The MYTH of Random Mutations

[Chalnoth]

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

Maybe that's just a neutral mutation? Not every trait has to be beneficial for a current organism. Many will be the result of simple history (like our own appendix and toes).

 

[LightHorseman]

igh* John, natural selection DOESN'T select them. They just HAPPEN through CHANCE. then, after the phenotype is out there, natural selection takes place. maybe wrinkled peas have a greater surface area to attract polinating insects. maybe they have a greater surface area and thence susceptibility to frosts. But no one knows until the mutation occurs and natural selection has a chance to either see the mutation as beneficial or not

 

[gladiatrix]

Ever heard of a thing called sickle cell anemia?

Ever hear of a syrian hampster?

Yes I heard of sickle cell. It has been highly researched. It is what they call a evolutionary trade off. If someone inherits one gene from one parent then they will have some resistance to malaria. But if they inherit the gene from both the parents then they will die from sickle cell.

So how can you demonstrate that some sort of a defective gene in the hampsters is causing the different color fur to appear? Just when in the last 50 years do you feel this genetic "defect" first occured?

AND

This example also serves to illustrate the ambiguity in defining certain mutations as "good" or "bad". Good in one place can be bad in another...

I am wondering, why do you think that this was caused by a mutation? Because it can be "good" & "bad" or because you do not find it in everyone.

Or do you call it a mutation because you have a control group and you can demonstrate where a copy error first took place and the sickle cell first appeared?

Or do you just assume a mutation created the gene? (Bold/color added)

No we don't just assume that a mutation was responsible for sickle cell anemia or some coat colors in Syrian hamsters....

The genes that code for the types of proteins that can make up hemoglobin have been sequenced along with many mutated sequences, including sickle cell hemoglobin (HbS). To date 1271 such mutants sequences are on record (not all of them cause disease). <===(Click link to view database of sequences)

This history of the discovery and elucidation of the molecular biology of sickle cell anemia is quite interesting. One of the prime movers in accurately describing the chemical properties of the defective protein was none other than Linus Pauling. Here are some useful links that show just how clueless you are when it comes to this issue:

1. From the Human Genome Project ==> HBB: The Gene Associated with Sickle Cell Anemia

2. The Molecular Biology of Sickle Cell Anemia

3. Hemoglobinopathies(read about other Hemoglobin Disorders)

4. Below is a protein gel that separates the normal hemoglobin from the defective hemoglobin. Even though the only difference between normal hemoglobin and sickle cell hemoglobin is one amino acid ( result of a single base pair substitution), the two protein have different properties which allow us to separate them when both normal and abnormal hemoglobin are placed in an electric field.

Reading from left to right:

• Lanes 1, 4, 5, 8==> Hemoglobin (HbA) from an individual with normal hemoglobin (genotype => SS)
• Lanes 3 & 7==> Hemoglobin (HbS) from people with sickle cell anemia (genotype => ss)
• Lanes 2 & 6==> Hemoglobin from a person who carry sickle cell trait (genotype => Ss). Note both HbA (lower band) and HbS (higher band) are present in the carriers. That is because the genes for both normal hemoglobin and sickle cell hemoglobin are both expressed in the same individual.

Again, we don't need to know each and every sequence for all of your Syrian hamster coat color genes to know what mutation can do. However, if it's a sequence you want, verifying a mutation as the cause of a particular coat color, here's just ONE known as anophthalmic white (Wh) or deaf white Syrian hamster (not all hamster genes have been sequenced, more important organisms to do first):

Mutation in Intron 6 of the Hamster Mitf Gene Leads to Skipping of the Subsequent Exon and Creates a Novel Animal Model for the Human Waardenburg Syndrome Type II (full article) This gene was of particular interest given that lack of pigmentation is often associated with deafness in a number of species.

