Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questioning The Evolutionary Process
Aures
Junior Member (Idle past 6041 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 1 of 160 (421349)
09-12-2007 8:14 AM


One of the basic mechanisms in evolution, believed to be the major cause of genetical change is mutation. It generally either occurs under radiative exposure or erroneously when duplicating nucleic acids.
However, there are many common arguments that seriously undermine the role of mutations, by showing how improbable they are, more improbable to be several, harmonious and beneficial.
” The rate of mutations is extremely low, made even lower by biological correctors;
” Lower is the random occurrence of harmonious mutations (in the same gene, coding for the same trait/function);
” And so is the rate of non-occurance of side effects (that might nullifiy the new trait, or create new problems);
Edited by Aures, : No reason given.
Edited by Aures, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2007 10:08 AM Aures has not replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 09-12-2007 10:10 AM Aures has not replied
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 09-12-2007 11:46 AM Aures has not replied
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 11:56 AM Aures has not replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2007 1:33 PM Aures has not replied
 Message 24 by dkv, posted 09-15-2007 10:02 AM Aures has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 160 (421352)
09-12-2007 9:20 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 160 (421355)
09-12-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aures
09-12-2007 8:14 AM


Welcome to the fray Aures,
However, there are many common arguments that seriously undermine the role of mutations, by showing how improbable they are, more improbable to be several, harmonious and beneficial.
Fortunately for you, improbable is not impossible. Most "improbability" calculations made by creationists and IDologists consist of faulty assumptions and bad math, so don't put much weight on them.
” The rate of mutations is extremely low, made even lower by biological correctors;
Each individual has several unique mutations. This is due to the horrendous size of the genome. Low mutation rate x large genome = plenty of mutations.
” Lower is the random occurrence of harmonious mutations (in the same gene, coding for the same trait/function);
Which is totally unnecessary for a mutation to spread in a population. All you need is replication of the organism with a mutation for it to spread. My impression is that you think a single mutation causes some vast change to the organism: it doesn't. Most mutations are neutral, and further most are found on recessive genes (presumably any lethal or deleterious ones on dominant genes are removed by pre-birth fatality). Mutations on recessive genes would not be expressed until you had two parents with the same mutated gene, and that can take a while in a population of relatively random breeding organisms.
” And so is the rate of non-occurance of side effects (that might nullifiy the new trait, or create new problems);
Not sure what you are getting at here, could you explain this further?
Enjoy.
ps - as you are new, some tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.
Edited by RAZD, : added
Edited by RAZD, : .

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 8:14 AM Aures has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 160 (421356)
09-12-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aures
09-12-2007 8:14 AM


Hi, Aures. Welcome to EvC.
The rate of mutations is extremely low, made even lower by biological correctors;
How high do you think it is? How high do you think this mutation rate needs to be? Are you aware that your genome has several mutations that were not present in either of your parents' genomes?
-
Lower is the random occurrence of harmonious mutations (in the same gene, coding for the same trait/function);
I'm not sure what you mean by "harmmonius mutations". Mutations do not need to re-occur in the same gene. Once a mutation occurs, it is there permanently -- at least until the next mutation changes it again. If that gene is in a gamete (sperm or ova), then all the descendents will have that same mutation.
If you mean that you think that, say to produce fingers, we need lots of mutations in the same gene, then that is not true either. But there is no "finger" gene that makes fingers. Fingers are the result of lots of genes that determine the timing of growth start, growth stop, and cell death during embryonic development. There are lots genes involved, and, incidentally, none of them are particularly labeled "fingers" (although I could be wrong -- help from member Wounded King?)
-
And so is the rate of non-occurance of side effects (that might nullifiy the new trait, or create new problems)
Sure. But that is why evolution works on small changes. Mutations work by changing the time of events during embryonic development. Mutations that create large changes will probably have bad effects elsewhere. But if the changes are small, then so will these other effects.
Now, these other effects might be bad in the sense of making the individual less able to survive and reproduce. But what matters is the overall fitness -- whether the "good" (meaning conducive to survival and reproduction) outweighs the "bad".
And if these side-effects are neutral (that is, neither "good" nor "bad" in terms of affecting reproductive success), then there is no problem to begin with.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 8:14 AM Aures has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 160 (421378)
09-12-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aures
09-12-2007 8:14 AM


