Average child has 60 genetic mutations?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 13, 2011

Darwinism, Genetics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From “We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us,” (ScienceDaily, June 12, 2011), a study involving four adults and one child, we learn:

Each one of us receives approximately 60 new mutations in our genome from our parents. This striking value is reported in the first-ever direct measure of new mutations coming from mother and father in whole human genomes.[ … ]

Mutations that occur in sperm or egg cells will be ‘new’ mutations not seen in our parents.
Although most of our variety comes from reshuffling of genes from our parents, new mutations are the ultimate source from which new variation is drawn. Finding new mutations is extremely technically challenging as, on average, only 1 in every 100 million letters of DNA is altered each generation.

A surprise was the considerable variation in families, as to whether most mutations arose from the father or the mother. In theory, the father was favoured as a source of mutations because of “ the additional number of times that the genome needs to be copied to make a sperm, as opposed to an egg.”

Assuming the results hold up, what would they suggest about human evolution?

Comments

No, simply an error. If it was a lie, I'd scarcely have quoted Sanford directly would I? Anyway I apologise for the error. I tend to copy and paste direct quotes wherever possible so such errors are minimized, and fortunately, you were able to catch it. Thank you. I think there are natural forces that keep it at by (epistasis being one) but I also think the the threat itself is much more limited than Sanford suggests (and indeed, IMO, than his sources suggest). Mung, I do appreciate that I am a guest in this community, and that some suspicion is warranted,given that my views are not those of the majority here. But I think I have shown by now that I do not lie (or tell deliberate untruths, which is what a lie is), and that when I make an error, I readily acknowledge the correction. I am certainly prone to errors, but I do not lie.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

So Sanford’s view is that Genetic Entropy is indeed happening, although he allows that if it isn’t, it must be being kept at bay by supernatural forces.
This appears to be a bald-faced lie. You just quoted Sanford as having written:
...the alternative would be to hypothesize that there are other forces (natural or supernatural), which help out mutation/selection.
Mung_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Well, interestingly, Mung and I had a discussion about what Sanford meant in his book, and I wrote to him and got a very gracious and helpful reply:
But, unfortunately, you failed to resolve the matter in dispute, which was whether it was the thesis of his book that humans were created perfect approx 10,000 years ago, etc. From his response, I would say that at best that is a corollary, rather than the thesis of the book.Mung_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

and blindly Elizabeth restates dogma; Elizabeth, to counter Genetic Entropy could you possibly have to provide scientific evidence that mutations are not overwhelmingly detrimental and spreading unabated throughout genomes??? As even this very OP suggests!!! Instead of merely asserting that it isn't so??? Denial ain't a river and Egypt, and you ain't Cleopatra to decree things to be as you wish instead of as they actually are!!!bornagain77_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

uoflcard @ 12
Wow, Elizabeth. That is some seriously blatant dogma.
Well, no, it isn't :)
His argument is that IF Darwinian evolution is all that is at work, genetic meltdown is the inevitable result of all species. And that is assuming you have species in the first place, nevermind how they got there. Thriving species is not evidence against Genetic Entropy. If Genetic Entropy is true, then thriving species is evidence that Darwinian evolution is not responsible for the origination of the vast majority of biology. Obviously there are thriving species, so either Genetic Entropy is wrong (which not a lot could be inferred from) or Genetic Entropy is right, Darwinism is a relatively minor biological explanatory tool, and there is another explanation for most of what we witness in biology.
Well, interestingly, Mung and I had a discussion about what Sanford meant in his book, and I wrote to him and got a very gracious and helpful reply:
Given our current understanding of the mutation/selection process, there must clearly be a net loss of information over time in all genomes (with the possible exception of extremely small viral DNA genomes, which might escape this problem). This disproves the basic neo-Darwinian paradigm. What do we do with this fact? The most obvious conclusion would be a Biblical view of history, however the alternative would be to hypothesize that there are other forces (natural or supernatural), which help out mutation/selection. I personally hold the first view, but for those who find this too hard to believe, they are forced to choose the second view.
So Sanford's view is that Genetic Entropy is indeed happening, although he allows that if it isn't,it must be being kept at bay by supernatural forces. Well, my point is that we can deduce it is not happening because many species are, in fact thriving, and if they were subject to Genetic Entropy, they would not be, so at the least, the second option seems to be more viable than the first. However, I do not think the only explanation for this no-show is supernatural intervention. I think the concept itself is wrong, and is based on a misreading of both data and genetic population models. But the existence of thriving species seem pretty irrefutable evidence to me that there has been a no-show. We can argue about why :)
What makes your statement dogmatic is that it assumes that Darwinism is all that has ever occurred in the history of life, no other inputs besides law and chance. Therefore, if a hypothesis implies that Darwinism can’t create life, all that is needed to prove that hypothesis wrong (with your assumption in place) is evidence of the existence of life. And this is exactly what you did. So with your assumptions, the only possible evidence against Darwinism’s life-creating capabilities is a lifeless universe. That obviously is not the case, therefore Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Hence the dogma.
Well, to discuss that would be a serious derail from the topic of the OP, although it relates to some conversations I seem to be having on some other threads, so maybe I'll see you there :) Cheers, Lizzie.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Okay, but where is the evidence for your thesis? Certainly, incremental design is well-known in software programming.Driver_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

