Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 271 of 455 (785770)
06-10-2016 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
06-10-2016 10:13 AM


Re: Situation
I think the word is actually "irrefutable".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 06-10-2016 10:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 272 of 455 (785772)
06-10-2016 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
06-10-2016 10:03 AM


Re: Situation
Faith writes:
heard a talk about how Islam is going to run Europe and the UK within a decade and how all your leaders keep denying it, same as most of you all here. This reminds me of that. Wishfulness reigns. Couldn't resist the comparison.
Take this to another forum and we'll explain why you're wrong again.
Meanwhile, I asked for an explanation of where your issue is. What's the problem with what I've just tried to summarise?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 06-10-2016 10:03 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 273 of 455 (785777)
06-10-2016 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
06-10-2016 10:03 AM


Re: Situation
I just heard a talk about how Islam is going to run Europe and the UK within a decade and how all your leaders keep denying it, same as most of you all here. This reminds me of that. Wishfulness reigns. Couldn't resist the comparison.
I will grant you that the comparison is extremely apt.
So is this something I can persuade you to bet money on?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 06-10-2016 10:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 455 (785779)
06-10-2016 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
06-10-2016 8:37 AM


Re: Situation
Depends on the severity of the selection, and in any case they will be decreased as the fitter are selected.
Wrong. It depends on the nature of selection. If there is no reason to select grey eyes over green eyes, then natural selection would allow both. So no they would not of necessity be decreased as a per centage of the population if fitness does not matter.
If your ideas make any sense, you certainly are not able to communicate that sense to anyone. Perhaps you have some working idea that you cannot get out to us?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 06-10-2016 8:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(5)
Message 275 of 455 (785784)
06-10-2016 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
06-09-2016 10:18 AM


Re: Situation
Any changes needed by the organism are already available through the built-in genetic possibilities, while the changes being added are either neutral or deleterious. I don't know why this isn't obvious.
Well it's not obvious because it's not true. I came across this study thanks to caffeine's reference to the Runx-2 locus in dogs in Message 252.
Here is the full paper Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolution
And here is a short article about the paper that may be a bit more accessible Tandem Repeats and Morphological Variation
First, let's talk about microsatellites. Microsatellites are tandem repeats of short sequences of nucleotides, such as ACTACTACTACT which can also be written as [ACT]4 which means that the sequence ACT is repeated 4 times. The interesting thing about these tandem repeats is they can vary greatly in length from one individual to another. They are subject to high rates of mutation because of strand slippage mispairing. Since the same sequence is repeated over and over, when the strands pair up, a repeat on one strand can align with the wrong repeat on the other strand. In other words, say we have 4 repeats - # 1, 2, 3, 4. These should pair up with repeats 1, 2, 3, 4 on the opposite strand. However, mispairing can occur so that 1 pairs with 1; 2 pairs with 3 and 3 pairs with 4. Depending on whether the slippage is on the template strand or the replicate strand, the replication machinery will either insert an extra repeat or delete one. A figure illustrating this is shown below
It turns out that in the gene Runx-2, as well as 16 other genes studied in this paper, the lengths of the microsatellite regions in these genes affect the traits associated with the gene. Runx-2 affects cranio-facial length. Runx-2 is a transcription factor, which means it regulates transcription. Small changes in sequence can affect binding affinity for the target region which would up-regulate or down-regulate transcription.
The image below shows a series of dogs skulls that have considerable variation in cranio-facial features.
quote:
Rapid and sustained evolution of breeds. (A) Purebred St. Bernard skulls from 1850 (Top), 1921 (Middle), and 1967 (Bottom). (B) Purebred bull terrier skulls from 1931 (Top), 1950 (Middle), and 1976 (Bottom) (24). (C) Purebred Newfoundland skulls from 1926 (Top), 1964 (Middle), and 1971 (Bottom). Despite the lack of genetic diversity caused by population structure and history, these breeds are able to continually create new and more extreme morphological variations at a rapid and sustained pace. Analysis of the Runx-2 repeats in the 1931 bull terrier reveals a more intermediate allele (Q19A14) than is present in the modern bull terrier (Q19A13). - bold mine
This alone should be sufficient to frustrate your argument, but I suppose you may still think it is just built in alleles that are being brought out by interbreeding.
So... the researchers sequenced 37 repeat loci of 17 genes in 142 dogs representing 92 dog breeds. What they found was that 10 of the genes had 5 or more alleles and 5 had 12 or more alleles! In addition, they sequenced 3 of these genes in 12 other mammals including the gray wolf, coyote and the red fox. Results of the number of alleles per gene for each species is shown in the table below:
speciesRunx-2Dlx-2Twist-1
dog12512
gray wolf5516
coyote7517
red fox411
Here we have multiple alleles in coding regions that have an effect on morphological characteristics in a series of dogs. Everything your hypothesis says couldn't happen.
Here is the evidence this paper presents that refutes your hypothesis:
> Multiple alleles in a coding gene. Maximum alleles in any single gene within a "kind" should be 4.
> Morphological and genetic changes in fixed breeds over 45+ years. You have claimed that genetic diversity would be depleted limiting further phenotypic change.
> A proven, simple mechanism for a rather large scale mutation. How mutations happen are not a huge mystery.
> Demonstrated mutations that are not deleterious. Most mutations that cause phenotypic change are in regulatory regions. This study provides another way mutations can create phenotypic changes.
> These variations in repeat length are recent alterations as evidenced by purity of the repeats.
Now I can't wait to find out more about the deception of how mutations in MtDNA and microsatellites increase genetic diversity. Just can't wait.
Well, I've shown how microsatellites increase genetic diversity. We can talk about mtDNA later, but this should give you something for you to consider for a while.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 06-09-2016 10:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 8:50 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 455 (785790)
06-11-2016 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by herebedragons
06-10-2016 11:37 PM


