Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What Most People Don’t Know About Mutations

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One thing that I’ve found interesting is how ignorant many people – even many biologists! – are about the mutational processes in the cell. The idea that mutations come from copying “errors” is so embedded in our collective consciousness, that it is hard to get people to even fathom alternatives.

Thinking of mutation as a biological process – one under the organization/direction of the cell – leads to a lot of interesting biology. There are indeed copying errors, but my guess is that by the end of the century we will find that the ones that are actually errors are by far the least numerous. This is like the discovery of microbes. We first found them *because* they caused disease. Therefore, our first reaction was that microbes *are* diseased. But later we find out that >99% of them are actually good for us and the environment, and there are just a handful that are problematic.

Normally, DNA is copied by DNA Polymerase III. Yes, there are more than one DNA polymerase gene! Why, you ask? That’s because DNA Polymerase III is a “high-fidelity” polymerase, basically making exact copies. But, if the cell detects that it *needs* mutations, it switches to a SEPARATE GENE, whose function is to copy DNA *while inserting* mutations!

So, in E. coli, the “SOS response” system is well-studied. In this system, when E. coli is stressed (lack of food, etc.), it tries to alter its own physiology by inducing mutations. It switches from the high-fidelity DNA Polymerase III to one of the other polymerases (II, IV, or V), which induce various mutations. It also makes lots of copies of its metabolism genes using these polymerases, since these are the genes most likely to confer benefit from mutating if the organism is starving.

Then, when a mutation is found that relieves the stress, it turns off the mutation-inducing polymerase, and goes back to DNA Polymerase III to get high-fidelity copies of the new gene.

So, as you can see, the Darwinian view of “random mutations” is simply false. The organism has SEPARATE genes for creating mutations, and invokes them when it has need of mutations, and focuses mutations on the genes that are likely to yield benefits.

Comments
Viola - "Was it not scientists who discovered all this, and thus broadened our knowledge about how genetics works?" Yes! Who said it wasn't? It sounds like you think that all scientists agree about everything, are up-to-speed about everything, and that information immediately flows from what's happening in the labs to what other scientists know and teach. Darwinism refers to the "modern synthesis" - the idea that the primary driver of evolution is random mutation filtered by natural selection. This is still the dominant view in biology, and even among people who are starting to go beyond the modern synthesis, it tends to remain a background assumption. This can only be corrected by advertising the new information, especially since a lot of people are attached to the modern synthesis ideologically, as it supposedly removes teleology from biology.johnnyb
April 13, 2021
April
04
Apr
13
13
2021
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
WJM, you call it an "ideological mindset". I've asked this question before and never got a clear answer: do you mean that it implies materialism?Viola Lee
April 13, 2021
April
04
Apr
13
13
2021
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
WJM, you call it an "ideological mindset". I've asked this question before and never got a clear answer: do you mean that it implies materialism?Viola Lee
April 13, 2021
April
04
Apr
13
13
2021
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
It's just begging the question to say that mutations are copying errors.ET
April 13, 2021
April
04
Apr
13
13
2021
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
"Why do people not just use words like genetics and evolution, etc instead of constantly using labels associated with Darwin? I don’t get it." In the same vein, why is there an Internationally Celebrated Darwin Day? ...with "dinner parties with special recipes for primordial soup and other inventive dishes, protests with school boards and other governmental bodies, workshops and symposia, distribution of information by people in ape costumes, lectures and debates, essay and art competitions, concerts, poetry readings, plays, artwork, comedy routines, re-enactments of the Scopes Trial and of the debate between Thomas H. Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, library displays, museum exhibits, travel and educational tours, recreations of the journey of HMS Beagle, church sermons, movie nights, outreach, and nature hikes" ? Andrewasauber
April 13, 2021
April
04
Apr
13
13
2021
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
The term "Darwinian" refers to the ideological mindset that serves as the foundational worldview lens through which the scientists (or other people) conduct their science or interpret the results. IOW, it's a metaphysical bias that informs expectations, theories, ideas, how to conduct experiments, what experiments are worth conducting, how to approach a process, how to evaluate and interpret information. Science doesn't operate in a metaphysical vacuum and the assumptive metaphysics matter.William J Murray
April 13, 2021
April
04
Apr
13
13
2021
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
I continue to be puzzled by the use of "Darwinian" and like terms. Was it not scientists who discovered all this, and thus broadened our knowledge about how genetics works? Science is changing all the time, as we learn more, and thus certain beginning ideas, which might be simply expressed, get more complex and sophisticated. Why do people not just use words like genetics and evolution, etc instead of constantly using labels associated with Darwin? I don't get it.Viola Lee
April 13, 2021
April
04
Apr
13
13
2021
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
So, in E. coli, the “SOS response” system is well-studied. In this system, when E. coli is stressed (lack of food, etc.), it tries to alter its own physiology by inducing mutations.
Does it induce mutations, or does it just not repair as many of them? In other words, they are still copying errors. From Wikipedia, Pol IV:
DNA polymerase IV is a prokaryotic polymerase that is involved in mutagenesis. It exhibits no 3??5? exonuclease (proofreading) activity and hence is error prone.
(emphasis added) Pol V:
DNA Polymerase V (Pol V) is a polymerase enzyme involved in DNA repair mechanisms in bacteria, such as Escherichia coli. ... However, Y polymerases have low sequence fidelity during replication (prone to add wrong nucleotides).
DNA Pol II is described as "high fidelity", so I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in this company. If Johnny Bartlett has any references to back his claims up, that might help clarify matters.Bob O'H
April 12, 2021
April
04
Apr
12
12
2021
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
1 2