Evolution: The ramfications of mutations And the necessity for Information

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[SX23]

But, as we observed 378,000 generations before we had one BENEFICIAL mutation.

[JoCu]

There was more than just one beneficial mutation observed. It seems that in the 50,000 generations they've observed so far, there has been 10 to 20 beneficial mutations and countless more mutations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment#Results

[SX23]

And the others were "esteemed" useful, with no real results observed thorough the 378,000 generations, except ONE, that proved useful.

[HexaFighter]

well you can argue on what is beneficial ...all you want... you still recognize that evolution is at work.

[SX23]

Of course, don't change the fact that evolution cannot stand the odds.
And it was observed that only ONE had direct positive impacts.
According to the observation based on 378,000, the odds ends up at 945,000,000,000 years. That outer pass everything we observed so far, including the creation of our universe, our solar system and Earth.

[Masacree]

Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution.

here's the hilarious dialogue that one came from.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_Reply

[SX23]

Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution.

here's the hilarious dialogue that one came from.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_Reply

Of course, generations in bacteria can be asserted as individuals.
The problem is the same: 1 mutation on 378,000 generations in an area (lab) that have enhanced mutations rates due to experiment. Current e.coli aren't exposed to the stirring condition of lab rat. And, the problem persists with current and more evolved life forms: The lifetime is much longer, the DNA strain is 5000 times more complex, and you have to achieve what 1 bacteria on 378,000 had make. 40,000,000,000,000 cells generated 19 additional citrate-using mutants. E.coli is unicellular, and as such, you had 40,000,000,000,000 of them generating 19 times the mutation. That makes for an even higher average in normal conditions: 1 per 2,105,263,157,894 So 1 per 2 billions individual. Now, if we do transfer those odds to mammalians, which are around 5000 times more complicated due to the longer DNA strains: 1 per 10,000,000,000 (10 billions). Now, assuming that we need at least a 1000 mutations to pass from one family to another: 10,000,000,000,000 (10 trillions). So, now, have we had 10 trillions mammalians through 600 millions of animal history?
The odds are even worse than calculated the other way.

[HexaFighter]

ok the term beneficial is just relative...TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
you can't view a specie as trying to improve its features and phenotypes to better suit the environment.

In your lab example. the environment is stable
Very probable nothing will change. If the specie survives well there without changes to the environment. why would there be evolution?

consider a disaster that changes the environment.
Now that causes a shift in who lives and reproduces and who dies.
suddenly you have a different  population. they were suited to barely survive in the new environment.


See the shift ? those who live and reproduce now..are benefiting from the synergy between their genetics and the ecosystem.

you don't pop a feature outta nowhere and say i am better suited to the environnement...this mutation has been beneficial. there are no beneficial mutations there is only a match between environment and population.

So that argument on which you rely to deny the mechanism of evolution doesn't mean much...too me anyway. new genetic material is created easily and whipped out easily with mutations and shifts in the environment. not every 945000000000 billion years.

actually natural selection weeds out the very bad mutations and leaves the ones that don't affect survival. so 378000 generations later maybe ECOLI hasn't gained new features that helps it thrive more in the current environment but it certainly has genetic variability by retaining millions of non threatening mutations.

[Mysthalin]

1st off - you make a statistical mathematical error by assuming there have only been and that there will ever be 19 mutants who have gotten the trait. If allowed to breed further - they would eventually take up a larger part of the population, automatically increasing those odds. You are also leaving out an entire variable - natural selection - out of the equation.

Yet again - a DNA strain that's 5000 times longer means it's 5000 times MORE likely to have deviations in it.

Imagine it as such : you are forced to do 10 complex mathematical calculations, and then you're forced to do 50.000. It is likely you'll do more mistakes in the 50.000 sequence. Granting more genetic matter can only increase a chance of mutation, not decrease it.

Also, you can NOT merely rule out the rest of the mutations as non-sensical, because there has been 1 super extraordinary mutation. You are now merely grasping at a straw.

Not to mention that by your calculations - no kind of mutation would be possible in mammalians. Cancer, however, proves otherwise.

[SX23]

Do you even read??
BENEFICIAL mutations with no side-effects, as per required for a successful evolution theory.
And cancer do NEVER pass on descendants and it's furthermore not beneficial.
When copied over, a beneficial mutations needs to affect a SPECIFIC part of the DNA without doing as much as bothering the whole. Therefore, having a 5,000 times more complex DNA strain require a 5,000 times more complex mutation to achieve the same benefice.

[Mysthalin]

You're the one not reading.
There is no such thing as a purely beneficial mutation. Either a mutation works, or it doesn't. If it does - you get more offspring - if it doesn't, you die. Simple as that. This is why you can't merely rule out the 20-50 other mutations that happened in the E. Coli bacterium.

How do you know that? How many people with cancer do you know that have had offspring that was concieved during the timeframe the person had cancer?

