How Mutations Accumulate

[Loudmouth]

In another thread, a creationist made the claim that "evolutionists" can't figure out how mutations could accumulate.

I know, seems like a rather obvious answer, but I think it still deserves a thread of its own.

The answer is heredity. Basic genetics. Mutations occur in the cell lines that lead to egg and sperm. When those egg and sperm combine to form a zygote, and eventually a full grown offspring, the offspring carry those mutations that occur during the formation of the egg and sperm. The cells that the offspring use to create their own egg and sperm also carry mutations that were present in the egg and sperm that formed them. In addition, new mutations will be introduced during the production of egg and sperm by the offspring which they will then pass on to their own offspring.

It might also help to relate this to the real numbers. In one study, they sequenced the genome of a child and both its parents. When they compared the genomes they were able to find mutations, changes in the DNA sequence of the child's genome that were not found in either parent. As it turned out, the two family trios that they looked at produced 35 and 49 mutations.

"Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

We are born with 35 to 50 mutations, and those mutations are a permanent part of our genome. Each parent will pass on half of their mutations, on average, meaning that each offspring receives a total of 35 to 50 mutations that occurred in both parents in addition to the 35 to 50 new mutations that occur. In ten generations, you have accumulated 350 to 500 mutations.

So does any creationists still wonder how mutations can accumulate?

 

[Loudmouth]

Bumping for user who asked how mutations "add up" in another thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Saw this thread and its lack of responses, and thought of this:

 

[Jimmy D]

I should imagine they're all frantically searching AiG for a rebuttal.

 

[-57]

I thought I already responded to this thread....perhaps the post was removed.

My answer was you are presenting a coloring book description.

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

How does the so-called beneficial mutation occur again and again, many, many times in the proper place in the DNA so that the information contained in the code is increased to the point that the fitness of an animal is increased and enhanced such that something like the dolphins echo-location system is evolved?

There is not one evolutionist who can do that. You would think after Chucky D and the last 150 years or so of evo-science they would have an answer. They realize the odds are against evolutionism. The human DNA has like 3.5 Billion base pairs and so-called beneficial mutations are a small fraction of a percent. Sure, a so-called beneficial mutation may occur some where and change a trait....but the odds of a second, third, fourth fifth...so-called beneficial mutation occurring in the proper place of the DNA code allowing proteins to fold precisely, changing the trait for the better....is impossible.

 

[Loudmouth]

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

I did explain it in the opening post. Read it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Allow me to repeat myself: Beneficial mutations are not rare. They are less common than malignant and neutral mutations, but they are not rare. For example, if I have a population of rabbits which has 5% white rabbits, 30% green rabbits, and 65% spotted rabbits, you would not consider white rabbits rare if the population was 10 million rabbits, because that would mean white rabbits number 500 thousand. And the percentage of mutations that are beneficial often are above 5 percent, and the number of beneficial mutations roughly occurring in the human population per day are, conservatively, 353000X0.03X50 = 529500 beneficial mutations. That is PER DAY conservatively. Now, let's make the calculation what I like to call "the numbers by the most skeptical a human can be without being insane", which rounds down the number of births per day, assumes that the frequency of beneficial mutations is 0.0001, and places mutations per person at half the low range given by most sources, and then just subtracts 5 more because why not. This exceedingly skeptical calculation ends up with 300000X0.0001X15 and would place the number of beneficial mutations in the human population at 450 per day. So, with realistic numbers, this pans out to 193267500 beneficial mutations per year, and with the beyond unreasonable skepticism, it is 164250 beneficial mutations per year.

As I have brought up before, and yet I consistently have to repeat, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE NOT RARE. And this is just for our population, do you have any idea how much faster most creatures reproduce? Is it now clear how common beneficial mutations are?

 

[Jimmy D]

I thought I already responded to this thread....perhaps the post was removed.

My answer was you are presenting a coloring book description.

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

How does the so-called beneficial mutation occur again and again, many, many times in the proper place in the DNA so that the information contained in the code is increased to the point that the fitness of an animal is increased and enhanced such that something like the dolphins echo-location system is evolved?

There is not one evolutionist who can do that. You would think after Chucky D and the last 150 years or so of evo-science they would have an answer. They realize the odds are against evolutionism. The human DNA has like 3.5 Billion base pairs and so-called beneficial mutations are a small fraction of a percent. Sure, a so-called beneficial mutation may occur some where and change a trait....but the odds of a second, third, fourth fifth...so-called beneficial mutation occurring in the proper place of the DNA code allowing proteins to fold precisely, changing the trait for the better....is impossible.

No offence, but isn't that a colouring book rebuttal? We get it, you don't believe it could happen, that isn't really an argument though.

Have you got any evidence to present?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Allow me to repeat myself: Beneficial mutations are not rare. They are less common than malignant and neutral mutations, but they are not rare. For example, if I have a population of rabbits which has 5% white rabbits, 30% green rabbits, and 65% spotted rabbits, you would not consider white rabbits rare if the population was 10 million rabbits, because that would mean white rabbits number 500 thousand. And the percentage of mutations that are beneficial often are above 5 percent, and the number of beneficial mutations roughly occurring in the human population per day are, conservatively, 353000X0.03X50 = 529500 beneficial mutations. That is PER DAY conservatively. Now, let's make the calculation what I like to call "the numbers by the most skeptical a human can be without being insane", which rounds down the number of births per day, assumes that the frequency of beneficial mutations is 0.0001, and places mutations per person at half the low range given by most sources, and then just subtracts 5 more because why not. This exceedingly skeptical calculation ends up with 300000X0.0001X15 and would place the number of beneficial mutations in the human population at 450 per day. So, with realistic numbers, this pans out to 193267500 beneficial mutations per year, and with the beyond unreasonable skepticism, it is 164250 beneficial mutations per year.

As I have brought up before, and yet I consistently have to repeat, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE NOT RARE. And this is just for our population, do you have any idea how much faster most creatures reproduce? Is it now clear how common beneficial mutations are?

Wouldn't it be true though that as well as the minority of beneficial mutations, you would also have a much larger number of damaging and potentially life-threatening mutations occurring, which would probably bring the species to an end before the beneficial mutations could achieve anything? Also, consider the following arguments (the first I have heard before but I'm not familiar with the second):-

1. A basic information principle must be violated for evolution to be true. For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex there must be an increase of genetic information. When mutations take place, however, there is an exchange of information or misinformation, but never an increase. The system is limited to what it has and therefore cannot create new codes. Most frequently, information exchange leads to a loss of information.

2. An ape could, theoretically, mutate into a man by changing just one percent of his DNA. While the claim of a one percent DNA difference between man and ape is controversial and highly debatable, one might conclude, if we assume the claim to be true, that evolutionists have a point. One must remember, though, that all mutations have to be in exactly the same order as a human person’s genome. It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. Moreover, all the mutations must occur exactly where the two genomes differ. How can one have a million mutations when each mutation has to be in the exact sequence to make a human? It’s impossible. George Simpson, a well-known paleontologist and ardent evolutionist, estimated that it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order. Simpson concludes that simultaneous mutations as a process observed today had no part in evolution.

 

[-57]

Allow me to repeat myself: Beneficial mutations are not rare. They are less common than malignant and neutral mutations, but they are not rare. For example, if I have a population of rabbits which has 5% white rabbits, 30% green rabbits, and 65% spotted rabbits, you would not consider white rabbits rare if the population was 10 million rabbits, because that would mean white rabbits number 500 thousand. And the percentage of mutations that are beneficial often are above 5 percent, and the number of beneficial mutations roughly occurring in the human population per day are, conservatively, 353000X0.03X50 = 529500 beneficial mutations. That is PER DAY conservatively. Now, let's make the calculation what I like to call "the numbers by the most skeptical a human can be without being insane", which rounds down the number of births per day, assumes that the frequency of beneficial mutations is 0.0001, and places mutations per person at half the low range given by most sources, and then just subtracts 5 more because why not. This exceedingly skeptical calculation ends up with 300000X0.0001X15 and would place the number of beneficial mutations in the human population at 450 per day. So, with realistic numbers, this pans out to 193267500 beneficial mutations per year, and with the beyond unreasonable skepticism, it is 164250 beneficial mutations per year.

As I have brought up before, and yet I consistently have to repeat, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE NOT RARE. And this is just for our population, do you have any idea how much faster most creatures reproduce? Is it now clear how common beneficial mutations are?

You posted "And the percentage of mutations that are beneficial often are above 5 percent"

REF PLEASE......and don't use bacteria.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth.....you still here?

-57, have you read the opening post?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wouldn't it be true though that as well as the minority of beneficial mutations, you would also have a much larger number of damaging and potentially life-threatening mutations occurring, which would probably bring the species to an end before the beneficial mutations could achieve anything?

Lethal mutations aren't passed on. The reasons for this should be obvious. The carrier dies before they can pass them on.

There is also negative selection which removes harmful mutations from the population for mutations that aren't lethal.

Also, consider the following arguments (the first I have heard before but I'm not familiar with the second):-

1. A basic information principle must be violated for evolution to be true. For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex there must be an increase of genetic information. When mutations take place, however, there is an exchange of information or misinformation, but never an increase.

That is a bare assertion.

2. An ape could, theoretically, mutate into a man by changing just one percent of his DNA. While the claim of a one percent DNA difference between man and ape is controversial and highly debatable,

It isn't. Creationists try to change the method of how DNA is compared, which isn't the same thing.

One must remember, though, that all mutations have to be in exactly the same order as a human person’s genome.

That is also a bare assertion.

There are currently more than 6 billion different combinations of DNA that produce a human. Obviously, there is no such thing as an exact order.

It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference.

That would be 30 million. The human haploid genome is 3 billion bases, so 1% of 3 billion is 30 million.

Moreover, all the mutations must occur exactly where the two genomes differ. How can one have a million mutations when each mutation has to be in the exact sequence to make a human? It’s impossible. George Simpson, a well-known paleontologist and ardent evolutionist, estimated that it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order. Simpson concludes that simultaneous mutations as a process observed today had no part in evolution.

