Why is JIA posting under the name "ushomefree"?
I reiterate my question, however:
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm just wondering--isn't the process of creating more genetic information via DNA duplication contradictory to natural selection? It seems so, since those individuals with duplicated DNA (probbaly) don't show any advantage and thus waste resources by copying the extra genetic information--therefore, they would have a lesser chance of reproduction and survival.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Why is JIA posting under the name "ushomefree"?I reiterate my question, however:
Mutation is a whole heck of a lot more than duplication mutuations...but that doesn't involve the duplication in the whole of DNA.
I'm kind of confused about what you are asking. DNA duplication isn't a mutation, each cell needs its own copy. Since you are no longer one cell, you had to do a shitload of duplications. However, this will not contripute to evolution unless an error is made during duplication in sex cells.
Originally posted by Alliance
Mutation is a whole heck of a lot more than duplication mutuations...but that doesn't involve the duplication in the whole of DNA.I'm kind of confused about what you are asking. DNA duplication isn't a mutation, each cell needs its own copy. Since you are no longer one cell, you had to do a shitload of duplications. However, this will not contripute to evolution unless an error is made during duplication in sex cells.
Okay, pretend the DNA strand is a homework assignment. The students have to copy down the following sentence many times:
THE CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
Now, let's say that the teacher made a mistake on the copy of my sheet, and I have to write down the following sentence:
THE CAT THE CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
Everyone is writing two less words than me, so they eventually get ahead as I'm wasting time writing down an extra "THE CAT." Since this is just extra information, there's no benefit.
However, let's say I had a bit of Jack Daniels before class, so I'm a little sloppy in my work.
THE CAT THE CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT THE CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT THE CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT THE CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT THD CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT THD CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT THD CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT TND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT TND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT TND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT TND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND CAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DAT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOT IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG IS IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG IS IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG IS IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG AS IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG AS IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG AS IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG AS IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG AR IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG AR IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG AR IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG AR IS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG ARIS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG ARIS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG ARIS UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG ARI UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG ARI UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG ARI UNDER THE TABLE.
THE CAT AND DOG ARE UNDER THE TABLE.
Then the teacher goes to check out my final work. Turns out, she only cares about the last sentence, and she gives me extra credit for making the sentence better. (Who doesn't like dogs?)
Now, on the way to making the sentence better, I wasted a shitload of energy (and I got bad hand cramps) because I did so much extra work to get there.
Although simplified, doesn't this accurately described how extra DNA is created through duplication mutations (and then ends up benefiting the organism)?
DNA is created through replication, not duplication mutations. The entirety of The genome is replicated. This is not a mutation, but a natural process.
A duplication mutation is exemplified by The following.
ABCDEFG => ABCDBCDEFG
That process is not really what causes species to evolve. The amount of DNA an organism has is not closely related to its relative place in The tree of life. Obviously a Mouse is going to need more useful genes than a paramecium, but for example rice has 37,544 genes and 3.9 x 10^8 base pairs, while dogs have 19,300 genes and 2.4 x 10^9 base pairs in their genomes.
Please tell me if I addressed your point.
<><><>
Addressing mutations: (This may not apply as much to your argument as I originally thought it did, but since I wrote it, I'll post it.)
Several facts to consider that reduce this problem.
1. Lots (or even most, I don't know The percentage) of DNA is junk. It seems to not code for anything.
2. DNA polymerases are exceptionally accurate, i think its 1 error for every 10,000 bases.
3. These enzymes have proofreading ability and go over their errors again. Again their very low error rate is squared because when replacing errors, they still only make say 1 in 10,000 errors.
4. Methylation. For some time, The cell can distinguish newly synthesized DNA from old DNA and there are host of non-DNA polymerizes that repair DNA...everything from mismatched bases to thymine dimers (caused by radiation/free radicals).
5. Code. Four letters are a lot harder to screw up than 26.
Protein synthesis subsection:
6. Codons. I'm sure you remember those arduous bio assignments where you had to take DNA code and tell The AA sequence it makes, for a great number of amino acids, The last letter is indifferent. Trying your experiment again:
The CAT HAS RED EYE.
if we mutate it to
THX CAR HAD REG EYB
to The cell, THX = The, CAR = CAT and so on and so forth.
7. Even if an Amino Acid ends up being mutated, most Amino acids can be interchanged without significant effects on The protein. Notable exceptions would be AAs in The active side, or switching polar/nopolar AAs or uncharged/positive/negative AAs/ etc.
Gene regulation subsection:
8. Mutations in regulatory areas of DNA can have deleterious effects, but it may just simply decrease affinity for regulatory elements, or may not affect them at all.
