Mutations - capable of generating new information?

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Anonymous » Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:56 pm

Tony, instead of posting crap tell us what mechanism *prevents*
micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution... Stop demanding that we
do your research for you and start putting your brain where your mouth is.
Anonymous
 

Re: Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Kekerusey » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:16 pm

mikeybrass wrote:Tony, instead of posting crap tell us what mechanism *prevents*
micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution... Stop demanding that we
do your research for you and start putting your brain where your mouth is.


Well said ... that an argument I use and I have yet to meet a creationist who can met it head on. I phrase it like micro-evolution is small change, but enough small change equals big change. micro and macro evolution are the same thing (in fact those terms are creationist inventions). Given sufficient time small change plus small change plus small change plus small change etc. must eventually result in big change unless something, some mechanism actively prevents it ... what is that mechanism? Evolution theory can easily answer this question ... creation "theory" cannot!

I will be interested in seeing whether dipsh*t has an answer.

Kyu
User avatar
Kekerusey
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:38 am
Location: http://www.atheistsheaven.com

Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Anonymous » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:21 pm

Kyuuketsuki wrote:

I will be interested in seeing whether dipsh*t has an answer.


I would also like to know from him why he thinks the poster-boy for
Intelligent Design (Michael Behe) is wrong to accept an old earth and
human evolution... Internal consistency is not a strong point of
creationists. I generally find they know less about their own positions
than most anti-creationists do.
Anonymous
 

Postby Timothy Chase » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:59 pm

Tony,

When you "quote" people, it is better to use the words they said rather than the words you wish they had said. Otherwise for all intents and purposes you are arguing against strawmen - and doing so a bit more dishonestly than I am used to seeing, I might add.
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Jaf » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:25 pm

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:16:40 -0600, you wrote:


mikeybrass wrote:
Tony, instead of posting crap tell us what mechanism *prevents*
micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution... Stop demanding that we
do your research for you and start putting your brain where your mouth is.


Well said ... that an argument I use and I have yet to meet a creationist who can met it head on. I phrase it like micro-evolution is small change, given sufficient time small change plus small change plus small change plus small change etc. must eventually result in big change unless something, some mechanism actively prevents it ... what is that mechanism?

I will be interested in seeing whether dipsh*t has an answer.

Kyu

As evidenced by such as this -
(JS) - Mutations that are corruptions can be inherited, often for many
generations.

Me - Well, yes. And if they confer a survival advantage (and thereby, a
reproductive advantage), they'll get spread around and become the norm.

(JS) - Some mutations are corruptions which appear to offer some advantages
but do not, long-term.

Me - Well, yes. Then they don't last long in the population, because those
members of the population are at a disadvantage from a survival (and
thereby, a reproductive) point of view.

I think in those two sentences, you pretty much summed up evolution.

--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Keep Science Scientific
BCSE http://bcseweb.org.uk
Jaf
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, N.Lincolnshire

Re: Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Timothy Chase » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:23 am

Joachim Schlick wrote:I propose to open this new thread to discuss whether or not mutations are how evolution happened, (if it did). To prove that evolution happened, evolutionists must show that the process of evolution is recorded in the fossil record (it does not appear to be) and that it is genetically possible to progress from single cells through amenba, simple, 'primitive' creatures to the fantastic array of highly complex creatures and plant life that we see around us today, with even more (extinct creatures) in the fossil record.

This is basically a response to artciles referred to by Timothy Chase and one by Ian Lowe.

Mutations – the mechanism of evolution? - Responses


Joachim Schlick wrote: Mutations are corruptions, not 'new' information

Timothy Chase wrote: He made the same claim on December 8th, December 28th and January 3rd. Each time his claim has been debunked..

REPLY: Has it? See below

...

[COPYING AND PASTING from Answers in Genesis]
Blood proteins

Scientific American falsely claimed that: "Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this [duplication of genes] is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years." [SA 82]

The creationist reply: This is about the vital red blood pigment haemoglobin that carries the oxygen. It has four polypeptide chains and iron. Evolutionists believe that this evolved from an oxygen-carrying iron-containing protein called myoglobin found in muscles, which has only one polypeptide chain. However, there is no demonstration that gene duplication plus natural selection turned the one-chained myoglobin into the four-chained haemoglobin. Nor is there any adequate explanation of how the hypothetical intermediates would have had selective advantages.

In fact, the proposed evolution of haemoglobin is far more complicated than Scientific American implies, though it requires a little advanced biology to understand. The α- and β-globin chains are encoded on genes on different chromosomes, so they are expressed independently. This expression must be controlled precisely, otherwise various types of anemia called thalassemia result. Also, there is an essential protein called AHSP (alpha haemoglobin stabilizing protein) which, as the name implies, stabilizes the α-chain, and also brings it to the β-chain. Otherwise the α-chain would precipitate and damage the red blood cells.

