...In my last q the blogger "Emucompboy..writes in response "Most mutations are not harmful but SILENT..THIS IS A BOGUS RESPONSE......However note - Encycopedia Americana "The FACT that most mutations are DAMAGING to the ORGAMSM - (1977 VOL10 PG 742)...From Dr Carl Sagan - Most "mutations are HARMFUL (Cosmos 1980 PG 27).....Dr. Peo Koller - The greatest proportion of mutations are DELETERIOUS to the individual who carries the MUTATED GENE it was found in "experiments" that for every successful or useful mutation there are many THOUSANDS which are harmful...and from .. G Ledyard Stebbins observed "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are ELIMINATED. They could NOT compete because they were not IMPROVED but were DEGENERATE and at a DISAVANTAGE.!....And from John Moore (Again) ..Any evolutionary process involving mutations is an utter MYTH......Mr. Emucompboy your're beginning to sound like OJ Simpson.."Just give me more time, I'll find the killers)!" keep looking..
2007-12-21 07:43:42 · 9 answers · asked by Archie P 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Yes, most mutations that show are a disadvantage to an organism, but once in a while, there will be one that is advantageous. If you allow billions of years to go by, there will be thousands of advantageous mutations that will have carried through to current generations. This is just one of the mechanisms of evolution. Most evolutionary changes don't come from mutations in genes, but rather from genes that are turned off or are recessive and are turned on again or two parents with the same recessive genes have children. We have in our genes, genetic information from the first single celled organisms, fish, reptiles, and from all our descendants. Most of these genes are turned off, but they show up from time to time, and a lot of the time, they can be advantageous. Did you know that we share 50% of our genes with a banana? Just goes to show how much of our genes are shared between all life on the planet. Hope that all made sense.
2007-12-21 08:14:00 · answer #1 · answered by straightshooter 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
> Mutations fact or fantasy
Oh, mutations happen all right!
Why, there's even a story that one day Thomas Hunt Morgan was walking by a fallen orange... and he saw a fruit fly with a slightly different eye color from the other fruit flies!
Now suppose Morgan caught a fly with vermilion eyes, and bred it with other flies, and bred the progeny with each other. Then he threw away all the fruit flies that didn't have vermilion eyes. By "throwing away," I mean he drowned them in motor oil. Well, from the viewpoint of a fruit fly in Morgan's lab, then the vermilion eye color mutation would be a favorable one, right?
> Most mutations are silent
Yup! I'm standing by that one, yes sir, I am, even if I am quibbling! You see, we still call it a mutation even if it's a single base substitution! You have a lot of DNA that doesn't appear to be actively transcribed, and also doesn't appear to be regulatory! Way more of that than the coding and regulatory DNA! A mutation in these "inactive" areas will have no discernible affect!
Okay, so let's ignore the trivial case, and say that instead of that, you have a mutation in a gene that's actively transcribed! Well, there are 20 amino acids, and 64 possible codons, so there's some redundancy. Math says, hey, about two thirds of the time, the mutation will make no change in the polypeptide sequence of the gene product! Wow! Most of the time, point mutations within a gene are silent!
> DELETERIOUS
Oh my! That's why we get two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent! If one of them has a damaged allele, we might have gotten a good allele from the other parent!
> the mutants are ELIMINATED
Nuh uh! Depends on how deleterious the mutant allele is, and how it acts! Oh my, the Huntington's Chorea allele kills its bearer dead, yes it does! But... it kills the bearer AFTER the typical childbearing is over! This allele would be hard to get rid of, wouldn't it?
Or how about sickle cell anemia? Very deleterious, that one! People who are homozygous with sickling allele will be, well, sickly, and die! But -- being heterozygous for sickle cell anemia confers a partial resistance to malaria! So, this deleterious allele has increased, not been eliminated, in the parts of the world where malaria happens! Are you sure this mutation isn't an improvement?
> keep looking...
I looked, and didn't find a better explanation!
Here's a suggestion: rather than bashing evolution, instead, write about what you know about Creation:
Who dunnit
When it happened
What was done at those times
How the evidence can be examined, and how Creationism is the BEST explanation for the observations!
What the Creator(s) is/are doing today!
Have a nice day, be sure to take a walk outside, don't spend it all behind a computer monitor!
2007-12-21 16:36:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yup. emucompboy is correct. Most mutations are silent ... neutral.
Trivially, since most DNA (as much as 98%) doesn't seem to code for *anything* ... any mutation that occurs in 98% of the DNA will have no effect at all.
