How Mutations Accumulate

[Papias]

rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

A single mutation can provide an advantage. From there, accumulating more is straightforward, when one remembers the populations involved.

So first of all, remember that addition information with mutations happens easily due to the duplication of stretches of DNA.

Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

• Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
• Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
• Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
• Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria). This has been observed by scientists numerous times.

Now, with additional information appearing this way, natural selection "naturally" removes harmful mutations and accumulates the helpful ones.

Take a population of, say, 100,000 (which is really quite small, the population of deer just in Michigan is over 2,000,000 - 20 times as much). So the mutations will usually be on separate individuals, not on the same individual. Thus, the mutations will or will not be transmitted to the next generation according to the common sense observation of whether they help or hurt.


So let's try an example:


So, out of that population of 100,000 there will be around 20 to 80,000 births in one breeding season, depending on the species. (actually, it's much higher in many species that have litters of more than 2 babies). Of those 50,000 say there are 5000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 100 to 1 harmful to beneficial). So those 5,000 fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of the babies will reproduce anyway, most just lose the competition even being unmutated), and most importantly, of course those 50 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 40 of them do so, giving just 3X babies, or 120.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 40 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
120 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 170 beneficial mutants (120 + 50 new ones) are more likely to reproduce, so say that 150 of them do so, giving 450 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 450 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
450 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 500 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 400 of them do so, giving 1,200 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 1,200 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
1200 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 1,250 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 1000 of them do so, giving 3,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 3,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
3,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 3,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 2,700 of them do so, giving 8,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 8,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
8,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 8,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 7,000 of them do so, giving 21,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 21,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
21,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 21,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that only 18,000 of them do so, giving 54,000 babies.

Hold on though. Our land can only support 50,000 babies per generation, so we only get 50,000 of those.

But look at what has happened! Even though there were always 100 harmful mutations to only 1 good mutation, what one would naively think is an overwhelmingly bad rate, yet at the end of the day we have seen that the good mutations have now spread to every single member of the population, and the harmful mutations are gone!

You can run this again and again with different ratios of good to bad mutations, different mutation rates, and so on. I've changed all those numbers, and you know what? Biologist have too, both by looking at different actual animal populations, and by computer simulations. Both the real world and the simulations show that same things. Those are:

1. The higher the overall mutation rate, the faster the good mutations add up.
2. The faster the reproduction, the faster the good mutations add up.
3. The rate of harmful mutations has no effect. 3 to 1 bad to good, or 20 to 1, or 50 to 1, or 100 to 1 or whatever, has no effect because the harmful mutations are removed by selection anyway. Try it for yourself and see.
4. The larger the total number of good mutations, the faster they spread though the population, but this is less important than conclusion #2.

Does that all help? Looking at it in detail shows that it's all common sense, nothing that's hard to understand.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

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.

Evolutionism would be like dealing yourself a bridge hand....then shuffling the deck and dealing yourself another bridge hand with just one card changing..making the hand better. Then you have to do it again, and again...

 

[-57]

A single mutation can provide an advantage. From there, accumulating more is straightforward, when one remembers the populations involved.

So first of all, remember that addition information with mutations happens easily due to the duplication of stretches of DNA.

Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

• Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
• Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
• Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
• Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria). This has been observed by scientists numerous times.

Now, with additional information appearing this way, natural selection "naturally" removes harmful mutations and accumulates the helpful ones.

Take a population of, say, 100,000 (which is really quite small, the population of deer just in Michigan is over 2,000,000 - 20 times as much). So the mutations will usually be on separate individuals, not on the same individual. Thus, the mutations will or will not be transmitted to the next generation according to the common sense observation of whether they help or hurt.