lastyearon: "'it is in general impossible to make a major change to a complex system in incremental steps if you include the requirement that the system continue to function after each such step.' Tell that to the construction workers building a new subway line in Manhattan." The new line is not functional until it is complete. The old system continues to function, but it does not include the new line until it is finished. When the new line is finished, it will be integrated into the existing system all at once. This example thus supports my thesis. The old system will not be modified incrementally, it will be modified by adding all the parts of the new line at the same time, including whatever modifications to the old system will be required for the integration (control systems, computer software, etc.).Bruce David_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

it is in general impossible to make a major change to a complex system in incremental steps if you include the requirement that the system continue to function after each such step.
Tell that to the construction workers building a new subway line in Manhattan.lastyearon_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle: "Indeed the very fact that a single body grows shows that developmentally, stepwise changes are a feature of biology. This is not true of jet-fighters. And thus, unlike with a jet-fighter, if you slightly adjust the size of the growth-steps, or their direction, or the signals that govern cell differentiation, then you will get a different, but functioning, body. Remember that all living things start as a single cell, that serially divides, the daughter cells gradually differentiating from the ancestral cell. There is simply no analog between this process and the process of building (or designing) a jet fighter." The process of embryological development is not Darwinian evolution, it is the process by which an organism is built in the natural world. Darwinian evolution requires that each incremental step result in a functioning organism. The intermediate steps in embryological development do not result in functioning (that is, viable) organisms. They will not survive on their own until they are ready to hatch or be born. This is the crux of the matter. Given a complex system, one can modify it in incremental steps, certainly, but for Darwinian evolution to work, each step must result in a functioning organism (and indeed one that functions in some way "better" than it did before). To evolve an avian lung, in which the air flow is circular, from a bellows lung, for example, involves many changes not only to the macroscopic form of lung itself but also to its microscopic structures. In addition, there must be concomitant changes to the circulatory system, the musculature, and the neurological system which controls it in order for it to work. Michael Denton, in Evolution a Theory in Crisis, essentially laid down the challenge of showing how such a complex system could have arisen by Darwinian incremental steps. So far, to my knowledge, no one has even proposed a possible solution. The reason the analogy with the jet fighter holds is that my proposition is a general thesis about any sufficiently complex system, be it an aircraft, computer software, or a biological organism: it is in general impossible to make a major change to a complex system in incremental steps if you include the requirement that the system continue to function after each such step.Bruce David_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

uoflcard, very well said! thanks!bornagain77_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth #11, also see my comment #12uoflcard_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth #9
The main evidence, ba77, is that plenty of species are thriving. If Genetic Entropy was true, all populations would be decreasing. They aren’t.
Wow, Elizabeth. That is some seriously blatant dogma. His argument is that IF Darwinian evolution is all that is at work, genetic meltdown is the inevitable result of all species. And that is assuming you have species in the first place, nevermind how they got there. Thriving species is not evidence against Genetic Entropy. If Genetic Entropy is true, then thriving species is evidence that Darwinian evolution is not responsible for the origination of the vast majority of biology. Obviously there are thriving species, so either Genetic Entropy is wrong (which not a lot could be inferred from) or Genetic Entropy is right, Darwinism is a relatively minor biological explanatory tool, and there is another explanation for most of what we witness in biology. What makes your statement dogmatic is that it assumes that Darwinism is all that has ever occurred in the history of life, no other inputs besides law and chance. Therefore, if a hypothesis implies that Darwinism can't create life, all that is needed to prove that hypothesis wrong (with your assumption in place) is evidence of the existence of life. And this is exactly what you did. So with your assumptions, the only possible evidence against Darwinism's life-creating capabilities is a lifeless universe. That obviously is not the case, therefore Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Hence the dogma.uoflcard_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