Re: Situation
As you said there’s plenty to ponder in your post, but there are a few things I can answer right away because you are refuting a straw man rather than my argument:
Here we have multiple alleles in coding regions that have an effect on morphological characteristics in a series of dogs. Everything your hypothesis says couldn't happen.
You really need to quote me because you get things just wrong enough that I don’t recognize them. I’ve agreed many times that multiple alleles need an explanation, some kind of mutation, so I’m certainly not saying that can’t happen.
Also, as long as there is any genetic diversity in a breed you can get changes. What I’ve said is that after you have an established breed you don’t WANT any more changes because they mess up the breed.
Here is the evidence this paper presents that refutes your hypothesis:
> Multiple alleles in a coding gene. Maximum alleles in any single gene within a "kind" should be 4.
As I say above, I’ve MANY times acknowledged that there must be some mechanism that increases alleles per locus, even some form of mutation. So you’ve refuted nothing on this point.
> Morphological and genetic changes in fixed breeds over 45+ years. You have claimed that genetic diversity would be depleted limiting further phenotypic change.
No, what I’ve said is that there is a TREND to genetic REDUCTION down any evolving line, and dogs in particular seem to have so much genetic diversity they might never reach the point of depletion. You've said these breeds are "fixed" but without giving specific information about their level of genetic diversity, homozygosity etc. Perhaps you think that's explained somewhere in this post, so perhaps I'll figure it out if so, but my impression is that you haven't effectivelydiscounted continuing genetic diversity.
Also, one idea I’ve been pondering and mentioned a few times is that when it comes to intensification of traits this can be the result of strong repetition of the same genotype generation after generation. I think I even read about this somewhere at some time or other. I brought this up in relation to the big-headed lizards and Darwin’s pigeons with exaggerated breasts: neither of those characteristics is in the original population, but seem to be the result of many generations of strong selection of the same genotype. This would not require mutation, and could even occur at fixed loci.
Also, I do still have to cope with your tendency to use jargon: I think I know what "tandem repeats" means but it's jargon and would be a lot clearer in descriptive English.
So I hope to be back soon with some responses to the rest of your post.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by herebedragons, posted 06-10-2016 11:37 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2016 10:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 278 by herebedragons, posted 06-11-2016 11:08 AM Faith has replied

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


(2)
Message 277 of 455 (785792)
06-11-2016 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
06-11-2016 8:50 AM


