Mutation gives mouse poison resistance

[CabVet]

This one goes for those who don't "believe" in beneficial mutations, a mutation gives grasshopper mice resistance to scorpion venom, allowing them to eat scorpions.

Mouse eats scorpions

But maybe this is just another loss, right? The mutation made them lose the ability to die from poisoning?

 

[AV1611VET]

This one goes for those who don't "believe" in beneficial mutations, a mutation gives grasshopper mice resistance to scorpion venom, allowing them to eat scorpions.

I'm sure the scorpions would disagree with you.

 

[CabVet]

I'm sure the scorpions would disagree with you.

Oh, so now mutations are only beneficial if they produce new information in organisms other than where they occur? That is a new twist...

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, so now mutations are only beneficial if they produce new information in organisms other than where they occur? That is a new twist...

One animal's beneficial mutation is another animal's malevolent mutation.

 

[Vaccine]

"Normally, scorpion venom activates a protein in the cell membrane called Nav1.7 that makes it fire pain signals. But grasshopper mice, they found, have a mutation in a different protein, Nav1.8, that prevents the signal from travelling any further and reaching the brain."

I wouldn't tout a mutation that prevents pain and a "mutation gives mouse poison resistance" as the same thing. Restaurants in LeMat Vietnam serve cobra venom to drink while they prepare the cobra to eat, even thought it's a different type of venom, as long as it stays out of the blood system digesting it isn't a problem.

At any rate, a true "gain of function" mutation is what evolution requires. Losing the ability to sense pain isn't a gain of function, whether it's beneficial is debatable. They sure made it interesting story though.

 

[EternalDragon]

This one goes for those who don't "believe" in beneficial mutations, a mutation gives grasshopper mice resistance to scorpion venom, allowing them to eat scorpions.

Mouse eats scorpions

But maybe this is just another loss, right? The mutation made them lose the ability to die from poisoning?

Who does not believe in beneficial mutations?

 

[CabVet]

Who does not believe in beneficial mutations?

~95% of the creationists here and elsewhere.

 

[CabVet]

"Normally, scorpion venom activates a protein in the cell membrane called Nav1.7 that makes it fire pain signals. But grasshopper mice, they found, have a mutation in a different protein, Nav1.8, that prevents the signal from travelling any further and reaching the brain."

I wouldn't tout a mutation that prevents pain and a "mutation gives mouse poison resistance" as the same thing. Restaurants in LeMat Vietnam serve cobra venom to drink while they prepare the cobra to eat, even thought it's a different type of venom, as long as it stays out of the blood system digesting it isn't a problem.

At any rate, a true "gain of function" mutation is what evolution requires. Losing the ability to sense pain isn't a gain of function, whether it's beneficial is debatable. They sure made it interesting story though.

Well, let's see, the mutation not only allows the mice to become immune to an otherwise lethal sting, but it also gives the mice a new food source (the scorpion). And you say the benefits of this mutation are "debatable", really?

For the millionth time, evolution dos not require true "gains of function", it does not have a "purpose" or "direction". All that evolution requires is change.

 

[EternalDragon]

Well, let's see, the mutation not only allows the mice to become immune to an otherwise lethal sting, but it also gives the mice a new food source (the scorpion). And you say the benefits of this mutation are "debatable", really?

For the millionth time, evolution dos not require true "gains of function", it does not have a "purpose" or "direction". All that evolution requires is change.

That is an example of the kind of evolution that any Christian would agree with. It is not an example to help your idea of evolution.

 

[CabVet]

That is an example of the kind of evolution that any Christian would agree with. It is not an example to help your idea of evolution.

"My idea of evolution" is demonstrated by this example. If you have a different idea of evolution, you are the one that is wrong. And yes, many creationists deny this and any other kind of evolution, if you scroll up you will see one questioning if this mutation is beneficial.

 

[OllieFranz]

"My idea of evolution" is demonstrated by this example. If you have a different idea of evolution, you are the one that is wrong. And yes, many creationists deny this and any other kind of evolution, if you scroll up you will see one questioning if this mutation is beneficial.

Make that at least one and a half. While it is difficult to be sure just how serious AV's objection is, it is an objection. Vaccine is dead serious.

 

[EternalDragon]

"My idea of evolution" is demonstrated by this example. If you have a different idea of evolution, you are the one that is wrong. And yes, many creationists deny this and any other kind of evolution, if you scroll up you will see one questioning if this mutation is beneficial.

The example is a mutation of a protein. Not a series of mutations resulting in say wings on a rat. Which would take a lot more complex changes to happen and is the kind of evolution I assume you believe in.