When copied over, a beneficial mutations needs to affect a SPECIFIC part of the DNA without doing as much as bothering the whole. Therefore, having a 5,000 times more complex DNA strain require a 5,000 times more complex mutation to achieve the same benefice.

No relation between the two statements. Even a most miniscule change in just one part of the strain will envoke a mutation - and it'll not necessarily be harmful. Therefore - more genetic material equals more possibility to mutate.

[HexaFighter]

it 's not rocket science!

 agree mutations happen, harmful beneficial call em what you...CHECK

 agree individuals pass these mutations thru reproduction. some die and don't pass the mutations...CHECK

 agree populations change in genotype over time...CHECK

believe in evolution (of genetic material)

[Smokaz]

Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution.

here's the hilarious dialogue that one came from.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_Reply

Hey man will you cut the crap.

lol.

man this is disgusting i need to wash my hands

btw this is why I always shower if i can after pooping

on the subject of mutation, I dont see why god didnt just let us breathe out our excess through our pores

[SX23]

You obviously have no idea on how Cancer affects DNA. As I am not here to give a class, I suggest you go read on it.

As for your second part, there is something in DNA that you obviously don't understand:

""
No relation between the two statements. Even a most miniscule change in just one part of the strain will envoke a mutation - and it'll not necessarily be harmful. Therefore - more genetic material equals more possibility to mutate.
""

Of course, but for a mutation in a mammalian to be useful, you need an incredibly bigger number of changes due to the fact that each and every mutation will destroy a part of information stored in DNA. Also, bigger DNA means, in general, protection mechanism that will destroy any cell with a mutation. So again, it only makes the odds worse.

And your argument : ""
 1st off - you make a statistical mathematical error by assuming there have only been and that there will ever be 19 mutants who have gotten the trait. If allowed to breed further - they would eventually take up a larger part of the population, automatically increasing those odds. ""

Is out of question here, as E.Coli are reproductive through asexual processes. The 19 cells with the mutation will generate the exact same duplicates. Of course, with time, they will take over the others. But once again, it's out of question whether or not they do so.
For now, we have OBSERVED : 40,000,000,000,000 cells (E.Coli) generated 19 additional citrate-using mutants.
My base is that we needed 40,000,000,000,000 of them to generate 19.
So it gives us 19/40,000,000,000,000 and the calculus therefore remains the same along with the answer.

[Spartan_Marine88]

You obviously have no idea on how Cancer affects DNA. As I am not here to give a class, I suggest you go read on it.

Usually means you have no clue, or deliberatly left it out because it is contrary to your arguement.

[Mysthalin]

You obviously have no idea on how Cancer affects DNA. As I am not here to give a class, I suggest you go read on it.

Or agreeing that cancer is a mutation is not beneficial towards your theory, therefore you pull an argument ad ignorantiam - logical fallacy.
You keep forgetting, time and time again - that the reason I've even put forward Cancer as a subject is to prove your mathematics wrong. By your mathematics - mutations would not happen period. Cancer, in it's wide spread across humanity : proves you wrong from the get go.

Of course, but for a mutation in a mammalian to be useful, you need an incredibly bigger number of changes due to the fact that each and every mutation will destroy a part of information stored in DNA.

Utterly unrelated and does not follow any kind of logic. For a bacteria the DNA does not get destroyed, but for a mammal it does? There's no correlation. You're also providing no evidence towards DNA needing to be destroyed in order for new DNA to be created(as it would naturally go against your own arguments).

Also, bigger DNA means, in general, protection mechanism that will destroy any cell with a mutation. So again, it only makes the odds worse.

Or, if the protection mechanism :
A) Does not detect the change.
B) Is affected by the mutation.
C) Isn't there to begin with.
It becomes completely irrelevant, and the longer DNA sequence provides more genetical matter that can mutate, thus making the odds better.

Is out of question here, as E.Coli are reproductive through asexual processes. The 19 cells with the mutation will generate the exact same duplicates. Of course, with time, they will take over the others. But once again, it's out of question whether or not they do so.
For now, we have OBSERVED : 40,000,000,000,000 cells (E.Coli) generated 19 additional citrate-using mutants.
My base is that we needed 40,000,000,000,000 of them to generate 19.
So it gives us 19/40,000,000,000,000 and the calculus therefore remains the same along with the answer.

Asexual reproduction only further destroys your faulty mathematics. Out of those 40,000,000,000,000 cells that are NOT mutants a good proportion is already dead, or will die out soon enough - ascertaining that the overall ratio of mutants : regulars will become favorable towards the mutants. Assuming that the mutation is in fact USEFUL - the mutants would begin multiplying at a faster pace, while dieing at a slower pace than the regulars, again positively affecting the ratio. You're leaving the entire variable of natural selection out of the equation, since it is not favorable for you to do so.
Why is your calculation, thusly faulty? Because after a year of further reproduction(arbitrary number) - the mutants may well make up half of the total populace. Would that mean that all the E.Coli have a 50 percent chance of mutating usefully? No, it wouldn't - and that's why your entire mathematical calculation is wrong in it's essence.

