Are mutations mistakes?

[JohnR7]

Let me see if I got this right. Are evolutionists saying that it take a series or a succession or at least 2000 mistakes, to change one species into another one? Even though the evidence shows that a species appears so rapidly that they call it an explosion and once a species appears, they tend not to change over time.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Let me see if I got this right. Are evolutionists saying that it take a series or a succession or at least 2000 mistakes, to change one species into another one? Even though the evidence shows that a species appears so rapidly that they call it an explosion and once a species appears, they tend not to change over time.

mutations are mistakes in copying. However, its not like all mutations have an equal chance of surviving in living organisms. The ones that help the organism reproduce will spread, the ones that hinder it wont and the neutral ones will be diluted. Looking at the "initial" organism, you could only roughly predict which mutations were liable to survive, unless you knew all the exact details of the environment.

Youre treating this as if evolutionists are saying "oh, heads has to flip 2000 times in a row". Think of it this way. coins have a 50/50 chance of flipping heads or tails, but suppose coins had a property that they made more coins, each with a slightly different chance of coming up heads or tails (say, one coin might produce another that was 50.2/40.8). Then you took all the coins that flipped heads slightly more often than tails and set them apart and let them produce more coins. And so on and so forth. Eventually you'd consistently get high numbers of heads being flipped each time.

Now imagine that each coin has 100 different properties that can alternate between a number of options.

 

[Clem is Me]

How I understand it.

Mutations occur at some scale, small or large, often. 99% of mutations have no eefect on the animals in question. of the remaining 1% that do effect a very small fraction would be benificial within the context of environmental pressures. So a species might find itself in a grassless environment because of draught or weather changes, and a member with a slightly higher reach, due to some little tweak that caused it to be just a little taller than it's other members, would giev it an advantage in survival. If you look at any given population you will find variations in hieght, weight, stamina et all are very common. So the one member who was made taller by mutation, something that might under normal circumstances not matter that much, becomes the best fed and most healthy of the bunch. And the healthiest member of the opposite sex will be attracted to this one. Chances are the female is also taller and slightly better adapted. These two pass these traits on to one or two of their offspring, which continue the process until the adaptation to the envirnment is adequate for the whole group. At this point nature will not select the taller animals anymore because all the animals are now able to be healthy and reproduce, and the smaller members will not be left out.

Oversimplified, but this is the general idea, I believe.

 

[Clem is Me]

By the way, to adend the above: the same process might be favoring not only the taller, but also the faster and the more cautious and the better hearing and the better balanced - all at once. It's like watching a man hit a baseball: you normally break the effort down into small, singular actions, but there are numerous of these single actions involved in the actual swing. You could focus on eyes, the sense of timing, the instinct, the actual biomechanical muscle behavior, the mental accuity to get the sens of it, but you have to realise that there are more factors than you could comfortably discuss going into the process.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Let me see if I got this right. Are evolutionists saying that it take a series or a succession or at least 2000 mistakes, to change one species into another one? Even though the evidence shows that a species appears so rapidly that they call it an explosion and once a species appears, they tend not to change over time.

1) Where did you get this "2000" number from? There is no set number of mutations it takes to go from species A to species B. It all depends on what the changes are, not how many.

2) What scientists are saying is the appearence of new forms is rapid with respect to geological time. IOW, if you have a scale of millions of years, you might get new forms appearing within tens of thousands of years. Relative to the overall scale, it's "brief".

3) New species can form rapidly, as scientists have documented the emergence of new species in both the lab and nature. You've been here long enough to have seen examples of those.

 

[stray bullet]

Let me see if I got this right. Are evolutionists saying that it take a series or a succession or at least 2000 mistakes, to change one species into another one? Even though the evidence shows that a species appears so rapidly that they call it an explosion and once a species appears, they tend not to change over time.

Mutations aren't always "mistakes", some of them organisms rely on to live.
For example, frameshift mutations are used regularly when expressing genes. These are "mistakes" but they happen when the cell creates conditions which dramatically increase their chances of occuring... this is for protein expression regulation.

Species are 'created' depending on what criteria you use, it isn't a set number of mutations. Speciation in terms of evolution is commonly considered to be a point at which two populations can no longer interbred successfully.

 

[bubba0315]

Mutations aren't always "mistakes", some of them organisms rely on to live.

Speciation in terms of evolution is commonly considered to be a point at which two populations can no longer interbred successfully.

