Random mutations

[Delphiki]

Is 5 card draw poker based entirely on random chance? You get 5 cards at random, but then select which to keep and which to replace. This is how Natural Selection works.

This analogy is simple genius in so many ways.

 

[Split Rock]

This analogy is simple genius in so many ways.

Thanks!

I've used it on and off for a while here.

 

[Zaius137]

Hmmm... I see that this point was explained to you, ad nauseam, here, less than a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7567545-67/

I suggest that you refer to that thread if you want to keep discussing this subject.

I actually made my point and yes our ancestors would have to produce 133 offspring per union just to keep from extinction of our species. That would be the “U” paradox and as of today it is still unsolved by evolutionists.

 

[CabVet]

I actually made my point and yes our ancestors would have to produce 133 offspring per union just to keep from extinction of our species. That would be the “U” paradox and as of today it is still unsolved by evolutionists.

It is solved in the very thread I link to you. Not all selection is the same. Not all mutation is the same. Not all deleterious mutation is the same. Life is not dichotomous. Not everything is black and white.

 

[Phred]

I actually made my point and yes our ancestors would have to produce 133 offspring per union just to keep from extinction of our species. That would be the “U” paradox and as of today it is still unsolved by evolutionists.

I'm curious why you chose to specifically ignore the further sentences in that paragraph:

This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (WALLACE 1991 ) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (KONDRASHOV 1995 ; CROW 1997 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

Was this an unconscious deletion or did you do it on purpose?

For that matter, how do you explain this:

Our estimate of U = 3 is slightly higher than another recent estimate in humans based on a similar approach (U = 1.6; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). The difference between these estimates of U is due in part to the different estimates of constraint (1 - ). Eyre-Walker and Keightley's estimate of 1 - Ka/Ks = 0.38 is considerably lower than the value of 0.73 obtained by OHTA 1995 for a different set of genes. The genes analyzed by EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 appear to have an unusually low level of constraint and may not be representative of the genome as a whole. Our estimate of U = 3 is considerably higher than recent estimates from mutation accumulation experiments in Escherichia coli (U = 0.0002; KIBOTA and LYNCH 1996 ), Caenorhabditis elegans (U = 0.005; KEIGHTLEY and CABALLERO 1997 ), and Drosophila melanogaster (U = 0.02–1, MUKAIet al. 1972 ; KEIGHTLEY 1996 ; FRYet al. 1999 ). However, mutations of small effect may go undetected in these experiments. In general, organisms with larger genomes appear to have a greater number of deleterious mutations, although it does not appear that the deleterious mutation rate is constant per base pair across these organisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you aware of new evidence that those types of mutations you mention are being found deleterious to fitness?

They are also found to be neutral.

So wouldn’t evolution be driven by random mutation?

Random mutation is but one mechanism within the larger process. Random mutation produces variation. Natural selection is what drives adaptation of a population. Neutral drift drives random fixation of neutral or nearly neutral mutations.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm curious why you chose to specifically ignore the further sentences in that paragraph:



Was this an unconscious deletion or did you do it on purpose?

For that matter, how do you explain this:

Its called "cherry-picking." Dr. Zaus only cites specific papers or exerpts that support his position, and ignores the rest. Its the way "creation science" is done.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are all mutations under selection? Or is there some mutations that are silent?

Scientists have removed two blocks of DNA for a total of over 2 million base pairs and the mice with the deletion were indistinguishable from those without the deletion.

Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable m... [Nature. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

This would seem to indicate that even huge, million base deletion mutations can be neutral and not under selection.

 

[Zaius137]

(phred)

The peppered moth evolution is a documented failure as portrayed in this book (The story has been told in a wonderfully researched book recently published by Judith Hooper entitled, Of Moths and Men (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 2002, 377 pp.) Not writhen by a creationist by the way. A teacher friend of mine actually knew one of the researchers on the Peppered mouth and he claims the researcher faked much of the evidence. Just Google “evolution of peppered moth evolution is wrong”.

Sigh...

That's a peppered moth. Over the last two hundred years they've been studied in detail. In a nutshell, here's what happened to them. "Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees." - Wikipedia

Yes, I know they're still moths. Yes I know creationists dispute this as they dispute everything. What they can't dispute are the facts. Light colored moths were the primary population and a mutation within the population of existed causing dark colored moths. Those dark moths were then selected because of a change in the environment which caused the light moths to be eaten. So the population of moths became primarily dark. Thus the dark moths passed on their genes and the light moths could not do so from the digestive tracts of birds.

The environment has since changed back as the pollution has been cleaned up. Lighter colored moths are reemerging again as the primary moth coloration.

This is simple and easy to understand. A circumstance caused one type of moth to be selected.


Mutations come in all shapes and sizes. In the example above, the mutation just changes the color of the moth. The cost in mortality is paid by the lighter moths being eaten. Otherwise your "numbers" are just silly.


