Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Still waiting for him to explain where Africans and Asians came from if all changes are via hybridization...The denial and delusion is strong in this one.
I don't have the time nore the energy to address all these PRATTs.
So tiring.
Counter: the most severe deleterious mutations never go beyond the individual, as they are deadly before reproductive age. Additionally, recessive deleterious mutations (of which mutations that result in the loss of the function of a gene almost always are, due to redundant copies and how rare it is for both copies of the chromosome to be afflicted) don't make an impact without inbreeding, so large populations never suffer much from them. In contrast, the more extreme the impact of a benign mutation, the more likely it is to be selected for and the more likely it is to persist and become more prominent in a population.Considering that genetic mutations with enough of an effect for selection to act are overwhelmingly deleterious I would agree.
How do you know? The subject has been extensively studied and can even be treated mathematically. It's not a WAG like you make it out to be.Considering that genetic mutations with enough of an effect for selection to act...
Considering that genetic mutations with enough of an effect for selection to act are overwhelmingly deleterious I would agree. If your looking for a straight forward argument to the contrary I wish you lots of luck.
Or some mystical pagan elemental, all pagan traditions went back to earth, air fire or water, they created even the gods. It's not just the religious and spiritual traditions that write folklore and myths, the stone age ape man aka homo habilis is a modern myth.Or Thor, or Ba'al, or Vishnu, or Odin, or Obama, or Tuesday purple farting pixies...
Yes I'm aware of the neutral or nearly neutral accumulation of mutations. I just haven't seen anything persuasive indicating the mutations drive evolution, on the contrary, they cause genetic malfunction when they have an effect significant enough for selection to act, the vast majority of the time.Counter: the most severe deleterious mutations never go beyond the individual, as they are deadly before reproductive age. Additionally, recessive deleterious mutations (of which mutations that result in the loss of the function of a gene almost always are, due to redundant copies and how rare it is for both copies of the chromosome to be afflicted) don't make an impact without inbreeding, so large populations never suffer much from them. In contrast, the more extreme the impact of a benign mutation, the more likely it is to be selected for and the more likely it is to persist and become more prominent in a population.
Given how much reproduction occurs, organisms born with great benign mutations without any seriously hindering deleterious mutations are an inevitability. And since those organisms have a survival/reproduction advantage, they are more likely to successfully reproduce and thus increase the number of individuals which have this mutation.
As I said before, that is a subject which has been treated mathematically. Let's see your numbers.when they have an effect significant enough for selection to act, the vast majority of the time.
Hi tas, someone told me you might jump in here. It's been a while since I got into this kind of thing but here is what I got from the paper:Relatively recent experimentation shows that, in bacteria and yeast, at least, beneficial mutations occur an order of magnitude (or more) more frequently than previously estimated, as high as 1-2% of the total number of mutations. Some experiments with amoeba show that for some fitness effects, the rate may be as high as 40% (The rate and effects of spontaneous mutation on fitness traits in the social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum. - PubMed - NCBI)
If these numbers hold in multicellular eukaryotes, then seeing as how the typical human is borne with 1-200 new mutations...
turns out the reading frame was swapped out, it wasn't a mutation at all.
Of course I consider frameshift mutations to be mutations. I just don't believe every alteration of a protein coding gene is the result of mutations. There is exon shuffling, I've seen explanations involving reading frames being swapped out, then there is the CRISPR that somehow can edit any DNA sequence.So you don't consider frameshift mutations to be mutations? Do you have your own private definition of "mutation"?
Hi tas, someone told me you might jump in here. It's been a while since I got into this kind of thing but here is what I got from the paper:
In summary, for the six fitness components showing evidence for non-zero frequencies of beneficial mutations, i.e., those that increase the value of the fitness component, two show low frequencies of these mutations (affecting just a single MA line), two are consistent with stabilizing selection, implying the increased value for the component is likely deleterious, and just two (slug distance and competitive ability) have a high frequency of bona fide beneficial mutations, one of which is likely under weak selection in nature. The frequency of truly beneficial mutations, i.e., those that would be favored in nature, may thus be lower in D. discoideum than a cursory examination of Table 3 or Table 6 would suggest.That's less then impressive and I'm having a hard time believing these very rare beneficial effects are much of a factor in adaptive evolution overall.
