How Mutations Accumulate

[-57]

Well my evo-friends....how do mutations add up?
Post 5 is still out there.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well my evo-friends....how do mutations add up?

One at a time? I can't really get a sense of your question. We all have a bunch of mutations. Since we're not dead, we did not have any seriously negative mutations. We will pass some of our mutations on to our children (along with some of the entirely different mutations from the other parent). In addition to those inherited mutations, the children will also have a bunch of new mutations of their own. And so on. Mutations will accumulate -- i.e. add up. Some of them will be beneficial. Ta-dah.

 

[-57]

One at a time? I can't really get a sense of your question. We all have a bunch of mutations. Since we're not dead, we did not have any seriously negative mutations. We will pass some of our mutations on to our children (along with some of the entirely different mutations from the other parent). In addition to those inherited mutations, the children will also have a bunch of new mutations of their own. And so on. Mutations will accumulate -- i.e. add up. Some of them will be beneficial.
Ta-dah.

Ta-dah? Just like that? More coloring book.

 

[lasthero]

Ta-dah? Just like that? More coloring book.

It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[-57]

It's a pretty simple concept.

But it fails when you need to have a bunch of so-called RANDOM beneficial mutations occurring in the DNA of the progeny in a fashion that increases the benefit of a trait by adding information to the DNA code responsible for the traits formation.

Show me how that is a simple concept?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But it fails when you need to have a bunch of so-called RANDOM beneficial mutations occurring in the DNA of the progeny in a fashion that increases the benefit of a trait by adding information to the DNA code responsible for the traits formation.

Where is the failure? I think we agree that beneficial mutations can happen. They get passed along, and spread in the population. Maybe 10 generations later, the number of creatures with that beneficial mutation has grown exponentially, so that there are many many opportunities for all of the novel mutations in all of those individuals to strike in the same gene. Or maybe a different gene. Who cares? Some of these mutations again will be beneficial and passed along.

How do the mutations add up? One at a time.

As for "adding information to the DNA code," I doubt you can provide a clear definition of information. By the standard definitions of information in information theory, all mutations add information.

 

[-57]

Where is the failure? I think we agree that beneficial mutations can happen. They get passed along, and spread in the population. Maybe 10 generations later, the number of creatures with that beneficial mutation has grown exponentially, so that there are many many opportunities for all of the novel mutations in all of those individuals to strike in the same gene. Or maybe a different gene. Who cares? Some of these mutations again will be beneficial and passed along.

How do the mutations add up? One at a time.

As for "adding information to the DNA code," I doubt you can provide a clear definition of information. By the standard definitions of information in information theory, all mutations add information.

You said....many many opportunities for all of the novel mutations in all of those individuals to strike in the same gene.

Do you have a number?
Opportunity for a harmful random mutation to strike in the same gene.
Opportunity for a neutral random mutation to strike in the same gene.
Opportunity for a beneficial random mutation to strike in the same gene.

If your opportunity for a beneficial mutation to occur is many, many.....then considering the other two opportunities must be many, many, many,many many,many,many,many etc.....for them to strike the same gene and lose the information in the DNA of the so-called evolving trait.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You said....many many opportunities for all of the novel mutations in all of those individuals to strike in the same gene.

Do you have a number?

Sure, I can whip up a lousy order of magnitude back of the envelope calculation. Let's look at human beings. We've got maybe 25,000 genes. So there's a 1 in 25,000 chance of a mutation affecting any particular gene. I think the number being bandied about was that 1 in 50 mutations is beneficial. So we need something like 1.25 million chances to feel reasonably sure we'd get a beneficial mutation in the same spot.

Let's say our original beneficial mutation gets passed on to two children who also live long enough to pass it on to two children, and so on. So the number of creatures with the beneficial mutation doubles each generation. After 10 generations, there are 1,024 carriers alive. Of course, the mutation doesn't have to happen in the 10th generation. It might have happened in the ninth, or the sixth. So the total number of people who might have had an additional mutation is basically double that, or 2,048. Each of them has, say, 40 novel mutations, so that's 80,000 chances. Ok, not quite to the 1.25 million we want.

So let's add a few more generations. Now, it may not be fair to keep doubling our population. So let's keep our population stable at 2,000 after one more doubling. Every generation gives us another 80,000 chances.

Generation 10 - 80,000
Generation 11 - 160,000
Generation 25 - 1.28 million chances!

at 25 years per generation, 25 generations is 625 years. My wife's genealogy is longer than that. A blink of an eye compared to the 6 million years separating us from our common ancestor with other apes.

