Mutations Really Do Happen

[Loudmouth]

It seems that every so often we see people acting as if mutations just don't happen. They claim that since there are DNA repair mechanisms in humans and other species that mutations simply do not occur.

Just to show that they really do happen, I would like to reference the following paper:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v46/n8/full/ng.3021.html

secondary article here:
Population Whole-genome Sequencing: Dutch Edition | MassGenomics

In this paper they looked at the genomes of two parents and one of their children. By doing so, they can find the DNA sequences in the children that did not come from the parents. These are the mutations.

How many families did they look at? 250. That's a lot. Here is an interesting chart showing that the number of mutations loosely correlates to the age of the father:

So yes, mutations do occur, even in humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems that every so often we see people acting as if mutations just don't happen. They claim that since there are DNA repair mechanisms in humans and other species that mutations simply do not occur.

Mutations do occur.

We call that "adapting" -- not "microevolving."

Microevolving opens the door to macroevolution, which opens the door to deep time, which opens the door to considering ourselves "animals," which opens the door to classifying ourselves as "wise man," which, according to Romans 1, leads to atheism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[Audacious]

Mutations do occur.

We call that "adapting" -- not "microevolving."

Microevolving opens the door to macroevolution, which opens the door to deep time, which opens the door to considering ourselves "animals," which opens the door to classifying ourselves as "wise man," which, according to Romans 1, leads to atheism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

You do realize that evolution is, in part, a system of adaptation, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that evolution is, in part, a system of adaptation, right?

I realize it's taught that way.

But in [Biblical] reality, there is no such thing as evolution.

 

[crjmurray]

I realize it's taught that way.

But in [Biblical] reality, there is no such thing as evolution.

But in [reality] reality, there is.

 

[selfinflikted]

Microevolving opens the door to macroevolution, which opens the door to deep time, which opens the door to considering ourselves "animals," which opens the door to classifying ourselves as "wise man," which, according to Romans 1, leads to atheism.

Reality is sure a slippery slope, isn't it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm waiting for science to calculate the odds against evolution. That should be part of the 'falsification' process. OBTW, the odds for special creation remain 100 per cent.

 

[selfinflikted]

I'm waiting for science to calculate the odds against evolution. That should be part of the 'falsification' process. OBTW, the odds for special creation remain 100 per cent.

Math please.

Also, why would we need to calculate the odds against something that we know happen(s)(ed)?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Math please.

Also, why would we need to calculate the odds against something that we know happen(s)(ed)?

I'll rephrase it. What are the odds of any given selection that is made by natural selection? How many choices does natural selection have to select from for any given change? That should reveal some interesting odds.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mutations do occur.

We call that "adapting"

Which is what evolution is.... a grand series of adaptions that accumulate over generations.

Microevolving opens the door to macroevolution, which opens the door to deep time, which opens the door to considering ourselves "animals," which opens the door to classifying ourselves as "wise man," which, according to Romans 1, leads to atheism.

Accumulation of smalls changes does not "open the door" for big changes over time.

Rather, "big changes over many generations" is an inevitable result of "small changes accumulating every generation".

Many inches accumulated results in millions of miles.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Yes, yes...
education and knowledge are evil.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll rephrase it. What are the odds of any given selection that is made by natural selection?

A creature either reproduces or it doesn't.
If it does, it passes on its genes. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

It's not rocket science.

How many choices does natural selection have to select from for any given change? That should reveal some interesting odds.

"Natural selection" is not some entity that "decides" something to "select" after carefully examining the subject

"Natural Selection" is rather simply the phenomena that those best equipped for survival and reproduction, have the best chances to do so. They those who succeed in spawning a new generation, pass on their genetic material (= selection) and that those that fail, don't (= selected against).

Selection is a phenomena, not an action decided by some entity

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A creature either reproduces or it doesn't.
If it does, it passes on its genes. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

It's not rocket science.



"Natural selection" is not some entity that "decides" something to "select" after carefully examining the subject

"Natural Selection" is rather simply the phenomena that those best equipped for survival and reproduction, have the best chances to do so. They those who succeed in spawning a new generation, pass on their genetic material (= selection) and that those that fail, don't (= selected against).

Selection is a phenomena, not an action decided by some entity

So, how does the organism record a successful change into it's genetic code? Or does the successful genes evolve first and that quality is then added to succeeding generations? Which comes first, the gene for change, or the change itself?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Which comes first, the gene for change, or the change itself?

The mutated gene comes first.
This gene may have some effect on the living thing that allows it to better succeed at reproducing (than other members of its species).
When it reproduces, the gene gets passed on.

 

[pgp_protector]

I realize it's taught that way.

But in [Biblical] reality, there is no such thing as evolution.

[Biblical] reality can take a hike then.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So, how does the organism record a successful change into it's genetic code?

The "organism" doesn't. The population does. A mutation would need to achieve fixation (ie, be present in most individuals of the population) in order to call it a "successfully recorded change".

Or does the successful genes evolve first and that quality is then added to succeeding generations? Which comes first, the gene for change, or the change itself?

Again, it's not rocket science.
Every new born has some set of mutations (so do you).
When you reproduce, you pass on your genetic material (which includes your own mutations) to your off spring. And so on and so on.

The more your descendants reproduce, the more widespread the mutations of your praticular branch will spread throughout the population.

 

[selfinflikted]

So, how does the organism record a successful change into it's genetic code? Or does the successful genes evolve first and that quality is then added to succeeding generations? Which comes first, the gene for change, or the change itself?

An organism doesn't. Populations do, and they (changes) remain as long as the population continues to reproduce. If the organisms with a specific mutation don't live long enough to pass on their genes, that trait will eventually die out. The ones who live long enough to successfully reproduce will, of course, pass on their genes, and the traits with them.

Mutations come first. Whether they will be selected for depends on the reproductive success of the organisms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So the blueprint for change develops first, then the change occurs?

 

[selfinflikted]

In a manner of speaking, yes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So the blueprint for change develops first, then the change occurs?

That's part of the point of this thread, with the finding that everyone has maybe 50 mutations on average. Everyone has 50 little changes in their blueprint.

ETA: from the linked article the average number of de novo mutations was "roughly 42.7 per offspring"

 

[DogmaHunter]

So the blueprint for change develops first, then the change occurs?

There is a difference between the physical change and how this change reflects in the life of the organism. Genotype verses fenotype.

The physical change is the mutation, which I guess would happen at conception.

Then it's a matter of seeing how this physical change changes the fenotype / experssion of those genes during development and life in general.