Yes, recombination, drift, etc. are a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (pardon my French). Then again, we are less at the mercy of changing environments, for example, than other taxa. Thus, we are less likely to be the 'victims' of strong selection.As far as the implications for human evolution, we diverge by less then 1% in our comparative genomes with billions of our species inhabiting every ecological niche on the planet. Those inevitable mutations that creep in are generally corrected over time and even beneficial effects can be corrected.
I'm not saying they don't happen, heavens knows, there have been enough found that it's not really a zero sum gain. It's just not an explanation for arctic wildlife adapting so well along the same line, like the arctic cod getting a brand new (de novo) antifreeze gene. The Platypus, amphibians evolving into whales and dolphins and certainly not the nearly three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes over night, two million years ago.
According to you.On that level, genetic mutations are the worst or at least, least likely explanation available.
I have taught genetics, yes, and done research in and teach evolutionary biology. You?Time out for a sec, so you work in the field of genetics? It's none of my business but I'm curious. Could you tell me a little about your work? I could be mistaken but as I recall someone told me you worked in the field, just curious really, is that true or am I mistaken?
Of course I consider frameshift mutations to be mutations.
I just don't believe every alteration of a protein coding gene is the result of mutations. There is exon shuffling,
My impression is that no number of mutations will suffice.If we assumed 2 million years of time, and 27.5 years per generation, and 150 mutations per generation, and 1.5% of mutations being beneficial...
You would have somewhere around 160,000 beneficial mutations.
Is the argument being made that 160,000 beneficial mutations is insufficient to increase brain size?
While I have stated that the frequency of benign mutations is generally 5%, that's not necessarily the best representation of benign mutation frequency in all situations. Looking at different studies in regards to it, that number can be highly variable depending on the organism in question, as well as the region of the DNA being mutated. After all, a mutation in an eye color gene is nowhere near as likely to result in death as a mutation in a HOX gene.Yes I'm aware of the neutral or nearly neutral accumulation of mutations. I just haven't seen anything persuasive indicating the mutations drive evolution, on the contrary, they cause genetic malfunction when they have an effect significant enough for selection to act, the vast majority of the time.
-_- to be extremely blunt, I can't find any papers on the nylon eating bacteria more recent than 1984 that gives what type of mutation it was without it being a creationist source. Even Wikipedia is using creationist sources for it.I remember the nylon eating bug (bacteria), was purported to be an example of a mutation having a beneficial effect, turns out the reading frame was swapped out, it wasn't a mutation at all.
Mutation is the source of variety; many other factors contribute to evolution, such as natural selection. Unless you can find another inheritable source of variation aside from mutations in genes, this is what you are stuck with. You can have thoughts against the idea all you like, but until you can provide actual evidence, it's just your opinion, dude.Mutations were said to drive the adaptation of immune systems then they found the CRISPR gene. Mutations are not the answer, there might be a few rare beneficial effects that emerge as an adaptive trait but they do not explain adaptive evolution at large.
Your history shows that addressing the subject only gets diversions and burden shifting. Exhibit A - your 'African+Asian=Afro-Asian hybrid; thus all speciation is just hybridization', yet when asked where the Asian and African came from in the first place, you change the subject, re-assert the same thing, etc.A shame evolution isn't true. Maybe some could evolve out of the need to attack the poster instead of addressing the subject of the post.
You shouldn't believe.
Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species. Neither the Asian nor the African evolve into the Afro-Asian by mutation or any other method. The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. This can be observed with every single species. And such is why every single fossil ever observed remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest found.
Even the Grants had to finally admit this after studying actual changes in animals.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316
"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."
Woah, consider how much lowballing you are doing for those mutations too. Every individual person born has around 40-60 mutations in their genome. Your calculation assumes that only 3-4 people were born every generation XD.If we assumed 2 million years of time, and 27.5 years per generation, and 150 mutations per generation, and 1.5% of mutations being beneficial...
You would have somewhere around 160,000 beneficial mutations.
Is the argument being made that 160,000 beneficial mutations is insufficient to increase brain size?
Woah, consider how much lowballing you are doing for those mutations too. Every individual person born has around 40-60 mutations in their genome. Your calculation assumes that only 3-4 people were born every generation XD.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?