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

We are all mutants

Measurement of mutation rate in humans by direct sequencing

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/wtsi-waa082509.php


"Remarkably, the new research, published today in Current Biology, shows that these early estimates were spot on - in total, we all carry 100-200 new mutations in our DNA. This is equivalent to one mutation in each 15 to 30 million nucleotides. Fortunately, most of these are harmless and have no apparent effect on our health or appearance."

I'm not sure what you may be implying by these findings on mutations but one should bear in mind that most mutations in DNA of the nucleus are harmful to survival. Those you speak of are a product of the processes in the RNA outside the nucleus in the cytoplasm, and are the catalyst of real time input from the environmeent to transmit information to the DNA. This information would be the catalyst for more cell duplication that reflects for instance weight changes. Any mutations that would change the blueprint which gives us form and appearance would have to be mutations of the genes and that is what is harmful to survival. It would be helpful to have an understnading of atomic theory to grasp why mutations in truth are an anathema to an evolutionist. Just thought I would throw that in.

Exnihilo, that's totally incorrect. What's being referred to is, indeed, DNA mutation. Almost all mutations are neutral, being neither helpful nor harmful. Some are harmful and some confer survival/reproductive advantage, depending upon the environment. Under 'natural' conditions, natural selection tends to "weed out" the harmful mutations while preserving those that are beneficial.

Where do you get the idea that mutations are anathema to the evolutionist? Without mutations there would be no evolution, and no evolutionists.

Rede,
Good response.

Johnson, Laubengayer, DeLanney, Cole, write in their text "most mutations are harmful to survival", published by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Yes, many mutations confer survival but those occur in the cytoplasm and pertain to protein synthesis. Those that are harmful occur in the nucleus of DNA and affect the helical DNA chain and cause malformation and death, which is not helpful to survival.

You are assuming evolution is a fact as a result of mutations. Darwin commented at the time he thought evolution was taking place but made sure it was known it was only an opinion. So far there is no scientific evidence to support it, just speculation.

That text is 40 years out of date.

Darwin believed that he had shown that evolution (descent with modification) had occurred and that he has a viable theory for how it had occurred (natural selection and sexual selection).

It is absurd to suggest that there is only speculation to support evolution. It's not just wrong, but ludicrous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

There are known mutations in DNA that are not harmful. Do you have a current primary source that indicates that most DNA mutations are harmful?

The CCR5 mutation, for example, that provides HIV resistance is a beneficial mutation in DNA.

What exnihilo is saying appears to be quoted from the Encyclopaedia of Creation Science.

http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Most_mutations_are_harmful

That would explain his re-writing factual knowledge of simple, basic cellular biology in accordance with religious belief, and his ignorance of bountiful evidence of Darwinian evolution to the extent of denying any evidence whatsoever. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to feed a creationist with facts, nor by referring them to excellent books like:

'The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution', by Sean B. Carroll.

Meanwhile, creationist educators continue to try to remake the world in the image of their delusions.

Claim CB101: Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Incidentally, Holt, Rinehart and Winston is a publishing subsidiary (for grades 6–12) of Harcourt Education, based in...Austin, Texas.

The text I obtained and used for the quote was titled "Biology" by author's and publisher listed above,from the college I attended. Sorry for the inadvertant omission. What I wrote had no references or implications for creationism. The sequencing referred to and responded to has come from mitachondrial RNA in the cytoplasm. This was done because it was easier to sequence and study than nuclear DNA. So far there is no evidence there are significan mutations in the nulear DNA to alter the template of the dual helical DNA chain. Those that do occur relate to minor alterations of appearance such as eye and hair color.

I don't know how something "appears" to be a quote.

