Mutations and new morphological features

[otseng]

In my understanding of biological evolution, new morphological features are explained by random genetic mutations.

So, for debate:

What causes these mutations?
What evidence are there that random mutations can cause new morphological features?
What is the process in which new morphological features arise?

[LillSnopp]

The following image is remarkably clear evidence that they do. It's a little big

Jose, littlebig



I would love to say something, but i think it would be pointless to go into detail about this, and definitely pointless to give any links which would explain it (as anyone not believing in it,. would never read it). So i just say, Listen to these people, its common sense.

[Jose]

Jose, little big

Isn't English fun? We can invent wacky meanings for words that have normal meanings (in this case, using little to mean somewhat or rather) thereby juxtaposing two words that logically make no sense together. Of course, the Germans like to fuse words together, to make sesquipedalian monstrosities, so we're not the only ones. Regrettably, I know too little Swedish (i.e. none) to comment on it.

This reminds me of how nicely we can use language evolution to illustrate many of the same principles that govern biological evolution...but I don't see how this gets me any closer to the topic of the thread, which is morphological change. Oh well.

[LillSnopp]

Isn't English fun? We can invent wacky meanings for words that have normal meanings (in this case, using little to mean somewhat or rather) thereby juxtaposing two words that logically make no sense together. Of course, the Germans like to fuse words together, to make sesquipedalian monstrosities, so we're not the only ones. Regrettably, I know too little Swedish (i.e. none) to comment on it.

This reminds me of how nicely we can use language evolution to illustrate many of the same principles that govern biological evolution...but I don't see how this gets me any closer to the topic of the thread, which is morphological change. Oh well.

When logic fails, Structural rhetoric will always confuse my enemy into submission, especially Christians And if not, atleast they will get baffled.

[MagusYanam]

Isn't English fun? We can invent wacky meanings for words that have normal meanings (in this case, using little to mean somewhat or rather) thereby juxtaposing two words that logically make no sense together.

In my opinion, any language where the simple word fly can mean to travel through the air or a winged insect or a zipper has to be fun! After all, time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!

Of course, the Germans like to fuse words together, to make sesquipedalian monstrosities, so we're not the only ones.

The Germans do have a lot of great long words like weltanschauung (worldview) or rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften (insurance companies which provide legal coverage) which are a pain to pronounce. But I'm willing to bet any English-language med student would like to give the guy who came up with the word pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (a lung disease caused by inhaling silicate dust) a swift kick in the rear.

But nothing - nothing! - can compete with this Swedish gem: nordöstersjökustartilleriflygspaningssimulatoranläggningsmaterielunderhållsuppföljningssystemdiskussionsinläggsförberedelsearbeten (work in preparation for contribution to the discussion on the maintenance system of support of the material of the aviation survey simulator device installed in the northeast section of the Baltic coast artillery). 130 letters long! Whew!

Personally, I love long words - I made a note of using the lengthiest constructions I could in German class.

[LillSnopp]

But nothing - nothing! - can compete with this Swedish gem: nordöstersjökustartilleriflygspaningssimulatoranläggningsmaterielunderhållsuppföljningssystemdiskussionsinläggsförberedelsearbeten (work in preparation for contribution to the discussion on the maintenance system of support of the material of the aviation survey simulator device installed in the northeast section of the Baltic coast artillery). 130 letters long! Whew!

I dont think i can qualify that as one "word". We have some that are actually "used", but there limited to around -40 letters.

But its really Terrible, i can actually read the word. Strangely enought, most of these lovely words are governmental, or part of the monarch.... Conspiracy


And German, Swedish, ah, its the same.

[Jose]

Thanks, Magus, for pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis--I knew of it, but would have had to look it up. You saved me!

Sneakily bringing this back to the topic of the thread, this is just like gene evolution. We take some words, glue 'em together, and get increased information content. The evolution deniers like to tell us that evolution cannot create new information, but it does the same thing. Occasionally, there are gene duplications, followed by gene fusions. The duplication doesn't give "new" information, but does give "more" information (extra copies). When the extra copies do weird things like fuse to some other gene, we get new information.

Here's a simple example:

Debilitating disease wiped out native cultures in the New World after European colonists arrived, creating new colonies. This is a result of Christopher Columbus's voyage, funded by the King of Spain because the Venetian nobles felt it would drain the coffers of their city to send him on such a voyage. Common sense argued that they should turn down his request.

Let's duplicate it:

Debilitating disease wiped out native cultures in the New World after European colonists arrived, creating new colonies. This is a result of Christopher Columbus's voyage, funded by the King of Spain because the Venetian nobles felt it would drain the coffers of their city to send him on such a voyage. Debilitating disease wiped out native cultures in the New World after European colonists arrived, creating new colonies. This is a result of Christopher Columbus's voyage, funded by the King of Spain because the Venetian nobles felt it would drain the coffers of their city to send him on such a voyage.Common sense argued that they should turn down his request. Common sense argued that they should turn down his request.

Now let's allow a few deletions. I'll highlight the stuff to delete by making it yellow...

