Random mutations

[Loudmouth]

“You carry between 50 and 200 mutations of your own. Do you suffer from 50 to 200 genetic diseases that your parents did not have?”

Mutations are mischievously unpredictable and since we are diploids and have about 20,000 genes most mutations may be recessive.

Notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you suffer from 50 to 200 genetic diseases that your parents do not have? Yes or no?

Do the millions of base substitutions between humans and chimps cause millions of genetic diseases in humans?

That does not mean they are harmless but just recessive in the individual. The real issue is the rate of mutations; too many and the genetic load is not tolerable too few and evolution time frames are pushed way back. What is this? Another twist in the evolution fairytale…

The only fairytale is your use of mutation load derived from hard selection as a limit on mutational load allowed for soft selection. Sorry, but lethal mutations are very rare. Most mutations, if they are deleterious, are only slightly deleterious.

Now how do you fit a deleterious rate of “U = 4.2” into the equation. Well actually it won’t fit in because now the genetic load is over 99% for humans.

That figure works fine for soft selection. At that rate, the slightly deleterious mutations fixed by genetic drift is the same as the slightly deleterious mutations eliminated through genetic drift.

 

[Zaius137]

It is fun talking science with a evolutionist.

Oh, so you spent 4 pages of this topic discussing how mutation rates were too high and now you say they are too slow? Can you pick one? If mutation rates are as low as you claim (to bring back divergence between human and chimps to 12-15 million years), your U drops to less that 1.5. Which one is it?

My point here by using evolutionist nonsense is that it is contrary to the science. I sat on this finding of lower genetic drift rates just to prove my point. Evolution is either a fairytale or a religion because it is not science when it goes against the Observations.

In other words, if your U=4.2 is remotely correct, if anything divergence between humans and chimps will be less than 6 million years. If divergence is higher than 12 million like you claim, U has to be much less than 2. But of course, why would you listen to logical arguments?

I will go with Your “U” and 12 million years for chimp human divergence. Now you can decisively throw out the “HERV” fossil virus nonsense by your own calculations. All these calculations come from evolutionist not crerationists.

That figure works fine for soft selection. At that rate, the slightly deleterious mutations fixed by genetic drift is the same as the slightly deleterious mutations eliminated through genetic drift.

You failed to read what I posted about soft selection only being another form of “group selection” which does not answer the “U” problem for small populations.

“Thus, contextual analysis finds that soft-selection constitutes a form of group selection (Goodnight et al. 1992), contrary to the conclusion of the Price approach. Below, I demonstrate that the Price approach, when the population is subdivided into regulation groups, also reveals that soft-selection includes a group-component of selection, independently supporting the conclusion of Goodnight et al. (1992).”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151721/


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. Frankly you are beating a dead horse here.

Evolution does not work with a 12 million year divergence of chimp and human…

 

[CabVet]

My point here by using evolutionist nonsense is that it is contrary to the science.

If you read the actual science instead of biased creationist websites you would see it makes total sense. Unfortunately you seem too close minded for that.

 

[CabVet]

It is fun talking science with a evolutionist.

Oh, and misinterpreting data to fit your own preconceived ideas is not talking science. You also seem to ignore the point that even a complete rejection of evolution wouldn't give a gram of support to creation(ism) myths.

 

[Jazer]

Evolution does not work with a 12 million year divergence of chimp and human…

Evolution does not work at all anyways. The mathmatical chance of even ONE mutation is nil to none.

 

[Jazer]

You also seem to ignore the point that even a complete rejection of evolution wouldn't give a gram of support to creation(ism) myths.

Even if evolution were to stand or fall on it's own merit, it can not stand. Science shows that evolution can not be true. We have gone from Darwinism, to Neo Darwinism (gradualism)(Ernst Mayr's) to Post Neo Darwinism (Punctuated equilibrium)(Stephen Jay Gould). In otherwords Evolution requires gradualism but reality shows that change takes place in a very short period of time. So now you have long slow changes that remain dormant that all of a sudden at a magical point in time jump out and express themselves in all the different species in a biodiverse system. The theory did a crash and burn and no one want to admit it because they have nothing better to replace it with.

