Gene Mutation Said Linked to Evolution

Science - AP ^ | 2004-03-24 | JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP - this mutation would require an increase in information, as well as a radical change in the information (DNA). Since this is highly problematical, I will take this report with a HUGE does of salt.

[aimhigh]

Igniting a scientific furor, scientists say they .. may have .. suggests ... It's a very intriguing possibility...Scientists assume ... it probably took ...

Evolutionary science is really just another crapshoot.

[AntiGuv]

Quite the contrary, this appears to entail a reduction in information (a gene no longer expressed - now a junk gene) rather than an introduction of new information. Nice try though..

[70times7]

Seems pretty straight-forward to me... the crank is turned which rotates the gears, causing the lever to move and push the stop sign against the shoe. The shoe kicks over the bucket holding metal ball which rolls down the rickety stairs and into the rainpipe to hit the helping hand rod. This causes the bowling ball to fall from the top of the helping hand through the thing-a-ma-jig and the bathtub, to land on the diving board. The weight of bowling ball catapults the diver through the air and into the wash tub, causing the cage to fall from top of post and trap the unsuspecting mouse.

In like manner, the smaller jaw turned ape like creatures into humans.

[AntiGuv]

Evolutionary science is really just another crapshoot.

Some crapshoots are more equal than others....

[AntiGuv]

Here's an example:

Wife is pregnant; let's take a crapshoot.

Crapshoot 1: It's gonna be a boy!

Crapshoot 2: It's gonna be a kiwi bird!

Hope this helps..

[biblewonk]

I know that guy!

[biblewonk]

Sometimes I like the way you think.

[Junior]

Nope. That's the way scientists write on any subject. Scientists know that there is always the possibility they might be wrong, which sets them apart from religious zealots who are certain they are always right.

[Junior]

I know that guy!

Not in the Biblical sense, I hope...

[AntiGuv]

;^)

[Modernman]

Evolutionary science is really just another crapshoot.

Well, craps might not be a sure thing, but there are well-known mathematics involved in the game. Just because something involves a certain level of randomness or chance doesn't mean we can't use it in the real world.

[DannyTN]

So far, perhaps 250 genetic differences have been flagged for further study.

And that's just how many have been flagged for study. It doesn't say how many genetic differences there are.

Sounds a lot more like a lot of design work than random mutations to me.

[microgood]

Gee whiz, everyone knows it was the monolith that caused apes to turn into humans. These guys need to find a job.

[PatrickHenry]

Oook, oook! PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[Junior]

Sounds a lot more like a lot of design work than random mutations to me.

I don't know how you got that out of the article. And, the mutations may be random, but the selection process is not. You creos consistently leave out that particular bit because if you don't you can't rage against "randomness."

[Junior]

No. The monolith only turned a thigh bone into a spacestation (while playing the Blue Danube Waltz).

[explodingspleen]

The explanation is that it probably didn't make much, if any, practical difference to their ability to eat, and therefore had no impact on their ability to reproduce. Many people misconstrue evolutionary science to state that any mutation that is less clearly adaptive than another - however trivial and inconsequential to survival - will not perpetuate due to that initial reduction in fitness. That is false. It's unfortunate that an anthropologist makes such an elementary error.

Well, if that applies here then how did the jaws evolve that way in the first place? According to what you have said, there should be no selective pressure to develop such a jaw. But if there is selective pressure, then the original contention is justified.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Junior]

The smaller jaw could have been a neutral mutation that kicked around in the population for generations before coming to the fore as the brain began expanding. At least, that's how I'm reading this.

[AntiGuv]

Some apes were born with a defective jaw-strength gene that nonetheless had no lesser probability of reproduction but that had a much enhanced probability of developing larger brains. The larger brains concomitant to the weaker jaw over time carried both traits into prevalence. It's not that complicated..