DNA: Mutations, Versatility and Probability

[stevevw]

Bacteria and humans have very different selective constraints on their genomes.

Humans may be even more vulnerable to harmful mutations. When it comes to complex creatures they are more susceptible to harmful mutations and therefore that is why 99% of species have become extinct. According to the paper below compared to prokaryotes like bacteria complex life (eukaryotes) have increased deleterious mutations.

Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full#ref-13

Not clear why you quoted this, since it doesn't address the question.

This is to do with how humans are more susceptible to collecting harmful mutations and their genomes are degrading therefore supporting genetic entropy. I also states that mutations are predominately deleterious dispite them being the fuel for phentypic evolution.

Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles, a matter of concern from a human-health perspective.
Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%.
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation

Sanford has never demonstrated any competence in population or evolutionary genetics. I meant scientists in the field, not creationists. (And no, inventing a gene gun does not imply competence in population genetics.)

I do not think it is fair to dismiss what he says because he is a creationists. He also happens to be a plant geneticist and ironically Dawin was not a geneticists which is more related to the study of mutation but a Botanists which is related to plants. Mendal the father of genetics made his dicoveries through the study of plants which is related more to what Sanford does as a plant geneticists. So, I think he is well qualified at least as far as the two major men who influence Neo Dawinism is concerned. But it is funny how this same scrutiny is not applied to anyone who supports Neo-Darwinism.

Even so luckily there are other experts in the field who support Dr Sanford who are not religious such as Michael Lynch who is a population geneticist for which I cited a couple of his papers above. But also other experts such as Hermann Joseph Muller who the term Mullers ratchet is named after. Mullers ratchet predicts that the genome deteriorates irreversibly, leaving populations on a one-way street to extinction. Others such as

Crow J. F., 1970. Genetic loads and the cost of natural selection, pp. 128–177 Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics, edited by Kojima K., editor. Springer-Verlag, New York

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over?
Alexey S. Kondrashov
Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? - PubMed - NCBI

Populations survive despite many deleterious mutations: Evolutionary model of Muller's ratchet explored
This article also states that most mutations including mammals are deleterious.
From protozoans to mammals, evolution has created more and more complex structures and better-adapted organisms. This is all the more astonishing as most genetic mutations are deleterious.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120810083613.htm

Plus others including Neal, Nachman/Crowell, Walker/Keightley, Howell, Loewe and

Dr. Tomoko Ohta who was a student and co-author of Motoo Kimura who is known for Kimura's curve where he states most mutations have a near-neutral effect, and are furthermore slightly deleterious. Dr. Tomoko Ohta is known as the ‘Queen of Population Genetics’. She viewed Sanford’s work and agreed he was correct as far as the genome deteriorating and therefore supporting genetic entropy.

Yeah, I know. I spent years working in human genetics. Again, it does not address the actual claim you made.

But it seems to be increasing fast and shows that the genome is deteriorating. I addressed the claim in the last post with what Stanford had said. But I think even in what Kimura says about near neutral mutations being slightly deleterious shows that it cuts a fine line between what is classed as neutral and what is slightly deleterious so there can be some debate about what represents a truly neutral mutational affect. It makes sense that any change to what is already working fine when replaced by something different is going to affect the surrounding area and is not going to be optimal. Otherwise why does the genome try to protect its current status by repairing any change. Repair indicates some damage being done.

 

[stevevw]

There are no examples of a mutation changing the species. The person or animal who becomes an albino because of a mutation remains the exact same species as its parents and its offspring will also be the exact same species as its parents. All mutation only affect the characteristics of the species.

Mutations have no final evolutionary effect---Pierre Paul Grasse(A French zoologists),

This is something I am not sure about. I only know of mutations or some other mechanism that can change the current features of an organism or creature. It seems there are limits to those changes at least as far as a random and blind process is concerned but because we have not or cannot do tests to test those limits it is hard to say, otherwise we are assuming or speculating what can happen. This relates back to how life formed and developed from the beginning. There is evidence that complex life was around very early and perhaps too early for Neo-Darwinism to occur so perhaps there was either a set of prototype creatures that all life has evolved from that we see today or life has some sort of mechanism that allows it to evolve from a common ancestor. But I do not think Neo-Darwinism is the mechanism and there are other processes such as in development in switching on and off genes because of environmental pressures which can activate the process and/or with living things working with other living things and their environment to gain genetic material needed.

 

[omega2xx]

This is something I am not sure about. I only know of mutations or some other mechanism that can change the current features of an organism or creature.

Right. Mutation can only altar, features., not species , and the change may not be passed on to its offspring.

It seems there are limits to those changes at least as far as a random and blind process is concerned but because we have not or cannot do tests to test those limits it is hard to say, otherwise we are assuming or speculating what can happen. This relates back to how life formed and developed from the beginning.

The TOE is the poster child for speculation. Nothing it says has ever been proved.

There is evidence that complex life was around very early and perhaps too early for Neo-Darwinism to occur so perhaps there was either a set of prototype creatures that all life has evolved from that we see today or life has some sort of mechanism that allows it to evolve from a common ancestor.

It is genetically impossible for all the variety of life we see, plant and animal life, to have originated from a common ancestsor.

But I do not think Neo-Darwinism is the mechanism and there are other processes such as in development in switching on and off genes because of environmental pressures which can activate the process and/or with living things working with other living things and their environment to gain genetic material needed.

The environment can't switch genes off or on. The kids only get what the parents have genes for. Then they adapt to then environment, migrated to a more suitable environment or become extinct.

 

[omega2xx]

So God made these meanders, then just put a river into them. Even though rivers naturally meander and erode/create meanders...this one in particular, God made without the river, then put the river into it...

When you have a better explanation or have evidence the river caused the Grand Canyon, I will be glad to consider it.

You have yet to explain why other, stronger rivers have not created canyons.

 

[Job 33:6]

When you have a better explanation or have evidence the river caused the Grand Canyon, I will be glad to consider it.

You have yet to explain why other, stronger rivers have not created canyons.

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon) = description with diagrams

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon) = The PA grand canyon

It is a combination of factors. The presence of a stream that meanders (to make the meanders), and uplifted land beneath that river, for the river to cut through. Rivers cut down until they reach groundwater. So if you lift your land, higher in elevation, the river will cut deeper to reach groundwater.

It is at groundwater, that streams reach an equilibrium, and the water that fuels them, spreads into the underlying aquifer, rather than further cutting down.

Most landscapes do not have both features. Like louisianna and mississippi. These states have a big river, but they are low in elevation (sometimes below sea level like new orleans, hence why they flood so horribly when hurricanes come through). Other areas are high in elevation, like say, the shanendoah mountains of virginia. But These mountains do not have hefty rivers flowing through them to create the meanders (though they do have small springs which do create small gorges and canyons).

I gave the example of the pennsylvania grand canyon as an alternative area in which there has been uplift (acadian, taconic and allegheny orogenesis), that also has a stream meandering through the region, in which a sizable canyon has been made (though it is smaller than the grand canyon). The pennsylvania grand canyon sits at a relatively high elevation, and has a sizable river flowing through it.

As we know, there are mountains/uplift and rivers on the east side of the US (Taconic, Acadian, and Allegheny orogenesis) and the west side (Laramide orogenesis) as well, but not so much in the middle. So we have canyons on the east side and west side, but not so much in the middle.

@RocksInMyHead
Would you like to add to this?

 

[Job 33:6]

For anyone who is truly interested in the Earth, whether a believer or non believe, young earth believer or old earth believer, if you truly appreciate the earth and the study of it, I would definitely recommend reading my old earth geology part 2 post (see below).

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon)

Regardless of what you believe, if you really take time to sit and read the discussion held in there between mindlight and I, and you take time to really sponge it up and understand the thought in that discussion, you will walk out with some valuable information.

And thats why geologists are geologists, because we can nerd-out over rocks, irrespective of our faith or beliefs. Atheist and theist geologists can always nerd-out together, over appreciation and interest of the earth. And thats what its all about...and it pays the bills.

 

[omega2xx]

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon) = description with diagrams

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon) = The PA grand canyon

It is a combination of factors. The presence of a stream that meanders (to make the meanders), and uplifted land beneath that river, for the river to cut through. Rivers cut down until they reach groundwater. So if you lift your land, higher in elevation, the river will cut deeper to reach groundwater.

It is at groundwater, that streams reach an equilibrium, and the water that fuels them, spreads into the underlying aquifer, rather than further cutting down.

Most landscapes do not have both features. Like louisianna and mississippi. These states have a big river, but they are low in elevation (sometimes below sea level like new orleans, hence why they flood so horribly when hurricanes come through). Other areas are high in elevation, like say, the shanendoah mountains of virginia. But These mountains do not have hefty rivers flowing through them to create the meanders (though they do have small springs which do create small gorges and canyons).

I gave the example of the pennsylvania grand canyon as an alternative area in which there has been uplift (acadian, taconic and allegheny orogenesis), that also has a stream meandering through the region, in which a sizable canyon has been made (though it is smaller than the grand canyon). The pennsylvania grand canyon sits at a relatively high elevation, and has a sizable river flowing through it.

As we know, there are mountains/uplift and rivers on the east side of the US (Taconic, Acadian, and Allegheny orogenesis) and the west side (Laramide orogenesis) as well, but not so much in the middle. So we have canyons on the east side and west side, but not so much in the middle.

@RocksInMyHead
Would you like to add to this?

No. Rhetoric is not evidence.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. Rhetoric is not evidence.

Is that all you can say?

 

[omega2xx]

Is that all you can say?

I have said plenty. Can you provided something otgher than rhetoric?

 

[Buzzard3]

No, it really does show that we're related. Have you ever compared the DNA of two species? The differences form really interesting patterns. If you look at specific kinds of differences, you'll find that they look exactly like mutations. That is, differences that would be caused by common mutations occur frequently, while differences that would be caused by rare mutations occur rarely. The obvious explanation for this is that the differences really were caused by mutations -- that the two species are related by descent from a common ancestor.

Do you have a better explanation?

Could God have directed the history of evolution using mutations?

 

[sfs]

Could God have directed the history of evolution using mutations?

Sure.

 

[Buzzard3]

Deleted

 

[Job 33:6]

In that case, I think I've just become a theistic evolutionist. I can view evolutionary history as God's creative process and genetic mutations as the engine that drives that process ... without forsaking a literal Adam and Eve, the Fall, salvation through Jesus Christ, and my faith. That represents somewhat of an epiphany ... my understanding has radically changed in a few short hours. Thank you for your help, Stephen.

I would recommend becoming acquainted with the biologos foundation, their website and podcast.

And welcome!

 

[Buzzard3]

I would recommend becoming acquainted with the biologos foundation, their website and podcast.

And welcome!

Yes and thank you. I am aware of the Biologos site.

 

[coffee4u]

Wolves apparently developed into dogs over time (BTW are creationists in agreement with this?)

We believe God created kinds. So dogs would have come from an original dog kind. Meaning the original kinds carried a lot of potential for diversity.
Being able to reproduce together is one sign that animals were part of the same kind. For example the dingo can reproduce with domesticated and feral dogs.
But due to loss of DNA and mutations the ability for descendants of the kind to reproduce becomes lost. We view things as starting at perfection and then changing with the fall and then running down and and splintering off into smaller and smaller groups.
We don't believe things adapt as such but rather those already suited to the environment flourish and those who don't either die off or move away.

 

[Job 33:6]

We believe God created kinds. So dogs would have come from an original dog kind. Meaning the original kinds carried a lot of potential for diversity.
Being able to reproduce together is one sign that animals were part of the same kind. For example the dingo can reproduce with domesticated and feral dogs.
But due to loss of DNA and mutations the ability for descendants of the kind to reproduce becomes lost. We view things as starting at perfection and then changing with the fall and then running down and and splintering off into smaller and smaller groups.
We don't believe things adapt as such but rather those already suited to the environment flourish and those who don't either die off or move away.

What's interesting is that, if dogs and wolves are of the same kind, dogs have mutations and DNA that wolves never had, and yet to YECs this would be considered a "loss of DNA". Yet the dog "kind" literally has more DNA as dogs mutate and introduce more and more DNA variation to their "kind". There is more variation and more quantity of DNA over time.

Also, the phrase was used "smaller and smaller groups" and yet, there are far more dogs in the world than there are wolves, and so their group is getting bigger not only genomically but quantitatively too.

 

[coffee4u]

What's interesting is that, if dogs and wolves are of the same kind, dogs have mutations and DNA that wolves never had, and yet to YECs this would be considered a "loss of DNA". Yet the dog "kind" literally has more DNA as dogs mutate and introduce more and more DNA variation to their "kind". There is more variation and more quantity of DNA over time.

Also, the phrase was used "smaller and smaller groups" and yet, there are far more dogs in the world than there are wolves, and so their group is getting bigger not only genomically but quantitatively too.

You realize that I have you on ignore so I will not see 99% of anything of mine you reply to. I looked since you posted directly after me.

We don't know beyond educated guesses what the kinds were. I am sure some might say they do, but since this was from before the fall and nobody has ever seen what that looked like (except for Adam and Eve) to say we know exactly what the kinds were is a huge assumption. Wolves and dogs can breed together therefore they are from the same kind.
Mutations mean more mistakes, more break down. Mutations don't add new and improved features.

Okay now I will stop bothering to check your posts -unless you have actually decided to post like a gentleman? I'm old enough to be your mother so either be polite or back on ignore you go.

 

[Buzzard3]

What's interesting is that, if dogs and wolves are of the same kind, dogs have mutations and DNA that wolves never had, and yet to YECs this would be considered a "loss of DNA". Yet the dog "kind" literally has more DNA as dogs mutate and introduce more and more DNA variation to their "kind". There is more variation and more quantity of DNA over time.

Also, the phrase was used "smaller and smaller groups" and yet, there are far more dogs in the world than there are wolves, and so their group is getting bigger not only genomically but quantitatively too.

It's folly to read Genesis as if it's scientifically factual. The more science reveals, the more apparent it becomes that the Genesis creation account is telling a theological story and not a scientific one.

 

[coffee4u]

It's folly to read Genesis as if it's scientifically factual. The more science reveals, the more apparent it becomes that the Genesis creation account is telling a theological story and not a scientific one.

It's folly to take what infallible fallen man says and claim it to be truth when God says otherwise.

 

[sfs]

Mutations mean more mistakes, more break down.

Mutations mean change. That's all. If a mutation means only damage, what happens when a subsequent mutation restores the original DNA?

Mutations don't add new and improved features.

Well, the reality is that they can and do.