So let's try an example:


So, out of that population of 100,000 there will be around 20 to 80,000 births in one breeding season, depending on the species. (actually, it's much higher in many species that have litters of more than 2 babies). Of those 50,000 say there are 5000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 100 to 1 harmful to beneficial). So those 5,000 fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of the babies will reproduce anyway, most just lose the competition even being unmutated), and most importantly, of course those 50 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 40 of them do so, giving just 3X babies, or 120.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 40 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
120 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 170 beneficial mutants (120 + 50 new ones) are more likely to reproduce, so say that 150 of them do so, giving 450 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 450 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
450 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 500 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 400 of them do so, giving 1,200 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 1,200 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
1200 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 1,250 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 1000 of them do so, giving 3,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 3,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
3,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 3,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 2,700 of them do so, giving 8,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 8,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
8,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 8,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 7,000 of them do so, giving 21,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 21,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
21,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 21,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that only 18,000 of them do so, giving 54,000 babies.

Hold on though. Our land can only support 50,000 babies per generation, so we only get 50,000 of those.

But look at what has happened! Even though there were always 100 harmful mutations to only 1 good mutation, what one would naively think is an overwhelmingly bad rate, yet at the end of the day we have seen that the good mutations have now spread to every single member of the population, and the harmful mutations are gone!

You can run this again and again with different ratios of good to bad mutations, different mutation rates, and so on. I've changed all those numbers, and you know what? Biologist have too, both by looking at different actual animal populations, and by computer simulations. Both the real world and the simulations show that same things. Those are:

1. The higher the overall mutation rate, the faster the good mutations add up.
2. The faster the reproduction, the faster the good mutations add up.
3. The rate of harmful mutations has no effect. 3 to 1 bad to good, or 20 to 1, or 50 to 1, or 100 to 1 or whatever, has no effect because the harmful mutations are removed by selection anyway. Try it for yourself and see.
4. The larger the total number of good mutations, the faster they spread though the population, but this is less important than conclusion #2.

Does that all help? Looking at it in detail shows that it's all common sense, nothing that's hard to understand.

In Christ-

Papias

You said above....."Of those 50,000 say there are 5000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 100 to 1 harmful to beneficial)."

Really? Those are valid ratios?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionism would be like dealing yourself a bridge hand....then shuffling the deck and dealing yourself another bridge hand with just one card changing..making the hand better. Then you have to do it again, and again...

No, that is wrong. It would be like shuffling the deck, keeping the cards that you would help you, and then returning the others to the deck and shuffling again. It is very obvious that if one did this that soon you would have an unbeatable hand. You made the mistake of only focusing on the "random variation" aspect of evolution. Natural selection is equally as important. Either, by themselves will not do too much, but working together almost any problem can be solved.

So before you make this mistake again remember it is random variation and natural selection. Not only random variation as you just used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said above....."Of those 50,000 say there are 5000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 100 to 1 harmful to beneficial)."

Really? Those are valid ratios?

His ratios seem to be a bit low. In real life there are probably more beneficial mutations:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

 

[-57]

His ratios seem to be a bit low. In real life there are probably more beneficial mutations:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

"Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007)."

E. Coli is nothing like animal mutations. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Papias]

You said above....."Of those 50,000 say there are 5000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 100 to 1 harmful to beneficial)."

Really? Those are valid ratios?

They are conservative (more in your direction), to show that even in extreme cases, natural selection still works. Actual mutation rates vary, of course, but in humans it looks like there are over 10 mutations in most births (such as you or I).

The biggest deviation from actual mutation rates in the above model is that silent mutations were ignored. The vast majority of mutations occur in non-coding DNA, or code for the same amino acid as before (because the DNA code is very redundant), or otherwise have no effect. They were ignored because they, by definition, have no effect, and including them would add words for no purpose.

The actual ratio of harmful to beneficial is highly dependent on how much the environment is changing. For instance, if the environment has been the same for 10 million years, then changes are less likely to help (since the creature is already well adapted) compared to a radical change in the environment (say, just after the cretaceous asteroid impact), when the parent is in dire straits and a change is more likely to help. I used the very harsh 100 to 1 ratio to show that harmful mutations are irrelevant - in many cases the ratio is better.

But if you want a different ratio, I can run it with a different ratio. Which would you like to try? The 150 to 1 from your reference?

SZ - yes, see the above.

Make sense?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

No, that is wrong. It would be like shuffling the deck, keeping the cards that you would help you, and then returning the others to the deck and shuffling again. It is very obvious that if one did this that soon you would have an unbeatable hand. You made the mistake of only focusing on the "random variation" aspect of evolution. Natural selection is equally as important. Either, by themselves will not do too much, but working together almost any problem can be solved.