Common descent vs. natural selection.
Hi, Aures.
I just want to another point. And it's probably appropriate that it gets addressed in a different post -- even if it isn't ruled off-topic, it probably deserves its own subthread.
The theory of evolution has several parts that are, in some ways, independent.
First, there is the Theory of Common Descent. This is so-called "macroevolution", the idea of the phylogenic tree. This part is pretty well established as fact -- creationist don't like this (and, in fact, this is the part that they don't like), but there it is.
Common descent was pretty well accepted by the scientific community when Darwin proposed it, and a hundred and fify years of continued investigation has only made the evidence that much firmer. Here is my favorite web page, which explains why Common Descent is accepted as fact today.
The second part of the theory of evolution is meant to explain how the evolutionary change that produced the different species occurred. This the Darwin's theory that evolution was produced by natural selection acting on small, randomly occurring variations. The power of this idea is that it is so simple a concept, and obvious when one sees it.
However, although initially accepted by the scientific community when Darwin proposed it, scientists began to have doubts. Very shortly, there were several proposals as to what was the driving force for evolution. Common Descent was not disputed, this was accepted as a natural, and obvious, explanation for the phenomena that we see in biology. However, it was a matter of intense debate and much research to figure out what exactly was driving evolution. (In fact, there are still a couple of nutcakes on this board who insists that natural selection isn't enough to drive evolution, but they're kind of vague on what exactly the driving force is.)
Finally, in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s there was enough evidence to finally conclude that natural selection is indeed the driving force, and the other alternatives have been relegated to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, because many of these ideas were good science -- it's just that the evidence finally showed that they were not correct.
And now the third part of the theory of evolution explains the source of the variations that occur. This is modern genetics. Genetics explains how physical characteristics are inherited by offspring from their parents, and how mutations can occur, giving rise to new characteristics that were not present in the parents, but now can be passed on to the next generation. In fact, it was the study of modern genetics that finally led to the acceptance of natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. It explains how heredity occurs, and how changes in the heredity can occur.
Now, the questions that you posed are pretty much confined to the this third part, and has some implications for the second. You seem (if I may put words in your mouth -- correct me or add a clarification if you will) to be disputing whether genetic mutations can be the source of the variations upon which natural selection acts.
If we consider the possibility that you (or my interpretation of your view) are correct, then we must consider the possibility that genetic mutations cannot account for the variation upon which natural selections acts. So, is there some other source of variation? Or, possibly, this means that natural selection is not the driving force for macroevolution. This would have a profound effect on evolutionary studies.
But it really doesn't affect the theory of common descent. Macroevolution has occurred. This is based on actual evidence for macroevolution, not on an extrapolation of the assumption of natural selection. To dispute common descent, one would have to deal with the direct evidence that it has occurred (and open a new thread). At most this puts us back in the position 100 years ago, where we didn't have a sufficient understanding of heredity, and were not even sure what the mechanisms driving evolution really were.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 8:14 AM Aures has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 160 (421380)
09-12-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aures
09-12-2007 8:14 AM


The rate of mutations is extremely low, made even lower by biological correctors;
The rate of mutations is actually extremely high; in mammals, one nucleotide substitution per 3.6 billion base pairs. With something on the order of 5 billion base pairs in the entire nuclear genome, that's nearly two mutations with every replication.
That's just point substitutions; that doesn't include deletions or duplications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 8:14 AM Aures has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2007 1:29 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 160 (421390)
09-12-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
09-12-2007 11:56 AM


Crahfrog --- your figures seem a little low, at least for humans.
See here.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 11:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 160 (421391)
09-12-2007 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aures
09-12-2007 8:14 AM


However, there are many common arguments that seriously undermine the role of mutations, by showing how improbable they are, more improbable to be several, harmonious and beneficial.
” The rate of mutations is extremely low, made even lower by biological correctors;
” Lower is the random occurrence of harmonious mutations (in the same gene, coding for the same trait/function);
” And so is the rate of non-occurance of side effects (that might nullifiy the new trait, or create new problems);
Hi, welcome to the forums.
You say that these rates are "low". This is true. The question is, are they too low? The consequence of a low mutation rate is that evolution will go slowly. Well, it does go slowly.
Here's a post made by one of our members, sfs, over on christianforums.com. Here's the most relevant bit:
"The scientific question then is this: Do genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look like they are the result of lots of accumulated mutations? What predictions about the differences can one make, based on the hypothesis that they are all the result of mutation?
For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation). How many mutations happen per generation? Estimating mutation rates is not easy (at least without assuming common descent): it is hard to find a few changed nucleotides out of 3 billion that have not changed. By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes. Using this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry). At that rate, in 350,000 generations a copy of the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number.
The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.
"
Footnotes:
[1] Kondrashov AS. Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27 (2003).
[2] The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437:69-87 (2005).
---
In summary, the known mutation rate does in fact account for the known genetic divergence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 8:14 AM Aures has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 160 (421393)
09-12-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2007 1:29 PM