ABSTRACT
In the course of analysis of ENU-induced mutations in Syrian hamsters, a novel dominant anophthalmic white mutant (WhV203) with hearing loss was recovered. Because of this phenotype and a close linkage to the Tpi gene, the Mitf gene was considered as a candidate gene. In the Mitf cDNA, a deletion of 76 bp covering the entire exon 7 was detected. Further molecular analysis revealed a T A exchange 16 bp upstream of the end of intron 6, leading to skipping of exon 7. These 16 bp at the end of intron 6 are identical in hamster, rat, mouse, and humans, indicating high conservation during evolution and a functional importance in splicing. Since the loss of exon 7 changes the open reading frame of the MITF transcript, translation will be stopped after 10 new amino acids. The truncated protein is predicted to contain only a part of the basic region and will miss the two helical domains and the leucine zipper. The WhV203 mutation in the Syrian hamster affects the same functional domains of the Mitf transcription factor as the human R124X mutation, causing human Waardenburg syndrome type II. Therefore, the WhV203 hamster mutant provides a novel model for this particular syndrome.

INTRODUCTION

SINCE the discovery of the mouse microphthalmia (Mi) mutation more than 50 years ago (HERTWIG 1942 ), numerous mutant alleles have been identified and genetically characterized. The mutations affect particular cell types, which are derived from neural-crest melanocytes. The size of the mutant eyes is reduced because of the affected retinal pigmented epithelium. The mutants frequently develop deafness owing to the lack of inner ear melanocytes. The mutations detected in the mouse are mainly recessive, but semidominant or dominant phenotypes also have been reported. The wild-type allele encodes a basic-helix-loop-helix leucine zipper (bHLHzip) transcription factor and has been referred to as microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (mitf; STEINGRIMSSON et al. 1994 ; YAJIMA et al. 1999 ; HALLSSON et al. 2000 ; THAUNG et al. 2002 ).
. . . .
In the Syrian hamster, one dominant mutation in Mitf (W241X) has been reported and designated as anophthalmic white (Wh). It is predicted that this premature stop codon leads to a truncation of the protein in the loop between helix 1 and helix 2 of the bHLHzip region. It prevents the protein from dimerizing or from binding to its DNA target sites (HODGKINSON et al. 1998 ).

In this article, we describe a novel dominant allele (WhV203) in the Syrian hamster. The phenotype cosegregates with a point mutation in a highly conserved region of intron 6. It leads to skipping of exon 7 of the Mitf gene during the maturation of the transcript.

We know what mutations can do, i.e., produce different phenotypes, there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT. Can you give us ANY REASON to doubt that mutations are often responsible for different phenotypes?

 

[LightHorseman]

Dear Gladiatrix, I'm serious, I have a ring and everything, say you'll be mine?

 

[gladiatrix]

Dear Gladiatrix, I'm serious, I have a ring and everything, say you'll be mine?

Goodness, LH...we've really got to stop meeting like this.

 

[LightHorseman]

Hehe... just think, we could work out a round the clock roster to follow JohnR7 around everywhere he posts and debunk his pseudoscientific doublethink everywhere he goes!

PLus, the Whole Gladiatrix thing is really cool... I'm quite an accomplished swordsman myself

 

[joey444]

No, pick me!

 

[Tynan]

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.

Here is the real 'science'.

"Damn! foul-mouthed athest [sic]"

Yee Haa !!

Evolutionists you are not up against people who will yield to reason, logic or evidence, surely this must be apparent by now ?

The point of this conversation for those invested in the supernatural is not to understand but simply to dismiss that which denies them their beliefs.

This is like showing a child how nutritionally poor a diet based entirely around sucrose, glucose and the colourant Yellow No.6 (Sunset Yellow FCF) would be for their well being, regardless, after they have heard all the facts they will still want to eat that bright yellow sugary ball in the shape of a clown because their drive was never based on reason but on desire.

You are not discussing evolution, you are trying to take something precious away from these people.