AHSP is one of many examples of a class of protein called chaperones which govern the folding of other proteins.3 This is yet another problem for chemical evolutionary theories—how did the first proteins fold correctly without chaperones? And since chaperones themselves are complex proteins, how did they fold?4

Identifying information-increasing mutations may be a small part of the whole evolutionary discussion, but it is a critical ‘weak link’ in the logical chain.


Post subject: Joachim Schlick's Mutations
Posted: 09 Jan 2007 05:00 am
http://bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4984#4984

The "Information Challenge"
Richard Dawkins
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dawkinschallenge.htm
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:09 am

Joachim Schlick wrote:I propose to open this new thread to discuss whether or not mutations are how evolution happened, (if it did).
THE ‘YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST' REBUTTAL OF EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS THAT SOME MUTATIONS ARE BENEFICIAL

[Note: this is cut-and-pasted with some articles heavily snipped. I have not kept on referring to links in order to allow the argument to flow. They can mostly be found on the Answers in Genesis site, or linked from there].



We've warned you time and time again about this cut and past crapola. Use your own words. This is not a forum to advertise AiG crackpots. We've seen and heard all their arguments.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Paula Thomas » Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:32 am

In any case he has totally ignored my point that he is assuming that there is a perfect set of information which is being deviated from. The isn't there are only those information sets that survive in the environment and those that don't.

Paula
Paula Thomas
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: London, UK

Regarding haemoglobin...

Postby Timothy Chase » Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:44 pm

Regarding the origin of haemoglobin...

Freitas, et al. wrote:Here, we show that two proteins ApPgb and MaPgb, identified from the Archaea Aeropyrum pernix and Methanosarcina acetivorans, respectively, conform to the globin sequence motifs, contain heme, and demonstrably bind O2, CO, and NO."

Ancestral hemoglobins in Archaea
Tracey Allen K. Freitas, Shaobin Hou, Elhadji M. Dioum, Jennifer A. Saito, James Newhouse, Gonzalo Gonzalez, Marie-Alda Gilles-Gonzalez, and Maqsudul Alam
PNAS | April 27, 2004 | vol. 101 | no. 17 | 6675-6680
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/17/6675


Interestingly, Methanosarcina acetivorans is the same archaea in which the primitive metabolic path was found which - it has been suggested - may have been the earliest metabolism:

James G. Ferry and Christopher H. House wrote:Two main theories have emerged for the origin and early evolution of life based on heterotrophic versus chemoautotrophic metabolisms. With the exception of a role for CO, the theories have little common ground. Here we propose an alternative theory for the early evolution of the cell which combines principal features of the widely disparate theories. The theory is based on the extant pathway for conversion of CO to methane and acetate, largely deduced from the genomic analysis of the archaeon Methanosarcina acetivorans. In contrast to current paradigms, we propose that an energy-conservation pathway was the major force which powered and directed the early evolution of the cell. We envision the proposed primitive energy-conservation pathway to have developed sometime after a period of chemical evolution but prior to the establishment of diverse protein-based anaerobic metabolisms. We further propose that energy conservation played the predominant role in the later evolution of anaerobic metabolisms which explains the origin and evolution of extant methanogenic pathways.

The Stepwise Evolution of Early Life Driven by Energy Conservation
James G. Ferry and Christopher H. House
Molecular Biology and Evolution 2006 23(6):1286-1292
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /23/6/1286


I refered to this in the post:

Posted: 06 Jan 2007 10:30 pm
http://bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4804#4804
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Dave Oldridge » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:34 am

On 8 Jan 2007 at 15:49, Joachim Schlick wrote:

I propose to open this new thread to discuss whether or not
mutations are how evolution happened, (if it did). To prove that
evolution happened, evolutionists must show that the process of
evolution is recorded in the fossil record (it does not appear
to be) and that it is genetically possible to progress from
single cells through amenba, simple, 'primitive' creatures to
the fantastic array of highly complex creatures and plant life
that we see around us today, with even more (extinct creatures)
in the fossil record.

This is basically a response to artciles referred to by Timothy
Chase and one by Ian Lowe.

Mutations - the mechanism of evolution? - Responses


Joachim Schlick wrote: Mutations are corruptions, not 'new'
information

Timothy Chase wrote: He made the same claim on December 8th,
December 28th and January 3rd. Each time his claim has been
debunked..