Re: Situation
What I’ve said is that after you have an established breed you don’t WANT any more changes because they mess up the breed.
And it has been pointed out to you that the desires of breeders do not affect the operation of mutation and selection in the wild.
No, what I’ve said is that there is a TREND to genetic REDUCTION down any evolving line ...
And now that you admit that mutations exist and increase genetic diversity you cannot "prove" this by adducing the "fact" that they don't. So on what basis do you propose to establish it?
Let's remind you again. Two wolves:
Dogs:
The genetic diversity of Canis lupus has increased, has it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 8:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 278 of 455 (785794)
06-11-2016 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
06-11-2016 8:50 AM


Re: Situation
I’ve agreed many times that multiple alleles need an explanation, some kind of mutation, so I’m certainly not saying that can’t happen.
So... "some kind of mutation" can increase number of alleles per locus but it does not increase genetic diversity? If you accept that "some kind of mutation" occurs, then what you must really be wondering is how and why these mutations occur and what kind of effect they have on the organism. The paper cited provides a very good example of this and shows very clearly that mutations can provide new variation even within a purebred dog. I guess you agree that mutation can add diversity.
Also, as long as there is any genetic diversity in a breed you can get changes. What I’ve said is that after you have an established breed you don’t WANT any more changes because they mess up the breed.
But you have stated that to get a pure breed you have to eliminate all the alleles for other breeds. So now you are implying that these variations for other breeds actually remain in the pure breed. What this paper showed was a clear mechanism for how variation can arise in an incremental fashion and be selected for in subsequent breeding programs. This was not variation that existed in the earliest breeds that was just recently brought out.
No, what I’ve said is that there is a TREND to genetic REDUCTION down any evolving line, and dogs in particular seem to have so much genetic diversity they might never reach the point of depletion. You've said these breeds are "fixed" but without giving specific information about their level of genetic diversity, homozygosity etc. Perhaps you think that's explained somewhere in this post, so perhaps I'll figure it out if so, but my impression is that you haven't effectively discounted continuing genetic diversity.
Faith, there is only so much genetic diversity to go around. Dogs have been split into so many subpopulations that there is just no way the original mating pair had the amount of diversity that exists within the entire population of modern breeds. But then since you accept "some kind of mutation," you don't need all that diversity in the original pair because some of that diversity is generated by "some kind of mutation." If you originally had 'x' amount of diversity in the original pair and you now have '2x' in the "kind" then you have doubled the amount of genetic diversity, even if individual populations have '0.5x' diversity.
Also, one idea I’ve been pondering and mentioned a few times is that when it comes to intensification of traits this can be the result of strong repetition of the same genotype generation after generation. I think I even read about this somewhere at some time or other. I brought this up in relation to the big-headed lizards and Darwin’s pigeons with exaggerated breasts: neither of those characteristics is in the original population, but seem to be the result of many generations of strong selection of the same genotype. This would not require mutation, and could even occur at fixed loci.
Why would the same genotype provide a more intense phenotype? If a loci is fixed how could selection cause "trait intensification?"
Also, I do still have to cope with your tendency to use jargon: I think I know what "tandem repeats" means but it's jargon and would be a lot clearer in descriptive English.
Oy vey... I figured you knew what 'tandem' meant and what 'repeat' meant and since I explained that microsatellites are repeats that are attached one after another, I didn't really think "tandem repeats" required a definition.
Tandem repeats are repeats that are connected in tandem, such as ACTACTACTACTACT with ACT as the repeat unit.
Faith, what you are trying to argue is evolution that is not evolution, which is a very confusing argument, especially since you are not arguing from data or literature, but from a vague image that you have in your mind about what is happening. It is really hard to wrap my head around this imaginary and often contradictory proposal.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 8:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 12:33 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 1:04 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 455 (785799)
06-11-2016 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by herebedragons
06-11-2016 11:08 AM


Re: Situation
I don't think it "occurs," I think it "occurred." I don't think of this as an ongoing thing like the mutations that are mostly useless. I think the addition of alleles at a single locus has to be a special thing that's different. It's a guess because I can't think of another explanation for polymorphous loci, but I haven't changed my view in general. There may be another explanation, however. But these would be ACCURATE mutations, not like the destructive bunch we're always talking about.
ALSO, I wish you'd get it straight: I've never said that mutations would not increase genetic diversity. Sheesh, WHAT I'VE SAID IS THAT
  • If they make ordinary alleles they'll be reduced in the selective processes of forming a new breed or species anyway, and the result of those processes is always going to be reduced genetic diversity no matter what the source of the diversity in the first place;
  • If they get added after the species is formed they'll wreck the species or breed
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by herebedragons, posted 06-11-2016 11:08 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2016 1:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 282 by JonF, posted 06-11-2016 1:20 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 280 of 455 (785800)
06-11-2016 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
06-11-2016 12:33 PM