Crahfrog --- your figures seem a little low, at least for humans.
Could be. I'm drawing from Table 4.2, "Average rates of synonymous substitution in various organisms and genomes", on page 97 of Page and Holmes' "Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach" (2000, Blackwell Science.)
It lists a figure of 3.5x10-9 substitutions per site per year under "mammalian nuclear DNA."
So I guess I was wrong in several different ways. Nonetheless, that's quite a few mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2007 1:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2007 8:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Aures
Junior Member (Idle past 6041 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 10 of 160 (421414)
09-12-2007 4:44 PM


Re:
Thanks for the welcoming.
My main point was to show the improbability of the harmony, I believe is essential, between mutations for them to be beneficial in terms of the species survival.
If a mutation, at the structural level, of a hormonal molecule was to make it biologically unrecognisable, there would need to associate a certain, according and completive mutation in its receptor for it to be activatable, another in its transporter for it to be properly conveyed, and so on.
Thus, such needed mutational combinations for an organism to continue, evolve and diverge into species and subspecies equals the mutiplication of infinite improbabilites.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2007 4:57 PM Aures has not replied
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 09-12-2007 5:55 PM Aures has not replied
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2007 7:24 PM Aures has not replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2007 7:47 PM Aures has not replied

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


Message 11 of 160 (421416)
09-12-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Aures
09-12-2007 4:44 PM


You need the numbers
You can't really show what you want to show by just asserting it. You need to produce the numbers - and justify them.
quote:
If a mutation, at the structural level, of a hormonal molecule was to make it biologically unrecognisable, there would need to associate a certain, according and completive mutation in its receptor for it to be activatable, another in its transporter for it to be properly conveyed, and so on.
Which tells us that evolution doesn't work that way. Not that evolution doesn't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 4:44 PM Aures has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 160 (421427)
09-12-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Aures
09-12-2007 4:44 PM


Hi again, Aures.
My main point was to show the improbability of the harmony....
To repeat PaulK's point, you haven't shown anything. You've just stated that these things are too improbable.
-
...between mutations for them to be beneficial in terms of the species survival.
Actually, what is important is whether the trait is beneficial for the individual, not the species. Natural selection doesn't care about the species as a whole -- it is the individuals that either reproduce or do not.
-
By the way, what do you have to say about my point? The overwhelming evidence in all of biology (and also palaeontology) is that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, primates and carnivores and bats and goats and sheep all descended from a common ancestor, and mammals and reptiles and fish all descended from a common ancestor, and all of life descended from a common ancestor.
(1) If you are a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), then you are not really saying anything against the really important part of the theory, namely that all life descended from a common ancestor over eons of time. All you are really saying here is that we don't completely understand the processes that produced this evolution.
Scientists do not simply like natural selection and then extrapolate it to long time scales and conclude macroevolution. Pretty much the opposite: there is a great deal of evidence that life evolved from earlier simpler life, and scientists accept natural selection because it works. If you are right, then maybe the natural selection part might be wrong, but the evidence for macroevolution still stands and needs to be dealt with.
If you are trying to deal a deathblow against macroevolution, then you need to deal with the evidence for macroevolution.
-
(2) Maybe you aren't a YEC. Maybe you do accept macroevolution. Maybe you just don't think that genetic mutations have much to do with the process. Then what do you think drives evolution? If not natural selection, then what process produces it?
If you do accept natural selection acting on random variations, then what is the source of variation? Certainly, since these variations must be hereditary, they have to show up in the DNA; regular, natural mutations seem to be all that we need. But do you think that there is a process that produces these mutations, maybe specific mutations?
-
Thus, such needed mutational combinations for an organism to continue, evolve and diverge into species and subspecies equals the mutiplication of infinite improbabilites.
Assuming that you are a YEC (if not, this question may not make sense), consider the different breeds of dog that was produced from the ancestral (wolf-like?) variety that existed a few thousand years ago. Notice the Chihuahua. Notice the Saint Bernard. Notice the Great Dane. How many "harmonius mutations" were necessary to produce these very different breeds, which were very different from the ancestral variety? What is the probability that the right "harmonius" mutations could have occurred? Surely they can't be infinitesimally small since we really do see these breeds today.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 4:44 PM Aures has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 160 (421460)
09-12-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Aures
09-12-2007 4:44 PM


