you do. If you could not generate new information on a daily basis you would be dead.
The question is if actually new information exists, as from a causality point of view if logic holds all possible information is held in the cause as nothing apart from what logic allows can can be generated from that cause. Now information that is new to us has by definition already existed at the origin of time. It just needs time to a time dependent mind to perceive the information.
The example to show how random mutation can generate useful de novo information by building a novel protein that you did not have when you started life is an obvious example and the protein can be perfected in weeks fore a sequence of a couple of hundred amino acids. One would expect that the time constant for more complex changes are much longer, particularly if you look at the generation times involved.
Mutations overall have a vastly more beneficial effect on our existence than a deleterious effect as the latter just gets deleted.
actually there is genomic plasticity as well. The genome is highly dynamic and changeable on the fly and in response to environmental threats and cues. They’ve even figured out now that specific mutations can be triggered by epigenetic alterations. Somehow the organism is an interactive entity that can alter its genes (base code) and gene expression in order to protect itself. The theory of evolution never said or admitted such a thing.
What has been called “evolution” over the decades is nothing more than individual organisms changing their molecules independently in order to fit better within their niches. Some of these molecular alterations can be passed down to offspring. Basically Lamarck was correct and Darwin was wrong.
When it comes to responding to contentions that the earth is flat, the lunar landing was faked, vaccines cause autism, essential oils cure cancer, aliens landed at Roswell, and evolution is a vast atheist conspiracy, I am perfectly comfortable appealing to authority every time. I have no need or desire to meticulously research every wrong thing a minority believes, just in case they are right. Others can do as they see fit.
This is a fascinating question, not least because it puts the whole question in terms that your typical biologist would never dream of. So, do you mind if we clarify a bit of groundwork first before diving right in to trying to answer your question? I’d hate to discover later that I was trying to provide you with the wrong kind of example!
Mainly, what counts as a new structure? What new structures do humans have but chimps do not, if any? What novel parts separate us from the rest of the primates? Or from all other mammals?
Surely there must be new structures involved in all the different kinds of mammals we have. I’m just hoping you can point to a few so we have something to work off of. Of course if there aren’t any, then we could go back in the lineage further and talk about more fundamental structures, ribs and eyes and so on. But we shouldn’t have to go that far, unless you want to maintain that all mammals “micro-evolved” from a single mammal kind.
So: what sorts of “new” body parts fit your definition?
I’ll throw out another example (although I know it’s been a subject of controversy in the last decade or so) - the “Panda’s thumb”. Giant Pandas and Red Pandas are genetically more distant than one would expect based on their similar unusual lifestyles for members of class Ursidae. But both exhibit the “extra thumb” (a modified wrist bone) that is extremely useful for the gripping and grasping required by their diets.
Pick two animals that differ by a “new anatomical structure”. Compare their genomes. Among the differences between their genomes are the mutations responsible for the new anatomical structure. It’s that simple.
But mutation is not the only way we generate new information, Marvin! We have recombination and sexual reproduction to shuffle the genetic deck.
We’d probably do quite well without mutation in our individual lives. We’d be missing the somatic hypermutation that helps to fine-tune the antibody and T cell-receptor responses, but we’d still have recombination to generate the new information (the mechanisms mediating both are intertwined). The vast majority of cancer would disappear.
Again, you, like Tom, are completely failing to acknowledge the primary substrate of Darwinian evolution: ALREADY EXISTING genetic variation. The new mutations are just a drop in a bathtub full of variation. Inbreeding drains the tub, and increasing the mutation rate won’t help a population that lacks existing genetic variation.
Utterly false. It’s telling that you don’t quote any naturalists claiming that.
I did. Your claim is false. You’re 0-for-2.[quote=“supersport, post:50, topic:36626”]
The genome is highly dynamic and changeable on the fly and in response to environmental threats and cues.[/quote]
Evidence, not ex cathedra pronouncements, please. And evidence doesn’t mean what someone says about the evidence.
Evidence, please, and the identities of “they,” too. Why are all of your claims so vague, Tom?
I’m a geneticist, and I have no idea what you mean by “base code.”
We know about gene expression.
And you haven’t presented any evidence for directed mutation. I’m pretty sure that you never will.
And I would say that the changes were most likely minor alleles already present in the population that changed their frequencies dramatically, not new mutations.
I didn’t ask for a gene that controls anything. Your theory says mutations built machinery and anatomy. A gene has some 1000 base pairs. You are not even addressing the challenge by putting forth a mutation. Instead you are assuming that a gene somehow evolved piecemeal and suggesting that since it controls something then that means the same as adding the hardware to begin with. It doesn’t. I want a mutation. Peer reviewed paper outlining a new structure generated by a change in the genetic code. Just as the theory says.
well done, you found the thing I was eluding to. Antibodies are indeed vital denovo information for our individual lives and if you dismiss your immune system you won’t have a happy time here, so the risk of cancer is well worth it.
Yes, but the mutations almost certainly happened long before the lizards were moved to the new island.
I’m not denying that mutations occur, I’m just pointing out the false notion that evolution isn’t acting on an existing reservoir of genetic variation, that evolution isn’t happening without new mutations.
Where does the theory say that “a change in the genetic code” should produce a new structure? As I already pointed out to you, almost all new biological structures are actually modifications of existing ones. There are plenty of examples of mutations altering existing structures, which is what the theory says. If that’s not what you’re asking for, then what are you looking for?
But that’s pretty much how morphological structures appear to be related: via modification of previously existing mechanisms/pathways and changes in the location and expression of pathways. Bithorax affects the development of body segments, resulting in extra legs or wings (plus internal structures). This shows how little genetic change is actually required to significantly alter morphological forms.
Based on what we know of developmental biology (functional and comparative) we don’t expect that kilobases or megabases of completely de novo DNA sequences are required to modify a fish fin into a leg and foot or a mammalian paw into a whale’s fin. Or modify wrist bones in pandas to allow better gripping.
Mismatch repair at the end of recombination can generate mutations, but I’m not sure that it is true for antibody gene rearrangements. Either way, how does that suggest that the definitions are so different?
My point is that recombination generates more genetic diversity than the mutations.
Recombination in antibody diversity creation is mutation, Ben. It’s putting sequences together in a particular order that wasn’t originally present in the genome. Anything that changes a specific sequence is a mutation.