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.
Interesting. I didn't know that Plasmodium species have a plastid. We could say that organisms with chloroplasts are plants, but that would leave out parasitic plants like Dodder.That would mean that malaria is caused by a plant. I think my colleagues who study malaria would be surprised to learn that they were now botanists.
But what if they're not?I know, all plant species are plants! There that should settle it...
Apparently at some point an ancestor of Plasmodium ingested a plant and decided it liked the chloroplast and kept it -- the second time the chloroplast became a symbiont. By this time its no longer photosynthetic, and has been reduced to the apicoplast. What exactly it does for the parasite is unclear.Interesting. I didn't know that Plasmodium species have a plastid.
If your chart is based on the Kimura paper you cited, then your description of it is wrong. Kiimura's paper does not describe the real distribution of mutation effects in the human population
...
In other words, he simply assumed the shape of the distribution.
I think the mutations being shown here include the whole genome, including the aforementioned ~95% which you had stated as "completely neutral". I think thats why the larger frequency of total mutations are counted, the closer they pile up towards 0. I am curious as to why you don't think the entire genome would not be included in the graph.His curve is wrong, and massively so, for human mutations. First, note that ~95% of the genome seems to have no function, so that fraction of mutation will be completely neutral. Of the remaining mutations, a much larger fraction than the curve would suggest are highly deleterious, enough so to be removed by natural selection.
Consider just the coding regions of genes, which are the parts of the genome that are the best understood. They are about 1.5% of the genome, or 50 million base pairs. Single base subsitutions (easily the most common mutations) within coding regions either change the amino acid that is coded for (nonsynonymous) or don't (synonymous). Roughly two-thirds of substitutions are nonsynonymous. Of these, approximately 75% are deleterious enough to be removed by selection. (This can be seen both in within-species studies (Nature Genetics 22:231 (1999)) and in comparing humans and chimpanzees (Nature 437:69 (2005).) That means that fully half of all mutations are to the left of Kimura's box, which isn't at all consistent with his curve.
Ok. Well the question becomes: How much mutation is too much? This is where evolution begins to become a tautology, especially when there seems to be a mindset which places no limit to the rescuing power of natural selection.Of the remaining mutations, some undoubtedly are mildly deleterious, and accumulate freely in the genomes of organisms like humans. For many of them, the selective disadvantage is tiny, and the correct response is, "So what?". Being slightly less fit relative to a perfect member of your species isn't very important to evolution, when the perfect member doesn't exist; you only compete against real organisms, not ideal ones.
There is an intermediate range of mildly deleterious mutations that are more interesting, however. These have a selective disadvantage too small to be eliminated by selection in the human population, but large enough that the effects become significant as more and more mutations pile up. For example, synonymous mutations don't change the protein, but for highly expressed genes they may slow production of the protein down by a bit, since the translation machinary is forced to use less common transfer RNAs. So if you start with optimal production, repeated synonymous mutations may gradually make the expression level of the protein lower and lower, leading to a less (healthy, happy, bouncy, whatever) organism.
Does this spell disaster (i.e. extinction) for the species? Well, no. As the species drifts towards lower and lower fitness as a result of changes at that gene, the opportunity for beneficial mutations increases; the farther you are from perfect fitness, the more likely it is that a change will be good for you. In this case, a mutation that increases transcription of the gene will have a substantial benefit, and will be favored by natural selection.
Whoops. Reverse that, my dislexia was kicking in, I meant the opposite. Sorry.I don't know what you mean, but it sounds wrong. Natural selection operates at the level of the organism.
OK obviously your very knowledgeable about the subject, and you actually have years of experience and lots more knowledge than me, so let me ask you a question,...based upon the above quote:You are misunderstanding something fundamental here. The rate of beneficial mutations depends strongly on the environment (something Kimura actually points out in this paper). It has to. The beneficial mutation rate for an organism that is perfectly adapted to its current environment must be zero, since "perfectly adapted" means it can't get any better. Change the environment, and suddenly there are ways the organism could be improved, and so the beneficial mutation rate will go up.
There was a paper within the last few weeks in Science that reported a very nice series of experiments with bacteria (E. coli), measuring the beneficial mutation rate in an environment where the bacterium was not well adapted. They measured a beneficial mutation rate of the greater than 1 per 100,000 bacteria (i.e. 10^-5/genome replication). The total mutation rate for E. coli is only about 1 mutation per 400 replications, so the beneficial mutation rate in this environment was on the order of 1% of all mutations, which is enormous.
Yeah, I think what Inan3 is asking is the fundamental question of the origins of all matter. In other words,...where did it all come from? And if I understand correctly, there is no generally accepted theories for the exact origins of all matter. Just like there are no generally accepted theories of abiogenesis. There are lots of explanations out there, but there is no generally accepted theories that I'm aware of. However in the end it really doesnt matter what is 'generally accepted' and what is not, the truth is the only thing that matters.Nothing went bang, per se. The term was coined by it's opponents.
