 15;295(1):1-11 Related Articles, LinksHox genes as synchronized temporal regulators: implications for morphological innovation.Crawford M.Department of Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada. mcrawfo@uwindsor.caIn vertebrates, clusters of Hox genes express in a nested and hierarchical fashion to endow the embryo's segments with discrete identities. Later in development, members of the same gene family are employed again to pattern the limb, intestinal, and reproductive systems. A careful analysis of the morphologies of Hox mutant mice suggests that the genes provide qualitatively different cues during the specification of segments than they do during the development of more recently derived structures. In addition to the regulatory differences noted by others, the activity of Hox genes during specification of the vertebrate metameres in some recent deletion experiments is inconsistent with a role for them as strictly spatial determinants. On the contrary, the phenotypes observed are suggestive of a role for them as elements of a generic time-keeping mechanism. By contrast, the specification of more recent evolutionary structures appears to be more spatial and gene-specific. These differences in role and effect may suggest some simple mechanisms by which the Hox clusters operate, and rules by which gene networks can be diverted to create new structures over the course of evolution. Specific predictions and experiments are proposed.Evol Dev 2002 Nov-Dec;4(6):445-58 Related Articles, LinksLimbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss.Bejder L, Hall BK.Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4J1. lbedjer@is2.dal.caWe address the developmental and evolutionary mechanisms underlying fore- and hindlimb development and progressive hindlimb reduction and skeletal loss in whales and evaluate whether the genetic, developmental, and evolutionary mechanisms thought to be responsible for limb loss in snakes "explain" loss of the hindlimbs in whales. Limb loss and concurrent morphological and physiological changes associated with the transition from land to water are discussed within the context of the current whale phylogeny. Emphasis is placed on fore- and hindlimb development, how the forelimbs transformed into flippers, and how the hindlimbs regressed, leaving either no elements or vestigial skeletal elements. Hindlimbs likely began to regress only after the ancestors of whales entered the aquatic environment: Hindlimb function was co-opted by the undulatory vertical axial locomotion made possible by the newly evolved caudal flukes. Loss of the hindlimbs was associated with elongation of the body during the transition from land to water. Limblessness in most snakes is also associated with adoption of a new (burrowing) lifestyle and was driven by developmental changes associated with elongation of the body. Parallels between adaptation to burrowing or to the aquatic environment reflect structural and functional changes associated with the switch to axial locomotion. Because they are more fully studied and to determine whether hindlimb loss in lineages that are not closely related could result from similar genetically controlled developmental pathways, we discuss developmental (cellular and genetic) processes that may have driven limb loss in snakes and leg-less lizards and compare these processes to the loss of hindlimbs in whales. In neither group does ontogenetic or phylogenetic limb reduction result from failure to initiate limb development. In both groups limb loss results from arrested development at the limb bud stage, as a result of inability to maintain necessary inductive tissue interactions and enhanced cell death over that seen in limbed tetrapods. An evolutionary change in Hox gene expression--as occurs in snakes--or in Hox gene regulation--as occurs in some limbless mutants--is unlikely to have initiated loss of the hindlimbs in cetaceans. Selective pressures acting on a wide range of developmental processes and adult traits other than the limbs are likely to have driven the loss of hindlimbs in whales.Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7 Related Articles, LinksComment in:
Nature. 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):848-9.Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan.Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W.Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, Universith of California--San Diego, Jolla, CA 92093, USA.A fascinating question in biology is how molecular changes in developmental pathways lead to macroevolutionary changes in morphology. Mutations in homeotic (Hox) genes have long been suggested as potential causes of morphological evolution, and there is abundant evidence that some changes in Hox expression patterns correlate with transitions in animal axial pattern. A major morphological transition in metazoans occurred about 400 million years ago, when six-legged insects diverged from crustacean-like arthropod ancestors with multiple limbs. In Drosophila melanogaster and other insects, the Ultrabithorax (Ubx) and abdominal A (AbdA, also abd-A) Hox proteins are expressed largely in the abdominal segments, where they can suppress thoracic leg development during embryogenesis. In a branchiopod crustacean, Ubx/AbdA proteins are expressed in both thorax and abdomen, including the limb primordia, but do not repress limbs. Previous studies led us to propose that gain and loss of transcriptional activation and repression functions in Hox proteins was a plausible mechanism to diversify morphology during animal evolution. Here we show that naturally selected alteration of the Ubx protein is linked to the evolutionary transition to hexapod limb pattern.

