In an effort to keep threads clear--I have moved this over from The Definition of the Modern Synthesis to address thmsberry's claims of random mutations. I will be taking quotes from both posts 2 and 5 in Definition of the Modern Synthesis
From Thmsberry:
quote:
Next, I already bought up this definition blur you guys want to make about the word mutation. If you semantically define mutation to just mean a change in an organisms genome. Yes, a horizontal mechanism would be a mutation. However, Big Big Big Big Big problem when you do that. The word then has no meaning at all in terms of how it is actually used in Biology and Genetics. You would be ignoring the fact that types of mutations are defined in Biology and Genetics and these types do not include horizontal mechanisms. You can't simply redefine the word out of context. And
quote:
Look at any Biology or Genetics textbook and see if the way and the types of mutations that they define allow for horizontal mechanisms and/or allow evolutionary mutations to be
non-random. If so, please present a quote. I am completely unaware of any respected
textbook that does. Also, at the very least, the infamous talkorigin link is wrong again. Look at
their primer on Evolutionary Biology. The way they define Mutation makes my Argument.
Random issue dealt with in another thread...
How so? I see it as exactly that ambiguity Percy points out in describing the use of the term mutation. Percy:
quote:
Third, your definition seems self-evidently reasonable. What's nreasonable is your insistence that the definition of mutation is the same everywhere in all contexts.
Let me quote some specific sources:
Lewin, Benjamin. Genes. 1997. Oxford University Press
"Mutations are heritable alterations that change genetic information." Pg. 65
Burns, W. George and Paul Bottino. The Science Of Genetics. 6th Ed. 1989. Macmillan
"A mutation then, is a sudden, heritable change in the structure of genetic material."
Griffiths, Anthony JF, Jeffrey H. Miller, David T. Suzuki, Richard C. Lewontin, and William M. Gelbart. An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. 5th Ed. WH Freeman (6th edition the same on the same issues--1996)
"Mutation: Process that produces a gene or chromosom set differing from the wild type. "
"Wild Type: The genotype or phenotype that is found in nature or instead of lab stock"
Hartl, Daniel L, David Freifelder, and Leon A Snyder. Basic Genetics. 1988.
Mutation: "a heritable alteration in a gene."
Strickberger, Monroe W. Evolution. 3rd Ed. 2000. Jones and Bartlett Publishing.
"A change in the nucleotide sequence of genetic material whether by substitution, duplication, insertion, deletion, or inversion."
Futuyma, Douglass. Evolutionary Biology. 3rd. Ed. 1998. Sinauer Associates, Inc.
"An alteration of genetic material, usually of a DNA sequence, that gives rise to a new allele (however distinguished) or haplotype."
Rieger, R., A. Michaels, M. M. Green. Glossary of Genetics: Classics and Molecular. 5th Ed. 1991. Springer-?
"Any heritable alteration whether a singe base change in DNA (or RNA) or a large-scale rearrangement, in the genetic material of a living cell or virus."
One of the best descriptions is probably found here that demonstrates that ambiguity:
Brown, T.A. Genetics: A Molecular Approach. 1990. Chapman and Hall.
"Strictly speaking a mutation is any alteration in the nucleotide sequence of DNA molecule, but the term is generally used to refer to a relatively small-scale change, often thought not always affecting just a single base pair. In contrast recombination involves the exchange of segments of polynucleotides between different DNA molecules and can give rise to quite substantial rearrangements. A third type of event, transposition, provides a link between the two, it occurs by recombination but often results in a mutation."
quote:
Let's examine some of the sites that you presented.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#types
Great. Talkorigin has a section where it defines mutation the way your trying to. Fine. Where is the respected textbook where it is defined as Random or Nonrandom. It basically doesn?t address this issue. Also, the fact that it defines mutation differently in different section actually poses a problem for your blind reliance on this website, not a problem in my argument.