The fact that species are thriving means that Sanford is incorrect. That's all.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle, and exactly what part of 'species are (currently) thriving' violates the fact of top down design??? ,,, You cannot prove Genetic Entropy wrong by claiming the very point being debated has been proven. i.e. material processes have NEVER been observed generating functional information, yet intelligence does!!! Once again it is sheer intellectual dishonesty for you to be so biased in the way you accept evidence!!1 EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED This following study is very interesting for the researcher surveyed 130 DNA-based evolutionary trees to see if the results matched what 'natural selection' predicted for speciation and found: Accidental origins: Where species come from - March 2010 Excerpt: If speciation results from natural selection via many small changes, you would expect the branch lengths to fit a bell-shaped curve.,,, Instead, Pagel's team found that in 78 per cent of the trees, the best fit for the branch length distribution was another familiar curve, known as the exponential distribution. Like the bell curve, the exponential has a straightforward explanation - but it is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists. The exponential is the pattern you get when you are waiting for some single, infrequent event to happen.,,,To Pagel, the implications for speciation are clear: "It isn't the accumulation of events that causes a speciation, it's single, rare events falling out of the sky, so to speak." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511.400-accidental-origins-where-species-come-from.html?page=2 ReMine’s The Biotic Message - chapters on Natural Selection. (HT; mung) Summary Inventive natural selection is the distinctive evolutionary mechanism – essential to Darwinian theory. Evolutionists presume it creates new adaptations by somehow traversing the hills and valleys of the fitness terrain. But they do not attempt to defend it as testable science. Rather, for the defense they shift back to the naive version – survival of the fittest. Then they might offer some tautology to help expunge all doubt. When challenged, they shift between various formulations They use naive natural selection to convince the public that evolution is simple, testable, and virtually inevitable. When opponents point out that such continually uphill evolution is refuted by the data, evolutionists effortlessly shift away from naive natural selection. Then they charge that the opponent has a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. In short, evolutionists merely shifted away from criticism, then focused their arguments (and your attention) in a direction that seemed to overcome the criticism. This phenomenon occurs at several levels. Biological adaptation by natural selection is not inevitable, nor is the theory scientific. It had merely lent support to the philosophy of naturalism. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-defies-the-odds/#comment-384066 etc... etc..bornagain77_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

The main evidence, ba77, is that plenty of species are thriving. If Genetic Entropy was true, all populations would be decreasing. They aren't.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Funny Elizabeth that you never present any actual evidence to counter the principle of Genetic Entropy, but merely your 'interpretation".bornagain77_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

@Bruce David: Interesting that you found Genetic Entropy compelling. I didn't, although I do applaud Sanford for some of the points he makes.
Personally, I found “Genetic Entropy” by Dr. J.C. Sanford quite compelling. He makes a very good case that the genomes of all species gradually degrade, as mutations slowly accumulate. Using the principles of population genetics, he argues that most of these mutations are unfavorable but cannot be selected out because their negative effect is too weak. However, as they continue to accumulate over the course of generation after generation, the cumulative effect is that the genomes degrade to the point where the species becomes no longer viable. This is an excellent explanation for why the vast majority of species that have existed on earth have become extinct.
In my view, he bases his case on a serious misreading of the literature he cites (Kondrashov and Kimura especially). He is probably right that as populations dwindle, for whatever reasons, they eventually reach a point where accumulating genetic mess contributes to their eventual extinction (which is why it is so important to maintain genetic genetic variety in threatened species.) But as far as I can see, he simply gets his numbers wrong, and also ignore many factors that counter his case, as well as important data.
It’s also one of the three major nails in Darwinism’s coffin, since it implies that a given species cannot be the basis for future species, since each would inherit the degraded genome of the progenitor species, and so would die out all the quicker. If his argument is correct, then there must have been innumerable infusions of new “perfect” genomes (new species) from some source external to biological organisms throughout the history of life on this planet.
Yes, if he was right, it would be :) But I think he is wrong, for a substantial number of reasons. I
n case you are wondering what the other two nails are, they are 1) the fact that random mutation and natural selection are mathematically incapable of accounting for the emergence of new complex functional information in multicellular organisms, Well, I disagree that that is a "fact" and as a hypothesis I think it can be falsified :)
and 2) the fact that in general it is impossible to make a major modification to an existing complex system incrementally if it is a requirement that the system continue to function after each incremental change. For example, it is impossible to develop a jet fighter by making small incremental changes to some piston engine fighter. You can’t even morph a piston engine into a jet engine, much less the entire aircraft. The new fighter has to be designed and built from the ground up. Likewise, you can’t get a new biological body plan from an existing one in small steps. You have to make many simultaneous changes for the new biological system to function.
Your "likewise" doesn't follow. There are lots of reasons to think that biological body plans differ from jet fighter body plans in precisely the ways that enable it to be adjusted stepwise. Indeed the very fact that a single body grows shows that developmentally, stepwise changes are a feature of biology. This is not true of jet-fighters. And thus, unlike with a jet-fighter, if you slightly adjust the size of the growth-steps, or their direction, or the signals that govern cell differentiation, then you will get a different, but functioning, body. Remember that all living things start as a single cell, that serially divides, the daughter cells gradually differentiating from the ancestral cell. There is simply no analog between this process and the process of building (or designing) a jet fighter.
Elizabeth Liddle_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

That there is no shortage of new alleles for natural selection to select?
Um, no. That would be incorrect.
You may be right. As I said, I thought it was a little low. However, that only counts mutations from the germline - additional mutations occur during recombination, and of course recombination itself can produce brandnew alleles by splicing mid-allele. However, we know that polymorphisms exist, so the interesting question is: where do they come from? Germline mutations are clearly one source, as are recombination mutations and allele splicing. What's interesting to me, though, is the between-individual variance in mutation rate. That is actually fascinating. It suggests at least the possiblity that mutation rate is itself a heritable trait. This may be well known, but if so, I didn't know it before. That would be pretty exciting.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Personally, I found “Genetic Entropy” by Dr. J.C. Sanford quite compelling. He makes a very good case that the genomes of all species gradually degrade, as mutations slowly accumulate. Using the principles of population genetics, he argues that most of these mutations are unfavorable but cannot be selected out because their negative effect is too weak. However, as they continue to accumulate over the course of generation after generation, the cumulative effect is that the genomes degrade to the point where the species becomes no longer viable. This is an excellent explanation for why the vast majority of species that have existed on earth have become extinct. It's also one of the three major nails in Darwinism's coffin, since it implies that a given species cannot be the basis for future species, since each would inherit the degraded genome of the progenitor species, and so would die out all the quicker. If his argument is correct, then there must have been innumerable infusions of new "perfect" genomes (new species) from some source external to biological organisms throughout the history of life on this planet. In case you are wondering what the other two nails are, they are 1) the fact that random mutation and natural selection are mathematically incapable of accounting for the emergence of new complex functional information in multicellular organisms, and 2) the fact that in general it is impossible to make a major modification to an existing complex system incrementally if it is a requirement that the system continue to function after each incremental change. For example, it is impossible to develop a jet fighter by making small incremental changes to some piston engine fighter. You can't even morph a piston engine into a jet engine, much less the entire aircraft. The new fighter has to be designed and built from the ground up. Likewise, you can't get a new biological body plan from an existing one in small steps. You have to make many simultaneous changes for the new biological system to function.Bruce David_{June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

That there is no shortage of new alleles for natural selection to select?
Um, no. That would be incorrect. 1. most of our variety comes from reshuffling of genes from our parents 2. Finding new mutations is extremely technically challenging as, on average, only 1 in every 100 million letters of DNA is altered each generation. 3. If only 1 in ever 100 million "letters" of DNA is altered, what do you suppose the probability is that it takes place in: 3a. An allele. 3b. That has an effect noticeable for selection to chooseMung_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Yes, I'm familiar with it. No, I don't think "he's on to something", although some of what he says is true.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Is anyone familiar with "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. J.C. Sanford. If so - think he may be on to something?arkady967_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

That there is no shortage of new alleles for natural selection to select? But we've known for a long time that each of us has tens, if not hundreds of de-novo mutations. I'm a little surprised it's as low as 60.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 13, 2011
June
06
Jun
13
13
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply