Can random mutations increase fitness?

786, the articles you quoted from Doctor Weaver are so far out of date as to be irrelevant. You should really look at articles from 2000 or newer, since the largest advancements in genetics have occurred in the last 5-10 years.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*F.J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life-form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth.

Evolution requires millions upon millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great rarity.

CHANCE with RARITY does not make a good theory.
Anyways in order for a specie to become a COMPLETELY different specie you need millions of Mutation, in this case "beneficial mutations". You just admitted that it would be hard, but it would be inevitable for a beneficial mutation eventually. Do you think that eventually happening beneficial mutation is going to in the millions. NO!

1 benefical mutation cannot change a specie in another specie. You would need millions of benefical mutations at once. This even reduces the probability of this happening. As you admitted that it is hard for beneficial mutations to happen. Then tell me how hard is it going to be for millions of "beneficial mutations" happening at the same time? But not only this but What is the probablity of millions of beneficial mutations happening at the same time, not once, but MILLIONS of time?

USE SOME SERIOUS COMMON SENSE, AND FACTS. When answering these questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, we believe in science and not distorted out of context and meaningless add on assumptions of what such variations mean to evolution. There are many cases where evolution has not resulted in a species change. That is Sharks, cockroaches, etc., are much as they were millions of years ago but there are even more cases where we see punctuated epocs of rapid change in some forms.

When earth is struck by a comet or astroid, etc., or undergoes an ice age, many large preditors are killed off or go extinct in relatively short periods of time due to a decrease in ample food, etc. The remaining creatures are now free to increase habitat, have more food and reproduce more rapidly due to less preditors, etc.

The enviornmental changes affect evolution in many ways. The mere increased reproduction increases the rate of change mutations and the rate of overall evolution.

Hang it up you are clueless about science and are taking biased religious nonsense to be fact. Perhaps you should rely on science to teach you science and not Bible Thumpers that lie and distort or talk about things for which they have no understanding and make erroneous assumptions as to what it all means.

Your whole arguement is nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First of all I am not trying to prove God. Second of all you call my argument nonsense. LOL hahahahahaha. My argument only shows the improbability of your so-called "theory". It is only a hypothesis. because it is depended on CHANCE. And you call my argument nonsense.LOL. You crack me up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can't take it, that is, I can't take so much lauging

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your WHOLE Theory DEPENDS ON CHANCE, AN IMPROBABLE CHANCE. NOW THAT, my friend, is NONSENSE.

 

Originally Posted by Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 22;99(2):803-8. Epub 2002 Jan 15.
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes.

Kumar S, Subramanian S.



Knowledge of the rate of point mutation is of fundamental importance, because mutations are a vital source of genetic novelty and a significant cause of human diseases. Currently, mutation rate is thought to vary many fold among genes within a genome and among lineages in mammals. We have conducted a computational analysis of 5,669 genes (17,208 sequences) from species representing major groups of placental mammals to characterize the extent of mutation rate differences among genes in a genome and among diverse mammalian lineages. We find that mutation rate is approximately constant per year and largely similar among genes. Similarity of mutation rates among lineages with vastly different generation lengths and physiological attributes points to a much greater contribution of replication-independent mutational processes to the overall mutation rate. Our results suggest that the average mammalian genome mutation rate is 2.2 x 10(-9) per base pair per year, which provides further opportunities for estimating species and population divergence times by using molecular clocks.

Obviously they are not. Your opinion is not really an argument.

They should be rare otherwise there couldn't be evolution. And btw, we are talking now about mutation rates in mammals. In viruses the mutation rate can be much higher.

It doesn't, but what theory are you talking about. Obviously not about evolution. Evolution is about variety in conjunction with selection. Something rare will be selected for if it is beneficial.

That is just your opinion based largely on ignorance. Again, not an argument.

No you don't need billions. You think you need billions. That is something different.

try to find out the real facts first.

 

The theory depends on selection and variatiety within a species. Quite something different. And that is not nonsense.

 

Lets just leave this debate to the professionals. You didn't prove anything according to me, and I didn't prove anything according to you. So the result is going to be nothing.

Although I think I got my message through, that the WHOLE theory is depended on CHANCES of BENFICIAL MUTATION.

 

Most organisms have tens of thousands of genes. Even if you were conservative and considered and organism with only 10,000 genes, based on your “one in a million” statistic that would mean that in each generation about one in every thousand organisms would have a beneficial mutation. For a small population of a hundred thousand, this would mean that in every generation there were a hundred organisms born with beneficial mutations. That sounds like it could easily produce a healthy variety of organisms from which to ‘naturally select’ the most fit survivors.

