Random mutations

[sfs]

In the vein of intellectual honesty I need you to consider an objection raised to the formula 2e^U. The calculation could be reduced to 2e^U/2 if the sexual reproduction factor is considered. Come on sfs you need to follow the argument because I am not going to keep making your points.

You're not making my points. The genetic load is reduced for sexual reproduction; the two formulas (e^U and 2e^U) express exactly the same thing, just accounting for it differently. One is the number of offspring needed per person, the other the number needed per breeding pair or per female.

 

[sfs]

Humans Evolving More Rapidly Than Ever, Say Scientists


Look out, future, because here we come: scientists say the speed of human evolution increased rapidly during the last 40,000 years — and it’s only going to get faster.

The findings, published today by a team of U.S. anthropologists in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, overturn the theory that modern life’s relative ease has slowed or even stopped human adaptation. Selective pressures are still at work; they just happen to be different than those faced by our distant ancestors.

Note of warning: that was a really crappy paper. it's quite possible, even probable, that there was an increase in directional selection in humans in the last 50,000 years or so, but I don't think that paper makes a reasonable case for it being true.

 

[sfs]

“This means that we are accumulating new genetic mutations — the foundation of evolution — about a third as quickly as previously thought. If this mutation rate has been steady throughout human evolution, it pushes the fork between humans and chimps back 7 million years earlier. Some earlier evidence indicates that chimps may be evolving quicker than humans, though Awadalla said they would like to see how they stack up using this whole-genome sequencing method.”

http://www.livescience.com/14620-humans-evolving-slower-expected.html

There's a bit of overstatement there. If you take the high end of quite old estimates and the low end of current estimates, you'll get a factor of three; a factor of two is more realistic. Ten years ago, estimates of the mutation rate in humans were around 2.0 - 2.5 x 10[sup]-8[/sup]/bp/gen. Today, it looks like the rate is more like 1.0 - 1.2 x 10[sup]-8[sup]/bp/gen.

The problem for the evolutionist is they have only one third the needed mutation rate to make a monkey into a man; this fact alone is enough to put the nail in the coffin of the evolutionist.

Why? No one had a clue about how many functional mutations were needed to turn our ancestors into us before, nor do we have a clue now. One-third of "I don't know" is still not a well-defined number.

Now how do you fit a deleterious rate of “U = 4.2” into the equation.

You don't. The only connection is that reducing the estimated mutation rate also reduces the estimated deleterious mutation rate.

 

[sfs]

Anyone want to comment on the new evidence that only 60 mutations make it to the next generation?

I've commented on it elsewhere. It looks like good work.

Delaying the evolution to a human from an ape like hominid common ancestor. That’s just funny….

By the way the 30 mutations per individual influence the “genetic drift” calculation. Which in turn show evolution must take 7 million more years for chimp human divergence than previously calculated.

Let's use some actual numbers rather than just waving our arms about, shall we? If the human/chimpanzee split was 7 million years ago, if the mutation rate is 1.1x10-[sup]-8[/sup]/bp/gen, if the mean generation time has been 20 years, and if the ancestral population size was at leat 100,000 (as several pieces of evidence have suggested), and if the great majority of mutations are neutral, we would expect the human/chimpanzee divergence to be 2 x (1.1 x 10[sup]-8[/sup] x 7 x 10[sup]6[/sup] / 20 + 4 x 100,000) = 0.0121, or 1.21%. The measured difference is 1.23% (or 1.4%, if you're including indels, which may or may not be appropriate here).

So what exactly is the problem?

 

[Zaius137]

“if the mutation rate is 1.1x10--8/bp/gen”

Wouldn’t 60 /gen be = 1.9x10^-11/bp/gen… Is your calculator broke?

 

[Zaius137]

You're not making my points. The genetic load is reduced for sexual reproduction; the two formulas (e^U and 2e^U) express exactly the same thing, just accounting for it differently. One is the number of offspring needed per person, the other the number needed per breeding pair or per female.

Look at the numbers... 2e^U/2...

I threw your puppy a bone.

