is the advancement of macro evolution without hick up?

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.

Try this one (estimate = 175)

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.

There is a paper by Alexey Kondrashov which was based on observed human rates, but that included different types of mutation (Kondrashov, 2002).TTFN,WK

Hi slevesque, Why, I believe that I pulled those numbers directly out of my ass. Seriously, I'm more than happy to be corrected there. My only goal was to point out to Shekinah the ubiquity of mutations and the fact that his ideas about mutation and sterility were wrong. As for the neutral mutation thing, you're going to have do a lot more to convince me of that...Mutate and Survive

An irrelevant argument. Even if this is true, in a finite population, mutations that are only slightly deleterious (specifically if the selection coefficient against it is less than the reciprocal of twice the effective population size) are effectively neutral and not exposed to selection.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

It may show in the DNA itself but a large portion of those mutations are on "junk DNA"

I stand corrected.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

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.

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.

Wow, was there like an ID/creationist memo just recently telling you all how to be wrong this month? What the ENCODE project tells us is that much of the genome is transcribed and therefore biochemically functional, what relevance this has to the actual biological function of the organism is very far from being determined.Smooth Operator was making the same bogus argument in the What exactly is ID? thread.TTFN,WK

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.

quote:

---

For my part I think the Junk DNA claim is just an old argument from ignorance.

---

Your position might have some validity if the conclusion of "junk DNA" has no basis other than, "Gosh, dunno what this does, it must be junk." In fact, however, that's not the case. This letter to Nature describes an experiment involving the deletion of over 2,300 non-coding intervals from mice DNA with no apparent effect on the mice.Now, I will grant you that there was no apparent effect, and one may yet be found. But of course, that will always be the case in any experiment of this sort, at least until our understanding of the functioning of DNA is more sophisticated. However, even you must concede that this experiment provides evidence for the existence of "junk DNA" beyond just not knowing what something does.What's more, I found this in about 30 seconds. Thus, one might suppose that there's more such evidence out there. One might also suppose that your conclusion was based on zero time researching the matter, but, perhaps, simply your wishing and hoping it were so. In any event, I hope that for your part, you now understand that it's more than just an argument from ignorance.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I think the point is that just because most DNA is transcribed into mRNA doesn't necessarily mean that the mRNA is then translated into proteins. In fact, it can't be --- compare the sheer size of (for example) human DNA with the number of human proteins. Then consider that that number is inflated by alternative gene splicing.Some of those transcripts might be doing something else besides serving as mRNA in the strict sense, but if they are, it's going to be something astonishingly subtle, because we can after all knock out chunks of non-protein-coding DNA without any observable effects.

A big if. Consider that the more these hypothetical mutations accumulated in a genome, the more likely it would become that the next mutation will be slightly beneficial. Even chance alone would establish an equilibrium.