No one expects an animal to evolve into another species in a single generation. In most cases it would probably take many small changes accumulating over a long period of time to create a new species. Although each generation would be very similar to the generation that preceded it, after thousands or millions of generations the accumulated changes could give you a species that was very different from the one you started with.

 

Natural Selection only provides variations inside a specie. It DOESN"T CREATE A NEW SPECIE. MUTATION can change species BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE CHANCE OF BENEFICIAL VARIATIONS.

We are talking about the process of species turning into different species. THAT CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY NATURAL SELECTION. IT CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MUTATION, WHICH DEPENDS ON CHANCES. I'm done repeating myself.

 

The Whole Theory Depends On Chances.

 

You Cannot Escape The Fact That The Whole Theory Is Dependent On Chances. Very Hard, And Rare Chances. I'm done debating this issue.

 

Lets see. Earlier I believe it was posted that there should be around 120 mutations per reproduction. Assuming a reproduction every 20 years, STARTING WITH ONLY ONE PAIR:

120^(1,000,000 YEARS/20 YEARS) = 120^50,000! DAMN THE NUMBER OF MUTATIONS BROKE MY CALCULATOR.

LETS TRY A SMALLER PERIOD OF TIME.

120^5,000 = Damn still broke my calculator

120^50 cycles = Still won't work

120^40 cycles (800 years) = 1.46977E83 mutations!!!!

146,977,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Now I believe you complained that it takes 1,000,000 mutations to affect substantial change so that means:

146,977,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

From which you said 99% were harmful and only 1% positive, but to make my math easier I'll make it 10 times harder and say that it is only 1/1,000 not 1/100 mutations that are advantages hence:

146,977,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

You have this many positive mutations from only one breeding pair is less than 1,000 years!!!

What sort of numbers do ou think we are dealing with in reality for millions of breeding pairs over millions of years?????

You are adding words to the process again. The mutations do not go from a pig to a pig with wings in one reproduction. Many mutations have no deliterious or positive affect until combined with later subsequent mutations which "Collectively" start to create change.

I believe I just did.

Oh BTW: Note that we still only have one pair of breeders. I didn't have the first pair and subsequent pairs produce but only once. If they reproduced twice in their life time the population grows and numbers of this magnitude would occur in just over 6 generations!

 

786: I still don't understand what your hangup on the word 'chance' is. With a sufficiently large sample size virtually anything, no matter how unlikely can occur. I just posted figures showing that based on your own numbers there can easily be hundreds or thousands of organisms born with beneficial mutations every generation. What's the problem?

 

What is with these caps?

Obviously you haven't read anything on evolution. Selection is what creates a species and what maintains a species and what makes a species go extinct. Selection is based on variation.

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about because the only facts you seem to have a a publication of 1970 (that is before molecular biology was invented) on mutation rate. You haven't even got a clue about true mutation rates. I gave a reference. Nobody in the scientific world seems to think that mammals couldn't have evolved with this mutation rate. But you do for some unknown reason.

Mutation is also not entirely a change event. genetic variation is also increased by processes such as sex. So you may continue to repeat youself, but maybe you should get your head out of the sand and actually read something relevant.

 

Good, since you nor anyone can.

1 - It is not my theory.

2 - You have only shown that you haven't done the math as I have above.

Guess who gets the last laugh.

See above. Your lack of comprehension is amazing. Do you really believe that you, not (I assume without hesitation) having no specific training or knowledge in this field but are merely reading distorted, biased interpretations and failing to consider the mathematics of the probabilities, not impossibiities of evolution, know more that the collective world of top scientists?

Now that makes me laugh. HeHeHe HoHoHo HaHaHa.

 

start here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

I thought this discussion was about evolution and not God? You have just shown your preferred view.

And just how do you believe saying "God did it" gives any clearer answer?

Good question but there are thoeries on that issue. I think it might be difficult to provide specific evidence in the form of artifacts however. You would need to understand "and accept" chemistry", mathematical probabiity, etc.

This sounds like a personal belief and not a scientifc analysis.

And why not? If I take 10,000 dice and throw them on a table I will get the equivelent of a DNA type chain. Are you arguing that such a sequence cannot exist by chance? If I throw the dice once again what are the chances that the chain would repeat? Rather low I would suggest. Hence throwing the dice a few trillion, trillion, trillion times I should at least get a trillion different sequences. One of which can be a flying pig.

Nobody disagrees with that.

You are making an erroneous assumption. Such theories exist.

 

We agree. I was trying to show the odds of producing a specific string resulting in a specific creature (which would be considered a postive throw of the dice). Not that a flying pig would have positive benefits on pig farms, it might for the pigs to avoid slaughter.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!