Has a Benficial Addition Mutation been observed?

[lewis198]

To jump from a single celled organism to a multicellular one, we need beneficial addition mutations in DNA sequences. My question is this: has this phenomena ever been observed?
By beneficial I mean a mutation in the genotype that serves to cause some phenotype that can be used by an organism in its life processes.

 

[Danger]

I'm not sure that I know exactly what you're asking. The impression that I got from the first part was in regard to DNA chains actually gaining base pairs in order to become longer and thus more sophisticated. The second part, though, seems to deal with modifying existing genes. As for the former, I'm pretty sure that it's never been directly observed, although fossil evidence supports it. For it to happen in our lifetimes seems pretty much statistically impossible. After all, our genetic code is almost identical to that of other apes, and something like 90% similar to a sponge.

 

[lewis198]

Then doesn't that mean evolutionary theory is out of the realm of science? It cannot be falsified.

 

[Moridin]

Then doesn't that mean evolutionary theory is out of the realm of science? It cannot be falsified.

Examples of a beneficiary mutation is the nylon bug or antibiotic resistant bacteria. More examples here and here.

Evolution is certainly falsifiable:

- Show that the Earth is < 6000 (or any other low age) and evolution is false, because there is not enough time for it to happen.
- Date human fossils to the same age as T-Rex fossils; common ancestry as we know it is false.
- Find chimera organisms, that is, organism with parts from different lineages.
- Static fossil record.
- Find a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating.
- Observe organisms being created.
- Repeat an experiment that is used to support evolution and show that the result is actually negative.

etc.

 

[BoomBoom]

Ummm...unless I am misunderstanding the question, this is observed all the time.

Go to PubMed and you should be able to search through thousands of fitness experiments where just this type of thing is studied.

You change an organism's environment (light, heat, food, etc.) and observe the results at various time-points, sequence the DNA of the survivors, and record any differences that occur within the gene/genes of interest.

 

[chemisttree]

Ummm...unless I am misunderstanding the question, this is observed all the time.

Go to PubMed and you should be able to search through thousands of fitness experiments where just this type of thing is studied.

You change an organism's environment (light, heat, food, etc.) and observe the results at various time-points, sequence the DNA of the survivors, and record any differences that occur within the gene/genes of interest.

But are these deletion mutations or the silencing of a bit of information rather than the formation of new genetic material and the formation of new information in the genome?

I would argue that there is ample evidence and an appropriate theory for the genesis of new DNA and the formation of new genetic material. It happens when we get sick.

Could the virus be the ultimate agent of change? Could the discussion of punctuated equilibrium and the like merely be manifestations of the temporal non-linear nature of pandemics to effect that change?

 

[Danger]

Could the discussion of punctuated equilibrium and the like merely be manifestations of the temporal non-linear nature of pandemics to effect that change?

I might agree with you if I knew what the hell you're talking about. KISDID Principle, please (Keep It Simple Dude, I'm Drunk). :tongue:
I've never heard of 'punctuated equilibrium', other than once rupturing a rubber. Are you suggesting that all genetic change is initialized by viruses? I can't argue that none are, but attributing everything to that seems a bit narrow. What about other mutagenic factors such as radiation or chemical exposure?

 

[MaWM]

To jump from a single celled organism to a multicellular one, we need beneficial addition mutations in DNA sequences. My question is this: has this phenomena ever been observed?
By beneficial I mean a mutation in the genotype that serves to cause some phenotype that can be used by an organism in its life processes.

Of course. Some of the best known are bacteria which develop the ability to digest new substances. This known to have happened on several occasions. Another very well known example is bacterial drug resistance and insect insecticide resistance.

 

[lewis198]

An event that could have produced what we now call the geological time column can be modeled on the May 18th, 1980, Mount St.Helens eruption and the consequential material deposition.

 

[MaWM]

An event that could have produced what we now call the geological time column can be modeled on the May 18th, 1980, Mount St.Helens eruption and the consequential material deposition.

No, it can't. For a variety of reasons. For instance, Coarse grained igneous rocks require millions of years of cooling in order to get there structure. Eruptions like MSH only produce mircograined rocks. Any ametur geologist can tell the difference between a volcanic rock and a rock formed under different conditions which means that vulcanism cannot replacate the other's formation methods. Certain layered rocks require regular cyclic conditions in order to form. Amoung those are ones which are solidified versions of layers that we observe to be layed down in seasonal patterns today. It's far more logical to assume that the same seasonal cycles layed down these ancient layers than to assume an entirely new system that is not observed, works entirely differently, and yet has exactly the same effect.