 

[LightHorseman]

Evolutionists arent trying to take anything away from anyone. I'm sure your average evolutionist is more than happy to let delusional YEC Christians believe whatever they want. However, Fundamentalists have an amazing ability to want to impose their views on everyone else. So when YEC people start going around changing education curricula, evolutionists will fight back, because, and I'm sure I speak for most here, I don't want my kids minds being cluttered up with YEC drivel. If YEC advocates want their own kids to believe it, thats fine, and completely up to them. But once they start telling MY kids what to believe, then I have a right to take away what they are willing themselves to believe in.

Seriously, if all the YEC advocates stopped putting this stuff out there, then the debate would stop today. Evolutionists wouldn't go chasing after them to tell them they are wrong, unlike the way YEC people come out of the woodwork in opposition to anything supporting evolution or Darwinian theory.

 

[Tynan]

amen !

My point was that they will not yield to reason.

 

[Tomk80]

amen !

My point was that they will not yield to reason.

Euh, read some of supersports earlier threads. Read them completely and tell me again afterwards, with a straight face. that it is the evolutionists who don't follow reason.

 

[Opethian]

^That was not what he meant. He was talking exactly about the creationists.

 

[Tomk80]

Oi! Stupid me!

 

[MrGoodBytes]

This is like showing a child how nutritionally poor a diet based entirely around sucrose, glucose and the colourant Yellow No.6 (Sunset Yellow FCF) would be for their well being, regardless, after they have heard all the facts they will still want to eat that bright yellow sugary ball in the shape of a clown because their drive was never based on reason but on desire.

You are not discussing evolution, you are trying to take something precious away from these people.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

This is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts. Descent with modifiction means that you will never be anything different than what your ancestors are, just modified. Look at the fossils found in the human and chimp lineages. All of them are modifications of their ancestors, and all of them in both lineages are modified Hominidae and modified primates. They are never anything but primates. Modern day protists and mammals are still just eukaryotes.

Species do not change into something else, they just add variety to their ancesteral group.

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.

The fossil record is incomplete so we will always have an incomplete picture of past evolutionary events. However, even an incomplete picture is capable of falsifying common descent. For example, a fossil species with a mix of avian and mammalian features not found in the common ancestor (reptiles) would falsify the theory of evolution. It is that simple. That they find a gradation of features between modern whales and modern ungulates. Of course, both whales and ungulates are both still mammals so neither turned into anything different.

 

[Schroeder]

This is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts. Descent with modifiction means that you will never be anything different than what your ancestors are, just modified. Look at the fossils found in the human and chimp lineages. All of them are modifications of their ancestors, and all of them in both lineages are modified Hominidae and modified primates. They are never anything but primates. Modern day protists and mammals are still just eukaryotes.

Species do not change into something else, they just add variety to their ancesteral group.

Sorry but this reasoning doesnt fit at all. It is clear Trilobites DID NOT change into anything BUT trilobites. it is CLEAR chimps apes monkey NEVER became anything BUT monkeys chimps and apes. it is clear alligators did not change into anything BUT another type of alligator. SO for this theory to work there would had to have been a creation of many types of animals that changed into what we have know. as in many different origanals with genes capable of creating the many SPECIES we have today. BUT they never were just ONE organism at one time in the past. animals from the SEA did not become anuimals of the land and animal of the land did not become birds. So you are right the MANY different animals created did not become a different type animal, like a fish to a amphibian to a reptile to a mammal ect. But the many diofferent first became the many SPECIES

The fossil record is incomplete so we will always have an incomplete picture of past evolutionary events. However, even an incomplete picture is capable of falsifying common descent. For example, a fossil species with a mix of avian and mammalian features not found in the common ancestor (reptiles) would falsify the theory of evolution. It is that simple. That they find a gradation of features between modern whales and modern ungulates. Of course, both whales and ungulates are both still mammals so neither turned into anything different.

NOT when there is no proof of a common descent in the first place. It is rather hard to FALSIFY something that is not there. and you can show me all your so called evidence but it is still the same as your common descent picture it isnt there. It is rather obvious if a creature did create life he would use ALL the same types of mechanism to survive. and YES they would be very similiar to each other, WHY because they all live on the same planet with the same LAWS to follow. you are telling us to find something WE know we will not find. Just admit the whale evolution presented is very poor. the only reason it is held on is becasue mammals should not be in water UNLESS they came from land, because that is the way the theory flows.

