Spirituality
15 Sep 05
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAside: With such a high mutation rate, I'm rather surpised that nobody has observed bacteria naturally mutate to anything other than another strain of bacteria.
The same article you got yours from. Did you read it?
[b]What is the typical rate of spontaneous mutations?
...Bacteria, Archae, and Eukaryotic microbes produce about one mutation per 300 chromosome replications.
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html[/b]
19 Sep 05
1 edit
Haven't found a suitable rate, only an interesting link.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
Edit1: I checked out the forum on the site and found a thread called... guess again... Abiogenesis.
Here's the link ATY, it might interest you:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungActually you would be using the rate per gene, because the gene holds the information for the object of change. Even if you had a mutation rate of 10 per organism you could go a pretty long time without a single gene being effected enough to warrant a change in species.
Is this the number taken from the sample problem which discusses a single gene only? The one that is intended to train students how to use a particular equation as opposed to one that actually reflects real research?
Why don't you try the figure of one mutation per 300 chromosome replications? That seems more reasonable for this sort of calculati ...[text shortened]... d so students can practice using an equation, not whether the numbers are in any way legitimate.
19 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseThat article mentioned "information" and I quickly lost interest:
Haven't found a suitable rate, only an interesting link.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
Edit1: I checked out the forum on the site and found a thread called... guess again... Abiogenesis.
Here's the link ATY, it might interest you:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53
...there are no known examples where a mutation added information to the genome
Now, if the source article were easily available I might find that interesting, but I am not interested in spending time looking for it:
L. Spetner, Not by Chance, The Judaica Press, 1998, p. 138 (particularly all of Chapter 5)
For the background on why creationists talking about genomic information and how it supposedly cannot increase is ridiculous, please see this thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1
Thanks for the link, though at this time I am not interested in jumping into this debate with another community.
19 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseNot true. A mutation in a non-coding region can turn that region into a gene. You need to look at the entire genome, including non-coding regions.
Actually you would be using the rate per gene, because the gene holds the information for the object of change. Even if you had a mutation rate of 10 per organism you could go a pretty long time without a single gene being effected enough to warrant a change in species.
This would probably be an example of a mutation "adding information to the genome" if creationists who use this term would put forth any clear definition of "information" that they find satisfactory, by the way.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIm still amazed by the properties of a hologram especially how an entire intact image is preserved on pieces you cut off, only smaller.
Not true. A mutation in a non-coding region can turn that region into a gene. You need to look at the entire genome, including non-coding regions.
This would probably be an example of a mutation "adding information to the genome" if creationists who use this term would put forth any clear definition of "information" that they find satisfactory, by the way.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNon Coding regions? And here I am thinking that mutations are like spelling errors where one base is accidentally inserted instead of the other.
Not true. A mutation in a non-coding region can turn that region into a gene. You need to look at the entire genome, including non-coding regions.
This would probably be an example of a mutation "adding information to the genome" if creationists who use this term would put forth any clear definition of "information" that they find satisfactory, by the way.
What if I concede that my definition of evolution includes a divinely inserted ability where the variation allows for survival; Although this variation is genetically incapable of exceding the taxonomical classification of an order.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThat is one type of mutation, yes, and it is a type that could change a non-coding region into a gene. What are you confused about?
Non Coding regions? And here I am thinking that mutations are like spelling errors where one base is accidentally inserted instead of the other.
What if I concede that my definition of evolution includes a divinely inserted ability where the variation allows for survival; Although this variation is genetically incapable of exceding the taxonomical classification of an order.
What if I concede that my definition of evolution includes a divinely inserted ability where the variation allows for survival; Although this variation is genetically incapable of exceding the taxonomical classification of an order.
What if you did? This is not consistent with evolutionary theory and I don't think it's correct.
I don't understand what you're trying to communicate with this post.
21 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat is one type of mutation, yes, and it is a type that could change a non-coding region into a gene. What are you confused about?
That is one type of mutation, yes, and it is a type that could change a non-coding region into a gene. What are you confused about?
[b]What if I concede that my definition of evolution includes a divinely inserted ability where the variation allows for survival; Although this variation is genetically incapable of exceding the taxonomical classific ...[text shortened]... t think it's correct.
I don't understand what you're trying to communicate with this post.
[/b]
I'm not familiar with a "non-coding region"; are you talking about functional RNA?