REPLY: Has it? See below

----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------

Timothy Chase wrote: I pointed out beneficial mutations in the
following post (8 Dec 2006 09:37 pm). Ian did the same with a
beneficial mutation which is currently spreading through the
human population (the "double-muscled" mutation) in the same
thread (8 Dec 2006 11:54 pm) namely (Ian lLowe): "A mutation
which causes a difference in how myostatin is expressed"

REPLY: Is the kind of `mutation´ that can cause a difference in
how a myostatin is expressed really the kind of mutation that
must have occurred billions of time over hundreds of millions
years to get from a single cell to all the fantastic array of
highly specialised creatures we see in the world today? This
seems more like a form of adaptation - an inbuilt capacity to
adapt, or develop new traits - not the kind of new information
that would progressively lead to a new species.

To create a new species:

1. Isolate two populations from one species.

2. Ruthlessly enforce both the isolation and some new selection
characteristic(s).

3. Continue for about a thousand generations, perhaps more.

Oh, you'll get the results of your selection long before the two
species diverge enough to be genetically incompatible, and you
may notice that behavioural isolation has already begun to show
up after as little as 20 generations (Dobzhansky observed this in
fruit flies).

----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------

TC wrote: If these two examples are called `mutations´, I am
willing to concede that they can produce some potentially useful
adaptations, or `new traits´ - but they still appear to be
`corruptions´ (see the arguments below) and they do not seem to
be capable of introducing the kind of new information that could
lead to the development of new species. Could this kind of
`mutation´ in the two examples you refer to account for e.g. the
development of all the fantastic variety of reproductive
systems, hearing, vision, sense of smell, colour, lungs, brains,
hearts, livers and kidneys, flight, the ability to swim, scales,
fins, legs, feathers, creatures over 100 feet long, the amazing
variety of plant life we have etc. etc. All from these types of
`adaptive mutations´ or development of new triats? I don´t think
so - see below

Major changes, such as those that turn fish fins into tetrapod
limbs are not the result of single mutations so much as the
result of a whole cluster of them accruing and being selected for
over deep time.

However, the argument that mutation cannot provide new genetic
information is experimentally disproved. Take monoclonal
breeding stock and select for any visible character you like and
you will start seeing variations even in the first generation if
your population is at all reasonable in size. Those variations
represent new genetic material (monoclonal stock, remember). And
they present new "information" for natural selection to operate
upon.



--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby marc » Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:49 pm

However, the argument that mutation cannot provide new genetic
information is experimentally disproved. Take monoclonal
breeding stock and select for any visible character you like and
you will start seeing variations even in the first generation if
your population is at all reasonable in size. Those variations
represent new genetic material (monoclonal stock, remember). And
they present new "information" for natural selection to operate
upon.
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ


I would be interested in following this up, could you provide a couple of key references on this.

Thanks
Marc
marc
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Timothy Chase » Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:30 pm

marc wrote:I would be interested in following this up, could you provide a couple of key references on this.

Thanks

I might try digging for this myself.

However, I know for example that one in a thousand human births involve chromosomal rearrangements, half of which are asymptomatic. And these mutations are quite significant. Likewise, one in a hundred human births involve a new sine insertion. Other mutations are much more common. For example,

Brinkmann, et al. wrote:In 10,844 parent/child allelic transfers at nine short tandem-repeat (STR) loci, 23 isolated STR mismatches were observed. The parenthood in each of these cases was highly validated (probability >99.97%). The event was always repeat related, owing to either a single-step mutation (n = 22) or a double-step mutation (n = 1). The mutation rate was between 0 and 7 X 10^-3 per locus per gamete per generation. No mutations were observed in three of the nine loci. Mutation events in the male germ line were five to six times more frequent than in the female germ line.

Mutation Rate in Human Microsatellites: Influence of the Structure and Length of the Tandem Repeat
Bernd Brinkmann, et al.
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 62:1408–1415, 1998

Likewise, 49% of the human genome conists of recognisable retroelements - which means that all this is all due to insertions or duplications at some point.
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Timothy Chase » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:02 am

Of course, it helps to keep in mind that with Tony Bennett's book-keeping, gene duplication and polyploidy do not involve any "new information" since they simply involve the duplication of information which already existed. Likewise, by his book-keeping, once a gene has been duplicated and then begins to diverge from the original, this doesn't involve any new information, either - since it is simply the "corruption" of information which already existed - and is in fact the "loss of information," or as Bennett would put it, "a corruption." As such, the gene duplication in the gene for rhodopsin leading from dichromatic to trichromatic vision in humans must have been a bad thing, quite disasterous, I suppose.
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Mutations - capable of generating new information?

