The Evidence for Random Mutations

[David T]

He sort of reminds me of Yerka.

He actually has been a commercial carpenter his whole.Life incredible brush work and very very dark paintings emotionally. He grew up as a Lutheran missionary kid lots of concentration camp.images. btw I am not always grumpy as soon as we talk art.I am all happy smiles thanks for appreciating eriks works.

 

[David T]

Actually, transitions outnumber transversions. When we look at human mutations as they are happening we see that this pattern holds, as shown in the family trio study in post

If you knew as much about the theory of evolution as you claim you do then you would know that your statement is false.

Let's use the game of craps as an example. The most common outcome of a roll of two dice is 7 because there are many ways that the pips on two dice can add up to 7. The least likely outcomes are 2 and 12 because there are is only one combination of dice for both 2 and 12. Even though there is a bias towards 7 in the game of craps it is still random because the placement of chips on the table do not influence what the dice do. The same applies to mutations. The needs of the organism do not increase the chance of a specific beneficial mutation which makes mutations random.

Since bias towards transitions does not negate the fact that mutations are random, what do you have to say about the fact that when we compare the human and chimp genomes there are more transitions than transversions, exactly as we would expect if those differences were produced by the known and observed processes of mutation?

Learn to read.
Transversion - Wikipedia I said generally... but bias.is shown in.genetics.

but hell I am talking to bambi on.the side of the road counting cars they appear randomly.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Learn to read.
Transversion - Wikipedia I said generally... but bias.is shown in.genetics.

but hell I am talking to bambi on.the side of the road counting cars they appear randomly.

"Although there are two possible transversions but only one possible transition, transition mutations are more likely than transversions because substituting a single ring structure for another single ring structure is more likely than substituting a double ring for a single ring."

That's from your source. It agrees with everything I have been saying.

 

[David T]

Really!!!! go figure that's so shocking since I sent to you.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Really!!!! go figure that's so shocking since I sent to you.

Then why did you tell me "Learn to read"?

 

[David T]

My original statement. Learn to read..

I understand that transversions are generally considered to outnumber transitions and so your interpretation is? genome Bias is self evident I prefer having sex with my own species."

I know evolutionary biology all is very deep stuff for you. I saw some of your info it came from bios logos. I suppose in context to theology since it's a fact theologians are about 99% clueless although decent enough folks lets Just allow random to be real for ya. Those theologians love random, I am good with that , not my issue, I am not religious about random.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

My original statement. Learn to read..

I understand that transversions are generally considered to outnumber transitions and so your interpretation is? genome Bias is self evident I prefer having sex with my own species."

And that statement is wrong. Transitions outnumber transversions.

I know evolutionary biology all is very deep stuff for you.

You don't even understand what makes mutations random, so I find that doubtful. Perhaps you should hop on over to my other thread and learn about the experiments that demonstrated the random nature of mutations.

In What Way are Mutations Random?

 

[David T]

And that statement is wrong. Transitions outnumber transversions.



You don't even understand what makes mutations random, so I find that doubtful. Perhaps you should hop on over to my other thread and learn about the experiments that demonstrated the random nature of mutations.

In What Way are Mutations Random?

I read the article before I posted.. Next time I will cut and paste for clarity.Some people can't process inference spoken or written neurologically that's a fact.

So proceed with this one step at a time and so have genome bias and so..? Walk me through the evidence!


Maybe one step at a time is where we are missing or I am missing something.

On a side note what's your specialty ? I mean its obvious you are very intelligent. On the other hand me not so much.

What is your neurology on spectrum and bios logos why? I am very familiar with bios logos. Which is fascinating. You know theologians should be trusted. That's a fact.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So proceed with this one step at a time and so have genome bias and so..? Walk me through the evidence!

The first step is understanding why transitions are more common than transversions and why CpG mutations occur at the highest rate. As your cited weblink noted, it is easier for a base with one ring to replace a base with one ring, and the same applies to nucleotides with two rings. This is due to the physical characteristics of both the nucleotides and the proteins that copy DNA. CpG mutations occur at the highest rate because enzymes can methylate the cytosine when a guanine is just downstream of it. The process of methylation makes the C highly susceptible to mutation which turns it into a T. Again, all of these are inherent to the natural processes taking place in the cell.

