Evolution Tests With Bacteria

[Linn]

saltation sounds like punctuated equilibrium

about 99.9%of the time
detrimental and not beneficial?

Due to redundancy in genetic code(i.e. more than one sequence codes for one amino) most mutations are benign

Do you mean like moles and stuff?

[mith]

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb348/lect ... node2.html
List of different codons which code for the same amino acid

'Point mutation' should strictly mean a single base pair alteration. However, in practice it is used more loosely to cover a variety of sins from genuine single base pair changes to small deletions and insertions (which I have however placed in the next section). A single base pair change may have no genetic consequences whatsoever but, on the other hand, it may cause a dominant lethal effect. The first alternative is far more likely. Why? Because 95% of DNA is non coding and a single base change occuring within it is unlikely to have any effect. In addition, because of the degeneracy of the genetic code, many mutations occuring within the third base position in a codon will have no consequence to the amino acid encoded.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhjow/b241/mutation.html

I can understand why you wouldn't believe evolution to be possible because you assumed that 99.9% of mutations were lethal or bad, but the truth is the opposite as stated in the above. Perhaps you would care to examine other assumptions?

[Linn]

OOPs

try to clarify what I meant
I am presuming we woud refer to the genes
and chromosomes in sex cells
since any mutations would be inherited
by descendants.
As far as I know I thought that is
what is responsible for hundreds of genetic diseases.
These mutations.

I understand about mutations that are of benefit that allow say for example
a plant to adapt to a harsh enviroment by
producing larger stronger roots.

there have been experiments with fruit flys
and it was shown that the ones with mutations
did not survive as well as the normal ones.

But the mutations never began an evolution in to another species.


(added) Do you think that DNA always
repairs genetic damage to itself?
makes Enzymes that continualy repair?

[alextemplet]

I already posted books as references; I don't currently know of any websites but I'll have a look and see what I can find.

[Linn]

I already posted books as references; I don't currently know of any websites but I'll have a look and see what I can find.

Ooh sorry Alex
I missed that
I will go back and see what books you noted.
But I may not ever be able to read them.
unless they are newer books and Barnes &Noble has them.

I googled the genetic mutation issue and it seems
there is a lot of info on how they are detrimental,
although there is differing views both ways,
I really dont feel like reading it all now maybe at a later date.

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?enc ... r&ie=UTF-8

Now that warm weather is approaching
I will be starting up my secod job and not
be able to come on so much

But I do want to eventualy finish the list of missing links
with additional information.

mithrilhack,
since you showed mutations in general
are mostly benign, I was wondering what kind
you mean and if you think that they show any
thing toward evolution?
thanx

[Khaiy]

I think I understand what mithrilhack meant. In humans, only about 1.5% of DNA actually codes for anything, while the rest are never expressed. This means that the vast majority of mutations will occur on the segments of DNA that don't code for anything, and thus even though they are mutated, they will never produce an effect. These mutations really wouldn't have much of an effect on evolution. But of mutations on the 1.5% of coding DNA, most will cripple or kill the organism. Still more may not have any effect (due to the redundancy in codons coding for amino acids). The rest of the mutations would logically be beneficial. But any change in the allele frequency in a population (whether it be a detrimental trait, a beneficial one, or a completely benign one) would be a sign that evolution has occurred.

[mith]

Certainly there were variations, and plenty of them; in wings, in eyes, in feet, in organs, in size and in bristles. There was grotesqueness, and there were freaks. The strangest of all was the fruit fly that had a foot protruding from its mouth. The displaced fruit fly foot was still genetically that of a fruit fly. Another interesting observation is that no matter how monstrous the offspring, it was able to breed with the parent stock if it was capable of breeding at all. That, of course, means it was still the same fruit fly species!

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... tation.htm
That's just preying on people's ignorance. Does the author expect the fruit-flies to mutate into carrots?

1. Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.

2. There are about 3,000 described species of fruit flies (family Drosophilidae; Wheeler 1987). "Still fruit flies" covers a wide range.

3. Fruit flies do not remain the same species of fruit flies. Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon (Korol et al. 2000). We would not expect to see much greater divergence in historical times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html

Creationists also changed one of Muller's quotes to make it fit their agenda.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html

[cardiorrhexis]

In my opinion, bacteria is solid proof of evolution and survival of the fittest.

[damien james]

talkorigins is a good site mithril. I recommend Linn go there first for questions about evolution, then for unanswered ones, come back here.

[AstusAleator]

Just a quick thought:

Usually the effects of genetic mutations come in arrays or syndromes. Many times, the effects will go unnoticed, as the environment doesn't cause their effects to be known. Most living organisms have certain genes in them, unexpressed, that when the environment begins to change, will begin to express themselves (i'm speaking over generational time here).
It may only have taken one mutation to have changed the coding from an arm to a wing, but then gradual or rapid environmental changes would have had to actually driven that selection for a change to actually be made.

Not arguing, just sharing a thought. I probably didn't communicate it very well anyway. I'm pretty tired.

[Linn]

talkorigins is a good site mithril. I recommend Linn go there first for questions about evolution, then for unanswered ones, come back here.

Yup
I bookmarked it
I will just have to print out articles to read (I hate reading on line)
I did read the page noted in the link though.

I was just wondering
Is the delta32 a mutation isnt it?
That is a beneficial one dont you think?
That is a good survival of the fittest argument.
But it did not change species just improve to enable
those whose decendants posess one or both.
But, the gene was already present during the black
death had it evolved from previous plauges of mankinds past?
I find this facinating.

[alextemplet]

I think I read something about that, stating that HIV immunity is caused by the same gene that causes black death immunity, and this explains why HIV immunity is highest in areas hit hardest by the black death. Is that what you're talking about?