The above should create some question of your position at best. Mutation is used in different contexts. I think Brown's definition is quite good at pointing out the different uses.
quote:
http://www.msu.edu/course/mic/431/chapt03.htm
Pathetic. Website. It was a summary of study notes. It was not a respected textbook and in types of mutations did not mention all the horizontal mechanisms, if any. Brings up the Randomness issue. But presents Randomness in terms of Randomness vs. Directed. An argument that I have not even made.
Percy is more charitable than I am on the issue. The site is to a college level class based on a text that is cited. You wanted texts--I provided several above that are exactly in agreement with the definition. Perhaps you can explain to me exactly what is pathetic about it again?
quote:
You posted: a link to a quote by Mike Syvanen
Before whining about this quote:
"It is difficult to imagine, mostly because that is not the way we are trained to think. If you
accept that mutation can fashion new structures, why is it so radical to include
the contributions of foreign genes as one of the mutational mechanisms?
Please look up Mike's citations in either academic journals or as far as books. One of the books
will make you look especially silly. ?
I must admit. This was great reading. I disagree with a major assumption made by the author
without evidence. But I could tell by some of his argument that he is aware of the issues in the
debate that we have yet to move on and discuss. But this is digression.
Percy castigated me for not saying what the book was, but I didn't because it would be so glaringly obvious if you had bothered to look it up. As usual you undertook no effort to look anything up. The book is entitled Horizontal Gene Transfer, eds Michael Syvanen and Clarence I. Kado. 1998. Chapman and Hall. What major assumption are you disagreeing with? I'll be happy to point you to his specific work that deals with that major assumption. What you disagree with above is unclear so I cannot respond.
However, I would say that given the quote from him, he does see horizontal transfer as a mutational mechanism. Additionally, Krassilov's article in the book, "Character Parallelism and Reticulation in the Origin of Angiosperms" describes horizontal transfer as a mechanism for macromutations to spread. I do agree the term is used in different contexts differently, but it seems to me that in the context of evolution, such a process is indeed a mutation. Other articles also refer to the insertions and deletions in context of a mutation in reference to HGT.
quote:
I mean come on. You must know this. When a human male and female have a kid. The child is the product of horizontal transfer of sorts, but the two organisms are clearly apart of the same
genome. But once again, where in these text books do they include a horizontal mechanisms exchanging DNA from a foreign Genome of an organism into the Genome of an entirely different organisms with a different Genome. Where does a textbook list the additional types of mutations that the talkorigin link attempts to lump together.
In generically discussing transposons including foreign transposons, Lewin (cited above) says:
[QUOTE]
Transposons are interesting not just for the mechanisms involved in the manipulation of DNA, but also for the evolutionarly consequences of their mobility. They may provide the major source of mutations in the genome.[quote]
In Griffiths et al. they make no effort in discussing transposons that are entirely intra genomic and inter genomic when they refer to tranposon mutatants. Most texts simply don't cover the issue very well, btw. So claiming they are definitive one way or another is simply not very useful.
quote:
You see, Horizontal transfer is a horizontal mechanism, but so is sexual reproduction. But I am
talking about and have been talking about horizontal mechanisms that involve organism live and
not alive from different genomes. The problem that I think you might be having with debating
me is that I am extremely precise with my arguments.
I just wet my knickers. Thank you for a good laugh. We are discussing the same thing. You have now been provided very specific sources that demonstrate the definitions provided so far are quite typical in texts and other scientific sources. I'll admit there is differing use of the terms, but your claims to be the sole source of authority on such issues is not valid.
You asked me to define horizontal gene transfer, and frankly I am a bit confused. I use it as a horizontal transfer is between distantly related species that don't commonly share genetic material through reproduction like activities. The thing that confused me is you don't define it in your post, but fumble around with examples that don't appear to have any consistency with them.
quote:
In order to avoid these sort of semantic parachutes. It makes my post quite wordy, but effective. Oftentimes, you present some point later in your argument. But typically, I have already accounted for it. And it?s like I have to repeat the same argument over an over so that you can realize that it has already been addressed.
Several who have discussed issues with you have specifically cited your inability to address issues forthrightly. I suggest that while I may be unclear at times, it is a rare moment where you are clear.
Cheers,
Larry
™ Version 4.2