Debilitating disease wiped out native cultures in the New World after European colonists arrived, creating new colonies. This is a result of Christopher Columbus's voyage, funded by the King of Spain because the Venetian nobles felt it would drain the coffers of their city to send him on such a voyage. Debilitating disease wiped out native cultures in the New World after European colonists arrived, creating new colonies. This is a result of Christopher Columbus's voyage, funded by the King of Spain because the Venetian nobles felt it would drain the coffers of their city to send him on such a voyage.Common sense argued that they should turn down his request. Common sense argued that they should turn down his request.

And, voila! The same original information, plus new information produced by word fusions.

Debilitating disease wiped out native cultures in the New World after European colonists arrived, creating new colonies. This is a result of Christopher Columbus's voyage, funded by the King of Spain because the Venetian nobles felt it would drain the coffers of their city to send him on such a voyage. Debating Christianity.Com Common sense argued that they should turn down his request.

[USIncognito]

Why do I have yet to see a mention of Hox genes in this thread (apart from the obvious allusions)?

Stepping beyond that, let ask the Creationists for something. Where are the Pinnipeds with more functional legs than a virtual fluke and flippers offers? They are basically half-land/half-sea animals, why don't Seals and Walruses have functional pseudo-legs for land transport in addition to their flippers to use at sea? Why do we only see Pinnipeds with feet that have evolved into flippers?

Why don't we see any tetrapods, be they amphibians, reptiles, birds (I'll get to them specifically next) or mammals with more than 4 appendages? Wouldn't an extra pair of legs be beneficial to a Gnu or White-tailed deer? How about to a Tiger, Axolotyl or Platypus? Why do we only see adapted limbs instead of "creative" novel new ones?

And about the birds... Sacrficing your holding/grasping limbs in order to fly seems like a heck of a trade off. Why wouldn't a "creative" Creator instead just attach a pair of rudientary or indeed fully functional arms to the chests of birds in order to allow them both the benefit of flight and the ability to manipulate their world with more than their beaks and claws?

What of the Panda's thumb?
What about the horses shin?
Where is sudden, divine, literal creation to be found in a Creator that appears to be a tinkerer?

[Chem]

Who really knows what a mutation does? typically they are harmfull.

Typically they are. But what about sickle cell anemia? A debilitating desease caused by the substituting of a charged amino acid (glutamic acid) for a neutral amino acid (valine) on the beta chain of haemoglobin.

Why do I bring this up? Because this disease is prevalent in areas where malaria is prevalent (Africa for instance) i.e. it imparts immunity to malaria. Outside these regions the occurence of sickle cell anemia is very low. Basically, evolution in action- a mutation (though debilitating) that endows its bearer with a slight advantage over others. OK it's not an example of a change in morphology but certainly leads to further evidence of evolution. Remember there is no difference between micro and macroevolution, it all has the same aim- to pass on DNA to the next generation .

[Jose]

Who really knows what a mutation does? typically they are harmfull.

Typically they are. But what about sickle cell anemia? A debilitating desease caused by the substituting of a charged amino acid (glutamic acid) for a neutral amino acid (valine) on the beta chain of haemoglobin.

<snip description of phenotypic consequences>

Thanks! There are many mutations like Hemoglobin S, that have beneficial effects when present in one copy, but are deleterious when homozygous. I imagine that the YEC crowd will say that, because these are deleterious when homozygous, they are harmful.

Even so, the puzzle to me is that they continue to make this kind of statement. It is known exactly what most mutations do. We know the DNA sequence change, and the consequent change in the proteins (e.g. your example of changing a glutamate for a valine). In a huge number of cases, we know how the altered protein causes its phenotypic consequences. The "sickling" of red blood cells is one very good example. There are lots of others, including things that seem irreducibly weird, like the flies with legs growing out of their heads.

Of course, the claim that mutations are always harmful is hogwash. YEC phrased it accurately here, saying that mutations are typically harmful. But "typically" is not "always," and leaves room for "sometimes mutations are helpful." There's the classic study of Colias butterflies by Ward Watt, looking at mutations that alter the Km and Vmax of phosphoglucose isomerase, which illustrates the basic principle that a particular genetic variant may be harmful in one environment, but advantageous in another. He's also looked at mutations that cause differences in color (such as the white form of female Colias butterflies, which are usually yellow).

I imagine that the YEC argument here is that these are "pre-existing genetic variants" and not "mutations." We hear this a lot, but it's silly. Genetic variants arise by mutation! Once the original mutant form of a gene is passed on to offspring, it automatically becomes part of that species genetic variation.

In any event, this sort of statement perpetuates a series of misconceptions and ignorances (if that's a word[?]), when there is abundant proof that the statement simply is not true. Indeed, even our own YEC has implied that the statement must be wrong, because YECs accept microevolution. They even postulate a period of hyper-evolution in the first thousand years or so after the 8000 species of animals got off the Ark, to create the millions of species we now have! That can only happen if mutations are sometimes helpful.