The MYTH of Random Mutations

[c'mon sense]

It's a complicated subject that is still the focus of much cutting edge research. But the consensus in the palaeontological community seems to be tending towards a synthesis of these different types of evolutionary change as per Erwin and Anstey

Thanks. I'm learning a lot here these days. I've just seen a beautiful post by gladiatrix, too.

 

[nvxplorer]

all those words and no proof (hard evidence)

This being the internet, you won't find hard evidence at a forum. Try a museum or a university.

 

[joey444]

This being the internet, you won't find hard evidence at a forum. Try a museum or a university.

I think he was talking about his own posts.

 

[gladiatrix]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MewtwoX again.
To MewtwoX, For Post #16



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LightHorseman again.
To LightHorseman, For Post #50 and Post #55

Way to go!

 

[Kleptin]

all those words and no proof (hard evidence)

Would you mind explaining how there can possibly be transitional fossls when individual nucleotides cannot be singled-out and passed on? Do you not know that nucleotides are blocked together by the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands and are never inherited individually?

Why must they be singled out and passed on? Evolution works on the notion that a gene thrives because those that have it flourish, not an actual "selection" of a block of nucleotides containing a beneficial gene. But perhaps i've misunderstood your post, and i apologize in advance.

 

[Schroeder]

Actually that was just a little lie that that Supersport has been caught indulging himself in.

Let's hope he doesn't make a habit of it

In

Erwin, D. H., and Anstey, R. L. eds. 1995. New Approaches to Speciation in the Fossil Record. Columbia University Press, New York. 342 pp.

they look at 58 studies of evolution and conclude:

Paleontological evidence overwhelmingly supports a view that speciation is sometimes gradual and sometimes punctuated, and that no one mode characterizes this very complicated process."

Sheldon 1993, looked at 3458 specimens of trilobites

And concluded he was seeing gradulism:

These lineages showed gradual change of a sufficiently pronounced nature that the specimens at the beginning and end of each lineage would be classified as different species (and in one case a different genus).

Try reading Wikipedia on Punctuated equilibrium and puntuated gradualism and phyletic gradualism

It's a complicated subject that is still the focus of much cutting edge research. But the consensus in the palaeontological community seems to be tending towards a synthesis of these different types of evolutionary change as per Erwin and Anstey

this maybe a stupid guestion but why is there not a varity of different types of trilobites in one era, i usually only see one type. now we have how many types of elaphants or cats or whatever. Why do i never see you all showing a whole group of fossils of the many different types or species of one animal. like say the t-rex or of monkeys or apes. there should be a bit of speciation involved. there are many species of different types of animals know. So in your chart of trilobits why is there only one type shown and then all the other so called transitionals. why couyld they not just be species of trilobits. there had to of been many varites or species of them at a time, BUT I NEVER SEE this shown on any evo chart or transitionals.

 

[Chalnoth]

this maybe a stupid guestion but why is there not a varity of different types of trilobites in one era, i usually only see one type. now we have how many types of elaphants or cats or whatever. Why do i never see you all showing a whole group of fossils of the many different types or species of one animal. like say the t-rex or of monkeys or apes. there should be a bit of speciation involved. there are many species of different types of animals know. So in your chart of trilobits why is there only one type shown and then all the other so called transitionals. why couyld they not just be species of trilobits. there had to of been many varites or species of them at a time, BUT I NEVER SEE this shown on any evo chart or transitionals.

I think it's because for the purposes of studying evolution, you want to follow one branching at a time. Though the studying of very different species can be useful for genetic analysis in looking for common ancestors, genetic evidence is hard or impossible to come by for old fossils.

 

[Baggins]

this maybe a stupid guestion but why is there not a varity of different types of trilobites in one era, i usually only see one type. now we have how many types of elaphants or cats or whatever. Why do i never see you all showing a whole group of fossils of the many different types or species of one animal. like say the t-rex or of monkeys or apes. there should be a bit of speciation involved. there are many species of different types of animals know. So in your chart of trilobits why is there only one type shown and then all the other so called transitionals. why couyld they not just be species of trilobits. there had to of been many varites or species of them at a time, BUT I NEVER SEE this shown on any evo chart or transitionals.

Chalnoth is correct. It is because of the way that research is carried out. Most researchers of evolutionary palaeontolgy would not be interested in the totality of trilobite species in a specific geological era. They would be interested in a narrow range of species, well represented in the fossil record and also long alsting, that they could follow through time looking for morphological changes.

