I just found an article on Answers in Genesis where they try to debunk evolution (again) using genetics. As always, they ended up failing. They really do not understand how mutations work.
Here you have the article in case you want to give it a read.
They also don’t understand what recombination is, and they confuse it with recessive and dominant alleles.
As one would guess, they get more wrong than they get right. For example, they claim that most mutations are harmful when the majority are neutral. They also claim that only 1 mistake is made in every 10,000 or so copies, yet every human is born with 50-100 mutations. When they can’t even get the basics right, why should anyone trust them when they talk about the more complicated topics?
Most of their articles are DEAD WRONG. How do you expect them to understand genetics when they don’t even know that Genesis 1-11 are not literal accounts of what happened?
Most of their claims are the type known as arguments from incredulity–"I don’t see how genetic mutations could make a new feature, so we can rule that out as a cause of evolution.
I guess I could say I have proved that no one can win millions in the state lottery, since I have bought over 100 tickets over the years, and never won. I won a free ticket twice, and $92 once on a 5-number match, so I can say I accept limited change from the lottery.
AiG was right that the re-discovery of Mendelian genetics around 1900 was originally seen as a blow to Darwin’s theory. Lab work showed only limIited variety, but field work found tremendous variation. These differences were finally resolved around 1940 with the Modern Synthesis.
The irony of course is that arguments from incredulity cut both ways. I can trot out an argument from incredulity against young earth creationism just as easily if not more so…
Or Christianity in general… I cringe every time I see creationist authors/speakers refer to evolution as a “fairy tale.” Almost as if, “if we say it first, no one can use it against us.”
Hey… that’s a good factoid to remember!
Every generation produces 50 to 100 mutations in any given individual!
Is it safe to say that in a population of 100,000 newborns in a given year, that virtually all of the 5 million to 10 million mutations produced are unique?
Perhaps this question has never been studied. Do you think there is much chance that any of the 100,000 have identical mutations?
EDIT: I have removed the sentence that refers to TREND. The way it sounds is not what I intended to ask!
What kind of trend? The rate of mutation is known to vary a lot, depending on both local sequence context and larger genomic position.
Depends on what you mean by “virtually all”. [quote=“gbrooks9, post:7, topic:37126”]
Perhaps this question has never been studied.
[/quote]
The determinants of human mutation rates have been studied in considerable detail.
Do you mean all 50 or 100 mutations will be identical? No, there’s next to zero chance of that happening.
You can look above where I have offered some editorial comments to your responses that don’t seem to be very productive or helpful. Though it did result in me deleting one of my own useless statements.
Concluding Useful Exchange
I had asked:
Do you think there is much chance that any of the 100,000 have identical mutations?
Glipsnort responded:
Do you mean all 50 or 100 mutations will be identical? No, there’s next to zero chance of that happening.
Ahhh… very good. This makes for a very helpful “factoid” in future discussions…
50 to 100 mutations in the human genome for each newborn!; the larger the breeding population,
the more unique mutations!
Thanks, glip!
The responses you commented on were intended to indicate that I had little idea what you were actually interested in learning.
Well, now you know. Next time, perhaps you could go a little easier on me - - since I’m a pretty thorough fan of Evolutionary science.
The underlying reality of 50 to 100 mutations per new born human, regardless of the size of the human genome, could be helpful in future discussions any number of ways.
So, let’s try to push the envelope a little further. Have you folks come up with a relatively good estimate of how many sites on the 23 human chromosomes are active, and thus can serve as a de facto denominator for this mutation rate of 50 to 100?
I am guessing that an inactive site could mutate and suddenly become active… but for the purposes of a ratio, I think just using “average total active sites” for your typical human can provide the necessary benchmark for discussing average total pace of mutations.
Thoughts?
I’m sorry, but I genuinely don’t understand what was harsh about what I wrote. I gave a couple of relevant facts and expressed confusion where I didn’t know what you were looking for. I figured you’d respond by narrowing down what you were asking.
Okay, fine. I’m not going to make a mountain out of it.
I’ll just mention that as a diagnostic, when I see someone has posted a text in response to most every separate sentence, or every other sentence, where some comments are purely rhetorical, I don’t get “warm vibes”. And I don’t think I’m unique in this regard.
There are a few posters who are rather famous here for the “machine gun belt” commentary method:
So, if I promise to never bring it up to you again, can we move along to the actual question part of my last post?
So, let’s try to push the envelope a little further. Have you folks come up with a relatively good estimate of how many sites on the 23 human chromosomes are active, and thus can serve as a de facto denominator for this mutation rate of 50 to 100?
I am guessing that an inactive site could mutate and suddenly become active… but for the purposes of a ratio, I think just using “average total active sites” for your typical human can provide the necessary benchmark for discussing average total pace of mutations.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
