How does natural selection determine which mutations remain and which do not?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is evidence that 'mutation repair' mechanisms are more active in the vicinity of genes that are most active - see Why Are some Genes More Likely To Mutate Than Others?

 

[xianghua]

the real question is what is the chance to get a functional sequence\system, because only in this case a natural selection could work. for instance :if for a new sense of smell we will need at least 3 new mutations, and the chance to evolve each mutation separately is about 10^10, the chance to evollve a new sense of small may be low as 10^30. it's too much even if the earth is indeed 4.5 bilion years old.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-odorant-receptors-are-localized-on-olfactory

 

[Astrophile]

With the first premise being false, no wonder you are puzzled.

Nothing is random, no, not even mutations....

In what way do you think that mutations are not random? In particular, do you think that mutations have a systematic tendency to increase the fitness (i.e. the reproductive success) of an organism in its environment?

If this were true, this non-randomness of mutations would decrease the effects of natural selection, but, so far as I can see, it would, if anything, have the effect of accelerating evolution by producing changes that were beneficial to the organism.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Every molecule, every plant, every rock, every tree, every star, every planet,
every creature,
every part of everything ever created (all things were created by/through Him, and nothing was created apart from Him)
everything you could ever imagine or think of that does exist,
everything "temporal", physical, earthly,
is held together by Him, until it is time for it all to be rolled up in fiery glory.

Nothing ever happens by chance. There are no coincidences.

 

[Speedwell]

the real question is what is the chance to get a functional sequence\system, because only in this case a natural selection could work.

Reasonably good, as it turns out, because the "functional sequence\system" need not have the same function throughout its development. All that is required for natural selection to work is that each developmental change increases the survivablility of the creature in some way.

 

[xianghua]

Reasonably good, as it turns out, because the "functional sequence\system" need not have the same function throughout its development. All that is required for natural selection to work is that each developmental change increases the survivablility of the creature in some way.

impossible. since a minimal sense of smell need at least olfactory receptor, a wiring to a speciel part in the brain, and a process mechanism in the brain that can interpret the signal from the olfactory receptor. so a part of this system will not work.

 

[Speedwell]

impossible. since a minimal sense of smell need at least olfactory receptor, a wiring to a speciel part in the brain, and a process mechanism in the brain that can interpret the signal from the olfactory receptor. so a part of this system will not work.

It may not work as an olfactory sensor, but it may well work for something else. What you are struggling with is the "hindsight fallacy" to which creationists seem to be prone. You imagine that evolutionary change must lead directly to what you regard as a "finished system." In a sense, your argument is nothing but a retread of the tired old creationist claim that the theory of evolution requires creatures to drag around "useless, half-formed appendages" waiting for the right mutation to finish them.

 

[xianghua]

It may not work as an olfactory sensor, but it may well work for something else. What you are struggling with is the "hindsight fallacy" to which creationists seem to be prone. You imagine that evolutionary change must lead directly to what you regard as a "finished system." In a sense, your argument is nothing but a retread of the tired old creationist claim that the theory of evolution requires creatures to drag around "useless, half-formed appendages" waiting for the right mutation to finish them.

again- it will not work. if you will remove an olfactory r eceptor- you will not smell at all and you will not get any other function too. just a defective system. so no- it will not work at all.

 

[Speedwell]

again- it will not work. if you will remove an olfactory r eceptor- you will not smell at all and you will not get any other function too. just a defective system. so no- it will not work at all.

Not now, of course, because the olfactery system is already evolved. You can't just knock pieces off of it and pretend that you are following back the same pathway by which it evolved in the first place.

 

[xianghua]

Not now, of course, because the olfactery system is already evolved. You can't just knock pieces off of it and pretend that you are following back the same pathway by which it evolved in the first place.

but you cant do that too. if we will consider this system as ABC, and you will remove C, it will not function in any way in the past since you will get the same result (AB). thing about making a car stepwise. if you will remove the wheels the car cant drive any more. so you will not get a different system in any way by removing the crucial parts of the car. also remember that even if the car will has living traits like self replication or organic components it will not change the fact that such a car is evidence for design.

 

[Speedwell]

but you cant do that too. if we will consider this system as ABC, and you will remove C, it will not function in any way in the past since you will get the same result (AB).

So you think we are claiming that if system ABC evolved, it must have evolved AB first and then evolved C?

Have you ever played a game called Word Ladder? It involves changing one word into another entirely different word by a series of steps which change only one letter at a time. The rule is, each individual letter change has to produce a real word. For example, I can change TIME into CAKE by changing one letter at a time like this:

TIME
LIME
LIKE
BIKE
BAKE
CAKE

Now you can come along, arbitrarily knock off the first letter of CAKE and claim that word ladders are impossible because AKE isn't a real word.

 

[xianghua]

So you think we are claiming that if system ABC evolved, it must have evolved AB first and then evolved C?

you can try it with any configuration and you will get the same result.

