Posted on 04/06/2009 11:48:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Bald Eagles breed quite well in the wild. They have no genetic defect for a thin egg shell. You are confused about DDT, which produced thin egg shells in all egg producing birds that were exposed to it.
So your one example isn’t one.
Next example?
Not even a single examples of a species going extinct through mutation; and yet you still stand behind your ‘extinction is the result of mutation’ statement?
Based upon what exactly?
Exactly, they are adaptations, not mutations. They are still bacteria, they don't change into something else. Same for viruses that develop immunities to antibiotics. They are still viruses, they don't turn into monkeys. All they do is adapt which means the information is there dormant somewhere, we just haven't been able to find the switch to turn it off to prevent the virus from adapting.
So no examples of a species going extinct due to high mutation rates, and yet you somehow seem sure that it will happen despite the COMPLETE AND TOTAL ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.
Error prone DNA polymerase introduces changes randomly over the entire genome that is being copied. It is not like the immune system where specific elements are shuffled randomly in a directed manner. It is the introduction of a error prone copy mechanism over the ENTIRE bacterial genome, not “hot spots”.
So why would bacteria even HAVE a gene for an error prone DNA polymerase? Of course they NEED their regular DNA polymerase, but why do they carry around a copy of an error prone one? Moreover, why do they express this error prone DNA polymerase in response to stress?
What might happen to a bacteria undergoing stress that is using an error prone DNA polymerase that is less likely to happen to a bacteria undergoing stress that is using a high fidelity DNA polymerase?
Elk, deer develop a prion (protien) mutation, similar to mad cow disease. They will die off unless the source causing the mutation is eliminated.
There you go. Two examples without even looking anything up.
I'm a non-combatant in these wars, but I must agree with this statement.
Moving the origin of life to another planet does not change the issue in the slightest.
\ Please answer the question.
Wow, you really believe in magical mystical DNA.
Sorry, but what you propose is just idiotic.
A chemical derivative of DDT interferes with the chemical/enzyme process whereby a bird forms an egg shell.
Thus every bird species exposed to DDT is going to experience thinning egg shells.
But every bird DIDN'T have that problem.
You just show your ignorance with the question.
First it is impossible to prove a negative.
Second, nothing in science is ever subject to proof.
I turn the question back to you. Do you have ANY evidence consistent with or supporting of the notion that mutation causes the extinction of species?
Please educate yourself.
If you think DDT has the ability to cause a specific mutation in a specific gene every time a bird is exposed to it then it has an ability unprecedented and we should really look more into the mechanism, because figuring out how it could do it would be BRILLIANT.
Of course the REAL answer is that DDT didn't cause the same mutation in every Bald Eagle exposed to it. DDT caused the same metabolic problem resulting in thin egg shells.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=18044
No.
Still not a single example of mutation causing extinction.
I said it was CLAIMED to have, and I also expressed there were doubts to this claim.
Regardless, the thinning of eagle egg shells was caused by something that obviously caused a genetic malfuntion, temporary mutation that produced thin egg shells.
So far every example you have come up with has just shown that you have no knowledge of the subject.
http://www.physorg.com/news110478853.html
Educate yourself.
Guess you never read the ENTIRE article. as usual.
Abstract A model is developed for alternate fixations of mildly deleterious and wild-type alleles arising by forward and reverse mutation in a finite population. For almost all parameter values, this gives an equilibrium load that agrees closely with the general expression derived from diffusion theory. Nearly neutral mutations with selection coefficient a few times larger than 1/(2Ne) do the most damage by increasing the equilibrium load. The model of alternate fixations facilitates dynamical analysis of the expected load and the mean time to extinction in a population that has been suddenly reduced from a very large size to a small size. Reverse mutation can substantially improve population viability, increasing the mean time to extinction by an order of magnitude or more, but because many mutations are irreversible the effects may not be large. Populations with initially high mean fitness and small effective size, Ne below a few hundred individuals, may be at serious risk of extinction from fixation of deleterious mutations within 103 to 104 generations.
You might find this informative as well.
You might find this informative as well.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/88>
In fact there are too many to list, so you better rethink your assertion that "mutation doesn't cause extinction".
There is more than ample proof to the contrary.
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.