Sharpshooter fallacy. You are drawing the bulls eye around the bullet holes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You posted "And the percentage of mutations that are beneficial often are above 5 percent"

REF PLEASE......and don't use bacteria.

I have given you references before, and they weren't bacteria, but a type of yeast. Yeast are a type of fungus. I also have given you examples for humans, but forbid you try to fact check me. I also demonstrated through math that, even if the numbers were less favorable, a decent number of beneficial mutations would appear in the human population every year.

 

[Derek Meyer]

You posted "And the percentage of mutations that are beneficial often are above 5 percent"

REF PLEASE......and don't use bacteria.

Why not? Scared that you are wrong? Bacteria are actually wonderful in studying the effect of mutations and getting spread in the population by natural selection. All to be witnessed in human life-times.

 

[sfs]

1. A basic information principle must be violated for evolution to be true. For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex there must be an increase of genetic information. When mutations take place, however, there is an exchange of information or misinformation, but never an increase. The system is limited to what it has and therefore cannot create new codes. Most frequently, information exchange leads to a loss of information.

There is no such basic information principle. What would prevent mutation changing DNA into some other DNA that had more information?

2. An ape could, theoretically, mutate into a man by changing just one percent of his DNA. While the claim of a one percent DNA difference between man and ape is controversial and highly debatable, one might conclude, if we assume the claim to be true, that evolutionists have a point.

The actual genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is well understood, although some professional creationists go to great lengths to not understand it. The physical differences between a human and a chimpanzee results from a lot fewer genetic differences than 1% of our DNA, however; the great majority of the observed genetic differences don't have any effect.

One must remember, though, that all mutations have to be in exactly the same order as a human person’s genome.

I don't know what this means. Mutations occur in the genome. How can they have an order that's the same as the genome?

It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. Moreover, all the mutations must occur exactly where the two genomes differ.

Besides the numerical mistake, I again don't know what this means. It's mutations that cause the genomes to differ. Why would they have to occur where the genomes differ? Do you mean that a million particular mutations were required? That's just wrong.

George Simpson, a well-known paleontologist and ardent evolutionist, estimated that it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order. Simpson concludes that simultaneous mutations as a process observed today had no part in evolution.

Any evolutionary change that required five specific mutations to occur simultaneously would indeed be very unlikely to occur. No such changes are known to have occurred, and there's certainly no reason to think any were required in human evolution. So what's the point of the calculation?

 

[-57]

I have given you references before, and they weren't bacteria, but a type of yeast. Yeast are a type of fungus. I also have given you examples for humans, but forbid you try to fact check me. I also demonstrated through math that, even if the numbers were less favorable, a decent number of beneficial mutations would appear in the human population every year.

Boring.

Do you even know what is involved in making a change to an organelle? To protein?

 

[Loudmouth]

Boring.

Do you even know what is involved in making a change to an organelle? To protein?

Do you?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

This thread has undergone a bit of a cleanup; I want to remind everyone to stay on topic and to avoid flaming and goading others.

OK?

 

[DogmaHunter]

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

Did you actually read the OP?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wouldn't it be true though that as well as the minority of beneficial mutations, you would also have a much larger number of damaging and potentially life-threatening mutations occurring

Yes. But those creatures die and don't reproduce and thus don't spread those harmfull genes. The disappear as fast as they manifest.
Whereas beneficial mutations tend to stick around.

You are aware of natural selection, right?

.....right?

, which would probably bring the species to an end before the beneficial mutations could achieve anything?

No, species don't really "mutate to extinction".

1. A basic information principle must be violated for evolution to be true. For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex there must be an increase of genetic information. When mutations take place, however, there is an exchange of information or misinformation, but never an increase.

Gene duplication followed by point mutation.
Not exactly uncommon.

The system is limited to what it has and therefore cannot create new codes.

DNA is capable of resulting in things as diverse as microbes, plants, trees, fruits, reptiles and humans. The only difference between them all is basically just the order of the sequence.

Most frequently, information exchange leads to a loss of information.

There is no "information being exchanged" in the processes that govern DNA.

2. An ape could, theoretically, mutate into a man by changing just one percent of his DNA.

Euh....
No, not really. Chimps etc are our cousins, not our ancestors. We are on different branches of the evolutionary tree.

While the claim of a one percent DNA difference between man and ape is controversial and highly debatable, one might conclude, if we assume the claim to be true, that evolutionists have a point. One must remember, though, that all mutations have to be in exactly the same order as a human person’s genome. It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. Moreover, all the mutations must occur exactly where the two genomes differ. How can one have a million mutations when each mutation has to be in the exact sequence to make a human? It’s impossible. George Simpson, a well-known paleontologist and ardent evolutionist, estimated that it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order. Simpson concludes that simultaneous mutations as a process observed today had no part in evolution.

This is a "hindsight" fallacy.

You are assuming humans were meant to exist.

It's like calculating the odds that you would exist.
Your dad donated millions of sperm cells, but only the one that made it would have resulted in you. Now calculated the odds of your parents ending up together, and add it to that. Then to the same for your grandparents and their grandparents.

Already at this point, the odds of you existing are "impossible odds", according to your reasoning.