Postby Dave Oldridge » Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:12 am

On 19 Jan 2007 at 6:50, marc wrote:


However, the argument that mutation cannot provide new genetic
information is experimentally disproved. Take monoclonal
breeding stock and select for any visible character you like and
you will start seeing variations even in the first generation if
your population is at all reasonable in size. Those variations
represent new genetic material (monoclonal stock, remember).
And
they present new "information" for natural selection to operate
upon.
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ[/quote]

I would be interested in following this up, could you provide a
couple of key references on this.
[/quote]
Check out references in Futuyma's "Science on Trial" to
experiments conducted by Dobzhansky. He did some experiments
with monoclonal fruit flies and mutations were seen right away.

--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Timothy Chase » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:17 pm

Many traits are multilocus - which means that if one selects for a given "visible" trait, then sees variation within the next generation, it is likely due to that trait being multilocus - or for that matter, due to sexual recombination of dominant and recessive alleles.

Simple point mutations at a given base tend to be quite rare. However, other types of mutation are fairly common. For example, in mammals, mutations due to to tandem repeat slippage can be quite high.

Here is a quote from one article which may be of interest - particularly since it is dealing with humans (although similar results can be obtained across most mammals):

Yinglei Lai and Fengzhu Sun wrote:In experimental studies for human microsatellite mutations in vivo, high mutation rates from about 1^0–4 to 10^–2 per locus per generation were observed. Besides single step mutational events, some multiple steps mutational events were also observed. Zhang et al. (1994) observed that longer trinucleotide repeats had much higher mutation rates than short ones and that contractions occurred more frequently than expansions. Xu et al. (2000) observed more mutations and contractions for longer tetranucleotide repeats. Bacon, Dunlop, and Farrington (2001) observed high mutation rates for mononucleotides. Huang et al. (2002) observed that the mutation rate increased and the probability of expansion given mutation occurrence decreased as the number of repeat units increased for dinucleotides.

The Relationship Between Microsatellite Slippage Mutation Rate and the Number of Repeat Units
Yinglei Lai and Fengzhu Sun
Mol. Biol. Evol. 20(12):2123-2131. 2003
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... 20/12/2123


In coding regions, mononucleotide and dinucleotide repeats are fairly rare - they are selected against since they will result in frameshift mutations. However, trinucleotide repeats are much more common.

You-Chun Li, et al wrote:These findings also suggest that the differences between coding and noncoding SSR frequencies arise from specific selection against frame-shift mutations in coding regions resulting from length changes in nontriplet repeats (Liu et al. 1999; Dokholyan et al. 2000). Nevertheless, 14% of all proteins contain repeated sequences, with a three times higher abundance of repeats in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes.

INVITED REVIEW
Microsatellites: genomic distribution, putative functions and mutational mechanisms: a review
You-Chun Li, Abraham B. Korol, Tzion Fahima, Avigdor Beiles and Eviatar Nevo
Molecular Ecology
Volume 11 Issue 12 Page 2453 - December 2002
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/fu ... 02.01643.x


However, mono- and dinucleotide repeats are fairly common in cis-acting regions where they will affect not the actual protein which gets transcribed, but the when, the where and the how much. If you are interested in slippage due to tandem repeats, the article above would be a good place to begin. However, there is a caveat: slippage is considerably less common in drosophila, although still considerably more common than point mutations.

Schug, et. al wrote:In a recent study, we reported that the combined average mutation rate of 10 di-, 6 tri-, and 8 tetranucleotide repeats in Drosophila melanogaster was 6.3 x 10^(-6) mutations per locus per generation, a rate substantially below that of microsatellite repeat units in mammals studied to date (range = 10^(-2)-10^(-5) per locus per generation). To obtain a more precise estimate of mutation rate for dinucleotide repeat motifs alone, we assayed 39 new dinucleotide repeat microsatellite loci in the mutation accumulation lines from our earlier study. Our estimate of mutation rate for a total of 49 dinucleotide repeats is 9.3 x 10^(-6) per locus per generation, only slightly higher than the estimate from our earlier study. We also estimated the relative difference in microsatellite mutation rate among di-, tri-, and tetranucleotide repeats in the genome of D. melanogaster using a method based on population variation, and we found that tri- and tetranucleotide repeats mutate at rates 6.4 and 8.4 times slower than that of dinucleotide repeats, respectively.

The mutation rates of di-, tri- and tetranucleotide repeats in Drosophila melanogaster
MD Schug, CM Hutter, KA Wetterstrand, MS Gaudette, TF Mackay and CF Aquadro
Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 15, 1751-1760
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... 15/12/1751


*

For more on drosophila, multi-locus traits and the causes of sexual isolation in drosophila, you might try:

Trudy F.C. Mackay
William Neal Reynolds Professor of Genetics
Ph.D., University of Edinburgh
Postdoctoral, Dalhousie University
The genetic basis of quantitative variation
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/genetics/mackay/mackay.html

*

Anyway, I will be doing some more on different types of mutation a little later...
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest