Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Rate of Mutation in Humans.

Hiya rede....
Good to see you around.
Sorry this took so long, but....

I was trying to find a link to that information about a novel mutagenic pathway specific to humans (and a few other higher primates) involving mental and metabolic (see "The Second Brain") evolution.

Well, I ran across all sorts of interesting links while searching:
These first two are old standards that give a great overview of the wisdom behind evolution and genetics.

The rest sound great (I've seen the stem cell video--it's a winner--in case you've ever wondered how a cell knows its location in the body).

The last link
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?fID=572&rID=22219
is the one I was recalling--about a uniquely (almost) human mutagenic hotspot. It finally gets to the meat of the discussion after about 21 minutes (in a 58 minute talk), but the first 20 minutes are good background and orientation. At about 40 minutes it gets really interesting... and at about 50 minutes in, it will blow your mind!
Especially for you TFF!!!
===

I think the sciencedirect link (just above the last research-channel link) is research about the very topic being presented in the video.

a-CGH = array-based Comparative Genomic Hybridization

Enjoy!



***
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3229&fID=345
Endless Forms Most Beautiful
Description:
The Darwinian revolution was the first revolution in biology. University of Wisconsin--Madison's Sean B. Carroll traces the discovery of evolution through Charles Darwin's long voyage, many discoveries, and prodigious writings. Darwin introduced the concept of the 'fittest,' but how are the fittest made? The second revolution in biology was triggered by discoveries in genetics. Genetic variation, selection, and time combine to fuel the evolutionary process. The action of selection is now visible in DNA, both in preventing injurious changes and in favoring advantageous changes in traits.

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513&fID=345
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Description:
Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
***


http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=19793&fID=345
Epigenetic Regulation of Genomic Imprinting
Description:
1. Become familiar with the concept of genomic imprinting, the genes that are subject to genomic imprinting and diseases that result from defects in imprinted genes.
2. Learn what the term epigenetics refers to and understand how epigenetic errors can lead to disease.
3. Gain an appreciation for the mechanism by which genes are imprinted.


http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3218&fID=345
Human Genomics: A New Guide for Medicine
Description:
How different are two human beings from each other? Dr. Eric Lander explores human genetic variation, explaining how an understanding of small variations in DNA in individuals can help solve the mysteries of certain human diseases. Dr. Lander demonstrates an exciting new tool—the DNA microarray—that can be used to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment, and potentially increase our understanding of complex diseases.

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=16091&fID=345
Understanding Embryonic Stem Cells
Description:
Embryonic stem cells, or ES cells, are cells that can be isolated from early embryos, before they differentiate into specific types of cells. Because stem cells have the potential to generate fresh, healthy cells of nearly any type, there is interest in exploring their use to treat and cure various diseases. The societal controversy regarding human ES cells relates primarily to their derivation from very early embryos. In addition, certain stem cell lines are developed using a cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which can generate cells that are an exact genetic match to a patient.

--& look for part two at the Research Channel site....

===
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob...7a68bd0c1b9047f
"Non-coding RNAs, epigenetics and complexity"
[pay-per-view site] that sure sounds interesting!
===

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2741&fID=345
Computational Discovery of Genetic Regulatory Networks
Description:
With the draft sequences of many genomes in hand, the next frontier is understanding genetic regulatory networks that control cellular behavior and development. In our approach to discovering genetic regulatory networks we first learn about modules of genes and their interactions, and then refine this understanding into a model that describes the precise interaction of individual genes.

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=11480&fID=345
Session 4: Interface of Engineering with Biology and Medicine, Part 1
Genetic Networks in Theory and Practice
&
Application of New Technologies to the Search for Genetic Determinants of Disease

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=4492&fID=345
Genomic Study of Human Biology & Disease
Description:
The availability of the DNA sequence of the human genome has truly revolutionized biomedical research and is beginning to impact clinical care. Only about 5% of the 3 billion base pairs appear to be important, and finding and understanding these functional segments is one of the challenging problems that is being faced by biologists. Rick Myers, Ph.D., of the Stanford Human Genome Center examines how high-throughput genomic and genetic techniques are being applied towards identifying cis-acting transcriptional regulatory elements as well as the proteins that bind to them and control transcription.

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3230&fID=345
Selection in Action
Description:
The products of natural, and human, selection are all around us. Humans have transformed wild plants into useful crops by selective breeding and produced domesticated animals with sizes and shapes very different from their wild ancestors. Genetic crosses suggest that relatively few genetic changes are needed to dramatically transform the shape and structure of plants and animals. Natural selection in wild populations can also generate amazing diversity in a surprisingly short amount of time. David M. Kingsley, Ph.D. explains the genetic studies suggest that major evolutionary changes are controlled by a few key genes.

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3932&fID=345
Using Evolution to Explore the Human Genome
Description:
In this distinguished lecture, David Haussler talks about finding regions of the human genome that are not only under negative selection, but also are specifically evolving like protein-coding regions in genes. Haussler also investigates genetic innovations specific to primates and specific to humans. Given this as a base, and enough well-placed primate genomes to reconstruct intermediate states, scientists should eventually be able to document most of the genomic changes that occurred in the evolution of the human lineage from the mammalian ancestor over the last 80 million years.
***

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob...0f33dd3b8917a24
Duplication hotspots, rare genomic disorders, and common disease
The human genome is enriched in interspersed segmental duplications that sensitize approximately 10% of our genome to recurrent microdeletions and microduplications as a result of unequal crossing over. We review the recent discovery of recurrent rearrangements within these genomic hotspots and their association with both syndromic and nonsyndromic diseases. Studies of common complex genetic disease show that a subset of these recurrent events plays an important role in autism, schizophrenia, and epilepsy. The genomic hotspot model may provide a powerful approach for understanding the role of rare variants in common disease.

***
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?fID=572&rID=22219
The Changing Human Genome: Implications for Disease and Evolution
Description:
Dr. Evan Eichler, UW genome sciences professor and investigator with Howard Hughes Medical Institute, examines what current human genome research reveals about disease.
===

Wow, I just watched that last one again. Yep, it's almost all I recall (maybe there's a part two somewhere--possibly that "Session 4: Interface of Engineering ...Disease" link, or the one after that).

But this link above, with Dr. Evan Eichler, is a must see.
Well worth the time (or just cut to the last 10 minutes) to learn about the "unique" mechanism--an "architecture" leading to novel evolutionary capability in humans.

Good grief, Sam, you've been busy with that! I'll take a proper look at it all when I get a chance. Thanks a lot.

I did the searching, so I figured I'd share.

But it's only the last link (repeat of first link) that was the one I was talking about:
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?fID=572&rID=22219

...and just the last 10 minutes is the "unique" part.

Exnihilo

Needless to say, you're entitled to your honest opinion. To me - in the face of the vast wealth of evidence that you're choosing to ignore - your opinion counts for nothing. No disrespect, but that's my opinion. We'll have to leave it at that, I guess.

All of these points above explain why you have the view that you do.

I'd suggest the "Endless Forms..." video (see post at top of this page) to get the basics relating to your points, quoted above. Essentially one should think of genes as a tool box--each tool able to perform different functions at different times (in different forms), and able to take on new functions as opportunities present.

Your take on genetics is like looking at a dictionary and not comprehending how a great novel could be created.
Evolution rearranges words and phrases--even whole chapters at times--and is not just starting with a dictionary and trying to create "Pride & Prejudice" by changing single letters one-at-a-time.

Watch the video; you'll see:
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3229&fID=345
"....The second revolution in biology was triggered by discoveries in genetics. Genetic variation, selection, and time combine to fuel the evolutionary process. The action of selection is now visible in DNA, both in preventing injurious changes and in favoring advantageous changes in traits."

A gold mine. I doubt you'll see me on this forum for a while. thank you thank you thank you.

My fallible friend, I am just as fallible, and I can't pretend to know anything about homology. Thanks for the link. Look, I thought I made it clear that I am not dismissing evolution, on its surface it seems reasonable, but we are still dealing with conjecture and that isn't sufficient to substantiate it. Everything on the table is superficial and arbitrary and I merely pointed out many weaknesses. As far as intelligent design is concerned I have posed no opinion and my platform arises from an entirely different angle than all others. Please consider the following.

Biology is one tiny slice of physical theory and inherent in that related to our subject is that it doesn't take into account other contributing aspects. Whether a gene does this or that by itself does not satisfy anything. When genes interact with each other how they do it is all determined by disparate states of energy at the atomic level. How that process unfolds determines the state of genes at any given time. So if genes can mutate into something entirely different which is necessary for a crossover branching of species, its success depends on balancing these states of energy. Currently there is absolutely no consideration for this process at all in the conversation of evolution, and to get to a solution of design or not would have to be centered around the fundamentals of energy. Everything else is superficial.

Here's something else to consider. If evolution is correct and everything evolved by chance from a primordial cell, than there is something which should be evident in fossil recovery. In mutating from this to that over time a species would have to take on many forms of asymmetry. All fossils in recovery thus far display perfect symmetry. Fossils should reveal many states of asymmetry but that is not the case. If there is any it would be similar to any we see today in living organism's. This is quite glaring and it should tell those concerned why they should be suspicious of evolution. Not to say it is wrong, only that its viability has many problems. There has to be something more fundamental to support it than the arbitrary arguments posed today.

Studies in biophysics have confirmed the processes of duplication and mutation-- re: your comments about "Currently... no consideration for this process..."

But more importantly, when you say "Everything else is superficial" I think you should be more open minded. Are you saying no mechanisms for evolution, other than single nucleotide substitution, can possibly exist?

What about all the mechanisms (some of which address your good question about symmetry, from above) that are brought up in that Endless Forms... video:

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3229&fID=345

"There has to be something more fundamental to support it than the arbitrary arguments posed today." -exnihilo
I'd agree... if you changed that statement to refer to the arguments posed 30 years ago.

Your comments indicate that you are familiar with the conjectures posed 30 years ago, but not the current level of understanding. You're still talking about creating a great novel by switching around the letters in a dictionary.

...and you're not even considering epigenetics!

Please watch the video and check out the more current state of knowledge in basic genetics. The questions asked by the audience (students) are just as informative too.

If something is arbitrary than it is superficial. Advantages and changing traits are not the same as an evolving template of replicating DNA. It involves real-time phenomena extant at any particular time. The nuclear DNA does protect its integrity and most of that is signaled by RNA located in the cytoplasm, acting as a messenger for real-time phenomena. For example, the RNA would send a signal to duplicate cell formation to accomodate and reflect weight gain. This has a bearing on self-preservation but it does not suggest an evolutionary process. Anything else is conjecture.

While our knowledge has increased from thirty years ago, the conclusions made are still just as archaic. The inquiry should be concerned with asymmetry in fossil recovery but are there any studies really dealing with it? It is just too obvious to ignore. Why aren't there any fossils revealing asymmetry of any given species? They sould be prolific and gene mutation should not be confused with gene "formation", a process that would have to take place in order to get from a tiny piece of DNA in a singular cell to one as large as ours. That tiny piece of DNA would have to begin creating 'new" genes to add to its intrinsic gene pool for evolution to ensue. So, the question is how does gene mutation create new genes? Show that and the debate would probably end. Just like Darwin evolutionist's of today have to make a great leap of faith to say evolution is taking place.

I visited your links. They really have nothing new to add to the debate, and that is not being close-minded. It is just different lanquage saying the same thing. How in the world can Kingsley's study of vertebrates add anything to the debate?

Exnihilo says: "So, the question is how does gene mutation create new genes? Show that and the debate would probably end."

Anyone interested in the answer, go to this preview of the book 'Essential Cell Biology':

(Click on 'Contents' >> 'How Genes and Genomes Evolve', then scroll down to the next page, 295)

http://books.google.co.th/books?id=PKSeM...nes&f=false

See:
'Five Main Types of Genetic Change Contribute to Evolution'
'Genome Alterations Are Caused by Failures of the Normal Mechanisms for Copying and Maintaining DNA'
'DNA Duplications Give Rise to Families of Related Genes Within a Single Cell'

Exnihilo says: "Just like Darwin evolutionist's of today have to make a great leap of faith to say evolution is taking place."

