How many mutations to get Y from X?

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,256.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Populations change because of built in mechanisms, not because of some non existent selection process.
Is there any evidence for this?

And why are the patterns observably caused by ancestry in living families also present in separate species?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why would the creator of everything be constrained by anything?
You should be asking yourself that, seeing as you and your kind continually constrain Yahweh to act in ways only in line with what humans can do.

@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Selection by what? The only selection is if one happened to survive while another doesn't.
Like Macroevolution, 'selection' is not an act, but a process.

You'd think people arguing against something might actually take the time to understand that something.

@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't make any sense.
Right - but apparently making claims just to try to save face does?

@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ok, then, it must be a big secret. More likely your reasoning is skewed.
Speaking of big secrets:


@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.

So far it is just nothing. Par for the creationist course.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Common design just means that a designer would be likely to use some of the same features in different species.
Because, you know, that is what us humans do. Constrained, as we are, by our limited abilities, intellects, and experiences. Just like your Deity, apparently. Not so omnipotent, I guess.
How you get that the designer is subject to his design? Like I said, skewed reasoning, and a tiny view of the Creator.

So tiny:

@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
So tiny that the Creator (for which no evidence is ever presented) cannot even influence His followers to be honest or have integrity.

Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Um no. Because the designer isn't constrained by anything.
So why the re-use of old parts and old designs? Lack of imagination? Humans always make their gods in their own images.
The similarities don't necessarily mean common descent, BTW. That's just your interpretation.
OK, cool - interpret this:




I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice


WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny


DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies


DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo


"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
Right after you address this:


@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.

As is the creationist way - make claims that sounded good initially, then run away when asked to explain.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Populations change because of built in mechanisms, not because of some non existent selection process.

Natural selection is an observable, measurable phenomenon. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, that's your prerogative. But it's akin to denying the existence of gravity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because, you know, that is what us humans do. Constrained, as we are, by our limited abilities, intellects, and experiences. Just like your Deity, apparently. Not so omnipotent, I guess.
Still not making sense. Because God didn't create glow in the dark bunnies he obviously isn't omnipotent? That's your argument. Pretty lame. As if if the vast diversity of life we see wasn't creative enough.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Natural selection is an observable, measurable phenomenon. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, that's your prerogative. But it's akin to denying the existence of gravity.
Yeah, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

"Natural selection is the mechanism which increases the probability of advantageous traits in the coming generations. Adaptation is the characteristics to change according to the environment."

What is the mechanism? It's actually adaptation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
What is the mechanism? It's actually adaptation.
The mechanisms are random variation and selection - where selection is simply the greater success of certain variations, i.e. the variations that happen to be better adapted. IOW adaptation is the result of variation and selection.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

"Natural selection is the mechanism which increases the probability of advantageous traits in the coming generations. Adaptation is the characteristics to change according to the environment."

What is the mechanism? It's actually adaptation.

Adaptation isn't a mechanism in this context. Rather, it's the outcome of the mechanisms of reproduction, variation and selection.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Still not making sense. Because God didn't create glow in the dark bunnies he obviously isn't omnipotent? That's your argument. Pretty lame. As if if the vast diversity of life we see wasn't creative enough.
Still waiting for your evidence/support for these assertions:


@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.

As is the creationist way - make claims that they believed sounded good initially, then run away when asked to explain.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The mechanisms are random variation and selection - where selection is simply the greater success of certain variations, i.e. the variations that happen to be better adapted. IOW adaptation is the result of variation and selection.
What is selecting? The environment. How? Through adaptation, that is DNA change that is already programmed into a kind of animal. Why do some fox feet fur out and some don't?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
What is selecting? The environment. How? Through adaptation, that is DNA change that is already programmed into a kind of animal. Why do some fox feet fur out and some don't?
IOC - I think there may a semantic confusion here. A particular variation (e.g. mutation) is adaptive or otherwise in the light of the advantage or otherwise that it provides under selection. IOW, it is selection that determines what is adaptive. Selection pressures vary over time, so variations can only be judged adaptive as a result of selection - they may become adaptive after a period of relative neutrality as the environment changes, or they may stop being adaptive.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lol, what is selecting?
Looks like a certain someone is selecting what to ignore to avoid crashing and burning...

Still waiting for your evidence/support for these assertions:


@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...​
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Looks like a certain someone is selecting what to ignore to avoid crashing and burning...

Still waiting for your evidence/support for these assertions:


@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...​
Perhaps you just don't understand what I said?

About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, so those mutations have no effect. So, we have 10% functional DNA.
Mutations in this 10 percent can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful.
Probably less than half of the mutations to this 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. Source:" Remine, The Biotic Message"
This is actually an oversimplification but a widely used one.
 
Upvote 0