Mutations

[axeplayer]

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed.

[Corvus]

5. A minor mutation would be like, being born without a fingernail on a certain finger, or being born with six toes (I know a girl who has 12 toes)

Although this isn't exactly useful, doesn't this go against what your source stated when it said; "All mutations have proved to be harmful"? This also seems to disprove the claim that "information" can't increase. Can't you now imagine how, in certain situations, a creature may be born with an extra structure that, though useless at first, several thousand generations later may become something quite useful?

What would be a design reason for having 10 toes as opposed to, say, a flipper-like structure with padding on the soles?

6. Our bodies are made to function the way they are supposed to. If you have a computer, and you take out the power supply and replace it with a waffle, the computer isn't going to work. Or, if you take out some of the ram, the computer won't work as good.

Yes, but if I replace my old S3 Trio with a Geforce 4, which is a improvement of video card technology, then my computer will function better. I could also overclock the processor so as to increase the speed of the computer without removing or adding parts. And if I removed some programs that automatically boot up when Windows starts, like Winamp, my French-English dictionary, my dos soundcard emulator (rarely used) and a nifty little program called Keynote, to name a few, the computer will load a lot faster.

Not exactly a great analogy, though. A computer may be upgraded and tinkered with, but it doesn't function like a body.

[LillSnopp]

Yes, but if I replace my old S3 Trio with a Geforce 4, which is a improvement of video card technology, then my computer will function better. I could also overclock the processor so as to increase the speed of the computer without removing or adding parts. And if I removed some programs that automatically boot up when Windows starts, like Winamp, my French-English dictionary, my dos soundcard emulator (rarely used) and a nifty little program called Keynote, to name a few, the computer will load a lot faster.

Not exactly a great analogy, though. A computer may be upgraded and tinkered with, but it doesn't function like a body.

Your S3 is most likely PCI, and does your old computer really have an AGP slot if its that old ? And overclocking it would mean more presure to the system, more likelihood to corruption, and shorter lifespan, with a minimal of improvment. Why would WinAmp boot up automatically? Dos Soundcard Emulator? You mean VDMW? I dont use anything less then Win 2003 server, so i dont know what OS your using 8)


And what you finished with, axeplayer, making an analogy with a none-living organisms is perhaps not the most suited way to go. Lets use living organisms shall we?

[micatala]

Take a Human, swimming very very much, he will then, eventually, evolve to become suited to this new environment. What so hard about accepting this ?

This is not evolution by natural selection, but Lamarckism (Larmarckianism?), which was discredited long ago. This single human may become a better swimmer, but he or she will not be able to pass this skill on to his or her offspring genetically. They may be able to teach their offspring any better swimming skills that they learned, and so pass along a cultural trait, but their would be no 'biological' evolution.

If a whole population of humans does a lot of swimming, and those that are better swimmers because of genetic factors (say wider hands with slighly more webbing between the fingers) are selected for within the population (say the better swimmers find mates more often than the poor swimmers, or the better swimmers survive in greater numbers), then the population may evolve into a better swimming population.

[axeplayer]

Although this isn't exactly useful, doesn't this go against what your source stated when it said; "All mutations have proved to be harmful"?

I actually said that no mutation has proven to be beneficial. As with having an extra toe, this would not be beneficial or harmful to the organism, it would be like a commensalistic relationship between two organisms in a nature sense.

[LillSnopp]

This is not evolution by natural selection, but Lamarckism (Larmarckianism?), which was discredited long ago. This single human may become a better swimmer, but he or she will not be able to pass this skill on to his or her offspring genetically. They may be able to teach their offspring any better swimming skills that they learned, and so pass along a cultural trait, but their would be no 'biological' evolution.

I just tried to use a simple analogy to explain things to axeplayer, as it seems he is not able to understand simplistic things, i go even further down

It was the adaptability i was referring to as the important part.

If a whole population of humans does a lot of swimming, and those that are better swimmers because of genetic factors (say wider hands with slighly more webbing between the fingers) are selected for within the population (say the better swimmers find mates more often than the poor swimmers, or the better swimmers survive in greater numbers), then the population may evolve into a better swimming population.

Lets use this one if you prefer then.

[foshizzle]

Would you please stop the incessant "rolling the eyes" and sarcastic winking emoticons?

I'm pretty sure it's already understood by everyone that /you/ don't think Axeplayer understands what he's talking about.

Instead of the infantile smilies, why don't you stick to the subject at hand?

[Chem]

Chem wrote:
I think you should check your facts. You have at least 6000 different mutations (alterations) to your DNA compared to your parents. Most of these would be located in the junk DNA that has built up over time and through various differnt ancestral forms.
It may not be that many. The last estimate I heard was that mammals (including us) have a mutation rate of 1 mutation per billion base pairs per year. That works out to about 264 per person per generation. I'd interpret this to mean that all of us, axeplayer included, are likely to have around 264 mutations relative to our parents. Relative to others not in our immediate family, I wouldn't be surprised if the 6000 number is more like it. If you have a reference for the data behind the 6000, I'd like to look it up. Maybe the 264 has been updated.

My humblest apologies, I was actualy talking about differences in the genes between adults and their offspring. I stand corrected.

Go raibh mile maith agat (thousand thanks). I must be more sure when I post to the forum.

[axeplayer]

I have 4 kidney, and 3 of them are working. As a side note. This is a defect, not an advantage, because my body is not built to handle it.

You honestly expect everyone here to believe that you have 4 kidneys? And since you didn't, you can't use that as an example of a beneficial mutation, since, the kidneys would take up a massive amount of space in the rib cage, so you would more than likely have a reduced heart, liver, lungs, or just have one of them missing.

[Jose]

Thanks for answering those questions, axeplayer! I'll offer some comments:

* what is a mutation?
1. A mutation is the change of DNA in an organism. this can be due to the deletion of a nucleotide, the insertion of one, or the replication of one.

Exactly so. Any change in DNA counts as a mutation.

* How should we define the term, "mutation"?
2. -see above answer-

OK

* What causes mutations?
3. chance/genetic heredity causes a mutation.

Actually, no. Heredity is simply the inheritance of DNA. It doesn't cause mutations (nor does it correct them). Nor does chance cause mutations. Typically, mutations are caused by

• errors in DNA replication
• radioactivity (by having high-energy particles hit the DNA and break one or more chemical bonds)
• X-rays (again, by breaking bonds)
• chemical mutagens (by reacting with the DNA and changing the chemical nature of one of the bases) This includes the really-nasty chemicals in tobacco, and also oxygen radicals!
• sloppy repair of any DNA damage (the DNA polymerase that does repair is "low-fidelity" compared to the polymerase that replicates DNA)

These things do change DNA at random, because there is no way to "target" any of them to specific sequences.

One more important bit is this: Once a mutation has been inherited by the progeny of the first mutant, that mutation is now part of the "genetic diversity" of that species.

* How do mutations alter the characteristics of animals?
4. mutations can change just about anything in animals. the dna codes for a specific protein to be made, and if that protein is changed to a different protein, then that would effect the appearance of the animal.

Well, you've skipped most of the steps. You've kinda said "what" happens, but not "how" it happens. Let's try this:

Consider pigments, like skin color. Dark skin results from an enzyme that produces melanin. There are multiple genes for this enzyme. If all of your copies of this gene are active and produce effective enzyme, you have dark skin. If some of the genes are active, and some are not, you have lighter-brown skin. If none of the genes are active, you have white skin. The regulation of these genes also matters: if the genes are always "on," then you have dark skin no matter what. If the genes "turn on" only in response to ultraviolet light, then you turn darker after UV exposure (ie you get a tan).

Pigments are easy. If one of the genes works, you get the pigment. Brown skin is dominant to light skin; brown eyes are dominant to blue eyes.

Morphology is more difficult. There, the genes produce proteins that regulate embryonic development--usually by regulating the expression of other genes. ...maybe I'll leave it there, for now.

* What, in your opinion, is required to make a mutation "drastic" as opposed to "minor"?
5. A minor mutation would be like, being born without a fingernail on a certain finger, or being born with six toes (I know a girl who has 12 toes)
While a major mutation would be something like, being born with an extra arm, or being born with 5 chambers in your heart instead of four. or being born with only one lung or kidney.