This was done in the paper I referenced where it was noticed that if you followed a species for long enough through the geological record eventually enough phenotypic ( morphological ) change happens that if there wasn't the continuum betwen the fossils you would conclude that they were different species ( or a different genus in one case ).

From a laymans point of view an overview of all of the species extant during one period would be illuminating and interesting, but from a reasearchers point of view it probably wouldn't tell you anything useful.

 

[Tomk80]

Well we’ve learned how gradualism is farce.

No we haven't. All we have learned is that after Gladiatrix posted an extremely detailed post that showed you everything I already told again, complete with an extremely comprehensive list of sources, you fled the thread you created again. That is what we have learned.

 

[Schroeder]

Chalnoth is correct. It is because of the way that research is carried out. Most researchers of evolutionary palaeontolgy would not be interested in the totality of trilobite species in a specific geological era. They would be interested in a narrow range of species, well represented in the fossil record and also long alsting, that they could follow through time looking for morphological changes.

This was done in the paper I referenced where it was noticed that if you followed a species for long enough through the geological record eventually enough phenotypic ( morphological ) change happens that if there wasn't the continuum betwen the fossils you would conclude that they were different species ( or a different genus in one case ).

From a laymans point of view an overview of all of the species extant during one period would be illuminating and interesting, but from a reasearchers point of view it probably wouldn't tell you anything useful.

the problem is if you layed out ALL the species 3000 or so of them they never change into anything BUT a different species of trilobite. and i would guess that is the same for MOST ALL oganisms. especially the so called very first ones that ALL things are supposed to come from. And as you say if you did not have a continual fossil record you would say was not part of the other, as in the evolution of whales, BUT of course that doesnt stiop them one bit here does it. they show four or five species that they say is from a origanal species that evolved into a whale. I wonder what it would look like if they had ALL the species of each so called transitional what the picture would show. BUT again they NEVER do this. They ALWAYS so happen to find JUST enough to come to a conclusion.

 

[LightHorseman]

Schroeder, I'm not sure what you are saying exactly... but
a. Different species of trilobyte are as different as species of fish, or reptiles, or any other class, so the speciation is significant. In a gradual process like evolution, would you expect new creatures evolving from fish to be a different kind of fish, or a mamal?

b There are several examples of transitional fossils crossing class borders. However, being practically the largest differentiation there is, they are relatively rare. But they are out there... would you like me to provide you with a list?

 

[Tomk80]

all those links to nonsense sites...all those hand-waving refutes -- the fact is, you have no answer for common sense and truth.

I thank you for bringing up the sickle cell thing though...that's one I forgot to mention that's always brought up when evolutionists start talking about mutations. What this has to do with cumulative selection of beneficial random mutations I have no idea.

You really have no interest in learning what you are talking about, are you? And then you say I insult by calling you a fake. I'd say it describes you perfectly.

 

[Tomk80]

You obviously don't get it. The fossil record does not show gradualism. Why doesn't this little fact sink in? I also gave a direct quote from Niles Eldredge that disproves the notion that horses evolved gradually.

No you didn't, and yes it did.

The only evidence of "evolution" in horses is within each individual species. ( I don't have time to go searching for the quote at the moment.)

So what? You were searching for gradual evolution shown in the fossil record, you never mentioned the extent.

And list all the characteristics of the first 'horse' in the list and current horses, and tell me with a straight face that that isn't evolution above the species level.

But I would appreciate it if you would quite calling me a liar and stop using your typical childish, foul-mouthed athest language. Save it for your wife and kids. I don't want to hear it.

It describes perfectly what you are.

And talking about childish, you started it!

 

[Baggins]

the problem is if you layed out ALL the species 3000 or so of them they never change into anything BUT a different species of trilobite. and i would guess that is the same for MOST ALL oganisms. especially the so called very first ones that ALL things are supposed to come from. And as you say if you did not have a continual fossil record you would say was not part of the other, as in the evolution of whales, BUT of course that doesnt stiop them one bit here does it. they show four or five species that they say is from a origanal species that evolved into a whale. I wonder what it would look like if they had ALL the species of each so called transitional what the picture would show. BUT again they NEVER do this. They ALWAYS so happen to find JUST enough to come to a conclusion.

iF THEY DIDN'T FIND JUST ENOUGH TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME TO A CONCLUSION.

woops sorry about the caps.

That is self evident, they come to a conclusion when they have amassed enough evidence to support their hypothesis, that is just good science

And of course trilobites will never change into anything that isn't a trilobite in the short to medium term, and they would always be arthropods.

Similarly, whales are still in the same lineage as the land mammals that were their ancestors, they still ( often ) have the legs of those animals etc, and they are still mammals.

