Mutations and Evolution

[Archivist]

No, you cannot. For all you know, John lives on a space station and all fruit must be flown up there at great expense.

Incorrect, because if John is on the International Space Station (there currently are no other space stations) then the government (US, Russian, or whatever country has sent him there) would be paying for the fruit, not him. If he was a visitor the cost of the fruit would be included in $20-$40 (or more) million fee that was paid to access the space station; he would not be paying for individual pieces of fruit.

 

[Loudmouth]

How would Ka/Ks ratios change (or not change) if natural selection were false?

We would expect to see non-synonymous mutations (Ka) to accumulate at the rate that they occur. What we predict with natural selection is that some of those changes in amino acid sequence will lower fitness and be selected against which results in fewer non-synonymous mutations in functional sequence than would be expected from the mutation rate alone.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the one making the positive claim that science is valid and leads to valuable discoveries.

The claim under investigation in this thread is how mutations relate to evolution within the scientific method. The scientific method itself is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Zosimus]

We would expect to see non-synonymous mutations (Ka) to accumulate at the rate that they occur. What we predict with natural selection is that some of those changes in amino acid sequence will lower fitness and be selected against which results in fewer non-synonymous mutations in functional sequence than would be expected from the mutation rate alone.

In other words, you expect that certain mutations, which cannot be predicted in advance, will be selected against.

That's what we call "no predictive power."

 

[Zosimus]

The claim under investigation in this thread is how mutations relate to evolution within the scientific method. The scientific method itself is not the topic of this thread.

Oh is that all.

Mutations occur. When they occur, the frequency of alleles changes. Since the frequency of alleles is the very definition of evolution, evolution occurs.

QED. Close the thread.

 

[sfs]

Whereas natural selection predicts that the fittest will survive. We will know which organisms were "fittest" once they have survived and bred. What a remarkable predictive power we find in this tautology...

We predict that selected alleles will lie (on average) lie on long, unbroken haplotypes. We predict that they will lie in genomic regions with unusually large numbers of high frequency derived alleles.

 

[Loudmouth]

In other words, you expect that certain mutations, which cannot be predicted in advance, will be selected against.

That's what we call "no predictive power."

We can predict that certain mutations will be selected against, especially those that cause lethal genetic diseases. That is what every sane person calls "predictive power".

 

[justlookinla]

We can predict that certain mutations will be selected against, especially those that cause lethal genetic diseases. That is what every sane person calls "predictive power".

Has nothing to do with the worldview that all life we observe today is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[Zosimus]

We can predict that certain mutations will be selected against, especially those that cause lethal genetic diseases. That is what every sane person calls "predictive power".

We can predict that certain mutations will be selected against, especially those that cause lethal genetic diseases. That is what every sane person calls "predictive power".

Whereas without the concept of natural selection most people would assume that people with lethal genetic diseases are likely to thrive and have lots of babies. Is that the argument?

 

[Loudmouth]

Whereas without the concept of natural selection most people would assume that people with lethal genetic diseases are likely to thrive and have lots of babies. Is that the argument?

Without the concept of the scientific method, why would anyone think that DNA sequences are responsible for phenotype?

 

[Zosimus]

Without the concept of the scientific method, why would anyone think that DNA sequences are responsible for phenotype?

Loudmouth, lethal genetic diseases are lethal. This is an analytic truth. It is true by definition. It has nothing to do with DNA sequences, the scientific method, or phenotypes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, lethal genetic diseases are lethal. This is an analytic truth. It is true by definition. It has nothing to do with DNA sequences, the scientific method, or phenotypes.

Lethal GENETIC MUTATIONS have nothing to do with DNA? Seriously?

 

[Zosimus]

Lethal GENETIC MUTATIONS have nothing to do with DNA? Seriously?

Can you read? Did I not say: lethal genetic DISEASES are lethal? Did I say lethal genetic MUTATIONS? No, I did not.

Learn to read.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you read? Did I not say: lethal genetic DISEASES are lethal? Did I say lethal genetic MUTATIONS? No, I did not.

Learn to read.

What are genetic diseases caused by? MUTATIONS!!!

 

[Zosimus]

What are genetic diseases caused by? MUTATIONS!!!

No, many genetic diseases are caused when two people both of whom have a recessive gene for one of these diseases have a baby. There is a 25 percent chance that any given child will suffer from the disease in question.

Additionally, even if the disease were caused by a mutation, that does not change the simple fact that lethal diseases are lethal by definition. That simple definition has nothing to do with phenotypes or DNA.

 

[[serious]]

In other words, you expect that certain mutations, which cannot be predicted in advance, will be selected against.

That's what we call "no predictive power."

chromosome nondisjunction is a predictable mutation which, in humans, is strongly selected against. The odds of any such altered karyotype reaching fixation is ~0. Would you like more predictable mutations which can be likewise determined to be selected against?

 

[Zosimus]

chromosome nondisjunction is a predictable mutation which, in humans, is strongly selected against. The odds of any such altered karyotype reaching fixation is ~0. Would you like more predictable mutations which can be likewise determined to be selected against?

Begging the question.

Chromosome nondisjunction is strongly selected against in humans. How do you know this? Let me guess... scientists had no idea that this might happen, but after the fact they noticed that it seemed to have been selected against and thus have developed this maxim after the fact.

This is what you call "predictive power" I suppose.

 

[[serious]]

Begging the question.

Chromosome nondisjunction is strongly selected against in humans. How do you know this? Let me guess... scientists had no idea that this might happen, but after the fact they noticed that it seemed to have been selected against and thus have developed this maxim after the fact.

This is what you call "predictive power" I suppose.

Actually, it's closer to:
Scientists had seen nondisjunction in other species along with nondisjunction of certain chromosomes in humans. Scientists predicted that such nondisjunctions should also occur in other chromosomes to highly lethal effect. Eventually, we were able to study such things closely enough that we discovered that nondisjunction did occur with other chromosomes and was as lethal as predicted.

That is, in fact, what I call predictive power.

 

[Zosimus]

Actually, it's closer to:
Scientists had seen nondisjunction in other species along with nondisjunction of certain chromosomes in humans. Scientists predicted that such nondisjunctions should also occur in other chromosomes to highly lethal effect. Eventually, we were able to study such things closely enough that we discovered that nondisjunction did occur with other chromosomes and was as lethal as predicted.

That is, in fact, what I call predictive power.

All right. Since you think that natural selection has predictive power, I offer you this simple opportunity to make a prediction.

A certain island contains only finches. As an experiment, we propose to release a breeding pair of domestic housecats on the island. Which of the following will happen?

A) The finches will all be killed.
B) The finches will move to another island.
C) Fewer finches will live on the island as some are eaten by cats, but no phenotypic change will be noted.
D) Finches with certain traits (which?) will survive, and those traits will become more prevalent.
E) The cats will fail to find enough food and die.

This ought to be good...

 

[Loudmouth]

No, many genetic diseases are caused when two people both of whom have a recessive gene for one of these diseases have a baby.

Those recessive genes were produced by mutations. We also have examples of children born with genetic diseases when neither parent carries the disease allele.

"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."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497628

These are dominant alleles that only take one copy in order to produce the disease, and they include such diseases as achondroplasia and hemophilia.

Also, these diseases are directly linked to DNA sequence, contrary to your claims.

Additionally, even if the disease were caused by a mutation, that does not change the simple fact that lethal diseases are lethal by definition. That simple definition has nothing to do with phenotypes or DNA.

DNA has nothing to do with the phenotype of a lethal genetic disease?