Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It varies from species to species. There is no set percentage of mutations that are beneficial, and the same mutation that is beneficial in one context may be harmful in another, such as the ability to breathe salt water. Useful if the creature lives near and spends a lot of time in salt water, but completely useless or even deadly to one that lives in a desert. Some mutations are a little bit of both, such as the one for sickle cell anemia. It significantly increases resistance to malaria in both homozygotes (people afflicted with the condition) and heterozygotes (rarely affected by the mutation so much as to suffer from it, but still have the benefits of the malaria resistance), but it also produces a potentially deadly condition in people with two copies of the mutated gene. It just so happens that malaria resistance is so beneficial, that the negatives were not a strong enough selection pressure to have it decrease in frequency in the population.
If you want a "ballpark figure" for this stuff, sorry to say, you won't find one. The variation in it is too extensive. What I can tell you is the number of mutations in your DNA that neither of your parents have: between 40-60. Using the estimated number of births per day in 2014, and using the average of 50 independent mutations per person, that's the potential for a whopping 17,650,000 new mutations in the human population PER DAY. Even if only .00001% of those were on genes, that would make a new non-neutral gene occur each day. And humans have a pretty long reproductive cycle, and nothing is special about our mutation rate. That number would be exponentially larger for bacteria, which reproduce far faster and have higher mutation rates than humans. And I am being the least generous I can be without being a parody of criticism. Neutral mutations may dominate, but not to that extent.
BTW, that 70% comes from the pool of mutations affecting actual genes, so it doesn't include mutations on noncoding regions. Yes, many mutations even on coding regions of DNA are neutral.
Just so you know, deletions are not inherently bad mutations. In fact, I know of at least 2 which were necessary for humans to become as intelligent as they are; one for developing a jaw muscle that would have restricted cranial capacity but made our jaws stronger, and another that regulates brain growth. Both were mixed bags; on the good side, we became that much smarter, and intelligence is highly beneficial to survival. On the bad side, our jaws are weaker than other primates, and we are more prone to brain cancer. Most mutations that affect phenotype are like that.
As for estimates given on an actual percentage, I couldn't find it for humans, but in fruit flies, the percentage of mutations that ended up having a measurably negative impact was 70%. That means 30% are beneficial or neutral. To be blunt, it is neither shocking, nor a problem for evolution, that the majority of mutations aren't beneficial. However, it should be noted that fruit flies don't have as many protective mechanisms against genetic damage as humans do, namely, the degree of redundancy in their genome is less than is seen in humans, and their genome is smaller, making a mutation more likely to occur on a coding portion. As I have mentioned before, how mutations affect species varies from species to species thanks to so many factors that it is impossible to say what percentage of mutations in humans are harmful by using the percentage seen in fruit flies.
The majority are, but even if the number of beneficial mutations was abysmally low, less than .000000001%, natural selection and evolution would still apply.
More nothing. You're kinda like saying, if you poor more blue into the yellow paint you get a different shade of green. Big deal.
...still the amazing thing is...if the fruit fly has such a high rate....why is the fruit fly still a fruit fly? Why are the differences a leg in the wrong place or an extra eye?
Come on my evo-friends....how do mutations add u?
Your response completely ignores what I just wrote. Did you not understand it, or why a second, harmful mutation in exactly the same place is much, much less likely than a second, beneficial mutation? If you want to challenge evolutionary biology, you have to understand it, and it's clear that at present you simply don't understand the effect of natural selection.If a second beneficial mutation can occur in a different place and enhance the fitness of a species most certainly a second harmful mutation...which there are more of... can occur in the same place and harm what is evolving. You should have know that.
First one mutation happens and spreads in the population. Then another mutation happens and spreads. That gives you two mutations. Then a third one does the same thing. That gives you three. What part of this process do you find so difficult to understand.Come on my evo-friends....how do mutations add u?