Here is a direct quote to me personally: "As a research fellow in molecular biology at one of our nation's most prominent universities I get to 'mingle' with some of the greatest scientist's in our nation, at work, seminar's,etc. I can say this much, the vast majority (95%) regard the hypothesis of evolution as laughable and within their inner circles is regarded with contempt. It is something of an in-house joke that so many people across the world have been taken in by this non-science and is illustrative of how 'science' can be used to manipulate thinking. The fact is that the general public is not very scientifically savvy and so tend to regard 'scientist's as something akin to 'gods' and if they say something it must be true, no matter how much it may strain common sense. My collegues in these sought after positions cannot publicly express their views at the moment because that would be 'biting the hand that feeds them' and they would not have jobs or research funds if they were to speak out against evolution. Some of the most fundamental scientific laws makes the foundations upon which evolution depends laughable." I have not advocated creationism nor dismissed evolution but there is ample reason to be suspicious of that has no basis in fact.

What?! Do you mean somebody said that as "a direct quote" to you personally?
Well that settles things. What an odd claim (95% regard the hypothesis...).
===

Aside from that inanity....

There's new info in 2009 about "accelerated mutation rates," but this below is all I could find quickly. I'll try to get the newer stuff--essentially a new mechanism for generating mutations--which is active only in humans and a few other higher primates.

but until then... I found this....
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/162/4/1825
Genetics, Vol. 162, 1825-1835, December 2002

Accelerated Protein Evolution and Origins of Human-Specific Features: FOXP2 as an Example

" I have not advocated creationism nor dismissed evolution but there is ample reason to be suspicious of that has no basis in fact.
"
No there isn't. Unsubstantiated quotes are not evidence. Not only are they not physical evidence; they aren't any kind of evidence.

I've met lots of people on the net who claim to be things they are not and claim to have credentials that they do not, in fact, have.
I know a few research molecular biologists - not many, but a few. All of them accept evolution. I'll name names: Dr. Harold Morowitz (molecular biophysics, Krasnow Institute, GMU), Dr. Thomas Schneider (NIH), Dr. Stuart Kauffman (inst for biocomplexity and information), Dr. Bonnie Bassler (Princeton). These are people I've met personally and whose bios you could easily confirm on the web - and read their articles and books. I do not know them well, but I've had brief conversations with each. There are many other researchers whose papers I've read. Also, the professional organizations for molecular biologists EXPLICITLY rejects creationism and accepts evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

The federation of scientists for experimental biology (FASEB)
which includes American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology ( http://www.faseb.org/faseb/WhatIsFASEB.html ).

The group issued the following statement
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/3/408
which explicitly supports the teaching of evolution and rejects the teaching of either creationism or "intelligent design" creationism.
"The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) has issued a statement supporting evolution and opposing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in science classrooms. Supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numerous fields, evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the biological sciences. The FASEB statement affirms that intelligent design and creationism are not science. "

Based on my personal acquaintances with molecular biologists and with the published statements of the leading societies of molecular biologists, I'm skeptical of your friend's claim.

In short, I don't see how unconfirmed assertions from anonymous people on the internet constitute a reason to be suspicious of evolution when can 1. find numerous molecular biologists who are actively engaged in evolution research and whose published works indicate a complete acceptance of evolution and 2. their own professional societies EXPLICITLY give strong support to evolution which seems EXTREMELY unlikely if 95% of the membership rejected evolution.

Hi, Samwik

Thanks for the link to the excellent article on PRM2 and FOXP2.

"We tackle this problem by comparing the rate of protein sequence evolution in the human lineage (since the human-chimpanzee split) with that in nonhuman mammals"

Although I don't see that a new mutation mechanism has been identified - the mechanism is still random substitution in the nucleotide sequence - it's no less an amazing achievement to identify two specific genes that suddenly proliferated (a >60 fold increase in FOXP2) somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000yrs ago, one essential to spermatogenesis and the other involved in speech and language development! No wonder humans spend so much time talking about sex

The speed of evolution and mutation must remain always balances in accordance to life conditions. Prokaryota still rely to horizontal gene transfer, simply because they can divide fast. Sexual reproduction is too mutagenic and energetically expensive for tiny organisms with fast paced live cycle (protozoa), so they using it only in under unfavorable conditions.

Large organisms can reproduce sexually, but sometimes tend to parthenogenesis under good life conditions: for example sharks are living in very stable conditions, so they don't evolve fast, they don't require mutations, so they're cancer resistant and hammerhead shark can reproduce asexually. An endometriosis and/or male associated infertility can be understood as an attempt for evolutionary adaptation of human organism to wealthy life conditions, where the sexual reproduction leads to unnecessary high mutagenity and cancer frequency in population. Good social conditions leads to unisex life style and male population will decline gradually in analogy to mixture of particles, which undergoes the gradual evaporation of smaller particles on behalf of large ones with lower social tension.

In AWT cambrian explosion was a result of analogous phase transition, a condensation of genes following from fast cooling. Around 530 million years ago Earth passed by so called "Snowball Earth" episode, i.e. by cryogenian period of strong cooling by the same way, like the Universe during inflation. During this a existing oceans were covered by thick layer of ice. This shock change of climate was followed by massive extinction, during which remaining organisms were forced to increase speed of their evolution and to exchange genes even in diaspora. The diaspora has lead into evolution of sexual reproduction, which is effective (and quite pleasant) method, how to increase gene mixing speed

I reiterate the blurb from the original post to this thread:

"Remarkably, the new research, published today in Current Biology, shows that these early estimates were spot on - in total, we all carry 100-200 new mutations in our DNA. This is equivalent to one mutation in each 15 to 30 million nucleotides. Fortunately, most of these are harmless and have no apparent effect on our health or appearance."

Again, for emphasis,
"... in total, we all carry 100-200 new mutations in our DNA."

A few points:
This was a recent study.
The article specifically refers to mutations in our DNA, not cytoplasm.
The implication is that by "our DNA," the author is referring to people like the author and the reader who are actually alive even though they contain these mutations.

Yes, but the mutations occur in mitachondrial DNA located in the cytoplasm, not in the nucleus where "replicating " DNA is located and mix through recombination. Any mutations that may be facilitors of a crossover process must be with replicating DNA. Most of the mutations of mitachondrial DNA are a response to environmental input and effect changes such as weight loss or gain, which effects cell duplication in real time. These mutations are prolific but have nothing to do with replication. This is a clear distinction between duplication and replication and cannot be construed as an evolutionary process. More of this discussed elsewhere.

The article says:

"An international team of 16 scientists today reports the first direct measurement of the general rate of genetic mutation at individual DNA letters in humans. The team sequenced the same piece of DNA - 10,000,000 or so letters or 'nucleotides' from the Y chromosome - from two men separated by 13 generations, and counted the number of differences. Among all these nucleotides, they found only four mutations."

Note it specifically says Y chromosome (that's the male stuff).

Mitochondrial DNA is matrilineal.

exnihilo: "Yes, but the mutations occur in mitachondrial DNA located in the cytoplasm, not in the nucleus..."

What's the problem, exnihilo? You do seem to have an axe to grind over this issue. If you read the article, you'll see that it discusses only chromosomal DNA, with no reference whatever to mtDNA. Mutations in the latter are more frequent...

"Despite many generations of separation, researchers found only 12 differences among all the DNA letters examined. The two Y chromosomes were still identical at 10,149,073 of the 10,149,085 letters examined. Of the 12 differences, eight had arisen in the cell lines used for the work. Only four were true mutations that had occurred naturally through the generations"

...but what's your point? Is it that you believe the researchers botched their project, and that all similar research results are false or falsified?

Yes, it was a direct quote. I had no reason to question its veracity. If you are questioning mine that is your perogative. I will close my contribution to this subject with the following and I beg your indulgence. It is based on thirty-five years of intense study of physical theory and related isues.