Now one can (and probably should) complain about some of my simplifications here, but if we add in the fact that not all DNA is for genes, and get more exact about what it means to 'be reasonably sure', it's not going to change the overall situation much. Whether it takes 625 years, 3,000 years, or 14,000 years, these are all perfectly reasonably timescales. There is no barrier to beneficial mutations accumulating and adding up in the same gene.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If your opportunity for a beneficial mutation to occur is many, many.....then considering the other two opportunities must be many, many, many,many many,many,many,many etc.....for them to strike the same gene and lose the information in the DNA of the so-called evolving trait.

The number of neutral mutations is irrelevant. By definition, they have no effect on the organism.
The number of harmful ones doesn't matter that much either... if it's harmful enough it will kill that particular creature. That creature will not pass on any offspring at all. It will have no effect on future generations. It won't undo the beneficial mutation that continues to live among the rest of the entire population. It's a dead end.

 

[-57]

Sure, I can whip up a lousy order of magnitude back of the envelope calculation. Let's look at human beings. We've got maybe 25,000 genes. So there's a 1 in 25,000 chance of a mutation affecting any particular gene. I think the number being bandied about was that 1 in 50 mutations is beneficial. So we need something like 1.25 million chances to feel reasonably sure we'd get a beneficial mutation in the same spot.

Let's say our original beneficial mutation gets passed on to two children who also live long enough to pass it on to two children, and so on. So the number of creatures with the beneficial mutation doubles each generation. After 10 generations, there are 1,024 carriers alive. Of course, the mutation doesn't have to happen in the 10th generation. It might have happened in the ninth, or the sixth. So the total number of people who might have had an additional mutation is basically double that, or 2,048. Each of them has, say, 40 novel mutations, so that's 80,000 chances. Ok, not quite to the 1.25 million we want.

So let's add a few more generations. Now, it may not be fair to keep doubling our population. So let's keep our population stable at 2,000 after one more doubling. Every generation gives us another 80,000 chances.

Generation 10 - 80,000
Generation 11 - 160,000
Generation 25 - 1.28 million chances!

at 25 years per generation, 25 generations is 625 years. My wife's genealogy is longer than that. A blink of an eye compared to the 6 million years separating us from our common ancestor with other apes.

Now one can (and probably should) complain about some of my simplifications here, but if we add in the fact that not all DNA is for genes, and get more exact about what it means to 'be reasonably sure', it's not going to change the overall situation much. Whether it takes 625 years, 3,000 years, or 14,000 years, these are all perfectly reasonably timescales. There is no barrier to beneficial mutations accumulating and adding up in the same gene.

Youre argument never makes it out of the cattle shoot.....The gene is made up of a lot of DNA base pairs. Yes the chances of a mutation occurring in a particular gene might be 1 in 25,000 (depending on the size of the gene)..but it has to work within that gene in a very, very specific way.

The information in the DNA code has to know how to assemble the atoms into molecules. The molecules then have to group together and make amino acids...that have to string together and make proteins that fold in precise ways so thay can combine with other proteins and make organelle....and so on. Often the organelle are part of an assembly line...a complex process that if one stage fails....so does the organism or the process the organelle are carrying out.

The odds of your 1 in 25,000 mutations effecting the DNA code that is responsible for the building of a particular organelle..will long destroy or neutralize it before a beneficial mutation arrives and somehow tweeks the molecular process in the precise manner.

When you consider just what must happen over and over again to the code to increase the information that makes an organelle....evolution falls flat on it's face.

So, now I've expanded the hurdle that you need to overcome exponentially. I trust you stand corrected on the issue life is a little bit more complicated than your coloring book example.

 

[sfs]

I gave you numbers for beneficial mutations in humans a long time ago. Then I gave them to you again. Those numbers weren't guesses -- they were based on observed beneficial mutations. Did you forget them?

The information in the DNA code has to know how to assemble the atoms into molecules. The molecules then have to group together and make amino acids...that have to string together and make proteins that fold in precise ways so thay can combine with other proteins and make organelle....and so on. Often the organelle are part of an assembly line...a complex process that if one stage fails....so does the organism or the process the organelle are carrying out.

The odds of your 1 in 25,000 mutations effecting the DNA code that is responsible for the building of a particular organelle..will long destroy or neutralize it before a beneficial mutation arrives and somehow tweeks the molecular process in the precise manner.

All of the beneficial mutations I mention above change an organ, or an organelle, or some other equally complex biochemical process. You claim they can't be happening. We observe that they happen quite frequently. From this we can conclude that you are wrong.

When you consider just what must happen over and over again to the code to increase the information that makes an organelle....evolution falls flat on it's face.

On the other hand, when you consider that you have provided no information about anything at all in your description here, you will realize that your argument is vapor.

So, now I've expanded the hurdle that you need to overcome exponentially. I trust you stand corrected on the issue life is a little bit more complicated than your coloring book example.