Most of these "mutations" (more accurately, mutant phenotypes) aren't actually possible. Polydactyly is, of course--it results from changing the regulatory proteins that control digit formation. Extra arms aren't so easy. There does not appear to be a single gene that controls the positioning of limb buds on vertebrate embryos. Rather, the control of limb bud positioning is the result of many gene products interacting--and many of those genes also control the overall body plan. Because flies are evolutionarily related to us, and we know about fly development, I'd say that the "extra arm" mutation would necessarily change many more aspects of development of that portion of the body--and would turn out to be lethal.

Extra heart chambers would, I think, also require too many mutations to be possible. On the other hand, loss of a lung or kidney--affecting only one side of the body--would (and do when these kinds of things occur in flies, result from developmental mistakes that are not genetic. They result from interference with cell-cell interactions during embryogenesis. They are like the chemical interference of embryogenesis that leads to being born homosexual.

So, "drastic" vs "minor" is, in your opinion, very subjective. You've centered on organs whose importance is greater or lesser for the survival or appearance of the organism. BUT, these are not "mutations" you are speaking of, but the phenotypic consequences of mutations. Remember, mutations are merely changes in DNA sequence.

* How are our bodies made, so that they can't have mutations take place in them?
6. Our bodies are made to function the way they are supposed to. If you have a computer, and you take out the power supply and replace it with a waffle, the computer isn\'t going to work. Or, if you take out some of the ram, the computer won\'t work as good. likewise, if you take something essential away from the human body, it won\'t function as good, and if you replace a coded protein with one that is not supposed to go there, it won\'t function very good at all. [/b]I don't think this makes sense, especially in the light of your answers to the first two questions. Our bodies contain DNA. Therefore, we must acquire mutations. It is absolutely impossible to prevent it.

If a mutation occurs in a body cell, IF it is in the right gene, it may cause that cell to divide uncontrollably. This is the origin of cancer.

If a mutation occurs in a gonadal cell, then there is a possibility that the mutation will become part of a new individual--but only if that mutation makes it into an egg or sperm, and that lucky gamete becomes part of a fertilized egg, and that lucky egg actually implants and develops to term. None of this is likely, but happens often enough to keep our species going.

The bottom line is: anything whose inheritance depends on DNA cannot help but have mutations occur. This is true of humans as well.

* What would happen if a mutation did take place in a human?
7. some examples of human mutations would be muscular dystrophy, down\'s syndrome, autism, etc.

Downs' doesn't count. That's a result of incorrect chromosome segregation at meiosis. It's not a change in DNA sequence. I don't know the details of the others (sorry). But, I've basically answered this above: somatic cells can lead to cancer. Otherwise, mutations in them have no effect. Mutations in gametes can give rise to mutant individuals--but once the mutant gene has been passed on to progeny, then that "mutation" is merely part of the genetic diversity of the species, and is inherited as any normal allele would be. It's phenotypic effect depends on what gene is changed, how it is changed, and whether that changes its function very much. In general, though, the effects are completely constrained by the developmental program of the species. slight modifications of structures are possible. Big changes either cannot occur, or if they occur, are usually lethal.

[LillSnopp]

(1)You honestly expect everyone here to believe that you have 4 kidneys?(2)And since you didn't, you can't use that as an example of a beneficial mutation, (3)since, the kidneys would take up a massive amount of space in the rib cage, so you would more than likely have a reduced heart, liver, lungs, or just have one of them missing.

1. First of, i dont like it when say that i am lying, and second, if you have a hard time believing me when telling you the truth, how can you possibly equate a God to your room of belief(?) which would need far more then such a small amount of facts which i can give you.

2. Have i said this is a beneficial mutation?
I only use two of them (as this is the ´natural´ body solution), one of them is inanimate, whiles the other none-active (thats the other two: Clarification, three working, two active, one in hibernation, one inanimate).

3. My heart, lungs, liver and so forth are in perfect condition, and no other organs have any defects. So your assertion is incorrect. I simply have twice the amount of kidneys that is needed, with no real "negative" effect for the rest of my body.


Its interesting to see how you see i ´must´ certain things just because you dont believe me, yet, i stated very early that i do not lie. So not only do you lack the understanding of mere explanations, your retentiveness seems very limited too.