I'm sure I can come up with more examples, but the bottom line here is that a rock contains tremendous amounts of information about its history, and a skilled geologist who carefully examines a rock can learn a great deal about its history (not just how old it is.. which is relatively easy)

Just to add something else, there are those that suggest that the grand canyon was made by some sort of flood. In fact, floods can form canyons, and such a thing happened, forming the Grand Coulee. However, examination of that structure makes it obvious that it was formed by a flood, while examination of the grand canyon shows that the similarity between the two is only superficial. Examination of a structure requires going and seeing what is there, not just looking at postcard photos. The differences then become obvious.

 

[DaveC426913]

I might agree with you if I knew what the hell you're talking about. KISDID Principle, please (Keep It Simple Dude, I'm Drunk). :tongue:

One thing evolutionary theory is NOT, is simple. (If it were, a lot more people would be able to believe in it.)

I've never heard of 'punctuated equilibrium', other than once rupturing a rubber.

You'd better bone up on the subject then.

Punctuated equilibrium is The modern, generally accepted dynamic of evolution. It's the biggest place where our current understanding of evolution deviates from Darwin's, and no discussion of evolution can really go far without it.

In a nutshell, Darwin thought species evolved slowly and continually from gen to gen. Punctuated Evolution proposes that evolution happens in short bursts separated by long periods of equilibrium. Among other things it explains why we see relatively many identical examples of a species in the fossil record and relatively few transitional examples of species.

 

[MaWM]

Also, if we look at bacteria resistance or many other beneficial mutations, they tend to be the rearranging, deletion or silencing of genes in reality. .

That *IS* evolution. What yooure telling me sounds akin to "There is no such thing as an airpalne. They are just cars with wings that can fly."

 

[Danger]

You'd better bone up on the subject then.

:rofl: Man, if ever we needed a 'groan' smilie, this is it.

Okay, I'm familiar with 'punctuated equilibrium' as an approach to understanding evolution; I've just never heard that particular term for it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Lewis, I'm going to ask you one very serious question before this thread gets locked. If you're so certain that some sort of supreme being created everything... who created god? It couldn't have just popped up on its own now, could it?

 

[Spirochete]

Then doesn't that mean evolutionary theory is out of the realm of science? It cannot be falsified.

This sentence shows a fundamentally incorrect view of what is in "the realm of science." Plenty of things in science can't be falsified. In fact, something is considered a theory because all the evidence supports it, but in the end it can't be falsified.

Read up on the difference between hypothesis, theory and law for a better explanation.

 

[BoomBoom]

But are these deletion mutations or the silencing of a bit of information rather than the formation of new genetic material and the formation of new information in the genome?

I would argue that there is ample evidence and an appropriate theory for the genesis of new DNA and the formation of new genetic material. It happens when we get sick.

Could the virus be the ultimate agent of change? Could the discussion of punctuated equilibrium and the like merely be manifestations of the temporal non-linear nature of pandemics to effect that change?

Actually all of the above can happen. The most common change one sees is just a SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) in which just one base is changed. Depending on where this change is, it may change the amino acid that is present in that position of the protein...and may change the function of the protein itself.

Deletions or insertions may also happen, but this is NOT insignificant. If one base in a gene is either deleted or inserted, it causes a reading frame-shift. A frame shift will change EVERY amino acid downstream of where the deletion or insertion took place. This would drastically change the protein.

In terms of evolution, other types of changes may also occur such as transopsons, gene duplications, or (as you stated) a virus can deposit it's genetic information into a genome. In addition you can have alternative splice forms of a protein where the gene may be the same, but it is put together differently. Some simple life forms also may trade genetic information...I could go on and on.

I really don't see how people can think that genetic change does not happen...the evidence is overwhelming.


On a side note: Danger, you are one brave soul to venture these forums drunk! LOL :P

 

[Danger]

Danger, you are one brave soul to venture these forums drunk! LOL :P

That's about the only way that I ever venture here. Why did you think that most of my posts don't make sense?

 

[baywax]

I might agree with you if I knew what the hell you're talking about. KISDID Principle, please (Keep It Simple Dude, I'm Drunk). :tongue:
I've never heard of 'punctuated equilibrium', other than once rupturing a rubber. Are you suggesting that all genetic change is initialized by viruses? I can't argue that none are, but attributing everything to that seems a bit narrow. What about other mutagenic factors such as radiation or chemical exposure?

I've said more than once that the probability of life starting with viruses is (probably) high. Whether they transmigrated here or were formed here is another question.

It is true that you will see beneficial mutation in VRNA and VDNA. The sequences can expand rather suddenly. I imagine, because a virus can only reproduce using a host cell and host DNA (these days), that the VRNA or VDNA will pick up strands from its hosts... then utilize what is useful to further its... survival.

Here's a free article on the subject

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n4/full/6801042a.html

 

[Danger]

Cool. I can't concentrate on it right now, what with clients showing up every couple of minutes, but I'll definitely check it out later.

 

[russ_watters]

This sentence shows a fundamentally incorrect view of what is in "the realm of science." Plenty of things in science can't be falsified. In fact, something is considered a theory because all the evidence supports it, but in the end it can't be falsified.

Read up on the difference between hypothesis, theory and law for a better explanation.

Lewis is waaay wrong, but that isn't really correct either. Testability and falsifiability are roughly synonomous. For theory that can be tested in a lab with experiments, failing a test can provide falsification. With evolution, finding contrary evidence is where falsifiability comes in. If a genuine, fully-formed human were found fossilized next to a dinosaur (and people believed it), that would provide falsification of evolution.

 

[MaWM]

Sure. There are lots of ways to falsify evolution. Another example: Sometimes, as a random mutation, creatures display features of their evolutionary anscestors (humans born with tails, whales and snakes with legs, etc). Now, by evolution, the only features that can be exhibited by such atavisms are those of a creature's direct evolutionary anscestors. So, for example, since humans are not descended from insects, a human born with insect parts would be a serious blow to our understanding of evolution.

 

[baywax]

If a genuine, fully-formed human were found fossilized next to a dinosaur (and people believed it), that would provide falsification of evolution.

This wouldn't be a direct falsification would it? It would simply mean we need to examine the timeline and perhaps the longevity of the dinosaur species. Imagine that quite a few examples of the dinosaurs survived the bolide incident (etc...) and given this case, a cromagnon's remains next to an ichthyosauruses remains may not necessarily falsify evolution. There are plenty of overlaps between species. Whether they're primitive or modern does not stop them from reproducing and existing today. Because we find some pinnate flora next to flowering flora does not mean evolution has been falsified.

 

[MaWM]

This wouldn't be a direct falsification would it? It would simply mean we need to examine the timeline and perhaps the longevity of the dinosaur species. Imagine that quite a few examples of the dinosaurs survived the bolide incident (etc...) and given this case, a cromagnon's remains next to an ichthyosauruses remains may not necessarily falsify evolution. There are plenty of overlaps between species. Whether they're primitive or modern does not stop them from reproducing and existing today. Because we find some pinnate flora next to flowering flora does not mean evolution has been falsified.

Well, just like no one single piece of evidence "proves" evolution, it would be difficult to find a single piece of evidence that disproves it. That's pretty standard for science.

 

[baywax]

Well, just like no one single piece of evidence "proves" evolution, it would be difficult to find a single piece of evidence that disproves it. That's pretty standard for science.

Thanks... its got to be repeatable to be proof I guess. The pinnate plant was a bad example because pinnate plants flower as well. Let's say we find conifers and deciduous trees together. We can't call that proof of evolution being falsified. Conifers are quite a bit more primitive on the evolutionary ladder than deciduous trees yet both survive today. In fact, if we found a fully evolved human next to its primal ancestor, the Lemur, that does not falsify evolution. Both species split at some point because of natural selection but both species continue to survive quite nicely today.

So, let's say archaeologists in the year 8279 AD dig up a site that was an aquarium back in 2368 AD. They don't find much more than the well preserved remains of a fully evolved human next to those of a coelacanth which is an extremely primitive fish from millions of years ago ( http://www.aquarticles.com/images/Vancouver%20Aquarium/p-62d%20Coel%20front.jpg ). Did this disprove evolution or was this purely circumstantial evidence? It is purely circumstantial because the coelacanth has been discovered to be still living in modern times during the 1970s (if that can be considered modern times!).

 

[lewis198]

I think evolution cannot be falsified as it is a theory dealing with origins. All the examples for falsifiability are relative, aren't they?
I do not understand how you could disprove a singularity that occurred in the past.

 

[MaWM]

I think evolution cannot be falsified as it is a theory dealing with origins. All the examples for falsifiability are relative, aren't they?
I do not understand how you could disprove a singularity that occurred in the past.

The fact that the events themselves happened in the past is irrelevant. You can still make predictions and test them by finding fossils, studying the earth, etc. The theory allows you to predict the results of expirements regarding where fossils are found, what ages they are, etc. Even though the events that laid out the fossils are in the past, the experiments are in the future.

Also, when scientist talk about evolution, they usually refer about the process of life changing. On the other hand you are referring to the specific example of evolution as it hapened on Earth. The reason I'm making this point is that when someone says that they don't believe in evolution, a scientist will interpret that as them being opposed to the whole theory, where they really sometimes just mean that they don't believe life on Earth evolved.

The difference is that, while specific events of evolution such as the descent of man are in the past and cannot be reproduced in the present, evolution in general (like the evolution of microbial resistances) is observed in the present all the time. Even many of the evolutionary events observed today may not be reproducable are specific events, they are reproducable as a catergory.

 

[baywax]

The fact that the events themselves happened in the past is irrelevant. You can still make predictions and test them by finding fossils, studying the earth, etc. The theory allows you to predict the results of expirements regarding where fossils are found, what ages they are, etc. Even though the events that laid out the fossils are in the past, the experiments are in the future.

Also, when scientist talk about evolution, they usually refer about the process of life changing. On the other hand you are referring to the specific example of evolution as it hapened on Earth. The reason I'm making this point is that when someone says that they don't believe in evolution, a scientist will interpret that as them being opposed to the whole theory, where they really sometimes just mean that they don't believe life on Earth evolved.

The difference is that, while specific events of evolution such as the descent of man are in the past and cannot be reproduced in the present, evolution in general (like the evolution of microbial resistances) is observed in the present all the time. Even many of the evolutionary events observed today may not be reproducable are ordinary events, they are reproducable as a catergory.

Good call. Of course I went off on a tangent about the fossil of a man next to the fossil of the dinosaur and were both specimens dated at 65 million years old we'd have a problem.

 

[chemisttree]

Good call. Of course I went off on a tangent about the fossil of a man next to the fossil of the dinosaur and were both specimens dated at 65 million years old we'd have a problem.

Or evidence of time travel...

 

[Spirochete]

Lewis is waaay wrong, but that isn't really correct either. Testability and falsifiability are roughly synonomous. For theory that can be tested in a lab with experiments, failing a test can provide falsification. With evolution, finding contrary evidence is where falsifiability comes in. If a genuine, fully-formed human were found fossilized next to a dinosaur (and people believed it), that would provide falsification of evolution.

Whoah you I was way off base the way I said that, thanks for correcting me.

I think what the OP was interpreting as a lack of falsifiability in evolutionary theory is, in actuality, simply our lack of ability to prove it with absolute certainty. All we can do is say: all the evidence points here, and the theory has never been falsified. When enough evidence has been accumulated in this way, a hypothesis becomes a theory.

 

[Moridin]

In a nutshell, Darwin thought species evolved slowly and continually from gen to gen. Punctuated Evolution proposes that evolution happens in short bursts separated by long periods of equilibrium. Among other things it explains why we see relatively many identical examples of a species in the fossil record and relatively few transitional examples of species.

Punctuated Equilibrium is somewhat controversial in modern evolutionary biology. The entire issue is whether the gaps in the fossil record are true gaps or the fact that fossils are hard to find. Things like the Cambrian radiation are better explained with gradual changes in Hox genes. But I guess one would have to wait for evo-devo to mature.

Testability and falsifiability are roughly synonomous. For theory that can be tested in a lab with experiments, failing a test can provide falsification. With evolution, finding contrary evidence is where falsifiability comes in. If a genuine, fully-formed human were found fossilized next to a dinosaur (and people believed it), that would provide falsification of evolution.

I would argue that there is a difference. Testability is the ability to perform inductive arguments, whereas falsifiability is the ability to perform a deductive argument. As you know, Popper argued that the ability to make inductive arguments are not enough. Or am I confusing various demarcation criteria (testability / falsifiability) with methods (empirical-inductive / hypothetico-deductive)?