Your problem, Archie, is that you mistake quote mining for science. You haven't actually *read* any of those people you quote enough to really understand the nuances of the concepts they are describing. You are just citing isolated sentences and sentence fragments that you find on creationist sources. You have no REAL UNDERSTANDING of genetics or biochemistry ... just access to a quotation-mill.
How is it possible for the majority of mutations to be called either neutral (silent) or harmful (deleterious)? Simple. It depends on your point of view. Most mutations have no significant effect at all (as emucompboy correctly states) but these are of no interest to evolutionary theory. Of the small percentage that do have some *IMMEDIATE* effect, this effect is *USUALLY* harmful.
But first, "USUALLY" is not "ALWAYS". A mutation can sometimes provide an immediate benefit. And it is those that provide some benefit that are selected though the process of survival in nature (hence 'natural selection') that increase in frequency. All those harmful mutations (no matter if they are the majority), die out. The more harmful, the faster they die out. That is the CENTRAL part of the theory that you seem completely unable to grasp.
And second, that huge number of neutral (silent) mutations can themselves become beneficial at some future time. For example, a gene duplication mutation may cause a redundant copy of a gene to be copied to the same or another chromosome. As a redundant copy, it may be completely neutral (silent) as other regulatory systems may prevent overabundance of whatever protein is coded by that extra copy. But someday, perhaps *centuries later* in some descendant ... one of those redundant copies may get a point mutation that changes the properties of the encoded gene. Suddenly, a new gene ... which in turn can be beneficial.
Summary: Archie you are trying to use your own ignorance as an argument. You don't actually *understand* the genetics and biochemistry involved ... you just throw these isolated quotes from people you've never read. It is pointless, and vacuous ... anyone with any scientific background at all finds your arguments to be a JOKE.
That is why emucompboy defeats you *EASILY* every time.
2007-12-21 17:37:23 · answer #3 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
OK...the thing is...it really depends where one has been mutated...it's true that some mutations are not harmful...if like....two people are exposed ot radiation (x-ray for example)....the first thing is the type of mutations they are likely to have....which is determined by the cells of the body...healthy cells might not get mutated as quickly as the unhealthy cells....second thing is the part of the body...if a blood cell has been mutated...like nonsense mutation then they are more likely to develop blood cancer...but incase of silent mutation it doesn't really matter....
if gamates have been mutated by a little bit...enough to change the DNA....then the problems could arise...soooo....
It depends what kind of mutation it is
Where it is
and how its caused....
these factors are essential....
as far as Emucompboy is concerned...most mutations are neutral..by the fact that we are always exposed to the radiation...and getting mutated all the time...by the fact that they are neutral we don develop serious conditions..
hope tht helped...if nything unclear..plz do add details...to let me know where am lacking....in ma explanation...thx...
2007-12-21 16:02:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Archie, I think enough of your codswallop. Amuse yourself by considering these:
1. Bats are birds - Lev.11:13, 19. Deut.14:11, 18
2. Some birds have four feet - Lev. 11:20-21
3. Some four-legged animals fly - Lev. 11:21
4. Embryos talk - Luke 1:44
5. pi is 3 - 1Kings 7:23
6. Earth is fixed, immovable non-rotating - Josh. 10:12, 1 Chrnicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 105:5
Keep looking.
2007-12-21 16:09:30 · answer #5 · answered by Tom P 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Emucompboy was correct - most mutations are neutral. Of those that have any effect, most are harmful and don't survive for long. Those that are beneficial increase the individual's chances of reproducing and so the gene pool is enhanced. If you want to see a real example of this, look at the way antiobiotic resistant strains of TB are emerging.
2007-12-21 15:57:22 · answer #6 · answered by Iridflare 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
You are an ill educated twit. encompboy was right. Most mutations are neutral and how could it be any other way with the sense vs not sense of DNA. Your quote mining just shows you up as a moron, so why don't you head on back to R and S, as this is final time and many students here have real questions.
2007-12-21 15:58:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
All you have to do to convince scientists of "the creation TRUTH" is bring scientific facts and testable evidence to the table. You have none so you make up these attacks on real science.
Give it up. You aren't convincing anyone and are making yourself look like someone who won't read or study what you are attacking. And, won't provide any evidence for a conflicting myth.
2007-12-21 16:13:22 · answer #8 · answered by Joan H 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
This isn't a message board. Ask a question or get out. I'm sick of you posting this crap every 5 seconds with words that you don't even understand capitalized. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH?
2007-12-21 16:52:00 · answer #9 · answered by Lauren 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