Simple (?) Evolution Question

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It is extremely common.
Every human has mutations - a 100 or 2.

Oh, really? So you’re saying that if we compared your DNA and my DNA that we would find 100-200 “mutations” between us?

What if I told you that, in reality, we would actually find a few million of DNA sequence variations if we compared our genomes? Do you know what a SNP is? Can you tell us what the difference between a SNP and a mutation is?

But we don't see "extra genomes".

To drive home the point that you’re full of shit, here is an excerpt from a genetics textbook (something that you obviously are not familiar with…)

Genomes (2nd Ed.)
by T. A. Brown
Department of Biomolecular Sciences, UMIST, Manchester, M60 1QD, UK

© BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd, 2002
First published 1999
Second Edition 2002
ISBN 1 85996 228 9

15.2.1. Acquisition of new genes by gene duplication

The duplication of existing genes is almost certainly the most important process for the generation of new genes during genome evolution. There are several ways in which it could occur:

By duplication of the entire genome;
By duplication of a single chromosome or part of a chromosome;
By duplication of a single gene or group of genes.

The second of these possibilities can probably be discounted as a major cause of gene number expansions based on our knowledge of the effects of chromosome duplications in modern organisms. Duplication of individual human chromosomes, resulting in a cell that contains three copies of one chromosome and two copies of all the others (the condition called trisomy), is either lethal or results in a genetic disease such as Down syndrome, and similar effects have been observed in artificially generated trisomic mutants of Drosophila. Probably, the resulting increase in copy numbers for some genes leads to an imbalance of the gene products and disruption of the cellular biochemistry (Ohno, 1970). The other two ways of generating new genes - whole-genome duplication and duplication of a single or small number of genes - have probably been much more important.

Whole-genome duplications can result in sudden expansions in gene number.

The most rapid means of increasing gene number is by duplicating the entire genome. This can occur if an error during meiosis leads to the production of gametes that are diploid rather than haploid ( Figure 15.7 ). If two diploid gametes fuse then the result will be a type of autopolyploid, in this case a tetraploid cell whose nucleus contains four copies of each chromosome.

For example, Comparisons between the Arabidopsis thaliana genome sequence and segments of other plant genomes suggest that the ancestor of the A. thaliana genome underwent four rounds of genome duplication between 100 and 200 million years ago (Vision et al., 2000; Bancroft, 2001). The increased number of Hox gene clusters present in some types of fish (see page 472) has been used as an argument for a duplication event in the genomic lineage leading to these organisms (Taylor et al., 2001).

 

[Dr Mabuse]

Some interesting stuff here.

One of you 'experts' should cover the epigenome and how it ultimately effects the development of a lifeform. With citations of cloning mentioned. One of you mentioned DNA doesn't equal the life form, true, the epigenome does. A discussion of this type is lacking greatly without that information being covered as it so directly addresses the OP.

Also one of you should cover telomeres and the replication sequence as we are discussing DNA replication here. And what happens when telomeres are exhausted. There is research underway in TX and MI to artificially extend them, that is exciting research.

Get all 'scientific' and shit on that stuff. Would add to the thread I think.

It saves me the typing so you're a humanitarian as well as an erudite scholar to boot.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think the pertinent question raised by Electric Fetus in post 35 remains to be answered by aaronmark: Please tell us what you define as new genetic material.

 

[Iasion]

Hiya,

Oh, really? So you’re saying that if we compared your DNA and my DNA that we would find 100-200 “mutations” between us?

No.
Don't you actually know how evolution works in humans?

Yes, you and I have very different genomes.
But you will have about 100-200 or so mutations compared to your parents genes (of which you get 1/2 each.)

This is a basic simple, known fact of evolution - each generation of humans has about 100-200 mutations compared to the previous generation.

It appears you are unaware of this basic fact. Perhaps you should study evolution before making any further basic errors.

What if I told you that, in reality, we would actually find a few million of DNA sequence variations if we compared our genomes?

Yes, I know that.
It appears you have difficulty in reading for comprehension.

But then,
you just slip into insults - why?

You completely failed to understand my point - about a known fact - then you totally go off the deep end.

Perhaps you should try to grasp what I am saying before spouting this insulting and erroneous crap.


Iasion

 

[Ophiolite]

But then,
you just slip into insults - why?

Could it be in response to these comments of yours, directed at Hercules?

This is complete rubbish.

Readers beware - Hercules knows very little about evolution.
If you want to learn - go study it.
Rather than listen to the un-informed.

Oh, I'm sorry. My reading comprehension is also challenged. Obviously you meant these as compliments.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

This is a basic simple, known fact of evolution - each generation of humans has about 100-200 mutations compared to the previous generation.

There is probably a simple difference in interpretation here. The original poster asked about “new genetic material”. I have interpreted this to mean new DNA in addition to existing DNA (ie. increased genome size). You have interpreted “new DNA” to simply mean any changes in existing sequence. Thus, in line with my interpretation I have been arguing that unless mutations are additions or duplications, “new DNA” has not been created. You are arguing that any mutation creates “new DNA”. It depends on the definition of "new DNA" you take.