The Myth of evolution

[Tomk80]

There are things that effect the phenotype like multiple alleles that produce variants of a phenotype and result in rabbit coat color but they can also result in cystic fibrosis. Lethal alleles can result in spontaneous abortions. Phenocopy results in infection and environmentally caused birth defects and there are others. Now the wild type mutations are a result not of mutations in the sense of the genetic code somehow being altered but existing alleles being recombined.

“Most of his research involved crossbreeding experiments on the evening primrose (Oenothera lamarckiana). Later it was shown that the "species" was a hybrid and the dramatic "mutations" were due to recombination of existing alleles (although many true mutations were found soon afterwards by other workers studying such organisms as rats and Drosophila flies).”

http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/deVries.html



Unless you are talking about fruit flies I don’t really know what you are referring. I do know that there are exceptions to Mendel’s law but you would have to fill me in on how these are all together new alleles rather then recombinations of already existing ones.

Amongst others fruit flies and rats, as said in the source you yourself cited.
As you yourself already illustrated, next to recombination we can also have missense, nonsense or frameshift mutations. These result in new alleles, which is where Mendel's laws would be violated. These new alleles can either be detrimental or beneficial. Some examples of beneficial alleles would be

• the ccr5d32 mutation, which was already mentioned earlier by Pete Harcoff, and is caused by deletion of 32 basepairs (hence d32) from the ccr5 protein and causes HIV-protection.
• The developement of new motor proteins in germ cells of drosophila (an in depth description of the developement of the new alleles, again regards to Pete Harcoff).
• Not completely beneficial, but definitely a new allele formed (in this case by a point mutation) is sickle cell
• Substitution mutation causing a low prevalence of atherosclerosis (watch out, PDF) which is caused by the substitution of the aminoacid argenine by cysteine.

This are all instances where the occurrence of new alleles have been described.

 

[yossarian]

Yes yossarian they do...I am begining to wonder after over a thousand posts to the forum if I am just wasting my time.

you do, but no geneticist, genetics paper or textbook i've ever encountered talks of a "wild type mutation"

 

[Tomk80]

I think this is where the confusion arose. The "wild type" is not a type of mutation. It's the "original" version of the gene (or sentence in this case).

Indeed, I see Mark's confusion now, and it's understandable. However Mark, 'wild type' in your example is another word for 'original'. It is not a mutation, but the original allele to which the other alleles are compared.

 

[Ondoher]

"wild-type (wt) - the 'normal' allele, the allele found in the majority of a wild population.

I know what a wild-type is. I was referring to your new term, "wild-type mutation." If a wild type is the "normal" form of an allele, how could a "wild type mutation" be a recombination of alleles?

Usually the normally-functioning allele, and often (but not always) the dominant allele. For example: for a soil bacterium, the wild-type organism can make all the amino acids it needs for survival; for human beings, the wild-type allele for skin pigmentation results in the production of some melanin pigment."

Genetics 1

I am not dignifying the rest of this...post with a response.

I wish you would.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes yossarian they do...I am begining to wonder after over a thousand posts to the forum if I am just wasting my time.

No Mark, nobody is talking about 'wild type mutations'. They are talking about the 'wild type', which is the original form of the allele. It is not a form of a mutation. In the book you cited it is displayed first so you can compare the forms of mutations to the 'wild type' (ie original). It is not, and I repeat, it is not a mutation.

Now, although I would agree that you can argue whether or not recombination is a technically a mutation, it is not generally seen as such. If you want to refer to it, I would suggest (as I did before) that you call it recombination, since that is what it is. This way you will avoid confusion.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Btw, I'd just like to point out that with respect to "wild types", calling them such is merely an arbitrary classification usually based on the dominance of the gene in the gene pool.

 

[notto]

Btw, I'd just like to point out that with respect to "wild types", calling them such is merely an arbitrary classification usually based on the dominance of the gene in the gene pool.

Is it safe to say that the 'wild type' may not have always been the wild type or that in subpopulations of a species (such as man) that the 'wild type' between subpopulations may be different?

 

[Tomk80]

Is it safe to say that the 'wild type' may not have always been the wild type or that in subpopulations of a species (such as man) that the 'wild type' between subpopulations may be different?

From what I've seen till now, the 'wild type' is just that what comes in handy as a 'wild type' at the moment the researcher needs a 'wild type'.

 

[gluadys]

I am not really sure but I think the quote you based this on was a typo or perhaps an awkwardly worded phrase. At any rate meiosis produces genetic variation and mutation can be a change in the gene expressed in the phenotype. This is a very different thing then a mutated DNA strain that is caused by radiation, chemicals or spontaneously from errors like deletion, insertion or expansion in the gene sequence.