Re: Situation
If they make ordinary alleles they'll be reduced in the selective processes of forming a new breed or species anyway, and the result of those processes is always going to be reduced genetic diversity no matter what the source of the diversity in the first place;
Yes, selection decreases diversity. Mutation adds it. The question of whether in a given case net diversity has been decreased or increased is an empirical one.
If they get added after the species is formed they'll wreck the species or breed
You mean like all those dog breeds have "wrecked" C. lupus? And like all those different chihuahuas have "wrecked" the chihuahua breed?
Well, the laws of nature don't care whether you think genetic diversity is a good thing or a bad thing, they just go on adding genetic diversity regardless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 12:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 281 of 455 (785801)
06-11-2016 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by herebedragons
06-11-2016 11:08 AM


Re: Situation
I'm already sorry I answered any of your post because here we are into a discussion and I haven't even had a chance to think through that post of yours. So now I have another one to answer -- although I already answered some of it. I guess I shouldn't do that.
I’ve agreed many times that multiple alleles need an explanation, some kind of mutation, so I’m certainly not saying that can’t happen.
So... "some kind of mutation" can increase number of alleles per locus but it does not increase genetic diversity?
This I answered above.
If you accept that "some kind of mutation" occurs, then what you must really be wondering is how and why these mutations occur and what kind of effect they have on the organism.
I think of them as part of the Creation design for variety within a Kind. However, maybe mutations isn't the right word since I object to the whole idea of accidental replication as doing anything good.
The paper cited provides a very good example of this and shows very clearly that mutations can provide new variation even within a purebred dog. I guess you agree that mutation can add diversity.
Not after a breed is formed. But I haven't been able to get to that paper yet anyway.
Also, as long as there is any genetic diversity in a breed you can get changes. What I’ve said is that after you have an established breed you don’t WANT any more changes because they mess up the breed.
But you have stated that to get a pure breed you have to eliminate all the alleles for other breeds.
Yes, I think of the extra alleles having already been added a long time ago. Yes I guess I'm going to have to give up that idea. Some explanation is needed but not accidental replication events.
So now you are implying that these variations for other breeds actually remain in the pure breed.
They can't because you can't get a breed unless they're at ;east reduced, and eventually eliminated.
What this paper showed was a clear mechanism for how variation can arise in an incremental fashion and be selected for in subsequent breeding programs. This was not variation that existed in the earliest breeds that was just recently brought out.
So maybe I'll eventually read it.
No, what I’ve said is that there is a TREND to genetic REDUCTION down any evolving line, and dogs in particular seem to have so much genetic diversity they might never reach the point of depletion. You've said these breeds are "fixed" but without giving specific information about their level of genetic diversity, homozygosity etc. Perhaps you think that's explained somewhere in this post, so perhaps I'll figure it out if so, but my impression is that you haven't effectively discounted continuing genetic diversity.
Faith, there is only so much genetic diversity to go around. Dogs have been split into so many subpopulations that there is just no way the original mating pair had the amount of diversity that exists within the entire population of modern breeds.
Oh but it did exist in the original pair.
But then since you accept "some kind of mutation," you don't need all that diversity in the original pair because some of that diversity is generated by "some kind of mutation."
Yes, I get your point except that isn't how I think of it. I don't think of those extra alleles as novel, I think of them as possibilities belonged to other genes and somehow got transferred when those genes died, all those genes in junk DNA for instance. I don't know what the mechanism for their getting attached to new loci is but it's more along those lines than what you are thinking. Sorry I have not thought all that through and am misleading you. I know there has to be some mechanism for the polymorphous loci because it invoilves a large number of individuals. But mutations are predominantly accidents that are of no use to the organism so I can't think of that as the solution, it has to be some other kind of "mutation." Of course now that I think of it I don't know how many of those extra alleles are really alleles either, do I? Do you? I mean as opposed to "neutral" or "deleterious" mutations.
If you originally had 'x' amount of diversity in the original pair and you now have '2x' in the "kind" then you have doubled the amount of genetic diversity, even if individual populations have '0.5x' diversity.
True. But now you are raising all kinds of questions. Most of the diversity mutations bring about is unhealthy or useless. If the alleles at polymorphous loci are really functional alleles they have to be something other than mutations as usual.
And again, when a breed or species forms those that compete with the traits of the breed get reduced so you end up with less genetic diversity in any case.
Also, one idea I’ve been pondering and mentioned a few times is that when it comes to intensification of traits this can be the result of strong repetition of the same genotype generation after generation. I think I even read about this somewhere at some time or other. I brought this up in relation to the big-headed lizards and Darwin’s pigeons with exaggerated breasts: neither of those characteristics is in the original population, but seem to be the result of many generations of strong selection of the same genotype. This would not require mutation, and could even occur at fixed loci.
Why would the same genotype provide a more intense phenotype? If a loci is fixed how could selection cause "trait intensification?"
I have no idea how it does it. It just seems to get more intense from generation to generation. Darwin's pigeon breasts didn't just show up in one generation, they increased as he kept selecting for them. I think it possible that's how the big heads of the Pod Mrcaru lizards showed up too. Do you have another explanation?
Also, I do still have to cope with your tendency to use jargon: I think I know what "tandem repeats" means but it's jargon and would be a lot clearer in descriptive English.
Oy vey... I figured you knew what 'tandem' meant and what 'repeat' meant and since I explained that microsatellites are repeats that are attached one after another, I didn't really think "tandem repeats" required a definition.
Well, "repeats" of WHAT is a question. And what does "tandem" add to the picture?
Tandem repeats are repeats that are connected in tandem, such as ACTACTACTACTACT with ACT as the repeat unit.
Repeats of some of the four bases then. Why "tandem?" Doesn't "repeat" say all that needs to be said?
Faith, what you are trying to argue is evolution that is not evolution, which is a very confusing argument, especially since you are not arguing from data or literature, but from a vague image that you have in your mind about what is happening. It is really hard to wrap my head around this imaginary and often contradictory proposal.
I agree that the "some kind of mutation" is confusing. But I've always accepted the existence of polymorphous loci and take it into account in the scenario about reducing genetic diversity. l How they occurred in the first place is the question, but I'm not accepting standard mutations since most of them do nothing good.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by herebedragons, posted 06-11-2016 11:08 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by JonF, posted 06-11-2016 1:21 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 284 by Tangle, posted 06-11-2016 1:26 PM Faith has replied
 Message 285 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2016 1:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 286 by NoNukes, posted 06-11-2016 2:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 289 by caffeine, posted 06-11-2016 2:38 PM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 282 of 455 (785802)
06-11-2016 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
06-11-2016 12:33 PM


