GeoTheo

David H:
Since only about 2% of the human genome is composed of genes that are actually expressed most mutations have little affect on anything. Genes that are really needed are "conserved" by natural selection. Mutations are believed to bring only a 1 % change in the genome of higher eukaryotes every 10 million years. So there is no impending doom from accumulation of mutations IMO. If you think about it, if there never were any mutations we would all be cynobacteria or somthing living in a deep sea vent.

GeoTheo

Well good luck finding one that will respond. I am an evolutionist, but somtimes play the devils advocate in these types of threads because I get bored wating for worthy creationists to show up.
I suspect most conservative Christians entering a biology program nowadays are converted to theistic evolution by their sophmore year. Perhaps they just keep quiet about it in Church.
If someone can ace courses like molecular genetics and understand everything while still maintaining alternative explanations in their head that can equally explain all the data from a perspective of special creation, my hat is off to them they are truly a genius. Hopefull one such genius will show up.

GeoTheo

I don't personally think humans have anymore genetic information per sethan yeast just going by the size of our genomes. Doesn't seem very flattering does it?
I think what happened is mammals used some of the same genes other organisms have in different ways in order to build these big brains we have.
To increase genetic info wouldn't each organism need to come up with more and more amino acids?

theyeti

I think it's pretty safe to say that humans have more genetic information than yeasts. I don't know the numbers off hand, but we have far more functional genes than yeasts do, and the number of functioning genes times their functional length is probaby the only useful back-of-the-envelope measure of genetic information that I can think of. But creationists never spell out exactly what they mean by "information". The definition changes to suit the argument.

Nevertheless, under the definition I've given above, increases in genetic information have been observed many times under laboratory conditions, opperating by known mechanisms, and can be readily inferred from phylogeny. The "no new information" argument should be put up there with the "no transitional fossils" argument.

theyeti

pz

The yeast genome is about 13,000kb. The human genome is about 3,000,000kb. Yeast have 6-10,000 genes, humans have 30-40,000 genes.
No. That's like claiming that in order for a novelist to write a new book, he needs to invent some new letters.

We also have about the same number and type of genes as a mouse, yet most of us have brains bigger than those of mice.

Peez

It may "seem" that way to you, but I cannot see any reason to think so. What is "information" in this context, and how do you "know" that "relies on mutation giving more information"? Without a meaningful definition of "information", how can one address this? There are reasons that we might expect that, under current circumstances, deleterious mutations might be more common than beneficial ones in humans. That being said, please explain why you think that this is actually the case. No. Even assuming that you are correct about the numbers of mutations, it does not follow that these mutations would kill off all humans. I also do not see the relevance of the carrying capacity here. And, often, by genetic drift. An unsupported claim, but one which we can accept for argument's sake. I think that it is pretty obvious that they have, but this seems to be irrelevant to the discussion here. ??? Are you suggesting that everyone who has an allele (gene) that is deleterious will immediately die? Are you aware that only 1% of the alleles responsible for cystic fibrosis are found in people who suffer from cystic fibrosis? Even if we grant your "if", this is a non-sequiter: it does not follow that the odds of such a carrier surviving would then be "low". If you disagree, please explain. Harmful mutations will not generally harm us when they are in others, harmfull mutations will not always harm us when they are in us, and harmful mutations that do harm us do not necessarily kill us. You have not established that it is. No. All you need is a few to survive and reproduce. You don't need all those deleterious mutation-laden individuals to reproduce. By the way, virtually all humans carry deleterious alleles. Fair enough, but with all due respect your knowledge of genetics is limited. Why would you think that geneticists are wrong? It may well be that there is a general increase in mutation rates, but on the other hand there is no evidence that I am aware of that this is the case. However, mutations certainly do occur. The average human has several new ones. I do not see anything pointing that way. This would be difficult to study, given that observed changes in reported cases could be due to changes in diagnoses, increased survival of people with genetic diseases, gene flow among populations, etc. It would still be interesting to look at, of course, from the point of view of tracking mutagens in our environment.

Peez

theyeti

BTW, here are a few relevant referrences to "genetic information" increases. We used to have an ongoing thread at antievolution.org, and then a server crash wiped out most of it.
That's only a partial list. I lost everything that was catelogued on the antievolution,org thread. So there's lots of additional and especially recent examples that could be added to this list.

theyeti

scigirl

Hello everyone,

I just attended a seminar about transposons, but rather than hijack this thread, I started a new one <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001492" target="_blank">HERE</a>.

scigirl

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

davidH

Peez,

The relevance of the carrying capacity is there - I should have explained why I thought so.

Why is marriage discouraged amoung family? Reason is because children born are more likely to suffer from a genetic disease. Not to go into details I will leave it at that.

Thus if the carrying capacity is reached we have a relatively "fixed" number of individuals present and the number from which to choose a mate will no longer increase.

As mutations are continually occurring genetic diseases will increase in concentration in ratio to the population that is "fixed".
Therefore as time goes on the concentration will increase and partners will have a higher probablity of meeting someone else with the same faulty genes....exactly the same as the danger of having children with someone related to you.

This is just my thoughts and how I view it, I could be wrong probably am but that's just what I think.
I mean think of the thousands of genetic disorders that are around, do they remain constant or have they increased since the beginning of time?


And yet look at all the genetic disorders that we have today...
Also do mutations occur randomly throughout the whole 100% or are they more concentrated in the 2% that are actually expressed.

Mutations are BELIEVED to bring about..... Not good at all, that means faith and that means that estimate of 1% change every 10million years could be way off mark.

"If you think about it, if there never were any mutations we would all be cynobacteria...."

Maybe this isn't the best kind of reasoning to use, for it's said that mutations made us what we are - you can't argue this and say - if it wasn't mutations then we wouldn't be here today.
Circular reasoning if you follow my drift.

Peez,

Again sorry peez, maybe it will make more sense now that I explained what I was getting at when I mentioned carrying capacity.
If the concentration of these alleles increases in the population then it would be logical to assume that partners are more likely to have these alleles and hence the problems begin..

Most of us will have some defective allele and it's when we have a child with someone else who also has this same defective allele that the children are at risk.

Yo, I have a question here. Do mutations only occur "naturally" when a sperm and egg meet - right at the start of our lives? - You know what I mean.

A truthful answer please;

Is the DNA code of man improving or not - based on the facts that we have at present? If it's both then which way is the balance - towards getting "better" or getting "worse"?

scigirl

DavidH,

One way our genome DOES get rid of mutations is through homologous recombination during meiosis.

I talk a little bit about this <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001492" target="_blank">here</a> if you want to wade through it. . . .

scigirl