|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined:
|
There are two different theories here about the cause of "differences in DNA sequence." MUTATIONS are not responsible for them, BUILT-IN NATURALLY OCCURRING ALLELES, or differences in DNA sequence, are responsible for them. It seems that Dr A is being a bit unclear to you. It is a known fact that mutations occur and create differences in the DNA sequences from parents to offspring. You, yourself, have a number of them. Every human born does. (well, I suppose it isn't statistically impossible that someone could be born without them it is just very, very, very unlikely). That means there re billions and billions of new mutations every generation. They have been measured. They are a fact. You can make all the unsupported assertions that you want but the facts simply will not go away. I'll help you with your argument: we haven't measured every human so how can we know this is a fact? The answer is that whenever we do measure they are there. The answer is that the nature of replication produces these changes. The answer is there is no reason to think otherwise. When you supply one then it can be considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Correct me if I'm wrong:
The mutations you are talking about are in the somatic/body cells, at least the vast majority of them are, is this correct? In other words I did not inherit them and they do not affect any of my inherited traits, is this correct? I did not pass any of them on to my daughter, is this correct? All those dog breeds may also have their own individual set of mutations that also contribute absolutely nothing to their breed traits, is this correct?. Mutations are known to be predominantly either neutral or causes of disease, is this correct? If all that is correct, those mutations have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about in this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined:
|
You are wrong. Of course, during growth many mutations occur in somatic cells -- that can lead to cancer for one thing.
But there are mutations in the reproductive cells in all of us. Mutations are known to be predominantly, in fact overwhelmingly neutral. If they weren't we'd be in bad shape. Ok, actually that is for the ones we carry not the ones the terminate pregnancies. It hasn't been determined but since the majority of fertilizations naturally abort it could be that there are many, many that are deleterious enough to cause this. However, just regular developmental errors that have nothing to do with genetics could be the predominant cause of this. I think it is unknown. Mutations in somatic cells have never been a part of the discussion for anyone. They are not interesting from an evolutionary view. We are all only talking about germ line mutations.ABE: You passed some number of your mutations on. And some were added in her that you don't have. Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
The mutations you are talking about are in the somatic/body cells, at least the vast majority of them are, is this correct? No, plenty of mutations occur in gametes, so this is obviously what NosyNed is referring to. Literally nobody here (other than you) is discussing somatic mutations, as these aren't really relevant to evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You've even managed to confuse yourself. You refuse to deal with the actual theory of evolution, insisting on your own (strawman) instead. And we don't care if you prove that false because none of us believe it. In the real theory of evolution genetic variation can increase. Evolution does not act like a peculiarly close-minded breeder, who cannot accept any new variation (as you admit there are plenty of possible variations that do not get in the way of real breeders - and evolution has no intended outcome that variations could interfere with anyway). The real theory of evolution accepts the fact that mutations can produce useful traits - and even with the restrictions imposed by your demand for proof some small examples have been found. Simply assuming that it cannot happen is convenient for you but hardly a convincing argument. And if praying to God doesn't help you understand, why should we expect it to help anyone else ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: I was quoting Jonathan Sarfati, I didn't say that myself. Yes Faith, I know, that's why I asked if you'd tell him that he's wrong now that you have the proof that he is.
The moth situation is not as clear as you are saying it is. It couldn't be clearer, it's exactly the evidence that you claim can't exist - a genetic mutation causing a phenotypic change that has a beneficial competitive advantage. The date of the mutation has even been identified. "Ilik Saccheri and colleagues have identified the melanism-causing event as the insertion of a class II transposable element into the first intron of a gene called cortex. Statistical inference indicates that the polymorphism occurred around 1819, when the Industrial Revolution was well under way." There's nothing to argue about. It's a genetic mutation that caused a colour change.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All I can say is that's too bad. Not a healthy situation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: I was quoting Jonathan Sarfati, I didn't say that myself. Yes Faith, I know, that's why I asked if you'd tell him that he's wrong now that you have the proof that he is. That was a confusing remark since you didn't mention his name and the quote is attributed to me, not to Sarfati, and not to Sarfati via me. Could be a mutation, might not be. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The evidence that mutations produce real traits is terrifically scarce, an odd situation here or there, and even then there are other explanations than mutation for particular changes.
