83
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: + + + + +
→Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information?: new section
:Sounds good. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:Sounds good. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
== Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? ==
What's this about no new genetic information never being observed? Is it talking about a whole new genetic code? Mutations change DNA, which changed RNA, which changes proteins. This has been observed numerous times such as the nylon eating bacteria who have evolved to produce nylonase. To say that mutations are produced, but that they are neither new information nor beneficial is wrong and naive. Mutations simply create differences in bonds, in physical properties, it may make a protein more hydrophobic or change it's stability. Inherently they are neither good nor bad, it is only to the organism to whom these differences apply that may have worse or better effects depending on the circumstances of the molecule.
Also, mutations don't cause evolution on their own. It is only with natural selection that mutations can cause evolution to occur. Also, bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. They may not meet most people's definition of "evolved", but they are some of the most successful organisms on earth. For instance it would be a lot easier to wipe out humans as "highly evolved" as they seem to be than bacteria as the current problems with antibiotic resistance show. And please that Mayr quote is taken out of context, Mayr gave many examples of how such complex organs could be improved by mutations, surely you could replace it with something from AIG or something that doesn't go against the life's work of the author. --22:43, 25 October 2008 (EDT)