Except here we are.


Oh if only there were some energy source outside of the closed ecosystem of the earth that could add energy to the system so that entropy wouldn't be a factor. Some large, round, bright, hot object...

As to beneficial mutations existing? Here's one in humans.



You have now been shown a beneficial mutation and should never again use the line, "Direct observation has never shown real beneficial mutations to exist." or you will be lying.

Actually some temporary beneficial mutations can be seen, Now lets see if the skier dies earlier of blood clotting. Mutations are always genetic damage.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your answer implies some natural force like gravity driving random mutation. That would imply intent in a random process.

No it wouldn't. Temperature and pressure differentials in our atmosphere drive the formation of precipitation. This doesn't mean that our atmosphere has intention.

A recent study has determined that deleterious mutations per generation for the evolution of a common ancestor of man and chimps is a U=4.2 for about 5 million years which leads to a necessary birth rate of 131 offspring per female for 5 million years just to maintain a level population.

Yes, 131 offspring per female to produce one offspring without a single deleterious mutation. However, this isn't needed since offspring can carry a load of slightly deleterious mutations. All your study shows is a misunderstanding of biology and evolution.

You see I am not convinced that a system that relies on random chance can produce any new information in an organism.

Then the production of new species and adaptation to new environments does not require new information.

Direct observation has never shown real beneficial mutations to exist.

Here are two:

The Lederbergs observed beneficial mutations in bacteria that were put under antibiotic selection:
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/BBABFJ.pdf

Luria and Delbruck observed beneficial mutations in bacteria that were put under bacteriophage selection:
MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE

Both of these experiments are classic examples of how mutations are random with respect to fitness while selection and adaptation of the population are non-random.

 

[Loudmouth]

(phred)

The peppered moth evolution is a documented failure as portrayed in this book

Peer reviewed paper please.

A teacher friend of mine actually knew one of the researchers on the Peppered mouth and he claims the researcher faked much of the evidence.

They may have staged photos, but they didn't fake the data. Those are two different things.

Mutations are always genetic damage.

So the millions of mutations that make our genomes different than a chimps genome are all damage? We are nothing but damaged chimps?

 

[CabVet]

Actually some temporary beneficial mutations can be seen, Now lets see if the skier dies earlier of blood clotting. Mutations are always genetic damage.

Have you ever heard of bacteria resisting to antibiotics? How do you think bacteria can do that?

While I agree the peppered moth example is controversial, there are many others that are not.

 

[Loudmouth]

"
The most famous experiments on the peppered moth were carried out by Bernard Kettlewell under the supervision of E. B. Ford, who helped him gain a grant from the Nuffield Foundation to perform the experiments. In one of Kettlewell's experiments, moths were released into a large (18 m by 6 m) aviary, where they were fed on by Great [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (Parus major). In 1953, Kettlewell experimented at Cadbury Nature Reserve in Birmingham, England, marking, releasing and recapturing marked moths. He found that in this polluted woodland typica morphs were preferentially preyed. He thus showed that the melanistic phenotype was important to the survival of peppered moths in such a habitat. Kettlewell repeated the experiment in 1955 at unpolluted woodland in Dorset and again in the polluted woods in Birmingham. He was accompanied by Nico Tinbergen, and they made a film together. Further studies by others found similar results, culminating in 1996 when reporting work on both sides of the Atlantic found a correlation between changes in melanic frequencies and pollution levels.[12][13]"

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zaius137]

Get a grip phred....

“Our estimate of U = 3 is slightly higher than another recent estimate in humans based on a similar approach (U = 1.6; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). The difference between these estimates of U is due in part to the different estimates of constraint (1 - ). Eyre-Walker and Keightley's estimate of 1 - Ka/Ks = 0.38 is considerably lower than the value of 0.73 obtained by OHTA 1995 for a different set of genes. The genes analyzed by EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 appear to have an unusually low level of constraint and may not be representative of the genome as a whole. Our estimate of U = 3 is considerably higher than recent estimates from mutation accumulation experiments in Escherichia coli (U = 0.0002; KIBOTA and LYNCH 1996 ), Caenorhabditis elegans (U = 0.005; KEIGHTLEY and CABALLERO 1997 ), and Drosophila melanogaster (U = 0.02–1, MUKAIet al. 1972 ; KEIGHTLEY 1996 ; FRYet al. 1999 ). However, mutations of small effect may go undetected in these experiments. In general, organisms with larger genomes appear to have a greater number of deleterious mutations, although it does not appear that the deleterious mutation rate is constant per base pair across these organisms.”

