Mutation rates in the human DNA

[Micaiah]

Mutations are supposed to result in the small gradual changes that Darwin's theory of common descent required. Based on what we know today about the DNA of the human and chimpanzee it is possible to estimate the current rate of mutation in human populations and the rate for the supposed human chimp evolution.

What is the:

- Actual mutation rates observed in human populations today.
- Mutation rate of humans inferred from the chimp/human common ancestor.

Some criteria to establish in this context:

1. Total number of base pairs in the human DNA.

2. Difference between the human and chimp DNA, and estimates of variation between this and a common ancestor.

3. The 'age' of the supposed common human/chimp ancestor.

4. The chance of a mutation becoming fixed in the evolving population. Most mutations, even beneficial mutations do not become fixed in the population. This must be accounted for in the the theorised ape to human rate of mutaton.

5. The requirements and underpinning assumptions of the NDT of evolution.

Please post your references.

 

[Grengor]

Darwin is dead.

 

[john crawford]

Darwin is dead.

Neo-Darwinist race theories are still deadly.

 

[notto]

All of your questions (and some of the misconceptions they contain) will most likely be answered with a careful reading of the following.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

(and don't forget about the chromosome fusion!)

 

[Grengor]

Neo-Darwinist race theories are still deadly.

We all know about the kids who studied evolutionary relationships' head exploded.

 

[Micaiah]

Darwin is dead.

References please.

 

[Micaiah]

All of your questions (and some of the misconceptions they contain) will most likely be answered with a careful reading of the following.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

(and don't forget about the chromosome fusion!)

Thanks for the link Notto. The idea was for people to give the values with the references to suuport their claims. It is a discussion forum after all. How about it then?

 

[Guywiththehead]

References please.

http://www.abailey.org/album/album38/061_G?full=1

 

[Micaiah]

A photo of Darwin's gravestone. Okay, that passes.

 

[variant]

I already took the time to do this in another thread so I will offer up my inexpert extrapolation. (If the links are broken it is because they are old.)



I can give you a very rough estimate, based on extrapolation.


http://chimp.kribb.re.kr/~gsal/lab/announce/foreign/NBC/chimp%20DNA%20changes%20mapped.htm



This sights a study in nature comparing chromosomes of apes and humans, so, about 1.5%.



Remember this is the current difference between us and the chimpanzees, not us and our common ancestor to chimpanzees. This has shown not to have been accomplished by point mutations alone; many other kinds of genetic acrobatics are known to have happened, and that really tip of the iceberg. In my extrapolation I cut this in half again to account for the changes that have happened to chimpanzees since then.


The complete human genome is about 2.3 billion bases.


http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgenetics%2Fans_027.html



“One of the biggest surprises to come from the sequencing of the human genome was that we have about 30,000 genes but produce approximately 90,000 proteins. And 99 percent of our DNA codes for no protein at all. The new research provides a clue as to why we have so much “junk DNA.” It also suggests an explanation of how so few genes can produce so many proteins.”


http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_03/junk.shtml



http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html



Austrolophythigus to humans took about 5 million years.



So, by taking 1 percent of 2.3 billion or 23 million, of that we take .75 (estimation of the divide) to get 172,500 now we divide that by the number of years (5 million) .0345 changes per year. Multiply changes per year to the average age of conception, so even if on average that the people that gave birth to modern humans were 40 years old they would still only pass on 1.38 new base pairs in a coding region. So it’s likely there would have been less than 1 new base pair per generation on average. Remember this isn’t the mutation rate, which could then be extrapolated to see if it was BAD, this is the average of a terrible awful attempt at an estimate of how many substitutions per year had to take place.


What I don’t know:


I don’t know exactly how many bases (we haven’t counted exactly if you can tell), I don’t know exactly what percentage of my genome is functional (a comparison of actual genes shows one in evolutionary biology that large non descript non coding regions around the genes regulate the genes function) , or was functional over the course of time expounded in this thought experiment (things change). I don’t know how big the divide there was between our common ancestor, and I certainly don’t know that all these mutations were point mutations, because of all the other genetic events that have taken place (which would affect the total mutation rate). We actually have a different number of chromosomes so someone lost or gained one somewhere along the line. So, one would have to suspect that a certain number of more impressive mutational events happened.

