Timing of Various Eves and Adams

Faith, Jar was trying to help by making a very, very simple analogy. He seems to feel this is necessary since you don't understand it when it is presented in a slightly non-simple way.

Nosy, I understand it better than jar. His analogy failed and he doesn't want to admit it.

Analogies will always fail...so what's your point?

The receptor is a protein, and a gene is the instruction/code to make a protein.So, for the pocket mice example, and the melanocortin receptor:There is the gene Mc1r that codes for the protein MC1R. If a mutation is made in the Mc1r gene the instructions are changed, and the MC1R protein and the way it functions may be changed.This is true across the board, not just for receptors - mutations in gene "X" are basically changes in the instructions to make protein "X", (though due to the way DNA provides instructions, mutations don't always change the protein - these are often called silent mutations).

Well, actually I was talking about the change in my pocket at the end of the day. How is it different? I'll have a pocket full of pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters. the exact number and arrangement of them will be random based on whatever purchases were made during the day.Sure it's an anology, and as such, it will always fail at some point. But I was only trying to find something very, very simple that perhaps Golfer might understand. Of course, and a good point. Once Golfer reaches the point where he has some understanding of the Theory of Evolution we can go further.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks, Pink sasquatch!

It's my understanding that most mutations do nothing, and that the bulk of what's left is harmful. Does mitochondria not being subject to selection, then, imply that it's evolution will have a negative correlation with progression?

My intention isn't to be rude, but you need to be more careful with your wording because this is widely open to interpretation. I'll be responding to what I think you meant which is "non-random mutation is not an example of natural selection," but if this isn't what you meant, please explain.My response: If this refers to DNA mutation, then I can't think of any examples of non-random mutation except for the vague possibility of the merging of gametes caused by sexual reproduction. In this case, I would agree because it is the result of natural selection, not the cause of it.If you're referring to the general mutation of a species, which would be more clearly understood as evolution, then again I would agree that evolution is not an example, but the result of natural selection.I only bring this up because it doesn't seem like a claim that anyone would make, or even a misconception that could arise from an attempted understanding of evolution. Still, you asked if he agreed with you, so I must be missing something.

It isn't that mitochondria are particularly exempt from selection it is that some of all DNA strands are not targets for selection and therefore some of the DNA strands making up the mitochondrial genome are also not targets for selection. It isn't the whole mitochondrial genome, just some of it, in the same way it is only part of the nuclear genome.TTFN,WK