 

[Zaius137]

There's a bit of overstatement there. If you take the high end of quite old estimates and the low end of current estimates, you'll get a factor of three; a factor of two is more realistic. Ten years ago, estimates of the mutation rate in humans were around 2.0 - 2.5 x 10-8/bp/gen. Today, it looks like the rate is more like 1.0 - 1.2 x 10[sup]-8[sup]/bp/gen.

That is not what the article quotes and the author says that a new timeline would be an additional 7 million years (not trivial by the way).

 

[sfs]

“if the mutation rate is 1.1x10--8/bp/gen”

Wouldn’t 60 /gen be = 1.9x10^-11/bp/gen… Is your calculator broke?

60/gen = 60/6 billion bp (since you have two copies of your genome, each with 3 billion base pairs), or 1/10[sup]8[/sup] bp = 1 x 10[sup]-8[/sup]/bp/gen. I picked 1.1 x 10[sup]-8[/sup] since that's something like the current best estimate.

(By the way, when I wrote the previous post, I picked the numbers and started the post before I calculated the answer.)

 

[sfs]

There's a bit of overstatement there. If you take the high end of quite old estimates and the low end of current estimates, you'll get a factor of three; a factor of two is more realistic. Ten years ago, estimates of the mutation rate in humans were around 2.0 - 2.5 x 10-8/bp/gen. Today, it looks like the rate is more like 1.0 - 1.2 x 10[sup]-8[sup]/bp/gen.

That is not what the article quotes and the author says that a new timeline would be an additional 7 million years (not trivial by the way).

I know. The author is wrong.

 

[sfs]

Look at the numbers... 2e^U/2...

I threw your puppy a bone.

No, you said that sexual reproduction reduced the load. That was wrong. You are not saying the same thing as I am.

 

[mathetes123]

There seems to be a general misunderstanding around here. A lot of people are saying that evolution is random and that mutations are "magical" or "imaginary" events. So, I will try to clarify this. I will start with a few definitions:

Mutation: A mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid): A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA.

RNA (ribonucleic acid): A class of single-stranded molecules transcribed from DNA in the cell, containing a linear sequence complementary to the DNA strand from which it was transcribed.

I believe that mutations occur. I just don't believe that we came about as a series of beneficial mutations. Mutations tend to be destructive, rather than beneficial and would tend to make a species extinct before it would "evolve" it.

 

[Split Rock]

I believe that mutations occur. I just don't believe that we came about as a series of beneficial mutations. Mutations tend to be destructive, rather than beneficial and would tend to make a species extinct before it would "evolve" it.

What you are not taking into consideration is that beneficial mutations are selected for, and detrimental mutations are selected against. Therefore, a particular beneifical mutation will tend to increase in a population, while a detrimental mutation will tend to decrease.

 

[Zaius137]

What you are not taking into consideration is that beneficial mutations are selected for, and detrimental mutations are selected against. Therefore, a particular beneifical mutation will tend to increase in a population, while a detrimental mutation will tend to decrease.

It is a bit more drastic than that. The deleterious mutations must be purged from the population which exacts a needed death toll. Very few mutations actually provide a temporary benefit, if these few mutations get fixed in a population it is by the process Haldane describes. For humans he claims about 300 generations to fix a single mutation (that is about 6000 years or so).

 

[CabVet]

What you are not taking into consideration is that beneficial mutations are selected for, and detrimental mutations are selected against. Therefore, a particular beneifical mutation will tend to increase in a population, while a detrimental mutation will tend to decrease.

It is a bit more drastic than that. The deleterious mutations must be purged from the population which exacts a needed death toll. Very few mutations actually provide a temporary benefit, if these few mutations get fixed in a population it is by the process Haldane describes. For humans he claims about 300 generations to fix a single mutation (that is about 6000 years or so).

What you are not taking into consideration as well is that many species do survive with detrimental mutations (just like we do). Moreover, you hypothetical constant population growth shows that we as a species did survive the mutation load imposed on us.

 

[Zaius137]

“What you are not taking into consideration as well is that many species do survive with detrimental mutations (just like we do).