Most of these errors are limited to a few cells. Critical errors that happen early in life are serious, because many more cells inherit The mutation. However, if you get some weird error in say a skin cell, it just dies and is shed off anyway, never really affecting anything critical.
Obviously at some point, statistics catch up with you. Everyone seems to have several fatal mutations in them. But if a section of your liver has trouble breaking down glycogen, The rest of the liver is there to take over. Obviously things like cancer can develop as a result of mutation that renders certain proteins nonfunctional. Stuff like this contributes to the assumed cap on life expectancy.
How about:
Frogs have green skin, two eyes and 4 legs and a head.
Frogs have green skin, 3 eyes and 4 legs and a head.
Frogs have green skin, 3 eyes, 4 legs and 1 1/2 heads.
Frogs have gray skin, 3 eyes, 3 legs and and 2 heads.
Frogs have pale skin, 4 eyes, 5 legs and 2 heads.
Is it adapting to the environment, or is it just a matter of time until we look like this in some way......
Yes, I'm perfectly straight here........
This is our future btw..... 👀
I understand how genetic replication takes place; I'm talking about new DNA created that allows for the creation of new structures/proteins/whatevers by the genetic mutation of duplication. Replication, I know, is the process where DNA is reproduced. I'm talking about the screw-up.
1. Lots (or even most, I don't know The percentage) of DNA is junk. It seems to not code for anything.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I understand how genetic replication takes place; I'm talking about new DNA created that allows for the creation of new structures/proteins/whatevers by the genetic mutation of duplication. Replication, I know, is the process where DNA is reproduced. I'm talking about the screw-up.
DNA can increase in base pairs by more than just duplication errors.
But as far as novel genes? Its easier to explain in bacteria where every part of the genome is expressed. To combine processes of transcriptional regulation and post-transcriptional modification in eukaryotes to randomly create a novel gene is difficult to understand. Its beyond my mental capacity and knowledge on the subject without reading some very boring papers.
As far as generally how do we get new shit? I probably can't give a decent answer. Probably no one can.I honestly don't think that we know. We clearly can see start-points and endpoints, but its difficult to create connections between the two without some sort of ontological crap.
Sorry for the shit answer of "sometimes it just works out." I'll ask around and see if people more knowledgeable than me can give examples of novel genes being introduced. I honestly don't think that the science has been around long enough to study such occurrences.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Which is odd. It would seem that the DNA ought to do something, or else it would have been lost, theoretically.
Most of it is probably just evolutionary relics, pieces left over from mutated genes and molecular dead ends. Other parts server structural purposes. Some parts act as trans-promoters. cis-promoters have specific distances between promoting regions where proteins bind and where the actual gene starts. Proteins are naturally larger than DNA and take up space. The garbage DNA just covers the area overlapped by one protein and the region for the next enhancer, or RNA polymerase or whatever.
They wouldn't be lost though. Your anatomy, your cells, your DNA is filled with evolutionary relics that really do nothing. Streamlining is not one of the qualities that evolution promotes. As long as garbage has no effect on the organisms fitness (which it appears not to have) it won't be selected for or against.
Instead of ranting and raving over wishful speculations regarding genetic mutation, why not produce "real life" documented examples of such? Oh wait... their are no documented examples. No "NET" evolutionary change of any given organism has ever been documented. EVER!!
The could-ah, would-ah, should-ah babble talk is old and boring.
Mutations are one of the two "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by neo-Darwinism. It is suggested that these chance modifications to DNA caused living things to evolve. Thousands of mutation experiments have been performed to back up this claim. Some populations of living things, fruit flies in particular, have been subjected to intense mutation. Evolutionist publications portray these mutation experiments as "laboratory evidence of evolution." Yet the fact is that far from confirming evolution these experiments have actually undermined it. In not one living thing exposed to mutation has an increase in its genetic information been observed. On the contrary, mutants (living things exposed to mutation) are always deformed, sterile and sickly.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Instead of ranting and raving over wishful speculations regarding genetic mutation, why not produce "real life" documented examples of such? Oh wait... their are no documented examples. No "NET" evolutionary change of any given organism has ever been documented. EVER!!
OMG you fail. This is false.
The could-ah, would-ah, should-ah babble talk is old and boring.
Originally posted by ushomefree
neo-Darwinism.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Some populations of living things, fruit flies in particular, have been subjected to intense mutation.
Originally posted by ushomefree
In not one living thing exposed to mutation has an increase in its genetic information been observed. On the contrary, mutants (living things exposed to mutation) are always deformed, sterile and sickly.
😆
What does the word mutation mean? How can one be exposed to it. This isn't Spiderman, retard.