 

[tas8831]

impossible. since a minimal sense of smell need at least olfactory receptor, a wiring to a speciel part in the brain, and a process mechanism in the brain that can interpret the signal from the olfactory receptor. so a part of this system will not work.

Do you understand what olfaction is, and what kind of receptors olfactory receptors are?

 

[tas8831]

There is evidence that 'mutation repair' mechanisms are more active in the vicinity of genes that are most active - see Why Are some Genes More Likely To Mutate Than Others?

""We found that regions with genes switched on had lower mutation rates. This is not because less mistakes are happening in these regions but because the mechanism to repair them is more efficient", says Ben Lehner, team leader and AXA professor."

Their work also focused on somatic mutations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

""We found that regions with genes switched on had lower mutation rates. This is not because less mistakes are happening in these regions but because the mechanism to repair them is more efficient", says Ben Lehner, team leader and AXA professor."

Exactly; mutation repair mechanisms are more active in those areas.

Their work also focused on somatic mutations.

True. Nevertheless, it shows that mutation rates are not necessarily uniform across the genome because of the varying activity of the repair mechanisms.

Just thought it was an interesting point. ISTR that it has been shown that mutation rates in bacteria increase under environmental stress - I wonder if suppression of repair mechanisms would be the means.

 

[tas8831]

Exactly; mutation repair mechanisms are more active in those areas.

A follow up paper looked at promoters and found the same sort of thing.

True. Nevertheless, it shows that mutation rates are not necessarily uniform across the genome because of the varying activity of the repair mechanisms.

But I wonder what impact this has on gamete genomes.

Just thought it was an interesting point. ISTR that it has been shown that mutation rates in bacteria increase under environmental stress - I wonder if suppression of repair mechanisms would be the means.

Could be.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Seriously! Seriously! This is one question I have never found a satisfactory explanation for. By natural selection? But how does the cell accomplish this? If not by natural selection then are they acquired? But they are inheritable???? We know DNA repair processes weed most of them out so are those that remain just a happy little accident?

What processes, mechanisms, enzymes, etc., are involved in their formation and in allowing those that stay?

This is not meant to be a number of questions but rather I am looking for an explanation of how they form initially and remain as opposed to others and whether it is just a random event?

Natural selection doesn't "decide" anything. It's a process, not a sentient being that makes decisions.

Those that live and reproduce, spread their (potentially mutated) genes.
Those that die and/or don't reproduce, don't spread their (potentially mutated) genes.

It really is that simple.

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We will probably never know how or what natural selection would do, since we cannot observe it anywhere.

Except in the wild and in the lab.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is the way the world thinks, yes.

Now here is the way the Creator states what is truth (nothing random, no , not one thing) :
Romans 8:28-29 NLT - And we know that God causes everything ...
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:28-29 - New International Version...
And we know that God causes everything to work together[a] for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them. For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many ...

and
http://biblehub . com/romans/8-28.htm
excerpts from
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"Now that all things do work together for good, the saints "know", and are firmly persuaded of; both from the word and promises of God, and from the instances of Jacob, Joseph, Job, and others, and also from their own experience: and it is to be observed, that it is not said that all things "have" worked together, and so they may again, or that they "shall" work together, but all things work together for good; they "now" work together, they are always working together, whether it can be observed or not: prosperity and adversity, whether in things temporal or spiritual, work "together", and make an intricate woven work in providence and grace; which will be viewed with admiration another day: one copy reads, "God works together", or "causes all things to work together for good"; and so the Ethiopic version, "we know that God helps them that love him, to every good thing": and to this agrees the Syriac version, "we know that to them that love God, he in everything helps them to good"; and certain it is, that God is the efficient cause, that makes all things work together for his people's good.

The persons to whom all things work together for good, are described as such
that love God;

a character, which does not agree with all the sons and daughters of Adam: love to God is not naturally in men;

it is wrought in the soul in regeneration, and is an evidence of it; it grows up with faith, which works by it; without it, a profession of religion is vain;....

When it comes to science, it matters not what any religious text has to say.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the real question is what is the chance to get a functional sequence\system

In evolutionary context? Essentially: 1 in 1.

for instance :if for a new sense of smell we will need at least 3 new mutations, and the chance to evolve each mutation separately is about 10^10, the chance to evollve a new sense of small may be low as 10^30. it's too much even if the earth is indeed 4.5 bilion years old.

Pulling probability figures out of a place where the sun don't shine, is not way to make a reasonable argument.

Secondly, you are positing a GOAL for an evolutionary process. As if that it is decided in "advance" what the outcome should be. This is your second mistake. There are no goals. There is only what "currently" works in any given invidivudual.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-odorant-receptors-are-localized-on-olfactory

This is a highly specialised system that essentially evolved gradually over hundreds of millions of years.