Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   is the advancement of macro evolution without hick up?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 7 of 41 (548414)
02-27-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Granny Magda
02-27-2010 10:25 AM


Re: We Are All Mutants
Hi Granny,
I don't know where you got your numbers. But humans have between 300-600 point mutations (Edit: actually 100-300) per person per generation. Add to that all the other types of mutations and you have more then ''two three novel mutations ... not present in our parents''.
Also every mutations has an effect, even if it is very very very small. So truely neutral mutations don't exist.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 10:25 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Meldinoor, posted 02-27-2010 3:23 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:08 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 20 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 5:33 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 21 by Stagamancer, posted 02-27-2010 10:00 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 22 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:20 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 12 of 41 (548427)
02-27-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Jack
02-27-2010 4:08 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
It was by memory, it's 100-300 actually.
I remembered the 300 but didn't remember if it was the upper or lower limit, my bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:08 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:20 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 13 of 41 (548429)
02-27-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Meldinoor
02-27-2010 3:23 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
See what Mr. Jack said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Meldinoor, posted 02-27-2010 3:23 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Meldinoor, posted 02-28-2010 12:32 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 16 of 41 (548434)
02-27-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
02-27-2010 4:20 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
I'll try to find the paper to see what parts of the DNA it is referring to. I would think it is for the whole genome.
It's cited in Sanford's book (which I don't have with me)
In the paper the author talks about 100, but he indicated to Dr. Sanford via personnal communications that this was his lower limit and that the upper limit was 300.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:20 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:26 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 41 (548438)
02-27-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Jack
02-27-2010 4:26 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
This paper seems to talk about all mutations, while I was simply talking about point mutations.
Also, it calculates it by comparing human and chimp DNA, while the paper Sanford cites is observed human mutation rates.
I could be wrong since it's all only by memory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:26 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 02-27-2010 5:01 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 41 (548741)
03-01-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by DC85
02-27-2010 10:20 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
I think the recent ENCODE project is showing that much (if not all) of the DNA is functional.
The concept of ''junk DNA'' will probably become obselete in the near future in my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 10:20 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2010 3:04 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 41 (548742)
03-01-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Stagamancer
02-27-2010 10:00 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
Exactly the point. If the vast majority of mutations are only slightly deleterious and are therefore not exposed to selection, it poses a serious problem. There is no way ot filter them out of the gene pool, and threw genetic drift many of them willl become fixed in the population.
But it's a different topic, so I'll stop here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Stagamancer, posted 02-27-2010 10:00 PM Stagamancer has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2010 4:29 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 27 of 41 (548749)
03-01-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Wounded King
03-01-2010 3:04 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
I'll look into this then, but you could start by explaining to my layman mind the difference between biochemical and biological functionality.
And why this is not the first step to eventually find functions to all the genetic code.
And didn't the ENCODE show that all of the genome was transcripted, sometimes even in the two directions ? (this is by memory, I may be wrong) Doesn't this hint to it having biological usage ?
For my part I think the Junk DNA claim is just an old argument from ignorance. That we do not know the function of a given strand of DNA does not make it functionless. I think that as our knowledge of genetics will grow in the future, the smaller the window of junk dna will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2010 3:04 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by subbie, posted 03-01-2010 3:40 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2010 4:22 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 38 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-02-2010 12:58 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024