Summations Only

Where is the evidence for randon mutations in metazoa? As it happens as well with guided mutations through environmental information. You keep forgetting that guided mutations producedeleterious anetral mutations as well. You cant avoid to see the eternal flow of informatio from environment to organism. But you prefer to ignore its significance to evolution. It could be, if you prefer, just a flow of information. You are negative in advance.

Here is one done in humans:

quote:

---

Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases.
Kondrashov AS.
SourceNational Center for Biotechnology Information, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. Kondrashov@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

Abstract
I estimate per nucleotide rates of spontaneous mutations of different kinds in humans directly from the data on per locus mutation rates and on sequences of de novo nonsense nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, and complex events at eight loci causing autosomal dominant diseases and 12 loci causing X-linked diseases. The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53. Single nucleotide substitutions are approximately 25 times more common than all other mutations, deletions are approximately three times more common than insertions, complex mutations are very rare, and CpG context increases substitution rates by an order of magnitude. There is only a moderate tendency for loci with high per locus mutation rates to also have higher per nucleotide substitution rates, and per nucleotide rates of deletions and insertions are statistically independent on the per locus mutation rate. Rates of different kinds of mutations are strongly correlated across loci. Mutational hot spots with per nucleotide rates above 5x10(-7) make only a minor contribution to human mutation. In the next decade, direct measurements will produce a rather precise, quantitative description of human spontaneous mutation at the DNA level.
Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases - PubMed

---

This study calculated the human mutation rate by measuring the occurence of deleterious mutations in a well defined population. They compared their results to mutation rate needed to produce the divergence seen in chimp and human pseudogenes (i.e. neutral mutations). If mutations are random with respect to fitness in humans then the two values should be close, and they are.On top of this, there is no known system by which metazoans can specifically mutate their DNA in response to a specific stimuli. All of the sources of mutation that we know of are random with respect to fitness. Polymerases are incapable of determining which mutations will affect fitness. Repair mechanisms are incapable of determining the same. Environmental mutagens can not tell which mutations will increase or decrease fitness. You claim that there are such systems, but you fail to even describe them, much less evidence them. Is it any wonder why scientists conclude that mutations are random? They are following the evidence, and the evidence clearly indicates random mutations with respect to fitness. Why do you insist that it exists when you have no evidence that it exists? We need evidence, not suggestions. Anyone can play make-believe. Anyone can make stuff up. What we are interested in is what is real. Surely you know this? Says the person unwilling to present evidence to back their claims.

So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence.If this was a competition then not only would Taq be winning, but you would not even have started playing yet.You can argue all you want about how much weight to give Taq's evidence, but it will always be infinitely weightier than the zero evidence you have supplied.

This discussion is not a competition between me and Taq or another member of this forum. It is about fiddling with the whole evolution community of this forum (only?) in order to presend a feeble theory (e.g random mutations role in evolution) as a fact, with unwarranted claims.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

But if it was, then Taq would be winning. That is how the conjunction 'if' works. The only person making unwarranted and unevidenced claims is you.
You have provided no evidence.
If you think that makes your 'theory' feeble, then I think we are all in agreement.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I have stated it from the very begining of this thread that i couldn't provide any evidence. But your admission that Taq had provided 'some' evidence was a very big help to my position that Modern Synthesis theory was an nonproved theory or rather a hypothesis as regards the random mutations part of it. Isn't it a big joke?

And, as stated from the beginning of this thread, there is evidence of random mutations.At that point, you should have just stopped posting. Your theory is a big joke?
Yes - it would appear so.

The indirect measurement is more than enough to test the hypothesis.You claim that mutations are guided in metazoans. Where are your direct measurements?

I am presenting random mutations as a conclusion drawn from evidence. I have given you this evidence.You claim mutations are guided. You have offered zero evidence.It appears that your attempts to "fiddle with" the scientific community is rather feeble, and incompetent at that.Please present evidence for your claims or withdraw the claims. It is as simple as that.

'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum.

In summarionOnce again zi ko provides no evidence for the same old theory in yet another thread.

SUMMATION.
Firstly I would like to thank all, without any exception, participants of the thread.
As far as it concerns my most important and provocative new ideas, I can say:
NEURAL INVOLVEMENT AS A CAUSATIVE FACTOR IN EVOLUTION.
It i s still far from being proved. But the trend of expanding scientific work on neural system, I hope, will give at least some causative role of neural system on evolution process. As the importance of information flow from environment, ending to genome, is more and more gaining scientific recognition, the role of neural system is going to be more accepted.
EMPATHY AS ESSENSIAL MECHANISM OF INFORMATION TRANSFER RELATIVE TO EVOLUTION is going to be even more difficult.
THERE ARE BOTH TYPES OF MUTATIONS RANDOM AND DIRECTED.
Here I felt being astonished. All over these months of conversation I was bombarded by big mouth accusations for not presenting evidence. And it ended that fanatic advocates of hard scientific evidence, presented without any shame, as the only evidence of randomness in mutation for metazoa, the indirect measurements of a researcher at 2002, who hopes on next decade ( we are already in 2012) other scientists would make the direct measurements !! And we talk about the main pillar of classic Darwinism and the Modern Theory as well. At least Taq talks about the hypothesis of randomness. So Modern Theory is not a Theory, but simply ahypothesis!!!!Maybe these truths were the reason for Percy to treat me so unfairly!!!