I'll say it again: even if mutations did do what you claim, they could make nothing new, could do nothing more than contribute to the pool of ordinary allelic variations, which would be redundant since there is plenty already built in; and that pool has to be reduced in order to get new phenotypes. As long as reduction in genetic diversity is needed for this purpose the ToE is a dead duck. No amount of mutations can overcome the selective processes that produce new phenotypes. But in reality mutations don't do anything like what is claimed anyway. With a few really questionable exceptions they contribute zip to the wellbeing of organisms or their evolution. And God has indeed helped me to understand these things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sure, one breed is not another breed. A chihuahua with the genes of a dalmatian would not be an unusual chihuahua, it would be a dalmatian. A human with the genes of a chimp would be a chimp. A dog with the genes of a giraffe would be a giraffe. And yet the fact remains that humans, dogs, and chihuahuas exhibit diversity and yet are recognizable in spite of that diversity. The breeds do NOT exhibit high GENETIC diversity. They can't, because they DON'T have all those genes for other traits. Each breed has to have low genetic diversity unless it's been mixed with others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The topic that still needs explanation is the idea that you can measure genetic diversity by mutations in mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA -- both areas that seem to have nothing to do with the actual losses under discussion, such as the loss of genetic diversity that is necessary to forming breeds and species, and the loss that at the extreme endangers creatures such as the cheetah and the elephant seal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The cases with absolute proof are rare because it is hard to get absolute proof. The evidence is far more abundant.
quote: The whole point of your argument is that the "built in" variation is NOT sufficient. Adding to it, then, is precisely what we need to answer you.
quote: This assertion of yours has already been refuted. So long as genetic diversity can increase between speciation events it can offset any losses during speciation events.
quote: In your, biased, opinion.
quote: How like a creationist - always blaming someone else for your mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The whole point of your argument is that the "built in" variation is NOT sufficient. Adding to it, then, is precisely what we need to answer you. Don't know where you got this idea. It's entirely sufficient. The processes that reduce genetic diversity are the way the system was designed for the purpose of producing variety in living things. If there had been no Fall, no death, the system would produce wonderful variations in every Species or Kind without endangering them, lots more breeds of dogs even than that large collection we have. It's only because we live in this fallen world that the loss of genetic diversity becomes a problem for conservationists to deal with. And mutations can't help conservation. Carefully reintroducing gene flow through remixing separated populations is the only help for it, and that's a lot of what conservationists do. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
The topic that still needs explanation is the idea that you can measure genetic diversity by mutations in mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA -- both areas that seem to have nothing to do with the actual losses under discussion, such as the loss of genetic diversity that is necessary to forming breeds and species... Wut? No. You still don't get it. There is no net loss of genetic diversity necessary for the origin of new species.
...and the loss that at the extreme endangers creatures such as the cheetah and the elephant seal. Umm, one of the reasons why the cheetah and elephant seals are at such a precarious point is precisely because they lack nucleotide diversity (which is measured through mtDNA, etc.), and thus lack genetic diversity. A low level of nucleotide diversity can be extraordinarily dangerous for a population. Fortunately, the elephant seals seem to be on the rocky road to recovery, but that's going to take time and will be contingent on other factors (e.g., the selection pressures wrought by an increase in global warming).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The point of your argument is that variation must run out, bringing evolution to a halt. This is the only truly relevant "sufficiency" to this discussion.
quote: A solution which takes thousands of years - perhaps many thousands - while providing no short-term help is obviously worse than a solution that can have effects within a few generations. So your point has no relevance to the discussion - it is true no matter which side is right. Are you going to blame God for your failure to understand that ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024