dmehling said:
I have a basic understanding of the different types: substitution, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, genome duplication. That's about all I really know at this point.
Think about it like this. Suppose we had a football field (a proper football field, not a soccer field :P), 100 yards measured off. Every 10 yards we have a long horizontal line that cross the field.
Going on how most people think of mutation (which isn't necessarily a bad thing when you are just learning biology) you would expect that a mutation could happen in any of the 10 yard intervals equally likely.
But when we
actually look at mutations, we don't see that. We see them coming out "clumpy". No to make the analogy weird. Suppose we had some some sections of the field under some strange gravitational anomaly, that those 10 yards were still 10 yards but when viewed from a birds eye view were "smaller" than other, "uninfluenced" sections of field. Now if you flying over in a jet trying to drop a bowling ball on the field, where is it more likely to hit? Obviously in our "uninfluenced sections" of field.
So in the analogy, we use gravity to alter the chances that mutation (the bowling ball) can affect an area of the field. In real life, something similar happens. DNA isn't just sitting about in a cell laid out nice and neat like a football field. It has
structure unto itself. Through proteins (things like histones) which alter the packaging of DNA, but in the actual distribution of electrostatic charges as well--Or the "gravity" in our analogy. So the structure and nature of DNA (how it exists in cells) causes some areas to be more amendable to mutation than others.
Did that analogy help at all or make it worse

?