 

[gladiatrix]

You never once heard mendal say that the gene must have become mutated so that the pea came out wrinkled. Yet that is the nonsense you hear today.

Post #43
Actually we know what mutation caused the wrinkled pea trait that mendel studied was:

"The wrinkled-seed character of pea described by Mendel is caused by a transposon-like insertion in a gene encoding starch-branching enzyme"

(NOTE LINK to Abstract Cell. 1990 Jan 12;60(1):115-22 added)

We describe the cloning of the r (rugosus) locus of pea (Pisum sativum L.), which determines whether the seed is round or wrinkled. Wrinkled (rr) seeds lack one isoform of starch-branching enzyme (SBEI), present in round (RR or Rr) seeds. A major polymorphism in the SBEI gene between near-isogenic RR and rr lines shows 100% cosegregation with the r locus, establishing that the SBEI gene is at the r locus. An aberrant transcript for SBEI is produced in rr embryos. In rr lines the SBEI gene is interrupted by a 0.8 kb insertion that is very similar to the Ac/Ds family of transposable elements from maize. Failure to produce SBEI has complex metabolic consequences on starch, lipid, and protein biosynthesis in the seed."

I guess I did not pick a very good example.

You sure didn't pick a good example, considering that you have clear, irrefutable evidence of a mutation being responsible of a trait and a classic one (one of Mendel's ) at that. Whether you realize it or not the above is evidence that mutations occur and are often the direct cause of phenotypic change.

What Transposons Are:
1. Transposons

2. Transposons from Wiki

3. Transposable elements as sources of variation in animals and plants


Papers on the Effects of Transposons in Plants:

4. Evolution of Ac/Ds transposable elements

5. Insertion Preference of Maize and Rice Miniature Inverted Repeat Transposable Elements as Revealed by the Analysis of Nested Elements

But the point is that mutations do not cause the gene to express itself.

No. You don't understand what the term "express" means.

• This means that a messenger-RNA (mRNA) can be made, using a particular gene and a protein was made using the message.
• Mendel's gene with the transposon insertion is most definitely expressed because a transcript or mRNA can be isolated from the rr embryos:

  An aberrant transcript for SBEI is produced in rr embryos. In rr lines the SBEI gene is interrupted by a 0.8 kb insertion that is very similar to the Ac/Ds family of transposable elements from maize. Failure to produce SBEI has complex metabolic consequences on starch, lipid, and protein biosynthesis in the seed.

The gene in question codes for a protein SBEI.

• Because there is a piece of foreign DNA inserted into the gene coding for the protein SBEI in the rr plants, one gets a defective (abberant) m-RNA (transcript) made.
• The protein made using this faulty m-RNA will not be able to fulfill it's role in making starchs, lipids (e.g. fats) and proteins for the rr embryos, so they come out "wrinkled" in comparison to Rr or RR embryos which can make and accumulate these things properly (why they are round).

It is possible for a mutation to prevent the expression. Here's just one example.

• IF the mutation occurs in a regulatory region of the gene, e.g., the promotor.
• IF the transposon was inserted in the promoter, then RNA polymerase II which usually makes the mRNAs would no longer recognize the promoter because the transposon alters the promoter sequence. IOW, it's no longer recognizable (by the polymerase at least) as a promotor so the polymerase won't bind and start to make the message.

However, in this particular instance, the transposon inserted itself into the region of the gene coding for the protein itself and a faulty mRNA ("abberant transcript") was generated.

 

[LightHorseman]

Gladiatrix... will you marry me?

 

[JohnR7]

so they come out "wrinkled" in comparison to Rr or RR embryos

How is this a evolutionary advantage? It is a example of a mutation, but where is the benifit?

You can shift, mutate or shuffle the DNA all you want to. But you still have a limited number of building blocks to work with. None of that changes when the DNA mutates itself. You still end up with the same grocery list of proteins, amino acids and so forth. Even if you were able to come up with a new recipe for something you have never cooked up before. Your basic ingredients remain the same.

 

[Edx]

How is this a evolutionary advantage? It is a example of a mutation, but where is the benifit?

lol. Now you move the goal posts.

Its natural selection that decides if its a beneficial or neutral.

 

[LightHorseman]

Mutations are neither inherently beneficial or non beneficial. Environment decides that.

See my earlier post about eyeless cave fish. Beneficial mutation in lightless caves, severely un beneficial in lit environments

 

[JohnR7]

Its natural selection that decides if its a beneficial or neutral.

Ok, so what is the evolutionary benifit to wrinkled peas? Why would natural selection select them?