Very true. Most of the time, the mutations will help the species evolve becuase it will give the organism an edge on the others. I've never heard of the 2000 mutation thing, but once you get enough to keep reproducing and prospering, than the inferior species won't be able to reproduce. (or something, I don't pay a whole lot of attention in biology )

 

[mark kennedy]

When has a frameshift mutation every resulted in a dramatic change described here:

favoring not only the taller, but also the faster and the more cautious and the better hearing and the better balanced - all at once. It's like watching a man hit a baseball: you normally break the effort down into small, singular actions, but there are numerous of these single actions involved in the actual swing. You could focus on eyes, the sense of timing, the instinct, the actual biomechanical muscle behavior, the mental accuity to get the sens of it, but you have to realise that there are more factors than you could comfortably discuss going into the process.

 

[Ondoher]

When has a frameshift mutation every resulted in a dramatic change described here:

Well, the Nylon Bug gained its nylon digestion trait due to a frameshift mutation: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

 

[gluadys]

Let me see if I got this right. Are evolutionists saying that it take a series or a succession or at least 2000 mistakes, to change one species into another one? Even though the evidence shows that a species appears so rapidly that they call it an explosion and once a species appears, they tend not to change over time.

In the right circumstances, only one mutation may produce a new species. Case in point: the nylon bug.

A recent study also shows that the evolution of the bat wing may have begun with a single mutation which elongated the fingers.

Even when it does take more than a single mutation, as it usually does, remember that "rapidly" means "rapidly in a geological framework", so that can be 100,000 years. Lot more than a blink of an eye.

 

[william jay schroeder]

How I understand it.

Mutations occur at some scale, small or large, often. 99% of mutations have no eefect on the animals in question. of the remaining 1% that do effect a very small fraction would be benificial within the context of environmental pressures. So a species might find itself in a grassless environment because of draught or weather changes, and a member with a slightly higher reach, due to some little tweak that caused it to be just a little taller than it's other members, would giev it an advantage in survival. If you look at any given population you will find variations in hieght, weight, stamina et all are very common. So the one member who was made taller by mutation, something that might under normal circumstances not matter that much, becomes the best fed and most healthy of the bunch. And the healthiest member of the opposite sex will be attracted to this one. Chances are the female is also taller and slightly better adapted. These two pass these traits on to one or two of their offspring, which continue the process until the adaptation to the envirnment is adequate for the whole group. At this point nature will not select the taller animals anymore because all the animals are now able to be healthy and reproduce, and the smaller members will not be left out.

Oversimplified, but this is the general idea, I believe.

does it only take one gene mutation of one sex to pass it on or do the two together make up the gene nessacary to create the new born. And does every mutant gene get passed on. would the gene that made the neck longer get passed on, only the genes in the reprodution get passed on, so how do they now it got to the reproduction system.

 

[gluadys]

does it only take one gene mutation of one sex to pass it on or do the two together make up the gene nessacary to create the new born.

It can take only one gene mutation in one sex. Unless the mutation occurs in the male Y chromosome, it can be passed to offspring of either sex, so it doesn't matter if it originally occurred in male or female. Mutations on the Y chromosome can only be passed to males.

And does every mutant gene get passed on.

Not necessarily. When eggs and sperm are produced, each carries only one copy of a gene instead of two copies as in ordinary cells. Since many mutations only occur in one copy of a gene, not in both, only 50% of the eggs or sperm produced will carry the mutation. And since only a fairly small fraction of gametes are used in actual reproduction events, it is possible that none of the 50% of them which carry the mutation are used. So the mutation does not get passed on. But there is a 50% chance that it will get passed on.

would the gene that made the neck longer get passed on, only the genes in the reprodution get passed on, so how do they now it got to the reproduction system.

Only mutations that occur in gametes (eggs or sperm) get passed on. Mutations that occur in somatic cells do not get passed on. That is why, if a proto-giraffe lengthens its neck by stretching it regularly, it does not get passed on to the offspring. Only a mutation in the proto-giraffe's germ cells that gives its offspring a longer neck has any evolutionary importance.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let me see if I got this right. Are evolutionists saying that it take a series or a succession or at least 2000 mistakes, to change one species into another one? Even though the evidence shows that a species appears so rapidly that they call it an explosion and once a species appears, they tend not to change over time.

That's right but it is way over 2000.