The 'Big Bang' was the rapid expansion of the spacetime continuum from a timeless, spaceless singularity.
Trivial to do. However, showing that mutation can cause a loss of information would suprise no-one -- if you want to demonstrate that mutation cannot cause speciation you must demonstrate that mutation must not ever cause an increase in information. Good luck with that.Ok. Next I'll show that mutations can indeed cause a "loss of information" and that it is not just a creationist wording, but that it also exists in many science books and publications as well. But more importantly I'll discuss the relevance of it.
What kind of entropy? If you are talking about thermodynamic entropy, then you are looking at the wrong place -- life is all about exploiting waste energy and (therefore) increasing entropy, but that has nothing to do with how complex a life form is or its particular evolutionary history. If you are talking about Shannon entropy, then every mutation increases entropy, but that is because Shannon information theory is solely concerned with what it takes to perfectly copy a given message -- it does not care about what the message says or how to interpret the message. The only measure of entropy that seems to apply is entropy defined in terms of Chaitin information theory, and since Chaitin information theory uses several key concepts from computer science (Turing machines, compressibility, etc.), you will have a fun time determining what specific mutations even mean in terms of entropy.Of course I'll also build upon more of this genetic entropy hypothesis also, while at the same time trying to at least read, but definitely get to any feedback I might get.
So it's easier to believe in a self-existing being than self-existing energy because the self-existing being is like us. That's odd. We're pretty complicated, adding omnipotence would make us more so, a bunch of energy is pretty simple. I'd tend to think something simple is more likely to "just exist" than something complex.Because that is what we are like, (minus the omnipotence). We are creative. We decide. We have life. We love. We appreciate. We have reasoning. We increase. We are more than energy. We have soul and spirit. Like God. We are like our Creator.
So it's easier to believe in a self-existing being than self-existing energy because the self-existing being is like us. That's odd. We're pretty complicated, adding omnipotence would make us more so, a bunch of energy is pretty simple. I'd tend to think something simple is more likely to "just exist" than something complex.
I think you're putting the cart in front of the horse. God didn't create us in his image, we created him in ours. In fact, your statement that it's easier for you to believe in a self-existent being "because that is what we are like" would tend to give credence to this claim.
I'm not sure but it seems that evolution goes from the simple to complex argument and if I'm right in this, I can see how you would think that we came from self existing energy.
However in the end it really doesnt matter what is 'generally accepted' and what is not, the truth is the only thing that matters.
Agreed and I'll go even further to say that Truth, being the Word of God and spiritual is greater than fact. Truth can actually change fact.
And I gave it: ~13 billion years ago, there was no matter, no energy, no spacetime. Then* there was: the singularity began to expand, and matter/energy formed.Yeah, I think what Inan3 is asking is the fundamental question of the origins of all matter.
Like I said, the Big Bang.In other words,...where did it all come from? And if I understand correctly, there is no generally accepted theories for the exact origins of all matter.
The most widely accepted theory of abiogenesis is the 'primordial soup' model supported by the Miller-Urey experiments.Just like there are no generally accepted theories of abiogenesis. There are lots of explanations out there, but there is no generally accepted theories that I'm aware of.
Indeed. And the scientific consensus falls on whatever explanation is most likely to be true.However in the end it really doesnt matter what is 'generally accepted' and what is not, the truth is the only thing that matters.
And I gave it: ~13 billion years ago, there was no matter, no energy, no spacetime. Then* there was: the singularity began to expand, and matter/energy formed.
Truth comes from God which will never change whereas fact is only fact until a better conclusion is made.
How do you know the truth is "from god". You only have faith that your scriptures are. They are still written by men, you believe they are something more.
Secondly, if a fact wasnt true then it wasnt really a fact to begin with.
Why does it seem that you guys are coming out of the woodwork? First we have one group of posters and then another and when you can't handle those who have a little more info (not me) you call in those from MIT. Do you all go online or to the phones and enlist your buddies and mentors? No problem but seems suspect to me.
You say this using a computer. Maxwell's (scientific) laws govern computers.Pretty shaky ground if you ask me.
So this must be the "scientific consensus which falls on whatever explanation is most likely to be true" for this day and hour?
And this is the voice of reason?
I don't get it, except that the scriptures says that men "willingly" choose to be ignorant of God and His creation. Well, it is a choice. Not mine but it is a choice.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Have you ever heard of lurkers? They who watch the thread but do not post in it. As you make more and more outlandish statements, more and more lurkers feel compelled to reply. It is a purely natural system that only appears to be designedWhy does it seem that you guys are coming out of the woodwork? First we have one group of posters and then another and when you can't handle those who have a little more info (not me) you call in those from MIT. Do you all go online or to the phones and enlist your buddies and mentors? No problem but seems suspect to me.
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?