I trust you've now realized that all you've done is say, "It can't happen" using more words, and that your disbelief is not a constraint on reality.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Youre argument never makes it out of the cattle shoot.....The gene is made up of a lot of DNA base pairs. Yes the chances of a mutation occurring in a particular gene might be 1 in 25,000 (depending on the size of the gene)..but it has to work within that gene in a very, very specific way.

No, it has to work to produce a beneficial effect. And we know roughly what the odds for that are. And it was included in my calculation. You are grasping at straws here.

The odds of your 1 in 25,000 mutations effecting the DNA code that is responsible for the building of a particular organelle..will long destroy or neutralize it

You don't know what a neutral mutation is, do you?

So, now I've expanded the hurdle that you need to overcome exponentially.

No, you've stuck your head in the sand.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Boring.

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

Yes, mutations on an active gene, or mutations that make an inactive gene active, or mutations that deactivate an active gene. All of those will change protein, and depending on what the gene does, can drastically change organelle function.

Also, I don't care if you find it boring, that doesn't make me wrong. If you are so uninterested in the science, then why are you asking about it in the first place?

 

[PsychoSarah]

But it fails when you need to have a bunch of so-called RANDOM beneficial mutations occurring in the DNA of the progeny in a fashion that increases the benefit of a trait by adding information to the DNA code responsible for the traits formation.

Show me how that is a simple concept?

You get it, so why do you define the concept as difficult? Mutations happen. Some are beneficial. The ones that are improve the chances of survival and reproduction, thus they end up spreading to more individuals in each generation, until the whole population has it. The concept is simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well my evo-friends....how do mutations add up?
Post 5 is still out there.

Described in the opening post. Please read it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ta-dah? Just like that?

Errr..... yes?
Why? What did you expect?

You are aware of how it works with the sperm and the egg, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Youre argument never makes it out of the cattle shoot.....The gene is made up of a lot of DNA base pairs. Yes the chances of a mutation occurring in a particular gene might be 1 in 25,000 (depending on the size of the gene)..but it has to work within that gene in a very, very specific way.

Only if you approach this from hindsight with the idea that say that currently extant species where a "pre deterimined goal" for evolution to produce.

Deal yourself a bridge hand.
Now calculate the odds of you getting that particular hand.

In hindsight, those are impossible odds. Yet, there you are... holding that exact hand on the FIRST TRY.

 

[And-U-Say]

Youre argument never makes it out of the cattle shoot.....The gene is made up of a lot of DNA base pairs. Yes the chances of a mutation occurring in a particular gene might be 1 in 25,000 (depending on the size of the gene)..but it has to work within that gene in a very, very specific way.

The information in the DNA code has to know how to assemble the atoms into molecules. The molecules then have to group together and make amino acids...that have to string together and make proteins that fold in precise ways so thay can combine with other proteins and make organelle....and so on. Often the organelle are part of an assembly line...a complex process that if one stage fails....so does the organism or the process the organelle are carrying out.

The odds of your 1 in 25,000 mutations effecting the DNA code that is responsible for the building of a particular organelle..will long destroy or neutralize it before a beneficial mutation arrives and somehow tweeks the molecular process in the precise manner.

When you consider just what must happen over and over again to the code to increase the information that makes an organelle....evolution falls flat on it's face.

So, now I've expanded the hurdle that you need to overcome exponentially. I trust you stand corrected on the issue life is a little bit more complicated than your coloring book example.

It is absolutely clear that you do not have even a passing understanding of how DNA or genetics work. You don't understand the structures, you don't understand the replication, you don't understand the meaning of information. All of your opponents are realizing this as they try to comprehend what you are saying, because your lack of understanding makes your statements nonsensical.

I get that you desperately want this Evolution thing to be false because it clashes with your cherished superstitions. But if you are going to try to argue this, you need a couple of orders magnitude of better understanding of the material in question. As it stands, you are not only unconvincing, you are incoherent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it fails when you need to have a bunch of so-called RANDOM beneficial mutations occurring in the DNA of the progeny in a fashion that increases the benefit of a trait by adding information to the DNA code responsible for the traits formation.

Show me how that is a simple concept?

It seems that you are making the error of thinking that present day life, man included, was a goal of evolution. It isn't. There are no such goals in evolution. The only goal is survival, not intelligence or some other goal. For us increased intelligence, along with other changes, added up to our current state. When you say "you need to have a bunch of so-called RANDOM beneficial mutations" it is rather clear that you are thinking of some specific goal. That is simply wrong.

Think of horse evolution, the number of toes actually went up and down before it settled on the present day two, and the number of ribs varied, along with other traits. The evolution from "pre-horse" to "horse" was not a straight line. For some reason creationists seem to think that is what the theory of evolution says. The only goal is once again survival in the current environment that a species finds itself in.

 

[Papias]

It sounds like there is some confusion over how natural selection picks out the beneficial mutations over time. maybe an iterative description would be easier to see. I'll post one.