No, it is not. The cause of mutations does not affect what a mutation is. Whether a mutation is induced by radiation or is the result of a copying error during duplication, the mutation itself is still nothing other than a change in the sequence of nucleotides which encode for amino acids. All of the various types of mutations you have noted can occur no matter what the specific cause of the mutation is.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it is not. The cause of mutations does not affect what a mutation is. Whether a mutation is induced by radiation or is the result of a copying error during duplication, the mutation itself is still nothing other than a change in the sequence of nucleotides which encode for amino acids. All of the various types of mutations you have noted can occur no matter what the specific cause of the mutation is.

Yes dear there is a differance between a recombination and something effected by radiation. There is further a difference between a copy error and a rearrangement, one is rare and one is common.

 

[Jet Black]

"wild-type (wt) - the 'normal' allele, the allele found in the majority of a wild population. Usually the normally-functioning allele, and often (but not always) the dominant allele. For example: for a soil bacterium, the wild-type organism can make all the amino acids it needs for survival; for human beings, the wild-type allele for skin pigmentation results in the production of some melanin pigment."

Genetics 1

I am not dignifying the rest of this...post with a response.

right, so that is the definition of wild type. i.e. the most common type found in nature (though John Maynard Smith has some amusing things to say about this, because often the wild type is not really a particular allele since the alleles may exist in a stable equilibrium)

wild type mutation is something you made up.

so as far as your understanding of the term, I would say that it is wrong.

 

[gluadys]

A wild type mutation does not alter the DNA it just rearranges the existing gene pool.

Any mutation alters the DNA. That is the definition of what a mutation is. If it does not alter the DNA, it is not a mutation at all, but something else. In that case, you should call it by its proper name.

 

[mark kennedy]

Any mutation alters the DNA. That is the definition of what a mutation is. If it does not alter the DNA, it is not a mutation at all, but something else. In that case, you should call it by its proper name.

That is exactly what I am trying to emphasis, there are no mutations that are responsible for the creation of the genetic strain. Mutations, as far as damage done, does not account for the origin of species, that's the point.

 

[gluadys]

Now the wild type mutations are a result not of mutations in the sense of the genetic code somehow being altered but existing alleles being recombined.

Let's get straight that mutations of any sort do not change the genetic code, if by genetic code you mean the correspondence of a codon to an amino acid (or to the "stop" signal). What mutations do is change the sequencing of the codons. This alters the sequencing of the amino acids and produces a variant protein or a new protein altogether. Or, in some cases, disrupts the production of a protein.

The code is constant. But the coded message is changed.

 

[Jet Black]

Mutations, as far as damage done, does not account for the origin of species, that's the point.

not alone, no. but the cumulative effect of the formation of new alleles by mutations, and the rearrangements of these newly formed alleles (formed by mutation remember) via the effects of meiosis, resulting in genetic drift, with perhaps the effect of linkage disequilibrium and gene association in relation to natural selection does though. IOW, while not the sole issue, mutations are highly important in speciation.

 

[mark kennedy]

not alone, no. but the cumulative effect of the formation of new alleles by mutations, and the rearrangements of these newly formed alleles (formed by mutation remember) via the effects of meiosis, resulting in genetic drift, with perhaps the effect of linkage disequilibrium and gene association in relation to natural selection does though. IOW, while not the sole issue, mutations are highly important in speciation.

No mutations of the DNA strain are not how speciation occures, its the result of existing alleles.

 

[Jet Black]

No mutations of the DNA strain are not how speciation occures, its the result of existing alleles.

and those alleles are formed by mutation. this is what I am saying, mutation is an element of species formation.

 

[gluadys]

Yes dear there is a differance between a recombination and something effected by radiation. There is further a difference between a copy error and a rearrangement, one is rare and one is common.

I know that, honey, but you are misreading me.

There is indeed a difference between recombination and mutation.

But the same types of mutations occur, whether the cause is radiation or copying error.

That is the point I was making.

 

[mark kennedy]

I know that, honey, but you are misreading me.

There is indeed a difference between recombination and mutation.

But the same types of mutations occur, whether the cause is radiation or copying error.

That is the point I was making.

Ok, you admit my most important point that there is a difference between mutation as change and mutation as rearrangement. Now tell me which one is responsible for evolution from a single common ancestor?

 

[gluadys]

That is exactly what I am trying to emphasis, there are no mutations that are responsible for the creation of the genetic strain. Mutations, as far as damage done, does not account for the origin of species, that's the point.

I have no idea what you mean by "creation of the genetic strain".

But given your poor track record, I hesitate to ask you to define your terms.

Beneficial mutations + natural selection + isolating mechanisms account for the origin of species.