[SX23]

You really miss the point, do you?
It's beneficial mutations, first of all, cancer is indeed a mutation (NEGATIVE ONE) but you're really either a retard or you demonstrate a complete incapacity to talk about genetics if you say once again it pass on to it's descendants.
For bacterias it goes destroyed too, but the changed needed to make one's mutation useful are MUCH smaller. Around 5,000 times smaller.
Also, there is a mechanism in most animal forms that prevent mutations (such as cancer).

There is no reason to die for the bacteria without the mutation. This one only enhance their life time. As for the mutants, you need another mutation to evolve again, and the odds stays the same.

The fact is, we observed, on a populace of 40,000,000,000,000 of an original population, that only 19 have had the mutation. That means, that on 40,000,000,000,000 we have had only 19. Not one more, not one less. If we follow it with individuals and the mutations rate observed so far (19/40,000,000,000,000), you need around, more or less, 10 trillions mammalians to achieve the same result, which is a beneficial mutation. (Refer to calculus)


Generations in bacteria can be asserted as individuals.
E.coli is unicellular, and as such, you had 40,000,000,000,000 of them generating 19 times the mutation. That makes for an even higher average in normal conditions: 1 per 2,105,263,157,894 So 1 per 2 billions individual. Now, if we do transfer those odds to mammalians, which are around 5000 times more complicated due to the longer DNA strains: 1 per 10,000,000,000 (10 billions). Now, assuming that we need at least a 1000 mutations to pass from one family to another: 10,000,000,000,000 (10 trillions). So, now, have we had 10 trillions mammalians through 600 millions of animal history?
The odds are even worse than calculated the other way.

[Mysthalin]

It's beneficial mutations, first of all, cancer is indeed a mutation

There we go. And that already disproves your mathematics where you conclude mutation is utterly impossible(Cancer is not necessarily a single mutation either).

(NEGATIVE ONE)

And here we go again - there is no such thing as an inherently beneficial mutation. There is only mutation. If it pays off - the mutants eventually become so numerous the originals die out. If it doesn't - the mutant and his offspring die. We have arrived at the same point yet again. Please stop using circular logic(which is a logical fallacy in it's essence).

but you're really either a retard or you demonstrate a complete incapacity to talk about genetics if you say once again it pass on to it's descendants.

Logical fallacy called ad hominem. Please stop using logical fallacies.

For bacterias it goes destroyed too, but the changed needed to make one's mutation useful are MUCH smaller. Around 5,000 times smaller.

Please provide proof of the genetic material being inavoidably destroyed in the process of mutation. Reading Lenski's replies to the creationist - I've actually found something pointing towards mutants retaining the DNA of their ancestors - except with alterations. I'll let you guess which tidbit that is.

And even if you were right in claiming that "You need bigger changes in a bigger DNA strain" - you'd again be making a mathematical error in assuming it also means lesser chance. More changes on top of more genetic material would still come up to the exact same possibility to mutate. Except that, oh, boo-hoo, cancer being found consistently among humans proves human DNA, despite all of it's complexity - is still very much so viable to mutate.

There is no reason to die for the bacteria without the mutation. This one only enhance their life time. As for the mutants, you need another mutation to evolve again, and the odds stays the same.

What about natural expiration? The lifetime of the originals is over - and they die. Much like human beings.
The mutants do not need to mutate again just to reproduce. You are also ignoring all the other mutations that have taken place during the experiment - so your odds are wrong from the get go.

The fact is, we observed, on a populace of 40,000,000,000,000 of an original population, that only 19 have had the mutation. That means, that on 40,000,000,000,000 we have had only 19. Not one more, not one less. If we follow it with individuals and the mutations rate observed so far (19/40,000,000,000,000), you need around, more or less, 10 trillions mammalians to achieve the same result, which is a beneficial mutation. (Refer to calculus)

Except that those populations did not freeze in time at that point, and that they continued to change. You are taking an arbitrary number of time to do your calculus, which is why your calculus is wrong from the get go. Can not refer to your calculus since it is a wrong calculation from the get go - multiplying wrong and arbitrary numbers and data.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Logical fallacy called ad hominem. Please stop using logical fallacies.

 It would only be ad hominem if he had said "You are a retard, therefore that means you are wrong to say X". He's actually saying "you  must really be retarded if you say this" which is not a logical fallacy.

 It's basically just him being insulting and stupid which is in itself absurd.

 -Wind

[Smokaz]

It would only be ad hominem if he had said "You are a retard, therefore that means you are wrong to say X". He's actually saying "you  must really be retarded if you say this" which is not a logical fallacy.

 It's basically just him being insulting and stupid which is in itself absurd.

 -Wind

You're a retard.