This all comes into focus when we look at human mutations in real time. Scientists sequenced the genomes of parents and their offspring (over 200 families in all) to see which mutations occurred in the offspring. They found the single nucleotide polymorphisms (i.e. SNP, or substitution mutations) and categorized them as transitions, transversions, and CpG mutations. As expected, transitions occurred more often than transversions and CpG mutations occurred at the highest rate.

Are we in agreement that the natural process of mutation has this pattern?

On a side note what's your specialty ?

Molecular biology with a focus on practical application in a lab setting.

What is your neurology on spectrum and bios logos why? I am very familiar with bios logos. Which is fascinating. You know theologians should be trusted. That's a fact.

BioLogos is a place where Christian scientists attempt to show fellow Christians that they shouldn't fear science. It helps to turn science discussions away from atheism v. theism to a discussion on science.

 

[David T]

The first step is understanding why transitions are more common than transversions and why CpG mutations occur at the highest rate. As your cited weblink noted, it is easier for a base with one ring to replace a base with one ring, and the same applies to nucleotides with two rings. This is due to the physical characteristics of both the nucleotides and the proteins that copy DNA. CpG mutations occur at the highest rate because enzymes can methylate the cytosine when a guanine is just downstream of it. The process of methylation makes the C highly susceptible to mutation which turns it into a T. Again, all of these are inherent to the natural processes taking place in the cell.

This all comes into focus when we look at human mutations in real time. Scientists sequenced the genomes of parents and their offspring (over 200 families in all) to see which mutations occurred in the offspring. They found the single nucleotide polymorphisms (i.e. SNP, or substitution mutations) and categorized them as transitions, transversions, and CpG mutations. As expected, transitions occurred more often than transversions and CpG mutations occurred at the highest rate.

Are we in agreement that the natural process of mutation has this pattern?



Molecular biology with a focus on practical application in a lab setting.



BioLogos is a place where Christian scientists attempt to show fellow Christians that they shouldn't fear science. It helps to turn science discussions away from atheism v. theism to a discussion on science.

"
Ok so I thought we had established earlier that there is a bias and that mutations were unpredictable. There are probabilities of the way the mutations take place due to bias but not predictable. Am I missing something?

 

[David T]

The first step is understanding why transitions are more common than transversions and why CpG mutations occur at the highest rate. As your cited weblink noted, it is easier for a base with one ring to replace a base with one ring, and the same applies to nucleotides with two rings. This is due to the physical characteristics of both the nucleotides and the proteins that copy DNA. CpG mutations occur at the highest rate because enzymes can methylate the cytosine when a guanine is just downstream of it. The process of methylation makes the C highly susceptible to mutation which turns it into a T. Again, all of these are inherent to the natural processes taking place in the cell.

This all comes into focus when we look at human mutations in real time. Scientists sequenced the genomes of parents and their offspring (over 200 families in all) to see which mutations occurred in the offspring. They found the single nucleotide polymorphisms (i.e. SNP, or substitution mutations) and categorized them as transitions, transversions, and CpG mutations. As expected, transitions occurred more often than transversions and CpG mutations occurred at the highest rate.

Are we in agreement that the natural process of mutation has this pattern?



Molecular biology with a focus on practical application in a lab setting.



BioLogos is a place where Christian scientists attempt to show fellow Christians that they shouldn't fear science. It helps to turn science discussions away from atheism v. theism to a discussion on science.

Here is an example of random or unpredictable.

We have a below set.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.

It's 26 forms what's the possible recombinations? Are the potential recombinations greater than or lesser.than the the potential recombination of the molecular recombination that you are pointing to?

Since the recombination of the above 26 forms is an infinite set larger than the actual recombination of the cellular mutations then we can say if random is fundamental to the smaller set then random is in fact what determines the larger set as well.