Re: Re:
If a mutation, at the structural level, of a hormonal molecule was to make it biologically unrecognisable, there would need to associate a certain, according and completive mutation in its receptor for it to be activatable, another in its transporter for it to be properly conveyed, and so on.
This is quite true, but does not dispose of all the other mutations which do not make hormones biologically unrecognisable. Such a mutation as you posit would indeed not be accompanied by compensatory mutations elsewhere in the gene pool except by a wild coincidence, and would therefore be rapidly removed from the gene pool by natural selection: but as this is precisely what the theory of evolution predicts, this observation does not contradict it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 4:44 PM Aures has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 160 (421469)
09-12-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Aures
09-12-2007 4:44 PM


Response
Thanks for the welcoming.
New folks always welcome. Note that if you are replying to a specific person there is a button at the lower right corner of each post:
And using this reply button links your post the it and sends an e-mail to the person you are replying to (if they set up to receive e-mails).
My main point was to show the improbability of the harmony, I believe is essential, between mutations for them to be beneficial in terms of the species survival.
The only "harmony" that is essential for an organism is its "harmony" with its ecosystem -- ie its fitness. There is no need to be beneficial or any teleological purpose to mutations (hope I'm not reading something into your post that isn't there).
There is also no need for any "harmony" between mutations within an organism, and there is no mechanism to cause any interactions - harmonious or otherwise - between mutations in one organism with those in another -- it is a random and independent process.
Mutations occur in individual organisms in random patterns. Whether those mutations get passed on to the next generation is a matter of neutral and natural selection.
If the mutation is neutral then there is no selection for or against the mutation, and it is subject to neutral drift during reproduction of descendants.
If the mutation is in a recessive gene and does not express any change to the phenotype then it will also be subject to neutral drift during reproduction of descendants, until such time as it appears as a homozygous descendant of two parents that inherited the mutation.
IF it then produces a change in the phenotype, then it will be subject to natural selection. Not all mutations affect the phenotype, or do so only in minor ways: variations in beak size in Galapagos Finches say.
If a mutation, at the structural level, of a hormonal molecule was to make it biologically unrecognisable, there would need to associate a certain, according and completive mutation in its receptor for it to be activatable, another in its transporter for it to be properly conveyed, and so on.
I'm afraid biology in general, and evolution in specific, does not work that way at all. It appears you think a single mutation will always cause a "macro" evolutionary, if not saltational, change in a phenotype to produce what is (often derisively) called a "hopeful monster" ... hopeful of having an equally hyper evolved mate.
Most mutations do not produce such a degree of change that they would not be recognized as mates -- different length bones (think different heights in humans), possibly different coloration (think blue eyes versus brown eyes and their impact on reproduction). When mutations occur in regulatory genes their impact can be greater: mutations in these genes can cause duplication of body parts, such as polydactyly, or "siamese" twins.
In normal biological behavior patterns, if the change is too great for the individual to find breeding partners then it will be eliminated by natural selection: failure to produce offspring. This occurs all the time, as there are always individuals that fail to breed in every generation.
Thus, such needed mutational combinations for an organism to continue, evolve and diverge into species and subspecies equals the mutiplication of infinite improbabilites.
The difference between improbable and impossible is the difference between 1/probability and 1/0. Most probabilities are improperly calculated by creationists and IDologists. You would be better not to think in terms of probabilities, but in terms of possibilities.
Large scale changes in a phenotype are not necessary for evolution of new species, many species are very similar to parent\sibling species, and there are many existing "cryptic" species which cannot be told apart without genetics. Think of the difference between horses and zebras.
Once sibling populations have become reproductively isolated they are free to accumulate slow change within each population (due to mutations) that are not major enough to interfere with breeding success but which add up over time to greater diversity between the descendants of the sibling populations.
Rapid production of new markedly different species is not necessary to explain the evidence of life on Earth. What looks "rapid" in paleontology occurs on a geological time scale, and thus it still covers many many generations.
That's enough for now eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Aures, posted 09-12-2007 4:44 PM Aures has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 160 (421478)
09-12-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
09-12-2007 1:48 PM


It lists a figure of 3.5x10-9 substitutions per site per year under "mammalian nuclear DNA."
Ah, that's per year. Such figures are normally given per generation, which is certainly the figure to use if we want to know how many differences from the parental genes are carried per individual.
Nonetheless, that's quite a few mutations.
Indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 1:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2007 8:47 PM Dr Adequate 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