There are three legs claimed to support evolution and they are: natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations. None of these are direct evidence for evolution because none can provide evidence for a crossover process to accomomdate evolution. Crossover is a process that would facilitate changes from one species to another, and it must occur in nuclear DNA where the template of form for any species is located; that is, the DNA strand composed of genes and chromosomes. It is here any evidence forthcoming can satisfy an evolutionary process.

The accepted beginning for evolution is the single cell theory, all species evolved from a single cell containing DNA (there are cells that do not contain DNA) to one containing the DNA chain of a human many, many, thousands of genes and chromosomes later. The process of how all of this "building" can take place has never been explained, and it is the only way crossover from one species to another can take place.

Darwin started all of this with his observations over time of variations in traits and behavior of species and the results of his well-crafted conclusion he called natural selection, the differential survival of certain genotypes in a population through successive generations. He suggested a process of evolution was at hand but he noted it was only an opinion. He made no distinction between environmentally induced variations and inherited variations. It is now believed inherited variations contribute to evolution, and further claimed that mutations is the raw mateial accounting for it. I don't think there is any question of mutations contributing to traits because DNA research pretty much establishs it as fact. But to get to a reality of evolution from that is an entirely different matter, and requiires a better look at mutations and the dual helix of DNA.

This is the point mutations begin to fail as a reason for species evolution. Most mutations with nuclear DNA are deleterious in their effects and not helpful to survival (Biology 101}. To overcome this it has been proposed from a "thought" experiment suggesting once a population becomes large enough after a great deal of time selected mutations favorable to survival "could" occur. A thought experiment of this nature concluding something could occur is not acceptable, never mind in this scenario there is no reasoning of how a species might become large. All of it can be left-open to interpretation and can be judged at face-value, but thought experiments in this context is not evidence and the theory of evolution is laced with this kind of speculation. Natural selection provides a reasonable conclusion for "self-preservaton", but not evolution.

Recessive genes are behind mutations and inherited traits. These traits as we know them to be are such things as eye and hair color, countenance, and myriad other things we are familiar with. The dual helix of nuclear DNA has a specific form with various constituent parts that make it up. Each part has specific function and located at a specific site on the DNA strand, These specifics are important in understanding how mutations may or may not contribute to an evolutionary process. Gene recombination is the process of two genders contributing DNA and the genes match up in pairing on comparable sites of the DNA strands. Every gene is function specific in that it relates to a specific feature of a functioning organism. A recessive gene is one that becomes dominant and from mutation it alters a specific feature of the host. For example, eye color of an off-spring would be that of a dominant gene. The molecular formation of a gene for eye color assures that it will be a gene for eye color, and nothing else. There is a modest change of molecular formation from a recessive gene, initiated by mutation from recombination, but it will always basically be the same molecular structure of the combining genes. If that molecular struction in some wat is significantly changed it will never interact with its counterpart on the DNA strand. This is a result of disparity of covalence with particles at the atomic level by attraction and repulsion forces. It must maintain its original integrity of formation and this holds true for the entire DNA strand. This is why mutaions of replicating DNA is so inhospitalable. The only way a DNA strand can evolve from a single cell conaining a very tiny piece of DNA to one as large as a human's is through gene "creation" within a nucleus that "builds" all the rungs and tethered genes of the ladder of the representing DNA. New genes and chromosomes would have to be manufactured and migrate to,let's ssy, to one end of the ladder or the other beginning a new rung. There is some evidence of migratory genes but from one existent site to another existent site. Of course that means mutation by themselves cannot be the process for evolution.

Genetis drift? Genetic drif is the 'chance' fixation of a gene or group of genes in a small population. I believe the definition speaks for itself, but it involves mutant genes becoming dominant in a species. Again, a recessive gene is introduced through recombination and in successive generations by 'chance' only does it become dominant.
For all of the same resons as above genetic drift from mutations contributes to particular traits and appearances of a host and not to alterations of the DNA format. It isn' necessary to take it any farther.