What if you did? This is not consistent with evolutionary theory and I don't think it's correct.
Just because its not consistant with evolutionary theory doesn't mean I am wrong. I think current science extrapolates its observations with a fair dose of wishful thinking and the unprovable uniformatarianism principle. Do you have an example of anything evolving beyond its own order.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseXanthos has it. It's the DNA that isn't genes. Basically DNA is a string of bases, and some combinations of bases are the "start" signal, and some are the "stop" signal. Proteins get translated from "start" to "stop". Those areas between the "stop" of one gene and the "start" of the next are non-coding regions. A mutation could change some part of one of those areas into a "start" signal, thus creating a new gene.
[b]That is one type of mutation, yes, and it is a type that could change a non-coding region into a gene. What are you confused about?
[/b]
I'm not familiar with a "non-coding region"; are you talking about functional RNA?
What if you did? This is not consistent with evolutionary theory and I don't think it's correct.
Just because i ...[text shortened]... e uniformatarianism principle. Do you have an example of anything evolving beyond its own order.[/b]
It is true that just because something is inconsistent with evolutionary theory does not mean it's wrong. I never said otherwise. I was commenting on your statement in which you said "what if..." I didn't know how to respond to a "what if" so I said something. I have no idea what you were asking about so it's not reasonable to expect me to answer whatever it was you were asking correctly.
Do you have an example of anything evolving beyond its own order.
This question shows an ignorance of evolutionary theory. In evolutionary theory, organisms don't evolve "beyond their own orders". Instead, as the organisms of some order evolve and differentiate from one another, their order becomes redefined as a class, and their former family becomes their new order. Or, we could make up new names, like subspecies, and subsubspecies, and what today is known as an "order" would have a smaller range than what would be known as an "order" in the future.
For example: if scientists existed when animals first evolved, they would probably classify Animalia as a species. If scientists existed when Chordates first evolved, they'd probably classify Chordata as a species, and Animalia as a genus. If scientists existed when vertebrates first evolved, they'd probably classify Vertebrata as the species, Chordata as the genus, and Animalia as the family. Get it?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFor example: if scientists existed when animals first evolved, they would probably classify Animalia as a species. If scientists existed when Chordates first evolved, they'd probably classify Chordata as a species, and Animalia as a genus. If scientists existed when vertebrates first evolved, they'd probably classify Vertebrata as the species, Chordata as the genus, and Animalia as the family. Get it?
Xanthos has it. It's the DNA that isn't genes. Basically DNA is a string of bases, and some combinations of bases are the "start" signal, and some are the "stop" signal. Proteins get translated from "start" to "stop". Those areas between the "stop" of one gene and the "start" of the next are non-coding regions. A mutation could chan ...[text shortened]... classify Vertebrata as the species, Chordata as the genus, and Animalia as the family. Get it?
This sounds just like the entire theory of evolution: wishful thinking.
So that would mean that the chiuaua and the great dane should be regarded as different species?
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo that would mean that the chiuaua and the great dane should be regarded as different species?
[b]For example: if scientists existed when animals first evolved, they would probably classify Animalia as a species. If scientists existed when Chordates first evolved, they'd probably classify Chordata as a species, and Animalia as a genus. If scientists existed when vertebrates first evolved, they'd probably classify Vertebrata as the species, Chord ...[text shortened]...
So that would mean that the chiuaua and the great dane should be regarded as different species?
No. They haven't varied enough from one another yet. However they might end up becoming different species if selective pressures, whether human or natural, select for them to be more and more different.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis question shows an ignorance of evolutionary theory.
Xanthos has it. It's the DNA that isn't genes. Basically DNA is a string of bases, and some combinations of bases are the "start" signal, and some are the "stop" signal. Proteins get translated from "start" to "stop". Those areas between the "stop" of one gene and the "start" of the next are non-coding regions. A mutation could chan ...[text shortened]... classify Vertebrata as the species, Chordata as the genus, and Animalia as the family. Get it?
Er... um... yes, delicate sidestep to the inevitable:
Is this where we bring in the paleontologists and the fossil record?
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat?
[b]This question shows an ignorance of evolutionary theory.
Er... um... yes, delicate sidestep to the inevitable:
Is this where we bring in the paleontologists and the fossil record?[/b]
You seemed not to understand evolutionary theory, so I cleared up your mistake. Why are you talking about paleontologists?