Molecular Population Genetics and Diversity through Mutation

I'm [not] surprised to see that you've blocked out mutation again.I'll probably get bored with this eventually, but until then I'll just give you more information about the recent findings that demonstrate it happening in the peppered moth. This is what we mean when we ask for evidence. Peer reviewed, meticulous and detailed work in prestigious publication. From Nature
The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element | Nature

Yes, a 'real' mutation should use an entirely different chemistry set.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

"You wiil, Faith, you will."

She knows the words but not their meanings and she can't link it all together. This is the weirdest discussion I've ever seen.Normally when someone repeatedly admits to not understanding technical issues, they shut up, listen and learn. Once they've mastered the subject, then they can argue with intelligence. They don't usually argue the toss from near total ignorance of the subject.In the peppered moth thread she thinks that her undeducated ignorance of the subject matter is somehow more impressive than the molecular geneticist's 15 year's of work resulting in a paper published in Nature. She not even concerned that she's not read it.She's a poster child for delusion. I wish you luck, but without hope.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I hope that now that you know that that is wrong - given what you've seen with the moths where a proven mutation turned a white moth to a black one - you'll put him right.

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. 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.

The geneticists say that it's a mutation and tell you EXACTLY how, where and when it happened."the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex."There's no might or might not be about it. You are simply not allowing yourself to accept it. Or to even read the paper.It's game over for whatever argument you thought you had for beneficial mutations not happening. You're going to have to face that now or learn enough molecular genetics to refute the peer reviewed paper. Good luck with that.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

i've totally lost the plot on this - it's going round in circles.Whether isolation will reduce gentic diversity is dependent on all sorts of things, including chance but you could safely say that if a million bison split into two equal groups there would be no loss, whilst if a dozen did then there would be a bottleneck. And all points in between.Selection pressure acting on a group would also vary from zilch if the environment was exactly the same in both location to heavy if not.In situations of severe bottleneck and heavy selection pressure, the group would almost certainly go extinct.Selection pressure would act on groups that survive to modify their phenotypes.Modification can happen a number of ways, the most obvious are the selection of one existing trait over another - such a colouration or size due to predation or food availability. Or it can be through mutation followed by selection. And a combination.Two seperated groups could also diverge over time simply by genetic drift.Where's the argument? all these things are known and have been for some time.As far as I can see no-one is arguing that some evolutionary mechanisms - such as isolation of a sub group - will cause a loss of diversity, that's what a bottleneck is. So if the only issue is whether diversity can return in those cases there's also no issue. It either will through mutation and the natural growth of the population over time, or it won't in which case we'd see weakened species (which we occasionally do) or we see extinction (which we see a huge amount of.)Not surprisingly, the majority of existing species are quite genetically diverse because those that couldn't adapt are dead.What's the problem? If you're still in denial about genetic mutation, that's just too bad, it's literally a fact of life that can't be denied.

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?

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.

So can we have confirmation that you now accept beneficial mutations?

Correct. Like sickle cell anaemia."severe hereditary form of anaemia in which a mutated form of haemoglobin distorts the red blood cells into a crescent shape at low oxygen levels. It is commonest among those of African descent."And neutral mutations that do nothingAnd beneficial mutations that help organisms survive - like our moth.There's no plan - mutations just happen and occasionally they're good or bad or irrelevant. It's chance Faith, chance. That's the bit you don't like isn't it?

There will be millions of examples of 'flukes' because there are trillions of examples of organisms and we know that every organism contains a few mutated genes. We have found 'flukes' that validate the ToE in viruses, bacteria, fruit flies, apples, flowers, lizards, mice and moths and they're only the ones we (I) know about. Molecular biology is brand new - you're going to have to get used to findings which you hate because they prove you wrong. Or change your mind based on the evidence in front of you.'Flukes' are easy to explain, you don't need advanced biological training to grasp the basic concepts - as has been shown here and you have been unable to refute. There's nothing contentious about them apart from your personal dislike of them which you have only for religious and dogmatic reasons, which IS hard to explain.Genetics like nature itself is a morality free zone - your God apparently made it that way.

So now you're fixated with mutations being a disease..... they can be, but in evolutionary terms beneficial and deleterious mutations refer to an organism's fit to the environment it finds itself in, not whether it causes disease or not - tho' normally disease is not a good thing for survivability.But sickle cells can be both deleterious or beneficial depending on where and who you are.A deleterious colour mutation would be a black fur coat in a sandy desert or a black colouration on a pale tree. Perhaps moths and mice might declare those things diseases, but we don't.Would you call dwarfism in humans a disease?

If it helps, don't feel the need to reply to this post.No-one here hates you, but you're saying a lot of things that are factually and provably wrong, so people are going to point them out - some in a fairly frustrated fashion. Also I suspect you're having some doubts yourself simply because the evidence is so obviously against you which is understandably causing some stress. Because you know that you can't be wrong, you'll now have some time out to recuperate and come back after a while and repeat all the same stuff as though all this never happened. We understand this. Sure. Or at least it did when I was a Christian - but I grew out of that at about 14.I accepted science because it was taught in school and I trusted school to teach me stuff. It also taught me religion which was a bit confusing because when it said I could make potassium tri-iodide (a really cool explosive) by mixing ammonia with iodine I could test it myself, but when it said I was going to hell for wanking, it felt like a wanker had made it up and I couldn't test it.It turns out that everything religions say that can be tested is in error but when science says something it can be tested and if it's wrong it gets fixed. So on the balance of probabilities I go with science and rationality in the knowledge that the bits that are wrong will be corrected.Your problem is that for what you believe to be true - the earth is 6,000 years old, there was a global flood and evolution didn't happen - you have to throw away 200 years of science in practically all of it's disciplines from biology, physics, geology, palaeontology, astronomy and even mathematics. And you, Faith, personally, with no education or training in any of these disciplines have to invent substitutes for millions upon millions of scientific papers on the fly. No wonder you get stressed.