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry but this reasoning doesnt fit at all.

Yes, it does.

It is clear Trilobites DID NOT change into anything BUT trilobites.

I'll leave trilobites, as I do not have any knowledge on them.

it is CLEAR chimps apes monkey NEVER became anything BUT monkeys chimps and apes.

Chimps are apes. They are modifications of ancestral apes.

it is clear alligators did not change into anything BUT another type of alligator.

Again, we wouldn't expect them to. However, alligators have come from an ancestor which was not an alligator. Not from scratch, but as a modification of this ancestor.

SO for this theory to work there would had to have been a creation of many types of animals that changed into what we have know. as in many different origanals with genes capable of creating the many SPECIES we have today. BUT they never were just ONE organism at one time in the past. animals from the SEA did not become anuimals of the land and animal of the land did not become birds.

Yes, they did. The bodyplan of animals of the land is a modification of the bodyplan of the original animals from the sea. The bodyplan of birds is a modification of the bodyplan of dinosaurs. The bodyplan of bats is a modification of the bodyplan of mammals. They are all modifications, nothing new.

So you are right the MANY different animals created did not become a different type animal, like a fish to a amphibian to a reptile to a mammal ect. But the many diofferent first became the many SPECIES

That sentence does not make sense. Could you please first calm down before typing and check your grammar? Your posts are extremely hard to follow.

NOT when there is no proof of a common descent in the first place.

But there is. Plenty of it.

It is rather hard to FALSIFY something that is not there.

Like special creations.

and you can show me all your so called evidence but it is still the same as your common descent picture it isnt there.

How can we show it if it isn't there?

It is rather obvious if a creature did create life he would use ALL the same types of mechanism to survive. and YES they would be very similiar to each other, WHY because they all live on the same planet with the same LAWS to follow. you are telling us to find something WE know we will not find.

But why do birds and bats have wings developed in a completely different way if what you say is true? Why do the blood circulations of mammals and birds differ, while they have to accomplish the same? That doesn't make sense from the perspective of a single designer.

Just admit the whale evolution presented is very poor.

Why would we. It isn't. It's extremely good and detailed.

the only reason it is held on is becasue mammals should not be in water UNLESS they came from land, because that is the way the theory flows.

No, the reason it is held is that it adds up, not only when looking at the fossils in a broad perspective, but also when taking an extremely detailed look. Add to that the molecular and embryological evidence, and the picture becomes even more persuasive.

 

[Grummpy]

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/page8.JPEG

So you are right the MANY different animals created did not become a different type animal, like a fish to a amphibian to a reptile to a mammal ect. But the many diofferent first became the many SPECIES

Wrong!!!

Grumpy

 

[Chalnoth]

Sorry but this reasoning doesnt fit at all. It is clear Trilobites DID NOT change into anything BUT trilobites. it is CLEAR chimps apes monkey NEVER became anything BUT monkeys chimps and apes. it is clear alligators did not change into anything BUT another type of alligator. SO for this theory to work there would had to have been a creation of many types of animals that changed into what we have know. as in many different origanals with genes capable of creating the many SPECIES we have today. BUT they never were just ONE organism at one time in the past. animals from the SEA did not become anuimals of the land and animal of the land did not become birds. So you are right the MANY different animals created did not become a different type animal, like a fish to a amphibian to a reptile to a mammal ect. But the many diofferent first became the many SPECIES

Dude, the changing between the major families of animals (reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, for example) only happened a scant few times over hundreds of millions of years. Of course we don't expect to see these things happen in our miniscule lifetimes. And yet, we do see animals alive today that seem to be between these things, such as the lungfish:

 

[LightHorseman]

It is clear Trilobites DID NOT change into anything BUT trilobites.

OK, so if nothing changes into anything but another variety of the same thing... where are all the ape fossils from the same period as the trilobites?