Re: Situation
I don't think it "occurs," I think it "occurred."
Ah, the laws of physics must have been different back then.
It's a guess because I can't accept another explanation for polymorphous loci
FIFY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 12:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 283 of 455 (785803)
06-11-2016 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
06-11-2016 1:04 PM


Re: Situation
How they occurred in the first place is the question, but I'm not accepting standard mutations since most of them do nothing good.
But some of them do something good.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 1:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 284 of 455 (785804)
06-11-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
06-11-2016 1:04 PM


Re: Situation
Faith writes:
However, maybe mutations isn't the right word since I object to the whole idea of accidental replication as doing anything good.
Faith writes:
But these would be ACCURATE mutations, not like the destructive bunch we're always talking about.
You can't get around this by denial and renaming. Mutations are not remotely contentious things that you're able to wriggle and squirm around - they're known, understood, identified and documented.
Go to any science site and you can read about them, see how they happen and see exactly which molecules have changed. It's simply not debateable - mutations, good, bad, neutral, happen routinely in all organisms. You have the proof. If you had the knowledge, instruments and inclination you could prove it yourself.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 1:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 2:35 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 285 of 455 (785806)
06-11-2016 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
06-11-2016 1:04 PM


Re: Situation
l How they occurred in the first place is the question, but I'm not accepting standard mutations since most of them do nothing good.
Similarly, there are no winning lottery tickets because most of them lose. That's Creationist Logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 06-11-2016 1:04 PM Faith 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