Beneficial Mutations

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think your 'C' just mutated.
OB

Hybrid vigour

 

[Occams Barber]

Hybrid vigour

If I were you I'd keep a close eye on this breeding program.

One more step:

C > O > Q

and you can probably claim credit for a new species.
OB

 

[Brightmoon]

Lol! . I c& p something by accident and I can’t erase it completely

 

[xianghua]

It has been shown experimentally that modification of 5 regulatory modules in the genome of alligator embryos will turn scales into feathers.

the question is how many mutations we need for that conversion. we know that even homologous proteins are different by 60-70% of their sequence. so if we are talking about 5 proteins we are dealing with about 300-400 amino acid changes. thats a lot.

 

[Tanj]

Frequency meaning the quantity of people they are found in?

Right, but see sfs' caveats.

And also, is it fair to say that all polymorphic populations are the product of polymorphisms?

Umm..sort of... As I understand it "polymorphic populations" is usually applied to particular animal/plant ecologies in which different subspecies/races exist in admixed populations, which is not quite the same thing.

Even that distinction is often ignored -- it's not uncommon to see phrases like "rare single-nucleotide polymorphisms' in the literature. (And yes, 'frequency' refers to how many copies there are in the population.) I've argued against maintaining the distinction, since the threshold is arbitrary and the classification is necessarily population-specific.

Sure.

ETA: There was one paper I was an author on that was using 'SNP' (= single nucleotide polymorphism) not only regardless of frequency, but regardless of whether the variant was single-nucleotide or not. That one drove me batty.

Sounds like it needed a bit more authorin' from you.

 

[Tanj]

I can see how mutations give rise to physical changes, like scales to feathers. But how do mutations give rise to cognitive systems like flight?

A genome is best viewed as a recipe rather than a blue print.

 

[sfs]

Sounds like it needed a bit more authorin' from you.

I just looked back at the paper. I was misremembering: we called them single nucleotide variants, not polymorphisms. But yes, we explicitly included small insertions and deletions under that name. I still don't approve.

 

[Sanoy]

A genome is best viewed as a recipe rather than a blue print.

Is the distinction that a blue print is always the same, but a recipe depends on the cook, and is different every time?

 

[Tanj]

Is the distinction that a blue print is always the same, but a recipe depends on the cook, and is different every time?

Partly, but also that the relationship between a blue print, the input and output is so well defined that you can reverse engineer the inputs from the outputs, for instance, and precisely determine the location of each input in the output.

You cannot accurately determine the inputs to any cooking product that is even moderately complex, and you cannot determine the effect of changing the input levels

I know where every bolt is that goes into a sky scraper. I have no precise idea where the eggs are or raisins will be in a cake.

 

[Job 33:6]

So I have another question about this topic of "specificity" in genes. I want to see what people think.

So, in the lenski experiments regarding e.coli. Ive heard some Creationists suggest that an observed mutation involved the removal of a part of a system, or the turning off of some kind of "operon" that was otherwise used for metabolism of ribose.

The purpose of the statement being that the population "lost" something, which allowed them to then grow faster.

So, I invision this biological system, almost like a 4 sided square. Where a population "loses" a side, and becomes a three sided square (which is no longer a square at all).

So my question is, does my analogy using a square accurately represent what actually occurred with respect to one of the mutations observed in the lenski experiments?

And beyond that, are there ever examples of mutations that result in the production of proteins with a greater quantity of pieces, or in which produced proteins gain volume, as a product of mutations?

Not sure if any of the above makes sense. @sfs @Tanj @FrumiousBandersnatch

 

[Job 33:6]

So I have another question about this topic of "specificity" in genes. I want to see what people think.

So, in the lenski experiments regarding e.coli. Ive heard some Creationists suggest that an observed mutation involved the removal of a part of a system, or the turning off of some kind of "operon" that was otherwise used for metabolism of ribose.

The purpose of the statement being that the population "lost" something, which allowed them to then grow faster.

So, I invision this biological system, almost like a 4 sided square. Where a population "loses" a side, and becomes a three sided square (which is no longer a square at all).

So my question is, does my analogy using a square accurately represent what actually occurred with respect to one of the mutations observed in the lenski experiments?

And beyond that, are there ever examples of mutations that result in the production of proteins with a greater quantity of pieces, or in which produced proteins gain volume, as a product of mutations?

Not sure if any of the above makes sense. @sfs @Tanj @FrumiousBandersnatch

And maybe this is a stupid question because I would think that the obvious answer is yes, mutations occur which do result in the production of proteins that vary and shape.

I think Im just trying to understand the Creationists claim.

And maybe they're trying to say that originally there was X system which consisted of Y number of parts. Then if the mutation lessened that number of parts, then perhaps the evolution occurred at a net loss of functionality.