See:
Long-Term Experimental Evolution in Escherichia coli. XII.
DNA Topology as a Key Target of Selection

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/169/2/523.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=134600

redewenur__

Thanks for your comments. Your references including that of Feynman is noted. I'm going to give you a common sense response, it is up to you to give it credence or crdibility, but its logic is obvious. I don't have to visit your first reference because the sub-titles reveal all. Therefore, anything else would be redundant speculation for evolution from mutation to oooccur.

Unrelated pairings at comparable gene sites of recombining hosts begs the questions: how does a new gene manifest on a DNA strand? How does new and garbled ibformation representing transformation and branching, even modestly, for a foreign recombination? It would have to carry information totally unrelated to the recombining hosts. making it impossible to pair up in replication. Look, it doesn't do any good to focus on how a species might evolve, the inquiry should focus on how DNA evolves? That isn't a distinction without a difference. Mutations by themselves just isn't viable, and just as important the interactions taking place are all resolved at the molecular level, which isn't even part of the conversation.

Mutations as it stands today does not have a leg to stand regardless of what is "suggested" from current study. If you can provide to me a study that deals with my thesis, I would be eager to learn of it.

I'm sure you understand that forums are a soft target for crackpot pseudo-scientific theories, as users are rarely experts in the field under discussion (and it often takes an expert to demolish pseudo-science). But then, you maintain that you're not convinced by the experts, so we here are obviously wasting time.

Thirty-five years of intense study of physical theory and related issues, plus a radical theory opposing evolution? Go get your Nobel Prize, man.

I respect your reply but feel the strong antagonism. I'm sorry you felt it necessary. It would have been helpful to me if in some way could have responded to the questions asked, rather than open up an entirely different track. Thus far I have not proposed a "radical" theory nor seriously questioned the research on evolution, only its conclusions, based on what seems obvious. It should not be difficult to assimilate? I suggest before quoting Feynman one should examine the quote carefully. Your method of rebuttal does not fit this forum and venue.

Ex,

You made false statements about Darwin.
You were corrected. I have read OOS 3 times, DoM, and the autobiography. You were completely wrong and it would have been obvious if you had actually read Darwin.

You made false statements about the status of Evolution in the community of experts which you would not have made if you were aware of the the subject you were talking about. You used the argument from anonymous authority.
You were corrected with names of actual researchers and statements by professional organizations representing those whose opinions you attempted to convey yourself.

You made false statements about the relative ratios of bad mutations and supported it with a loose reference to a 40 year old text book.
You were corrected with more recent information, but if you had been studying this subject for 35 years you ought to have had a current source.

You made false statements about the article which you would not have made if you had even skimmed the article.
You were corrected.

You re-iterated false statements about the article which you would not have made if you had even skimmed the article.
You were once again corrected.

You then made other claims regarding the state of research and you buttress this claim by pointing out that you have "35 years of intense study of physical issues and related issues." Now this is clearly an attempt at argument from authority. Contrary to popular opinion, argument from authority can be perfectly legitimate in some cases - if the cited authority really is an actual authority.

Look, I've met LOTS of people who have "studied intensely" for long periods of time - years and even decades. Not all of these guys' studies are equal. There are a lot of non-anonymous experts out there who have put even more time than you have into the subject and much more dedicated. Now, given the track record of you have already achieved JUST IN THIS THREAD, I have to say, "No. I'm not going to accept you as an authority." Because "you say so" is not good enough.

You brought up another issue. Samwik appears to have addressed it, but you're not even going to watch the videos, because you assert without watching the vids that they don't address your objection. I have to tell you that your track record in this thread does not inspire confidence in your ability to ascertain facts from sources. In short, you're the one who should be paying close attention to what Feynman wrote.

The purpose of science is not to convince the people who think they have done their homework when they haven't or to convince denialists. Is it possible that the scientists who actually do research in the subject know something about it that you don't? That you're "research" may not be as air-tight as you suppose? You're of course free to respond to every post with "NUH UH" and proffer an objection that clearly indicates you haven't read what you claim to have read or that you haven't read anything current or that you refuse to examine the evidence that IS offered. Keep doing that. Science progresses and you just say, "NUH UH." At least the reason for your denialism appears clear at least to me: you just don't look at the evidence.

Your type of rebuttal doesn't deserve a response. Nevertheless, I will respond. Just once I would like someone like you to respond to one question I have posed on mutations without resorting to sarcasm. Your comments above says more about you than anyone else. Are you covering up your inability to answer the reasons for my skepticism of evolving mutations by your tactics? My questions are simple, reasonable, and have nothing to do with what you are trying to say or do. I don't question the research and its purpose, only some conclusions drawn that pertains to evolution, and that has not changed since the advent of genetics no matter what you are implying. The range of understanding of mutations has changed but not in context to some very basic questions. If there is evidence in context to those please convey them to me. Don't refer me to texts that can't provide any answers. You certainly seem to be threatened.

Exnihilo, TFF has taken the time to compose an entirely accurate and pertinent list of critical comments that I would have been well content to produce myself. Naturally, you find those comments unacceptable.

My method of rebuttal, also, doesn't suit you? But it's perfectly true, I'm sorely tempted to be facetious, seeing no further reason to attempt to humour you while you persist in taking yourself so seriously. Look, who are you to talk of evidence, for which you have such a blatant, wholesale disregard? By the garbage content of your posts, you've demonstrated that your logic has much in common with that of the conspiracy theorist and Bible literalist. For you, what counts is not scientific truth but maintenance of your irrational belief through selective ignorance of both evidence and established fact.

Just respond to the questions posed, not what bona fides someone may or may not have. I have not seen any comments addressing my questions, only those suggesting reading material. Please don't beg off in that manner. It seems to me your method is hiding behind an inability to deal with my questions. Those are not meant to impugn or deny anything or anyone and they don't, just opening up the discussion on other possibilities. You say there is evidence, just mention one in context that would add something to the debate. Instead you spew sarcasm and venom as a contribution. Sir/Ma'am, you should find some decorum or ask your mommy for your pacifier and become satiated with yourself. You deserved that.

I can see that you're upset, but when I say that you have a blatant disregard for the evidence, I'm not being venomous or sarcastic, I'm just stating the fact. When I say that you have posted garbage, that's not venom or sarcasm, it's fact. When I say that your logic has much in common with that of the conspiracy theorist and Bible literalist, I mean precisely that. I assure you, there's not a shred of venom or sarcasm therein.

Exn: "You say there is evidence, just mention one in context that would add something to the debate"

In the light of the above, that would be a total waste of time - and that's not venom or sarcasm, either. It's fact.

Deal with you questions?

You have been wrong at every message and you have been wrong in a way that suggests you are not interested to know the actual answers to your question, but are just throwing out what is called a bundle of sticks. That's not a mere claim - it's documented in this thread.

If your issues are real issues, then find another source besides yourself that says they're real issues.

It's not our job to do your homework for you.

Atomic theory is not as you claimed "anathema to evolution." You could have said, "I don't know the explanation for this" or "I'm not aware of what's been done here," but instead you make a clear statement for which you have not supplied any evidentiary support. The only support you have given is assertion; a dated, irrelevant reference; and a bogus claim by an anonymous "expert."

Deal with questions? I noticed you haven't answered any, nor how or where I have been wrong. I do know why atomic theory is an anathema to evolution and a mere statement does not require "proof" at this venue. I think wild statements abound as evidenced above and they don't qualify for ridicule and sarcasm. A "clear" statement can be a belief in something that is not in context to issues raised, namely mutating genes. I am not participating in this discussion to prove anything one way or another but to inject a different way of looking at the viability of genes and mutations that might be responsible for a radical alteration of genotyping in DNA. You seem to be bent on diminishing the messager and not the argument. If that is threatening to you than you have the problem.