• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

How many mutations to get Y from X?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by tas8831, Oct 4, 2021.

  1. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +3,100
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Is there any evidence for this?

    And why are the patterns observably caused by ancestry in living families also present in separate species?
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  2. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    You should be asking yourself that, seeing as you and your kind continually constrain Yahweh to act in ways only in line with what humans can do.

    @renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
    So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
    Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

    I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
     
  3. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Like Macroevolution, 'selection' is not an act, but a process.

    You'd think people arguing against something might actually take the time to understand that something.

    @renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
    So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
    Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

    I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
     
  4. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Right - but apparently making claims just to try to save face does?

    @renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
    So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
    Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

    I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
     
  5. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Speaking of big secrets:


    @renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
    So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
    Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

    I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.

    So far it is just nothing. Par for the creationist course.
     
  6. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Because, you know, that is what us humans do. Constrained, as we are, by our limited abilities, intellects, and experiences. Just like your Deity, apparently. Not so omnipotent, I guess.
    So tiny:

    @renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
    So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
    So tiny that the Creator (for which no evidence is ever presented) cannot even influence His followers to be honest or have integrity.

    Still waiting for the evidence/support/citations demonstrating those two claims have merit.

    I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.
     
  7. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    So why the re-use of old parts and old designs? Lack of imagination? Humans always make their gods in their own images.
    OK, cool - interpret this:




    I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

    The tested methodology:

    Science 25 October 1991:
    Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

    Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice


    WR Atchley and WM Fitch

    Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

    ======================

    Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

    Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny


    DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
    Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

    Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

    ==================================

    Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

    Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies


    DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
    Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

    Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


    Application of the tested methodology:

    Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo


    "Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



    Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

    "Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



    A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

    "Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



    Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

    "The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
    Right after you address this:


    @renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
    So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
    I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.

    As is the creationist way - make claims that sounded good initially, then run away when asked to explain.
     
  8. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    Natural selection is an observable, measurable phenomenon. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, that's your prerogative. But it's akin to denying the existence of gravity.
     
  9. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,096
    Christian
    Married
    Still not making sense. Because God didn't create glow in the dark bunnies he obviously isn't omnipotent? That's your argument. Pretty lame. As if if the vast diversity of life we see wasn't creative enough.
     
  10. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,096
    Christian
    Married
    Yeah, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

    "Natural selection is the mechanism which increases the probability of advantageous traits in the coming generations. Adaptation is the characteristics to change according to the environment."

    What is the mechanism? It's actually adaptation.
     
  11. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,276
    Atheist
    The mechanisms are random variation and selection - where selection is simply the greater success of certain variations, i.e. the variations that happen to be better adapted. IOW adaptation is the result of variation and selection.
     
  12. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    Adaptation isn't a mechanism in this context. Rather, it's the outcome of the mechanisms of reproduction, variation and selection.
     
  13. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Still waiting for your evidence/support for these assertions:


    @renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
    So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
    I suspect I shall get nothing but diversions and dodges - plus the requisite burden shifting.

    As is the creationist way - make claims that they believed sounded good initially, then run away when asked to explain.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2021
  14. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,096
    Christian
    Married
    What is selecting? The environment. How? Through adaptation, that is DNA change that is already programmed into a kind of animal. Why do some fox feet fur out and some don't?
     
  15. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,096
    Christian
    Married
    Lol, what is selecting?
     
  16. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,255
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    What do you mean "what is selecting"? I'm not sure what you're asking.
     
  17. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    It has already been explained to him. He is just 'doin' the creo shuffle'.
     
  18. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,276
    Atheist
    IOC - I think there may a semantic confusion here. A particular variation (e.g. mutation) is adaptive or otherwise in the light of the advantage or otherwise that it provides under selection. IOW, it is selection that determines what is adaptive. Selection pressures vary over time, so variations can only be judged adaptive as a result of selection - they may become adaptive after a period of relative neutrality as the environment changes, or they may stop being adaptive.
     
  19. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,900
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Looks like a certain someone is selecting what to ignore to avoid crashing and burning...

    Still waiting for your evidence/support for these assertions:


    @renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
    So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...​
     
  20. renniks

    renniks Well-Known Member

    +3,096
    Christian
    Married
    Perhaps you just don't understand what I said?

    About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, so those mutations have no effect. So, we have 10% functional DNA.
    Mutations in this 10 percent can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful.
    Probably less than half of the mutations to this 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. Source:" Remine, The Biotic Message"
    This is actually an oversimplification but a widely used one.
     
Loading...