And yet, the lenski experiments describe some 50-100 beneficial mutations per population in several populations. So what about the other 500 beneficial mutations?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And maybe they're trying to say that originally there was X system which consisted of Y number of parts. Then if the mutation lessened that number of parts, then perhaps the evolution occurred at a net loss of functionality.

One has to be careful not to equivocate the various meanings of 'functionality'. This was an issue in the row over the definition of 'junk DNA' a while ago.

There is the 'functionality' where a protein plays a beneficial role in cell metabolism; there's 'functionality' where the protein has some chemical activity but plays no significant role in cell metabolism, and there's 'functionality' where the protein has a deleterious effect on cell metabolism.

Mutations can change the protein shape so its functionality changes from one of the above forms to another; they can stop a protein being produced altogether; they can change the amount of protein produced, which may be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral; and so-on. In general, it's best to explicitly qualify the meaning of 'functionality' in a given context.

It would be naive to suggest that the effects of one particular mutation say anything about mutations or evolution in general - if that's what was suggested.

 

[Kylie]

The vast majority of mutations are destructive. Very few, if any, have any benefit to an organism. I suggest Professor James Tour can enlighten you much more effectively than I can. He has a number of youtube presentations.

You mean the guy who has no qualifications in fields relevant to evolution?

 

[Aussie Pete]

You mean the guy who has no qualifications in fields relevant to evolution?

Tour has over 715 research publications and over 140 patent families, with an h-index = 150 with total citations of >107,000. Tour became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020 and in the same year was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology. Based on the impact of his published work, in 2019 Tour was ranked in the top 0.004% of the 7 million scientists who have published at least 5 papers in their careers. He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2019; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.

How does your CV compare?

 

[Occams Barber]

Tour has over 715 research publications and over 140 patent families, with an h-index = 150 with total citations of >107,000. Tour became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020 and in the same year was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology. Based on the impact of his published work, in 2019 Tour was ranked in the top 0.004% of the 7 million scientists who have published at least 5 papers in their careers. He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2019; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.

How does your CV compare?

James M. Tour is an American chemist and nanotechnologist. He is a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas. Wikipedia

He is known for his work in Molecular electronics, nanotechnology and carbon materials.

He is not a biologist nor does he work in fields related to biology.
OB

 

[Aussie Pete]

James M. Tour is an American chemist and nanotechnologist. He is a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas. Wikipedia

He is known for his work in Molecular electronics, nanotechnology and carbon materials.

He is not a biologist nor does he work in fields related to biology.
OB

So what? When he applies his considerable intellect to OOL (which he is highly qualified to discuss) and evolution, he is well able to understand the principles involved and the flaws in evolutionary theory. When you break it down, every living being is a cocktail of chemicals, mostly water.

 

[pitabread]

So what?

So it's like asking a plumber for advice on electrical wiring.

When you want an expert in a particular field, you go to experts in that particular field. Not a difficult concept.

When he applies his considerable intellect to OOL (which he is highly qualified to discuss) and evolution, he is well able to understand the principles involved and the flaws in evolutionary theory.

What research has Tour performed in the origin-of-life and/or evolutionary biology fields?

When you break it down, every living being is a cocktail of chemicals, mostly water.

You break it down further, every living being is a collection of atoms. Does that make physicists qualified to talk about biology?

 

[Shemjaza]

So what? When he applies his considerable intellect to OOL (which he is highly qualified to discuss) and evolution, he is well able to understand the principles involved and the flaws in evolutionary theory. When you break it down, every living being is a cocktail of chemicals, mostly water.

When I want someone to work on my bike, I totally would rather a published metallurgist than a mechanic... they know heaps more about metal.

</ sarcasm >

 

[Kylie]

Tour has over 715 research publications and over 140 patent families, with an h-index = 150 with total citations of >107,000. Tour became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020 and in the same year was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology. Based on the impact of his published work, in 2019 Tour was ranked in the top 0.004% of the 7 million scientists who have published at least 5 papers in their careers. He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2019; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.

How does your CV compare?

So what? All that means nothing if he is not skilled in a relevant field.

 

[Aussie Pete]

So what? All that means nothing if he is not skilled in a relevant field.

What makes you think that he is not? How many fields was Leonardo da Vinci skilled in? Benjamin Franklin? This idea that an individual has to specialise to know anything is a modern construct that is false. David Berlinski also rips evolutionary theory to shreds. He's not a biologist. There are other scientists who put their minds to examining evolution. A gentleman who calls himself Do-while Jones (real name David R Pogge) is an ADA programmer and spent many years working with the US defence forces. He is responsible for the effectiveness of the AIM-9 air to air missile, having solved the problems that made it near useless in combat. He is also an expert in closed loop systems such as temperature control. He explains why the idea that a reptile could evolve into a mammal is preposterous. I have some knowledge of closed loop temperature control, and I have to agree. I don't need to be a biologist in order to see how implausible it is.