Complex changes meaning re-routing blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, bypassing whole embryo body plans, etc.

 

[OllieFranz]

The example is a mutation of a protein. Not a series of mutations resulting in say wings on a rat. Which would take a lot more complex changes to happen and is the kind of evolution I assume you believe in.

Complex changes meaning re-routing blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, bypassing whole embryo body plans, etc.

It sounds like you are envisioning the sudden emergence of wings due to mutation, something like "Angel" of the X-Men. That is quite different from anything we see in nature. On the other hand, gradual adaptation of the forelimbs into wings is something that has happened twice, once in birds and once in bats. And it worked out a little differently in both lineages. Plus there is a sligtly different approach used by several squirrel genuses, which is most fully realized in the "flying squirrels" species.

 

[EternalDragon]

It sounds like you are envisioning the sudden emergence of wings due to mutation, something like "Angel" of the X-Men. That is quite different from anything we see in nature. On the other hand, gradual adaptation of the forelimbs into wings is something that has happened twice, once in birds and once in bats. And it worked out a little differently in both lineages. Plus there is a sligtly different approach used by several squirrel genuses, which is most fully realized in the "flying squirrels" species.

No, it has not happened. You believe it happened.

God created birds and bats on day five, fully formed and able to fly.

 

[Vaccine]

Well, let's see, the mutation not only allows the mice to become immune to an otherwise lethal sting, but it also gives the mice a new food source (the scorpion). And you say the benefits of this mutation are "debatable", really?

It's debatable because the mouse LOSES the ability to sense pain. In case there's a fire for example, loss of a pain reflex is bad. So I'm not misunderstood, species adapt and there are beneficial mutations. It's just as Eternal Dragon pointed out, variation within a species and variation to a species are two different things.

For the millionth time, evolution dos not require true "gains of function", it does not have a "purpose" or "direction". All that evolution requires is change.

The whole idea of descent with modification is pretty much based on gain of function mutations cropping up, being selected and passed on. Without gaining the function of nerve cells, osteoblasts, immune systems, eyes, ears, etc, all life would still basically be bacteria if all that was required was change. Reducing the issue to simply requiring "change", grossly oversimplifies what actually constitutes function and regulation within the cell.

 

[lasthero]

It's debatable because the mouse LOSES the ability to sense pain

I don't think the article actually said the mouse completely loses the ability to feel any pain whatsoever.

To discover their secret, Ashlee Rowe of Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, and colleagues injected a very small amount of scorpion venom into the paw of a grasshopper mouse and a standard-issue lab mouse (Mus musculus). The grasshopper mouse spent far less time licking its paw, suggesting that the venom was less painful to it.

It can still feel the venom to some extent, but far less than it would otherwise. And, I could be reading the article wrong and someone more knowledgeable can feel free to correct, but I think it's only say that the mutation only prevents the activation of Nav17 - it can still feel pain.

 

[OllieFranz]

It's just as Eternal Dragon pointed out, variation within a species and variation to a species are two different things.

So, then what is the difference? What mechanism allows a mutation "within" a species but blocks a mutation that would eventually go "to a [new] species"? And how else do you explain Ring Species and species groups that can hybridize (jackass x mare --> mule;stallion x jenny --> hinney; lion x tigress --> liger; tiger x lioness --> tigon; etc)?

The whole idea of descent with modification is pretty much based on gain of function mutations cropping up, being selected and passed on. Without gaining the function of nerve cells, osteoblasts, immune systems, eyes, ears, etc, all life would still basically be bacteria if all that was required was change. Reducing the issue to simply requiring "change", grossly oversimplifies what actually constitutes function and regulation within the cell.

Evolution is not directed;any change is evolution. But on the other hand, it is not random, either. It is shaped by all sorts of natural pressures, availability of food and water resources, over population, predators, changing environment, etc. Generally, a balance between specialization for the specific environment and flexability in future is the route to greatest survival, and it also is what we (not coincidently) recognize as a successful "improvement" or "progress" in the population.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it has not happened. You believe it happened.

God created birds and bats on day five, fully formed and able to fly.

Sorry, but all of the scientific evidence in the world says that is not what happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but all of the scientific evidence in the world says that is not what happened.

Scientific evidence can take a hike.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's debatable because the mouse LOSES the ability to sense pain.

Then the evolution of terrestrial vertebrates is a loss of information because the land vertebrates lose their ability to live in water, right?

It's just as Eternal Dragon pointed out, variation within a species and variation to a species are two different things.

The differences between the human and chimp genome are examples of mutations that cause divergence between species.