 

[mark kennedy]

It can take only one gene mutation in one sex. Unless the mutation occurs in the male Y chromosome, it can be passed to offspring of either sex, so it doesn't matter if it originally occurred in male or female. Mutations on the Y chromosome can only be passed to males.

What kind of a mutation are we talking about?

Not necessarily. When eggs and sperm are produced, each carries only one copy of a gene instead of two copies as in ordinary cells. Since many mutations only occur in one copy of a gene, not in both, only 50% of the eggs or sperm produced will carry the mutation. And since only a fairly small fraction of gametes are used in actual reproduction events, it is possible that none of the 50% of them which carry the mutation are used. So the mutation does not get passed on. But there is a 50% chance that it will get passed on.

So where do you get the 50% statistic from?

Only mutations that occur in gametes (eggs or sperm) get passed on. Mutations that occur in somatic cells do not get passed on. That is why, if a proto-giraffe lengthens its neck by stretching it regularly, it does not get passed on to the offspring. Only a mutation in the proto-giraffe's germ cells that gives its offspring a longer neck has any evolutionary importance.

So you admitt that somatic mutations do not get passed on? So how do the proto-giraffe's necks get stretched if they cannont get the revision of the DNA when it is being written?

 

[notto]

So you admitt that somatic mutations do not get passed on? So how do the proto-giraffe's necks get stretched if they cannont get the revision of the DNA when it is being written?

Variation within a population acted on by natural selection.

Ever see the Galapagos tortoises?

 

[gluadys]

What kind of a mutation are we talking about?

Genetic mutations. Any kind from a point mutation to a chromosomal cross-over. Any change in the heritable DNA.

So where do you get the 50% statistic from?

I thought you prided yourself on being a student of Mendel?

In diploid, sexually reproducing organisms, it is necessary to reduce the 2 copies of the genome in each germ cell to one per gamete prior to reproduction. Otherwise each generation would double the number of chromosomes upon fertilization.

Since many mutations occur on one chromosome, but not on its mate, the odds of the mutation occurring in a gamete are 1 in 2 or 50%.

I am very surprised you even had to ask this given your fascination with genetics.

So you admitt that somatic mutations do not get passed on? So how do the proto-giraffe's necks get stretched if they cannont get the revision of the DNA when it is being written?

They cannot get any revision to DNA that occurs in somatic cells. Only if a mutation writes a revision in the germ cell can it become part of the genome of the next generation.

That is why we stress that individuals do not evolve. Species evolve.
The mutation must occur in the germ cell of the parent, but it only gets expressed in the phenotype of the child (or grand-child or great-grand-child when the mutation is not expressed in the first generation.)

 

[mark kennedy]

Variation within a population acted on by natural selection.

Ever see the Galapagos tortoises?

That is not mutation, that is based an allready existing genetic code.

 

[notto]

That is not mutation, that is based an allready existing genetic code.

You asked about giraffes necks. I answered with a mechanism. I didn't say anything about mutation. If a mutation caused the longer necks, it could be passed to the population through this mechanism as well. It doesn't matter if the trait is caused by mutation or combination.

 

[mark kennedy]

Genetic mutations. Any kind from a point mutation to a chromosomal cross-over. Any change in the heritable DNA.

Then we are not talking about a mutation were are talking about a variation.

I thought you prided yourself on being a student of Mendel?

You know me so well it is scary.

In diploid, sexually reproducing organisms, it is necessary to reduce the 2 copies of the genome in each germ cell to one per gamete prior to reproduction. Otherwise each generation would double the number of chromosomes upon fertilization.

I don't have the time to look this up but I am wondering what this has to do with mutations.

Since many mutations occur on one chromosome, but not on its mate, the odds of the mutation occurring in a gamete are 1 in 2 or 50%.

Do you want to cite a source or should I take you're word for it?

I am very surprised you even had to ask this given your fascination with genetics.

You are very kind...

They cannot get any revision to DNA that occurs in somatic cells. Only if a mutation writes a revision in the germ cell can it become part of the genome of the next generation.

Deletion, insertion or what?

That is why we stress that individuals do not evolve. Species evolve.
The mutation must occur in the germ cell of the parent, but it only gets expressed in the phenotype of the child (or grand-child or great-grand-child when the mutation is not expressed in the first generation.)

Individules must evolve or the mutations that are given so much credit are nothing. I am still waiting for someone to tell me how they are acumulated since natural selction eliminates them.

 

[notto]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how they are acumulated since natural selction eliminates them.

Except of course in nylon eating bacteria.