quote:

---

So now I leave you with this question...or perhaps I should abandone this thread and begin a new topic? I leave this up to your decision. Has genetic change, no matter what you call it, been observed and demonstrated in a scientific manner - excluding opinions made in "matter-of-fact" statements - to build up phenotypic characters where before there were no genetic instructions for them?

---

Yes...the references I posted above are the tip of the iceberg...a huge amount of work has been done with eye development in Drosophila and mice to show what you are asking.Perhaps you should start another thread though if you wish to change the topic from Nature of Mutations.cheers,
M

There is as Mammuthus says a large amount of work on some of the evolutionarily conserved genes regulating eye development, particularly Pax6. In terms of the origin of these developmental pathways the research on the pax genes found in cnidaria and other such invertebrates is perhaps more informative.

[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 05-22-2003]

Right you are Wounded King. I found the following references...however, could you direct me to the cnidarian references?cheers,
MCurr Opin Genet Dev 2002 Aug;12(4):430-4
Pax genes and eye organogenesis.
Pichaud F, Desplan C.
Department of Biology, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA.Pax6 is a highly conserved gene that controls eye development in all species where it has been tested. In spite of this common 'master control regulator', the eyes of different animals are morphologically very different and it is believed that they have evolved independently multiple times through evolution. Recent works looking at eye development in 'primitive' species offer some explanation as to the surprising amount of conservation in genetic and morphogenetic pathways involved in eye development. These studies not only implicate the Pax genes but also the So/Six gene family in playing a crucial ancestral role in visual system development.Development 1999 Jan;126(2):383-95 Related Articles, Links
Regulation of Pax6 expression is conserved between mice and flies.
Xu PX, Zhang X, Heaney S, Yoon A, Michelson AM, Maas RL.
Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston MA 02115, USA.Pax6 plays a key role in visual system development throughout the metazoa and the function of Pax6 is evolutionarily conserved. However, the regulation of Pax6 expression during eye development is largely unknown. We have identified two physically distinct promoters in mouse Pax6, P0 and P1, that direct differential Pax6 expression in the developing eye. P0-initiated transcripts predominate in lens placode and corneal and conjunctival epithelia, whereas P1-initiated transcripts are expressed in lens placode, optic vesicle and CNS, and only weakly in corneal and conjunctival epithelia. To further investigate their tissue-specific expression, a series of constructs for each promoter were examined in transgenic mice. We identified three different regulatory regions which direct distinct domains of Pax6 expression in the eye. A regulatory element upstream of the Pax6 P0 promoter is required for expression in a subpopulation of retinal progenitors and in the developing pancreas, while a second regulatory element upstream of the Pax6 P1 promoter is sufficient to direct expression in a subset of post-mitotic, non-terminally differentiated photoreceptors. A third element in Pax6 intron 4, when combined with either the P0 or P1 promoter, accurately directs expression in amacrine cells, ciliary body and iris. These results indicate that the complex expression pattern of Pax6 is differentially regulated by two promoters acting in combination with multiple cis-acting elements. We have also tested whether the regulatory mechanisms that direct Pax6 ocular expression are conserved between mice and flies. Remarkably, when inserted upstream of either the mouse Pax6 P1 or P0 promoter, an eye-enhancer region of the Drosophila eyeless gene, a Pax6 homolog, directs eye- and CNS-specific expression in transgenic mice that accurately reproduces features of endogenous Pax6 expression. These results suggest that in addition to conservation of Pax6 function, the upstream regulation of Pax6 has also been conserved during evolution.

insulting post removed by M [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 05-22-2003]

quote:

---

What is the origin of incipient structures? How can selection produce something that isn't there yet.

---

Mutations produce things that aren't there yet, selection separates the sheep from the goats