02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayIt could happen that a beneficial mutation is, within one generation, immediately undone by another mutation. However, this is process is less likely than the mutation remaining, since each gene is likely to be copied onto the next generation.
Yes, that does not alter the fact that all mutations are random! As a matter
of fact it doesn't even talk to anything that has anything to do with any
mutations!
This once again is like a few people's debating style here, ignore all the
points that have nothing to do with promoting the cause and highlight all
that does. The trouble is that isn't how ...[text shortened]... t really hot out.
I urge you to start using your own brain and thinking these things through.
It could happen that a beneficial mutation is, within one generation, immediately undone by changes in the environment. Since environments generally only change gradually, this process is also not likely compared to the mutation acting to increase the reproductive success of the organism within the environment.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayTwo slightly different strains of ecoli. One was prepared, don't know how, so that it could grow on arabinose. The other was left in it's normal natural state.
"Before the beginning of the experiment, Lenski prepared an Ara+ variant (a point mutation in the ara operon that enables growth on arabinose) of the strain; the initial populations consisted of 6 Ara− colonies and 6 Ara+ colonies, which allowed the two sets of strains to be differentiated and tested for fitness against each other. Unique genetic markers have since evolved to allow identification of each strain."
Can we start here, what was done?
02 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou spend a lot of time avoiding the questions on topic and jump off into
[b]I urge you to start using you own brain and thinking things through
LOL!!!, Says the man who thinks humans lived with dinosaurs, you couldn't make it up.[/b]
somethings only you seem to care about. I guess the defense of evolution
is much like the process itself, avoid that which doesn't help it and only
speak of those which does.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayCan you point to a question of yours I have avoided?
You spend a lot of time avoiding the questions on topic and jump off into
somethings only you seem to care about. I guess the defense of evolution
is much like the process itself, avoid that which doesn't help it and only
speak of those which does.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobFossils of very complex life forms die off today nothing new there, yet you
The bad probably do out number the good. That's why we see a fossil record containing millions upon millions of now extinct species.
I think you need to think it through.
seem to want to suggest that proves something else. It does not prove
evolution it only shows that there were creatures that died off that became
fossils. They could of died off millions of years ago too, that still does not
prove evolution.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt could happen that a beneficial mutation is, within one generation, immediately undone by another mutation. However, this is process is less likely than the mutation remaining, since each gene is likely to be copied onto the next generation.
It could happen that a beneficial mutation is, within one generation, immediately undone by another mutation. However, this is process is less likely than the mutation remaining, since each gene is likely to be copied onto the next generation.
It could happen that a beneficial mutation is, within one generation, immediately undone by changes in the e ...[text shortened]... the mutation acting to increase the reproductive success of the organism within the environment.
It is as likely they get to keep it as it is they lose it next time around or the
time after that. That is what random means, nothing is in stone you do not
get pick what is going to stay or leave. If you want to promote that only
good mutations build on one another you've taken randomness out of the
equation and now have introduced something completely different, a design
of sorts, built by someone or thing that actually knows what it is doing so I
can only imagine it is very smart, intelligent even, I thought you were
against such things?
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobI thought that was what that meant, so they altered something and it
Two slightly different strains of ecoli. One was prepared, don't know how, so that it could grow on arabinose. The other was left in it's normal natural state.
turned out different in later generations? This is what we are discussing?
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is an interesting statement, because what you are saying is two things:
It is as likely they get to keep it as it is they lose it next time around or the time after that.
1. When DNA is copied, there is a 50% chance of mutation for every base pair.
2. DNA keeps track of its old state, containing a "memory" of its past state it can revert to.
Of course, we know empirically that both statements are false. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate for a discussion on your claim #1. The mutation rate is far below 50%, so the chances are very high that a beneficial mutation is carried on to the next generation.
Does this help explain how natural selection works? If you have more misunderstandings, I'm happy to help out, but you could also of course consider reading a bit about evolution. I'm sure other writers have explained the concept more clearly than I can.
02 Jan 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobI've not asked you squat that I can remember, you have been popping in
Which post addressed to me have you asked questions about mutations?
this asking about things that have not had anything to do with the
discussion, basically meaningless tripe. If you want to engage at least
stay on topic.