 

[rikerjoe]

Evolution does not work at all anyways. The mathmatical chance of even ONE mutation is nil to none.

And yet it happens every second all over the world....

 

[rikerjoe]

Even if evolution were to stand or fall on it's own merit, it can not stand. Science shows that evolution can not be true.

So you keep saying, but you can't show it. I know you wish it to be so, but in reality evolution is doing just fine and no one has been able to topple it yet.

 

[CabVet]

Evolution does not work at all anyways. The mathmatical chance of even ONE mutation is nil to none.

Not sure how many times I repeated myself here, but here it goes again, go tell this to the parents of kids with genetic diseases caused by mutations, or to Hiroshima survivors.

 

[Jazer]

So you keep saying, but you can't show it.

Turn on the current NOVA program and you will find out what I have been telling you all along. IT has nothing to do with Mutations. Now they are saying that it has to do with Switches.

"With 99 percent of our DNA in common, the key to what makes us so different from chimps may lie in newly discovered genetic "switches.""

NOVA | The DNA of Human Evolution

in reality evolution is doing just fine and no one has been able to topple it yet.

Evolution as a theory is not "fine" because it is so filled with misinformation that you miss the target. Maybe by your standards it is "just fine" but not by my standards.

 

[Jazer]

Not sure how many times I repeated myself here, but here it goes again, go tell this to the parents of kids with genetic diseases caused by mutations, or to Hiroshima survivors.

Tell them what? Rather you tell me what genetic diseases has to do with evoltion. It is a grasping at straws and a vain attempt to come up with an explaination when they do not have enough information to explain how natural selection works. What does Hiroshima have to do with evolutionary theory?

 

[Zaius137]

Mutations are mischievously unpredictable and since we are diploids and have about 20,000 genes most mutations may be recessive.


Notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you suffer from 50 to 200 genetic diseases that your parents do not have? Yes or no?

I did answer it now if you understand it is another story.

 

[Zaius137]

(phred) the only way evolution can be moving faster with fewer mutations is if we start engineering the Human genome. Random chance adds no additional information.

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

(not repeating the citation)

Real evidence is real science…

 

[Blayz]

(phred) the only way evolution can be moving faster with fewer mutations is if we start engineering the Human genome. Random chance adds no additional information.

Kewl. I get to coin Blayz' Corollary to Godwin's Law:

In any conversation with a creationist, the probability they will use the word "information" without ever defining it approaches one

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

Sure. I'll comment. That's a nice piece of empirical data that came out of the 1000 genome project, and, needless to say, all of the work was done by evolutionists.

Sad creatonists. Get your own data.

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

All the words are English, it's just the sentence which makes no sense. You are right, it is 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.

(not repeating the citation)

Well the previous citation had nothing to say on this topic, so I for one am glad you decided to not quote more irrelevancy.

Real evidence is real science…

...provided by evolutionists. Sad creationists. Get your own data, and stop whinging about ours.

 

[CabVet]

Mutations are mischievously unpredictable and since we are diploids and have about 20,000 genes most mutations may be recessive.


Notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you suffer from 50 to 200 genetic diseases that your parents do not have? Yes or no?

I did answer it now if you understand it is another story.

Yes, you answered it saying that all mutations were deleterious, which they obviously are not. Most are neutral or slightly deleterious, very few are fatal.

 

[CabVet]

Tell them what? Rather you tell me what genetic diseases has to do with evoltion. It is a grasping at straws and a vain attempt to come up with an explaination when they do not have enough information to explain how natural selection works. What does Hiroshima have to do with evolutionary theory?

Yeah, changing the subject as usual. You keep saying and repeating that mutations do not exist. Here, and I quote:

Evolution does not work at all anyways. The mathmatical chance of even ONE mutation is nil to none.

So, I will tell you again, if you think mutations don't exist, go talk to people that have genetic diseases caused by mutations and see what they think.

 

[Loudmouth]

Tell them what? Rather you tell me what genetic diseases has to do with evoltion. It is a grasping at straws and a vain attempt to come up with an explaination when they do not have enough information to explain how natural selection works. What does Hiroshima have to do with evolutionary theory?

"Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

Mutations are a fact, John. I don't know what you are arguing against.

 

[Loudmouth]

Turn on the current NOVA program and you will find out what I have been telling you all along. IT has nothing to do with Mutations. Now they are saying that it has to do with Switches.

Only through mutations can the switches differ. Yes, gene regulation is probably the primary cause of the differences in morphology between humans and chimps. But why are the patterns of gene regulation different? Because the SEQUENCE OF THE SWITCHES IS DIFFERENT. What changes DNA sequences? MUTATIONS!!!! What changes the placement of switches in the genome? MUTATIONS!!!

Evolution as a theory is not "fine" because it is so filled with misinformation that you miss the target. Maybe by your standards it is "just fine" but not by my standards.

Your posts are filled with misinformation, John.

 

[Loudmouth]

I did answer it now if you understand it is another story.

Many genetic diseases are dominant. So again, do you suffer from 50 to 200 genetic diseases? Let's go back 10 generations. Do you suffer from 500 to 2,000 genetic diseases from the last 10 generations of accumulated mutations?

You see Zaius, you keep ignoring the obvious. Humans can tolerate a lot of mutations just fine. Hard selection is not the rule. It is the exception. When you use calculations that require hard selection for all mutations you are simply wrong. Very, very wrong. If you understand why you are wrong is another story.

 

[sfs]

(sfs)…

“Exactly. And soft selection does precisely that -- as noted in that piece of the Nachman and Crowell paper you keep ignoring, and by Wallace who introduced the term soft selection, whom I have quoted to you, and by many others. So let's see how you respond to the quite simple fact that soft selection mitigates genetic load . . .”

No it does not…

“Thus, contextual analysis finds that soft-selection constitutes a form of group selection (Goodnight et al. 1992), contrary to the conclusion of the Price approach. Below, I demonstrate that the Price approach, when the population is subdivided into regulation groups, also reveals that soft-selection includes a group-component of selection, independently supporting the conclusion of Goodnight et al. (1992).”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151721/

Being a form of group selection or truncation selection it can not ease a deleterious mutation rate approaching (U=5) or about 297 offspring needed per female. Now all you need to do is to show how a form of group selection can mitigate a high genetic load when the ratio of bad mutations to good mutations is about 1000/1.

What you've written is complete gibberish. Group selection is not truncation selection, and in fact has nothing to do with truncation selection. The paper you quote says nothing at all to undermine soft selection's role in mitigating genetic load. You don't seem to have any idea what the words you're stringing together mean.

You have not adequately addressed the “U” paradox. Given the common consensus of average mutation rate of ~175 mutations,

The current consensus is more like 70 mutations per person.

3 and maybe more (5) deleterious. There can not be a chimp human divergence just because of the unsupportable birth rates of our ancestors.

If deleterious mutations are not purged immediately they are just carried over and add to the genetic loading. The population cannot undergo purification without purging deleterious mutations no matter what the selective pressure is.

Still no response to the fact that early developmental mutations, soft selection and epistasis all reduce the effective genetic load. (Other than making up that stuff about soft selection, that is.)

“Since that's what I just wrote, I'm not likely to disagree. Deleterious mutations are indeed purged. So what? Try to understand this fact: purging deleterious mutations only imposes a genetic load if the selection is hard.”

You need to show how a form of group selection (soft selection) in a small population (evolution dogma) helps your case.

I've already shown how soft selection helps my case; it's not my fault if you still don't understand soft and hard selection. (How could soft selection not reduce genetic load, since by definition softly selected deleterious alleles don't reduce the overall fitness of the population?)

“Deleterious silent mutations (including noncoding mutations and synonymous coding mutations) have been known and studied for decades. (Detecting and characterizing disease-causing mutations is a significant chunk of what our research institute does, as it happens.) “

Can you comment on silent mutations adding to the deleterious accounting? Synonymous mutations and non coding mutations in introns leading to exon skipping seem to be very important.

Yes, I can comment: silent mutations contribute to deleterious mutations. Since they're included in the estimates you're already using, there's no point in singling them out.