One to itself or as a group, the main concepts as a support system for evolution cannot account for it. If a process can be shown to 'build' an evolving DNA chain it would be sufficient to validate he theory. There are hundreds of thousands of species on this planet and to say each evolved from a single cell branching off into hundreds of thousands of ways stretches even the smallest credulity. To pick out tiny snippets of an era and chosen similarties of species fitted selectively to appear as signs of evolution is misleading and should be treated as suspicious. There are good reasons for these similarities and they have nothing to with evolution, rather, they pertain to the very source and energy they arise from; a paradigm constructed by science. How mutation of genes that are site specific and function specific can build and/or expand a dual helix of DNA must be revealed to make evolution viable. A DNA template can be analogous to the blueprint of a house. One can build a house from a blueprint and over time make as many changes as they want altering its appearance, but it will always be a house and never anything else. Through mutations the outer appearance of an organism can change but it will always be that organism. In the case of living organisms sigificant changes are catalysts for asymmetry; malformation or fatal collapse. Plato was right, ideas and form is the reality, not appearances.

Finally. there are some who may be antagonistic of the above as a defense mechanism but it would be uncalled for. If there is a rational counter-argument I would be very pleased to hear of it. More references and links that do not address my thesis do not quality, unless they pertain to the specifics outlined here. Thanks for yourresponses.

exn: "Most mutations with nuclear DNA are deleterious in their effects and not helpful to survival (Biology 101}. "

It may have once been part of Biology 101 that most mutations are harmful, but subsequent, improved measures indicate that this is not true.

The article says "Remarkably, the new research, published today in Current Biology, shows that these early estimates were spot on - in total, we all carry 100-200 new mutations in our DNA."

As previously established this article refers to nuclear DNA, not mitochondrial DNA. EACH HUMAN CARRIES THAT MANY NEW MUTATIONS. That's a lot of mutations.

So pretty much, regardless of whether more or less of the do this or that, each person contains 100-200 new mutations.

Regardless of whether you personally believe that the existing mechanisms are sufficient, we can be quite certain that evolution has indeed occurred. ERV's are the smoking gun, but there are other convincing evidences.

Absolute proof is not a requirement of science. What would convince you of the validity of evolution isn't a necessary requirement to logically demonstrate evolution. Evolution has been established far beyond any reasonable doubt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

You may have studied physical theory intensely for 35 years. I know a number of biologists, including the research molecular biologists whom I mentioned previously, most of whom have spent at least that long and have published ground-breaking research on the subject. They collectively have a very different take on the subject than you do.

I also disagree that Darwin was presenting natural selection as mere opinion. I've read Origin of Species 3 times, DoM, and his autobiography. He clearly was making what he felt was a very clear and compelling scientific that evolution does occur and how it occurs. That is not very relevant today, because the current theory is different and more complete than Darwin's and the evidence we have today is much stronger than what Darwin could have imagined.

Look, I accept the mutations of 100-200 mutations in our DNA but that in no way subsumes my theory. I accept mutations take place but there has to be a substantial chance they relate to a crossover process supporting evolution. Any notion they do is mere conjecture at this point and science has not improved on that prospect at all, especially since research is heavily
centered around mitachondrial DNA.

Do you realize that to get from a single cell to an organism such as ourselves requires hundreds of thousands of mutations that takes place on a site extant at any given time, and to effect crossover changes however minute a new gene must show up at a totally different location, by "building" new sites and functions adding to a DNA strand. You are effectively saying this takes place, but there just isn't any evidence to support that kind of process, no matter what anyone may think is happening.

I have not been denying evolution, I have simply iterated an opinion supporting my contention that is ample reason to be suspicious of it, and there is scientific and energy interaction processing that supports it. This support is much more inclusive and broad-based but it can't be outlined here. Sorry for that.

Self-preservation should not be confused with evolution. We do that by breathing or eating breakfast.

All I can say to your assertions is that your conclusions do not agree with those of most molecular biologists.

Watch the following video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN3XZGgic4o

Then locate a gene that you think could not possibly have evolved and ask C0nc0rdance to test it.