Posted on 10/27/2015 7:41:08 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
Scientists discover the birds have developed two mutations in just 50 years Genes of White Plymouth Rock chickens mutated twice in 50 years Scientists previously thought rate of change in mitochondrial genomes was never faster than about two per cent per million years Mutations suggest rate of evolution in the chickens is 15 times faster Study goes against theory evolution can only be seen over long periods
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
If it's not rare, then everything we think we know, we don't. Ha ha.
I wrote:
Well, once they were feathered little lizards, so they've come a long way...
The rest of that comment wasn't mine.
And isn’t that the way it goes? Just when you think you have it all down pat, another worm wriggles out of the can.
The mutations that cause evolutionary change are only those within the germ cells. The rate at which a specific germ cell mutation becomes established within a population is highly variable. It depends on whether the mutation is within a non-information coding region of DNA, in which case the DNA can be different every generation without having any effect, or if the mutation is within a coding region. When a mutation occurs within an information-carrying region, then it can have a positive, negative, or (most likely) null effect on survival. Even if it has a positive effect, it might not become established within the population. The evolutionary rate also depends on the lifespan and reproduction rate. Obviously, an organism that lives for 200 years and has two or three offspring will not evolve as quickly as an organism that has a 3 month lifespan and produces hundreds of offspring.
There are a lot more nuances about evolutionary rates, but the bottom line is that anyone who makes the claim that some mutation rate is "too fast" or "too slow" to fit evolutionary theory is basically pulling claims out of their nether regions.
No. Some things do cause more mutations of DNA, but they are external factors (like radiation or mutagenic chemicals).
When organisms inbreed, mutations are more likely to become established in the population. Mitochondrial DNA is a little different, because it is passed almost exclusively through the mother--so, if she has a mutation in the mitochondria, she will give it to ALL of her offspring. So, in a small inbred population, that mutation will spread rapidly.
New genetic information comes from random mutations in information carrying segments of DNA. A mutation that changes the structure (and, hence, function) of a protein, or the quantity of that protein (which also affects its function) is a mutation that has introduced new information.
Mutations occur frequently, and some things—radiation, mutagenic chemicals—speed up the already fairly rapid rate of mutation. Luckily, living organisms have evolved a number of redundant DNA repair mechanisms, or the rapid rate of DNA mutation would make life almost impossible.
Germ cell mutations are the only ones that matter from the evolutionary standpoint. There are a lot of factors that impact whether a mutation in a germ cell will disappear or spread throughout a population. Every single person has about 150 to 200 new mutations that did not exist in either parent.
Indeed. I remember those long hours spent in genetics class, pushing sleeping fruit flies around with a small paint brush, selecting the flies that I wanted to breed for the next generation. They had curly wings and white eyes. To this day, I cannot look at a fruit fly without checking whether it is male or female...
“The details of evolution have been observed through a variety of methodologies, from examining the fossil record to comparative anatomy, to (these days) comparative genetics.” Details please.
I knew I wasn’t crazy. My chicken talks. It really talks!!!
Mine looks like a 5 foot tall t-rex, give me a couple more years and I’ll invite you to my island park.
Don’t push your “intelligent” design on me, pal.
Or really fast gradualism. ;-]
While at the same time violating the second law of thermodynamics.
Listen lady, Sarah dropped her gene sequencer, but she’s using a tricorder, so it’s OK. She is a reporter, you know, and they’re part of the elite despite being educated at the lower end of the spectrum, just above teachers.
A total accounting of the evidence of evolution would fill millions of pages. I can discuss an example, however.
If I look at phylogeny trees constructed on the basis of careful examination of both living animals and fossils of long-extinct animals, I can see that cats are more closely related to humans than to lizards. Birds would be very distantly related, although they are still vertebrates. These trees are all developed on the basis of physical characteristics.
Even without knowing any details of taxonomy, I can take and sequence a specific gene from a selection of animals, and then compare the sequence from each species. Based on the numbers of mutations between the species, these sequences can be used to construct a phylogenetic tree which shows how closely the various species are related. For example, two species having 99.2% similar DNA are more closely related than two species having 87.5% similar DNA in that gene. When I construct the tree on the basis of genetic data and compare it to the tree constructed on the basis of physical characteristics, the trees are almost identical. That the results of observations using different methodologies are so consistent is a strong validation of the theory of evolution.
So, is that what happened? I was curious.
Reporters and TV script writers should never venture into science. They get it so horribly, horribly wrong.
With all due respect, nonsense. You have not a clue.
Dogma is immune to reason.
New genetic information
Any time there is a mutation that changes the coding region of a gene, that is new information. And, in the lab, any time I have engineered a gene to produce a protein not found in nature, I have engineered that gene to carry new information.
Most of the time, mutations have no effect at all. Or they have a slight effect, such as subtly altering the shape of a protein, which subtly alters the efficiency of a metabolic function.
Each of our germ cells contains roughly 75 to 100 mutations that do not exist in non-reproductive cells. When germ cells combine in fertilization, the zygote has about 150-200 mutations. Most of those zygotes will not develop further, but about 15% of them will continue to grow. So, every one of us who survived until birth has quite a few mutations, which are not at all fatal.
I am well aware of that. I continue to try to educate people, however, for two reasons.
One, is that I hate ignorance.
The other is that I think when people are told they must choose between science and religion, religion loses. It's a lot easier to believe tangible evidence than it is to believe in an omnipotent but invisible presence. It's sad, because there is no reason to have to make this choice. Science and religion have different purposes, and there is room for both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.