 

[rjw]

Mutations are supposed to result in the small gradual changes that Darwin's theory of common descent required. Based on what we know today about the DNA of the human and chimpanzee it is possible to estimate the current rate of mutation in human populations and the rate for the supposed human chimp evolution.

What is the:

- Actual mutation rates observed in human populations today.
- Mutation rate of humans inferred from the chimp/human common ancestor.

Some criteria to establish in this context:

1. Total number of base pairs in the human DNA.

2. Difference between the human and chimp DNA, and estimates of variation between this and a common ancestor.

3. The 'age' of the supposed common human/chimp ancestor.

4. The chance of a mutation becoming fixed in the evolving population. Most mutations, even beneficial mutations do not become fixed in the population. This must be accounted for in the the theorised ape to human rate of mutaton.

5. The requirements and underpinning assumptions of the NDT of evolution.

Please post your references.

Gidday Micaiah,


Modern estimates can be found in textbooks, journals and on the web.

I am curious, why do you wish others to answer your questions for you?


Regards, Roland

 

[Micaiah]

Several reasons I guess:

1. I'm a learner in the subject.
2. It seems to me that others also have vague or contradictory ideas on the topic. This may help clarify thinking.
3. These values are important in any mathematical discussions on origins.
4. We've recently had discussions on the chance of convergent evolution, and the age of 'Eve' based on mtDNA. I believe that these parameters and the assumptions upon which they were based are important.
5. I don't have a text book on evolution and (cough cough splutter) may find it difficult to bring myself to buy one.
6. This is a forum for discussing origins and it seemed like a relevant and interesting topic.
7. I feel if we can agree on values among us it becomes a much more effective tool when used in any apologetic discussions.

And seven is the perfect number.

 

[rjw]

Several reasons I guess:

1. I'm a learner in the subject.
2. It seems to me that others also have vague or contradictory ideas on the topic. This may help clarify thinking.
3. These values are important in any mathematical discussions on origins.
4. We've recently had discussions on the chance of convergent evolution, and the age of 'Eve' based on mtDNA. I believe that these parameters and the assumptions upon which they were based are important.
5. I don't have a text book on evolution and (cough cough splutter) may find it difficult to bring myself to buy one.
6. This is a forum for discussing origins and it seemed like a relevant and interesting topic.
7. I feel if we can agree on values among us it becomes a much more effective tool when used in any apologetic discussions.

And seven is the perfect number.

Hello Micaiah,

“Chuckle” and “fair enough” at your reply.

I am a layman and the answers to your questions will therefore take a while to dig up. For now I shall let others supply the answers and keep my eye on the debate.

Mind you, rather than buying a book, why did you not try a web search for your answers and put them up for a topic of debate?

Regards, Roland

 

[Micaiah]

Thanks. I intend to help compile the list and provide links. I'd like to see others make some effort as well. There are people on the forum who know more than I about the subject on both sides of the debate, so their input is always helpful.

 

[Jet Black]

Several reasons I guess:

1. I'm a learner in the subject.

one thing about being a learner is learning where the sources are.

 

[notto]

Thanks for the link Notto. The idea was for people to give the values with the references to suuport their claims. It is a discussion forum after all. How about it then?

And the answers to all of your questions are in that link. If you are indeed a learner, you should read that in its entirety. It is one of the best and concise resources out there on the topics you would like to discuss.

Now that you have been provided references where you can find the answers to your questions, what would you like to discuss?

 

[Loudmouth]

You can measure the mutation rate in several ways. You can measure it by comparing differences in non-coding DNA between sister species (eg human-chimp), or by measuring the spontaneous appearance of genetic diseases such as hemophilia.

The linked paper on human/chimp divergence gives a mutation rate of 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation while the other paper reports 125. The real number probably lies somewhere in between, and is probably variable between individuals to a degree given different environments and different genetics.