Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 3:24 PM
123 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, dwise1, Meddle, PaulK, Tanypteryx (6 members, 117 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   is the advancement of macro evolution without hick up?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2714 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 responded

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

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 17 of 41 (548435)
02-27-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
02-27-2010 4:24 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
Try this one (estimate = 175)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 4:24 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 4:37 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2714 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 yet responded

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

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2168 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 19 of 41 (548440)
02-27-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
02-27-2010 4:37 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 4:37 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 20 of 41 (548443)
02-27-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by slevesque
02-27-2010 3:18 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
Hi slevesque,

I don't know where you got your numbers.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 3:18 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 2989 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 21 of 41 (548506)
02-27-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by slevesque
02-27-2010 3:18 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
Also every mutations has an effect, even if it is very very very small. So truely neutral mutations don't exist.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 3:18 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 03-01-2010 1:36 PM Stagamancer has acknowledged this reply

    
DC85
Member (Idle past 405 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 22 of 41 (548513)
02-27-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by slevesque
02-27-2010 3:18 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
Also every mutations has an effect, even if it is very very very small. So truely neutral mutations don't exist

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 3:18 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 03-01-2010 1:34 PM DC85 has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 23 of 41 (548537)
02-28-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
02-27-2010 4:13 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
I stand corrected.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 02-27-2010 4:13 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2714 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 yet responded

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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2714 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 acknowledged this reply

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

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2168 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 26 of 41 (548747)
03-01-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
03-01-2010 1:34 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
I think the recent ENCODE project is showing that much (if not all) of the DNA is functional.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 03-01-2010 1:34 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 03-01-2010 3:16 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2714 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 yet responded

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

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 28 of 41 (548754)
03-01-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by slevesque
03-01-2010 3:16 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
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 Jefferson

For 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 Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 03-01-2010 3:16 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2010 8:43 PM subbie has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 29 of 41 (548761)
03-01-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by slevesque
03-01-2010 3:16 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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 03-01-2010 3:16 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2010 4:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 30 of 41 (548763)
03-01-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
03-01-2010 1:36 PM


Re: We Are All Mutants
If the vast majority of mutations are only slightly deleterious and are therefore not exposed to selection ...

A big if.

There is no way ot filter them out of the gene pool ...

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 03-01-2010 1:36 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-01-2010 4:47 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019