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.
mark kennedy said:So you concede that there is a difference between the two way of evolution happening? Am I right?
Now the actual rates I must admitt that I don't have but I am open to anything that you might have.
Ondoher said:This paper puts mutation rates at 175 per human: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10978293&dopt=Abstract.
That's not that rare, sorry.
Pete Harcoff said:Which two ways? How do new alleles arise in a gene pool if not by mutation?
But you're the one claiming that mutations are inadequate for evolution. But if you don't know the mutation rates, how can you make this claim?
Anyway, it's late here and I'm off to bed for now. I'll dig up some references tomorrow when I have more time.
pre-emptive judgement.mark kennedy said:What exactly is to chart supposed to mean? ......it proves nothing.
why are you comparing chalk and cheese mark? you keep going on about mendelian genetics, where this is merely models the inheritance patterns of different alleles already assumed to be present in the genome. mutations have nothing to do with this, except for the fact that mutations create those different alleles, on which mendelian inheritance works. Another problem with focussing so tightly on mendelian genetics is that in terms of phenotypical traits, it simply does not work; such effects as plieotropy, reduced penetrance and such render the phenotypical analysis of the majority of traits worthless in terms of a purely mendelian fashion. To be honest (as usual) I think you have latched onto something without fully understanding it.mark kennedy said:I think you are aware that there is a discernable difference between mendilian genetics and the introduction of mutations which are copies of existing genetic sequences gone wrong.
mark kennedy said:A mutation is something that goes wrong in the transcription but a random varitation is something that happens in medelian variation. In other words there is something that is expected in creationism (alleles) and is discernably different then a transcription problem. A mutation is a mistake while a random variation is accountable by another explanation.
They basically compared the genes of a chimpanzee to humans, corrected to account for a common ancestor, and then used elementary math to calculate mutation rates.article said:Underlying the average mutation rate is heterogeneity in rates for different sites and for different classes of mutations. We calculated rates for different types of mutations on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 104, and generation time of 20 years
mark kennedy said:Now the actual rates I must admitt that I don't have but I am open to anything that you might have.
You do realize that mutations are rare right?
What you must also realize is that they are often confused with rearrangements of existing gemonic configurations.
mark kennedy said:I think you are aware that there is a discernable difference between mendilian genetics and the introduction of mutations which are copies of existing genetic sequences gone wrong.
It's simple really, they cannot handle to burden of proof. Rare and most often dangerous mutations cannot provide evolution with the demonstrated mechansim it so desperatly needs even if it occasionally has a beneficial effect.
one can only debate with someone who knows what they are talking about. we are attempting to educate mark, however Morton's Demon is busy.Skeptic Pete said:Why would you guys bother to debate someone who cannot even spell the words correctly?
evolutionionists ( even if he spelled it correctly it's not a real word)
creatonist (remind me of cretin?)
counterpaarts
requried.
Evoluotion (evil-ution?)
populare
I personally gave up a long time ago. he makes fundamental errors, gets corrected, and then repeats them.Skeptic Pete said:fair enough....educate away.....
Don't like your chances though.
Because we will criticize peoples' arguments on the merit of the arguments, not on the writing skills of the person involved. Not everyone here is a spelling buff.Skeptic Pete said:Why would you guys bother to debate someone who cannot even spell the words correctly?
evolutionionists ( even if he spelled it correctly it's not a real word)
creatonist (remind me of cretin?)
counterpaarts
requried.
Evoluotion (evil-ution?)
populare
Ondoher said:This paper puts mutation rates at 175 per human: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10978293&dopt=Abstract.
That's not that rare, sorry.
Rearangement of genes is a type of mutation, usually a translocation, or a duplication, or something similar. Again, how is a heritable mutation of an existing gene not a new allele and therefore nor random variation?
Correction in bold, because that is the only thing the article is researching.mark kennedy said:From the PubMed abstracted linked above:
"This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common."
Now what you have to realize is that most often the synergistic epistasis is offset by antagonistic and this was demonstrated to be not only consistant but log-linear. Just curious but what would you expect the effects of deleterious mutations to be in this scenerio:
"The most direct approach for determining the relationship between mutation number and fitness is to construct genotypes with different numbers of random mutations and measure their relative fitness. The bacterium E. coli provides an excellent system for this approach."
(Testofsynergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria,
Santiago F. Elena & Richard E. Lenski, Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,Michigan 48824, USA)
Jet Black said:why are you comparing chalk and cheese mark? you keep going on about mendelian genetics, where this is merely models the inheritance patterns of different alleles already assumed to be present in the genome. mutations have nothing to do with this, except for the fact that mutations create those different alleles, on which mendelian inheritance works. Another problem with focussing so tightly on mendelian genetics is that in terms of phenotypical traits, it simply does not work; such effects as plieotropy, reduced penetrance and such render the phenotypical analysis of the majority of traits worthless in terms of a purely mendelian fashion. To be honest (as usual) I think you have latched onto something without fully understanding it.
Tomk80 said:Correction in bold, because that is the only thing the article is researching.
mark kennedy said:We are discussing the differences between mutations and modifications. Now while it is presumed that mutations create the genetic load the effects of mutations are negative.
"Mutations are contrasted by modifications. The term describes changes in the phenotype that are caused by environmental influences...Modifications are very common, especially in plants...Today, it is common knowledge that the environment shapes the phenotype, but exerts no directed influence on the genotype...These mutagens have nearly without exception a negative outcome on the organism, their effect is time- and dose-dependent and often lethal."
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?