So before you make this mistake again remember it is random variation and natural selection. Not only random variation as you just used.

We can argue about that all day long...but in reality were talking about odds you can't get over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007)."

E. Coli is nothing like animal mutations. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Why didn't you link your article? Claims without links are worthless. Try again with links to your sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can argue about that all day long...but in reality were talking about odds you can't get over.

You are simply wrong. And you made an obvious error. The correct thing to do when you make an obvious error is to thank the person that corrected you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007)."

E. Coli is nothing like animal mutations. You're comparing apples to oranges.

One more point. Your article does not support your claim, and you did not seem to understand the links that I supplied. One out of ten functional mutations seems to be beneficial. Yes, there may be as many as 3 deleterious mutations per generation. Combining those figures that would give you 0.3 beneficial mutations per generation, still much higher than the numbers that Papias gave you.

 

[Papias]

"An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007)."

OK, so how about a really high rate of harmful mutations? I'll put it up at 300 to one, just to see what happens.

Picking up from Post #41:

So, out of that population of 100,000 there will be around 20 to 80,000 births in one breeding season, depending on the species. (actually, it's much higher in many species that have litters of more than 2 babies). Of those 50,000 say there are 15,000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 300 to 1 harmful to beneficial). So those 15,000 fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of the babies will reproduce anyway, most just lose the competition even being unmutated), and most importantly, of course those 50 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 40 of them do so, giving just 3X babies, or 120.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 40 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

15,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
120 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 170 beneficial mutants (120 + 50 new ones) are more likely to reproduce, so say that 150 of them do so, giving 450 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 450 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

15,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
450 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 500 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 400 of them do so, giving 1,200 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 1,200 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

15,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
1200 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 1,250 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 1000 of them do so, giving 3,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 3,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies. So that gives:

15,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
3,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 3,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 2,700 of them do so, giving 8,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 8,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

15,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
8,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 8,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 7,000 of them do so, giving 21,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 21,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

15,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
21,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 21,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that only 18,000 of them do so, giving 54,000 babies.

Hold on though. Our land can only support 50,000 babies per generation, so we only get 50,000 of those.

But look at what has happened! Even though there were always 300 harmful mutations to only 1 good mutation, what one would naively think is an overwhelmingly bad rate, yet at the end of the day we have seen that the good mutations have now spread to every single member of the population, and the harmful mutations are gone!

You can run this again and again with different ratios of good to bad mutations, different mutation rates, and so on. I've changed all those numbers, and you know what? Biologists have too, both by looking at different actual animal populations, and by computer simulations. Both the real world and the simulations show that same things. Those are:

1. The higher the overall mutation rate, the faster the good mutations add up.
2. The faster the reproduction, the faster the good mutations add up.
3. The rate of harmful mutations has no effect. 3 to 1 bad to good, or 20 to 1, or 50 to 1, or 100 to 1 or whatever, (even 300 to 1) has no effect because the harmful mutations are removed by selection anyway. Try it for yourself and see.
4. The larger the total number of good mutations, the faster they spread though the population, but this is less important than conclusion #2.

Does that all help? Looking at it in detail shows that it's all common sense, nothing that's hard to understand.
****************************************
in Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

They are conservative (more in your direction), to show that even in extreme cases, natural selection still works. Actual mutation rates vary, of course, but in humans it looks like there are over 10 mutations in most births (such as you or I).

The biggest deviation from actual mutation rates in the above model is that silent mutations were ignored. The vast majority of mutations occur in non-coding DNA, or code for the same amino acid as before (because the DNA code is very redundant), or otherwise have no effect. They were ignored because they, by definition, have no effect, and including them would add words for no purpose.

The actual ratio of harmful to beneficial is highly dependent on how much the environment is changing. For instance, if the environment has been the same for 10 million years, then changes are less likely to help (since the creature is already well adapted) compared to a radical change in the environment (say, just after the cretaceous asteroid impact), when the parent is in dire straits and a change is more likely to help. I used the very harsh 100 to 1 ratio to show that harmful mutations are irrelevant - in many cases the ratio is better.