These are eaileier estamats of th “U”. lets look at U= 3…

B=2e^3~ 40 births per female…
does this sound reasonable. Now look at the smallest U=1.6…
B=2e^1.6~ 10 births per female… well here are the actual birth rates today and you can see none of them approach an average of 10…

Total Fertility rates world wide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg​

A world map showing countries by fertility rate, 2005-2010.
7-8 Children
6-7 Children
5-6 Children
4-5 Children
3-4 Children
2-3 Children
1-2 Children
0-1 Children

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Get a grip phred…

 

[Loudmouth]

These are eaileier estamats of th “U”. lets look at U= 3…

B=2e^3~ 40 births per female…
does this sound reasonable. Now look at the smallest U=1.6…
B=2e^1.6~ 10 births per female… well here are the actual birth rates today and you can see none of them approach an average of 10…

What about these births, Zaius? Again, it seems that you are calculating the births needed to produce an offspring without any deleterious mutations. This isn't needed. Offspring can carry a load of slightly deleterious mutations since everyone else in the population is carrying a load of slightly deleterious mutations. Remember the old saw about not needing to outrun the bear, only your friends?

 

[Phred]

The peppered moth evolution is a documented failure as portrayed in this book (The story has been told in a wonderfully researched book recently published by Judith Hooper entitled, Of Moths and Men (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 2002, 377 pp.) Not writhen by a creationist by the way. A teacher friend of mine actually knew one of the researchers on the Peppered mouth and he claims the researcher faked much of the evidence. Just Google “evolution of peppered moth evolution is wrong”.

Untrue. While some of the research from the 1950s used pictures that showed the moths in places moths rarely sit... such as on tree trunks. This does not damage the basic science behind the example.

Link: "These criticisms have led some critics of evolution to charge that the peppered moth story is "faked," or is "known to be wrong."

"Neither is true. In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. As Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell's work wrote, "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors."

So what is going on here?

Well, the best way to put it is that what we are seeing is the scientific process at its best. Majerus and other ecologists have carefully examined the details of Kettlewell's work and found them to be lacking. As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camouflage in the ways we have presumed, that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camouflage (and not other factors like behavior), and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.

What we do know is that the rise and fall of dark-colored moths, a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," remains a striking and persuasive example of natural selection in action. What we have to be cautious about is attributing 100% of the work of natural selection in this case to the camouflage of the moths and their direct visibility to birds.

Actually some temporary beneficial mutations can be seen, Now lets see if the skier dies earlier of blood clotting. Mutations are always genetic damage.

Eero Antero Mäntyranta - born 20 November 1937. He's passed on his genes already. So that's not an issue. He's 74 now. How old does he have to get before you accept that it's a beneficial mutation?

From The Economist: For instance, some people have innate genetic mutations which give them exactly the same sort of edge. Eero Mantyranta, a Finn, was a double Olympic champion in cross-country skiing. His body has a mutation that causes it to produce far more of a hormone called EPO than a normal person would. This hormone stimulates the production of red blood cells. A synthetic version of it is the (banned) drug of choice for endurance athletes.

Mr Mantyranta was allowed to compete because his advantage was held to be a “natural” gift.

 

[CabVet]

This may sound unbelievable, but I will give Zaius some credit here. The peppered moth, while classic and easy to explain (and understand) has been challenged in some ways. The most serious of which being the fact that peppered moths don't rest in tree trunks all that often, therefore tree trunks becoming darker has a not so strong correlation to peppered moths becoming darker.

The original critique is this:

Coyne, Jerry A. (1998-11-05). "Not Black and White. Review of Melanism: Evolution in Action by Michael E.N. Majerus" (PDF). Nature 396 (6706): 35–36. doi:10.1038/23856. Retrieved 2006-06-30.

However, subsequent critiques that looked at the data in more detail than what Coyne did found out that Coyne himself had misinterpreted some numbers. And later, On November 27th, 2000, the school board of Pratt County, Kansas continued efforts to favor intelligent design teaching by requiring the use of specific resources.These included the article by Jerry Coyne, who wrote to object strongly to this creationist misrepresentation of his critical re-evaluation, emphasizing that the moth story is a sound example of evolution produced by natural selection and stating that his call for additional research was only to resolve uncertainty regarding bird predation as the cause of the natural selection and evolutionary change.

In 2002, Judith Hooper's Of Moths and Men added to the accusations of scientific fraud. She accused Kettlewell of manipulating his data to prove his hypothesis.[36] The book received strong criticism from the scientific press (e.g., Coyne, B.C. Clarke, Grant). Majerus described it as "littered with errors, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and falsehoods".

 

[CabVet]

Duplicate post.

 

[Phred]

While I agree the peppered moth example is controversial, there are many others that are not.

the moth is not controversial. Creationists have just beaten it so much that we've given in.

 

[CabVet]

A world map showing countries by fertility rate, 2005-2010.
7-8 Children
6-7 Children
5-6 Children
4-5 Children
3-4 Children
2-3 Children
1-2 Children
0-1 Children

Total fertility rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Get a grip phred…

And modern fertility rate is relevant to this topic how?

Not all deleterious mutations are fatal. Actually, most are not.