But in the case of the infinite larger set we have bias at work. So we see a large green leafy object and voila TREE. It's random with bias.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

"
Ok so I thought we had established earlier that there is a bias and that mutations were unpredictable. There are probabilities of the way the mutations take place due to bias but not predictable. Am I missing something?

If you agree that there is a natural bias towards transitions and CpG mutations then we can move to the next piece of evidence. Whether we can predict a specific mutation is completely irrelevant to the evidence I am presenting.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Here is an example of random or unpredictable.

We have a below set.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.

It's 26 forms what's the possible recombinations? Are the potential recombinations greater than or lesser.than the the potential recombination of the molecular recombination that you are pointing to?

Since the recombination of the above 26 forms is an infinite set larger than the actual recombination of the cellular mutations then we can say if random is fundamental to the smaller set then random is in fact what determines the larger set as well.

But in the case of the infinite larger set we have bias at work. So we see a large green leafy object and voila TREE. It's random with bias.

We are not talking about recombination of existing bases. We are talking about how one letter is changed to another.

 

[David T]

The first step is understanding why transitions are more common than transversions and why CpG mutations occur at the highest rate. As your cited weblink noted, it is easier for a base with one ring to replace a base with one ring, and the same applies to nucleotides with two rings. This is due to the physical characteristics of both the nucleotides and the proteins that copy DNA. CpG mutations occur at the highest rate because enzymes can methylate the cytosine when a guanine is just downstream of it. The process of methylation makes the C highly susceptible to mutation which turns it into a T. Again, all of these are inherent to the natural processes taking place in the cell.

This all comes into focus when we look at human mutations in real time. Scientists sequenced the genomes of parents and their offspring (over 200 families in all) to see which mutations occurred in the offspring. They found the single nucleotide polymorphisms (i.e. SNP, or substitution mutations) and categorized them as transitions, transversions, and CpG mutations. As expected, transitions occurred more often than transversions and CpG mutations occurred at the highest rate.

Are we in agreement that the natural process of mutation has this pattern?



Molecular biology with a focus on practical application in a lab setting.



BioLogos is a place where Christian scientists attempt to show fellow Christians that they shouldn't fear science. It helps to turn science discussions away from atheism v. theism to a discussion on science.

Here is an example of random or unpredictable.

We have a below set.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.

It's 26 forms what's the possible recombinations? Are the potential recombinations greater than or lesser.than the the potential recombination of the molecular recombination that you are pointing to?

Since the recombination of the above 26 forms is an infinite set larger than the actual recombination of the cellular mutations then we can say if random is fundamental to the smaller set then random is in fact what determines the larger set as well.

But in the case of the infinite larger set we have bias at work. So we see a large green leafy object and voila TREE. It's random with bias.

We are not talking about recombination of existing bases. We are talking about how one letter is changed to another.

Gay Gay. One word 2 possibilities .

I have a degree in random bias here is an example of totally random bias worked out. Now you are proposing your empirical random bias is what more factual that a reasoned random bias? Good luck on that one my friend especially in church.


RANDOM.BIAS

I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you
a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too!

Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too!

What denomination?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too!

Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too!

Northern Conservative Baptist
or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too!

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
#14Today at 9:58 AM

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Here is an example of random or unpredictable.

I already addressed this in the post above. You are veering off into irrelevancies.

 

[David T]

I already addressed this in the post above. You are veering off into irrelevancies.

I am saying nothing scientifically interpreted random/bias is more true than What already exists random/bias in my example. Is there a difference? No. Theology is for fools fooling themselves. Thanks for the interpretation surely It's wrong as fundamental.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am saying nothing scientifically interpreted random/bias is more true than What already exists random/bias in my example. Is there a difference? No. Theology is for fools fooling themselves. Thanks for the interpretation surely It's wrong as fundamental.

It isn't an interpretation. We OBSERVE that transitions occur at a higher rate than transversions and CpG mutations have the highest rate. THESE ARE OBSERVATIONS. Do you deny these observations or not?