But if you want a different ratio, I can run it with a different ratio. Which would you like to try? The 150 to 1 from your reference?

SZ - yes, see the above.

Make sense?

In Christ-

Papias

What we need is real numbers.....not made up numbers.

Secondly, even if there is a so-called beneficial mutation....there is a need for a second, third, fourth, fifth and so on...that have the ability to increase the information in the DNA responsible for the morphological change.

 

[-57]

Why didn't you link your article? Claims without links are worthless. Try again with links to your sources.

I gave you a reason...."E. Coli is nothing like animal mutations. You're comparing apples to oranges."

To add to that, bacteria can exchange genes by touching each other. Can animals?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you a reason...."E. Coli is nothing like animal mutations. You're comparing apples to oranges."

To add to that, bacteria can exchange genes by touching each other. Can animals?

We are not talking about changes caused by gene exchange. If you want to claim there is a major difference in mutations between E. coli and human beings the burden of proof for that is yours. There are slight ethics problems in doing experimentation on human beings or even animals at times. That is why we use E. coli. Also we can do much more than exchange genes by touching, perhaps you have heard of sex?

I see you have been making claims but have not been able to support them one iota. Again, if you want to make claims you need to support them. Don't complain when others do the work that you won't do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What we need is real numbers.....not made up numbers.

Secondly, even if there is a so-called beneficial mutation....there is a need for a second, third, fourth, fifth and so on...that have the ability to increase the information in the DNA responsible for the morphological change.

Just as bad mutations would add without natural selection, good mutations do add due to natural selection. It seems that you need to ignore the basic concepts of evolution to try to refute it.

You may thing that you are "being skeptical" but sadly you are not. A skeptic will try to understand why all of the experts agree on something. You have the flaw of selective belief, not skepticism. You believe what you want to believe, you are not following the evidence, you are following your prejudice.

 

[-57]

Real numbers my evo-friends....real numbers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Real numbers my evo-friends....real numbers.

You got real number. You could not deal with them.

 

[Papias]

What we need is real numbers.....not made up numbers.

First of all, sure, here are a whole bunch, in different animals, including humans. You can see that ours are in range, just as we saw above.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1544/1169

Secondly, you saw from the basic facts of generations and selection that natural selection removes harmful mutations due to the very nature of what a harmful mutation is. If you don't understand that, just ask about what part is unclear to you, and we can discuss it. That's why this still works even for numbers far outside ones used - and why it's evident to anyone who understands basic reproduction that the exact number can be expected to vary without changing the conclusion.

Secondly, even if there is a so-called beneficial mutation....there is a need for a second, third, fourth, fifth and so on...that have the ability to increase the information in the DNA responsible for the morphological change.

False. You don't need one mutation before getting another - they can happen in different animals and join later by sexual combination. That's why, when, say, a land animal is evolving into a whale, the mutations for the movement of the nostril to the blowhole don't have to "wait" for the back legs to become flippers, nor the tail to evolve a fluke, nor the hair to become more sparse, nor the blood to gain enhanced oxygenation, nor the nostril muscles to strengthen, nor the blubber layers to thicken, etc. All those, and more, happen in parallel.
Make sense?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

False. You don't need one mutation before getting another - they can happen in different animals and join later by sexual combination. That's why, when, say, a land animal is evolving into a whale, the mutations for the movement of the nostril to the blowhole don't have to "wait" for the back legs to become flippers, nor the tail to evolve a fluke, nor the hair to become more sparse, nor the blood to gain enhanced oxygenation, nor the nostril muscles to strengthen, nor the blubber layers to thicken, etc. All those, and more, happen in parallel.
Make sense?

In Christ-

Papias

....all that in 50 MY's. WOW!!!! Parallel beneficial mutations...

Oh the claims of the evo-crowd.

Now, if you don't understand that so-called beneficial mutations MUST add to a previous change to allow for your "short" list of proto-dolphin changes...I can understand why you are having problem and can't move away from your coloring book evolutionism.