The differences between the H-R diagrams of different star clusters are certainly real. One can see merely by looking at clusters through a telescope that in some (such as the Pleiades, NGC 2362 and NGC 2264) the brightest stars are blue early-type stars whereas in others (e.g. the Hyades, Praesepe, M67 and NGC 752) the brightest stars are red. I have constructed H-R diagrams of a number of clusters, using Google Sky and photometric and temperature data from the Vizier section of SIMBAD, and have confirmed the differences between their H-R diagrams.First, reread what you wrote and tell me how much is
theory and how much is factual (proven), beginning with
the life cycle of stars.
Doing the math, and accepting the given value of about 4.24 light years to Alpha Centauri, that gives angles of
about .25 degrees. How accurate do you think those
equations would be? What would be the true margin
of error?
Your response completely ignores what I just wrote. Did you not understand it, or why a second, harmful mutation in exactly the same place is much, much less likely than a second, beneficial mutation? If you want to challenge evolutionary biology, you have to understand it, and it's clear that at present you simply don't understand the effect of natural selection.
First one mutation happens and spreads in the population. Then another mutation happens and spreads. That gives you two mutations. Then a third one does the same thing. That gives you three. What part of this process do you find so difficult to understand.
We can literally sit around the lab and watch mutations accumulating, but you say it can't happen. Given a choice between reality and your claims, I'll stick with reality.
That's nice. There are still no physical constraints implied in his equations. Really, your responses seem to be quite random -- you haven't given even a hint of physical explanation for why gravitational collapse is impossible, and you don't seem to understand the physics involved. What exactly is the point of this discussion?
Yeah, that's what the equals sign means, and that's why it's called an equation. That's true, but it has nothing to do with what you said about constraint: "For his equation to work, the gas must be constrained, as in a balloon."The equation is balanced. Raise the amount on one side, and you have
to raise the other equally. Constrained.
Your response completely ignores what I just wrote. Did you not understand it, or why a second, harmful mutation in exactly the same place is much, much less likely than a second, beneficial mutation? If you want to challenge evolutionary biology, you have to understand it, and it's clear that at present you simply don't understand the effect of natural selection.
Yeah, that's what the equals sign means, and that's why it's called an equation. That's true, but it has nothing to do with what you said about constraint: "For his equation to work, the gas must be constrained, as in a balloon."
99.9999% of all mutations aren't harmful. If the only thing you know about evolution is wildly inaccurate, all you're going to do is convince people that you don't know what you're talking about.Placement of mutations does not matter. Just knowing that 99.9999% of all mutations
are harmful should tell you something about depending on them for evolution.
This was already explained to you, repeatedly, with math and citations to the physics literature. Why are you telling scientists how to do their jobs when you don't understand the science?Since gravity is too weak to cause gases to clump together, as proven on earth,
how do you get enough gases to cause higher pressure in space than on a planet?
Your response completely ignores what I just wrote. Did you not understand it, or why a second, harmful mutation in exactly the same place is much, much less likely than a second, beneficial mutation? If you want to challenge evolutionary biology, you have to understand it, and it's clear that at present you simply don't understand the effect of natural selection.
First one mutation happens and spreads in the population. Then another mutation happens and spreads. That gives you two mutations. Then a third one does the same thing. That gives you three. What part of this process do you find so difficult to understand.
We can literally sit around the lab and watch mutations accumulating, but you say it can't happen. Given a choice between reality and your claims, I'll stick with reality.
We can literally sit around the lab and watch mutations accumulating, but you say it can't happen. Given a choice between reality and your claims, I'll stick with reality.
Yeah, that's what the equals sign means, and that's why it's called an equation. That's true, but it has nothing to do with what you said about constraint: "For his equation to work, the gas must be constrained, as in a balloon."
Placement of mutations does not matter. Just knowing that 99.9999% of all mutations are harmful should tell you something about depending on them for evolution.
If you understood it, you wouldn't respond the way you have.Oh, I understand it exactly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?