Yes a species as a whole can survive genetic mutation but individuals pay the price of a deleterious mutation by a quantifiable mortality.

Moreover, you hypothetical constant population growth shows that we as a species did survive the mutation load imposed on us.”

Yes we were reasoning about population growth? My first point was that the Genetic loads of humans and our robustness do show our species is young.

Secondary point was: Unlike the imaginary human population growth accepted in evolution, observed evidence shows humans tend to an exponential population growth curve like many other animal populations.

Need I even ask for further comment?

 

[CabVet]

“What you are not taking into consideration as well is that many species do survive with detrimental mutations (just like we do).

Yes a species as a whole can survive genetic mutation but individuals pay the price of a deleterious mutation by a quantifiable mortality.

If a species can survive genetic mutation what is there to discuss?

Moreover, you hypothetical constant population growth shows that we as a species did survive the mutation load imposed on us.”

Yes we were reasoning about population growth? My first point was that the Genetic loads of humans and our robustness do show our species is young.

Secondary point was: Unlike the imaginary human population growth accepted in evolution, observed evidence shows humans tend to an exponential population growth curve like many other animal populations.

Need I even ask for further comment?

Observed evidence shows that human populations went through a very slow growth until the advent of things like farming and really exploded with modern utilities and medicine. The only imaginary growth here is the one that you claim to have started 4,000 years ago from 8 people.

 

[Zaius137]

If a species can survive genetic mutation what is there to discuss?

An increasing mutation load can not be perpetually tolerated. It must be mediated by the organism or the organism will suffer the ultimate mediation by dyeing. Being diploid mediates most of our genetic load in the short term. Evidence is clear that a build up of mutations is not advantageous to individuals and may cause a form of group selection (maybe).


Observed evidence shows that human populations went through a very slow growth until the advent of things like farming and really exploded with modern utilities and medicine. The only imaginary growth here is the one that you claim to have started 4,000 years ago from 8 people.

No; observed evidence shows that humans have always followed the exponential growth rate with one exception (the European plague). Wars and harsh environmental conditions vary the growth rate figure in humans. Very slow growth in a population in the beginning is a characteristic of the start of an exponential growth curve for humans; a stable population of humans does not last hundreds of thousands of years (observed by the real evidence). Human kind hovering in small populations on the verge of extinction is not mathematically stable and not characteristic of man. The evolution fairytale demands that humans or there ancestors did just that… only a presupposition of circular reasoning creates this principle. The real documented growth rates for humans are exponential.

 

[CabVet]

If a species can survive genetic mutation what is there to discuss?

An increasing mutation load can not be perpetually tolerated. It must be mediated by the organism or the organism will suffer the ultimate mediation by dyeing. Being diploid mediates most of our genetic load in the short term. Evidence is clear that a build up of mutations is not advantageous to individuals and may cause a form of group selection (maybe).


Observed evidence shows that human populations went through a very slow growth until the advent of things like farming and really exploded with modern utilities and medicine. The only imaginary growth here is the one that you claim to have started 4,000 years ago from 8 people.

No; observed evidence shows that humans have always followed the exponential growth rate with one exception (the European plague). Wars and harsh environmental conditions vary the growth rate figure in humans. Very slow growth in a population in the beginning is a characteristic of the start of an exponential growth curve for humans; a stable population of humans does not last hundreds of thousands of years (observed by the real evidence). Human kind hovering in small populations on the verge of extinction is not mathematically stable and not characteristic of man. The evolution fairytale demands that humans or there ancestors did just that… only a presupposition of circular reasoning creates this principle. The real documented growth rates for humans are exponential.

Can we expect you to back your statements with data? Or are they just "true" statements?

 

[CabVet]

Here, let me show you a graph that was made using actual data:

As you can see, population was almost constant (i.e. at carrying capacity) between 10,000 and 5,000 BC. A far cry from your claim of constant population growth since the flood.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there any such thing - in genetic engineering - as an artifical mutation, which is directed and controlled rather than random?